[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56556-56558]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19869]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0285; A-1-FRL-9951-07-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Rules for Reducing Particulate
Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of New Hampshire on March 31, 2011 and on July 23, 2013. These
SIP revisions establish particulate matter (PM) and visible emissions
(VE) standards for the following sources: foundries, smelters, and
investment casting operations; hot mix asphalt plants; and sand and
gravel sources, non-metallic mineral processing plants, and cement and
concrete sources. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a part of a
SIP revision submitted by New Hampshire on March 12, 2003 that
establishes procedures for testing opacity of emissions (i.e., VE).
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2016-0285 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On March 31, 2011, New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NH DES) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision,
which included a regulation entitled ``Sand and Gravel Sources; Non-
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete Sources'' (New
Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Chapter (Env-A 2800)).
    On July 23, 2013, NH DES submitted SIP revisions which included the
following three regulations: ``Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions
Standards'' (Env-A 2100); ``Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundries,
Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations'' (Env-A 2400); and ``Hot
Mix Asphalt Plants'' (Env-A 2700).
    The four submitted regulations (Env-A 2100, 2400, 2700, and 2800)
state that opacity shall be determined in accordance with test methods
established in Env-A 807. On March 12, 2003, the NH DES submitted Env-A
800, ``Testing and Monitoring Procedures,'' which included Part Env-A
807. On November 5, 2012, EPA approved Env-A 800 as submitted in March
2003 and revised on July 9, 2007. Although the March 2003 submittal
included Env-A 807, the July 2007 submittal did not. The November 2012
approval did not take action with regard to Env-A 807. See 77 FR 66388.
Therefore, Env-A 807 submitted on March 12, 2003 is still pending
before EPA.
    Two of the submitted regulations (Env-A 2100 and 2400) included
affirmative defense provisions for malfunction, which is defined as a
sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment. The
New Hampshire regulations were submitted to EPA after EPA issued a
start-up, shut-down, and malfunction (SSM) SIP Call proposal in
February 2013 (78 FR 12460), which would have allowed narrowly drawn
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs for malfunction. However,
following issuance of our SIP Call proposal, a federal court ruled that
the Clean Air Act precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions. EPA, therefore, believes that it cannot approve
affirmative defense provisions in SIP submissions, even narrowly
tailored ones for periods of malfunction (See NRDC v EPA, 749 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Circuit 2014)). As a result of the court decision, we issued a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) on September 17, 2014
(79 FR 55920) that rescinded our

previous February 2013 proposal to allow narrowly tailored affirmative
defense provisions for malfunction to be included in SIPs. Therefore,
on April 13, 2016, NH DES sent a letter to EPA withdrawing the
affirmative defense provisions in Chapter Env-A 2100 and 2400 (i.e.,
2103.03, and 2405).
    After reviewing NH DES's SIP submittals for Env-A 807, 2100, 2400,
2700, 2800 and the letter withdrawing the affirmative defense
provisions in Env-A 2100 and 2400, EPA is proposing to approve all of
the SIP revisions without the withdrawn portions, and is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other
relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by
following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

II. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions

    On March 12, 2003, NH DES submitted NH Code of Administrative Rules
Chapter Env-A 807 for approval into the New Hampshire SIP. Env-A 807
establishes procedures for testing opacity of emissions (i.e., visible
emissions) from stationary sources, and from small boilers and
emergency generators. Env-A 807 also establishes testing requirements
for diesel engines in motor vehicles as well as procedures for
determining opacity from fugitive emissions. Env-A 807 is not currently
part of the federally-approved New Hampshire SIP. Four regulations that
we are proposing to approve herein (Env-A 2100, 2400, 2700, and 2800)
rely on use of test methods given in Env-A 807. Based on a review of
Env-A 807, EPA has determined that the test procedures are appropriate
and is proposing to approve Env-A 807 into the New Hampshire SIP.
    On March 31, 2011, NH DES submitted Env-A 2800 (Sand and Gravel
Sources; Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete
Sources) for approval into the New Hampshire SIP. This rule is not
currently part of the federally-approved New Hampshire SIP.
    Env-A 2800 sets standards for VE and PM emissions and fugitive-dust
requirements for sand and gravel sources, non-metallic mineral
processing plants, and cement and concrete sources. In addition, it
establishes permit-by-notification (PBN) requirements for non-metallic
mineral processing plants to replace the General State Permit (GSP)
option. For all sources subject to Env-A 2800, visible fugitive
emissions or visible stack emissions must not exceed 20-percent opacity
for any continuous 6-minute period, and all sources are required to
control emissions of dust from vehicular movement within plant property
boundaries. This rule will benefit public health and the environment by
controlling PM emissions and visible emissions from a variety of
sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Env-A 2800 into the New
Hampshire SIP.
    On July 23, 2013, NH DES submitted Env-A 2100 (Particulate Matter
and Visible Emissions Standards), Env-A 2400 (Ferrous and Non-Ferrous
Foundries, Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations), and Env-A 2700
(Hot Mix Asphalt Plants) for approval into the New Hampshire SIP.
    Env-A 2100 establishes emission standards for existing and new
stationary sources or devices that emit particulate matter to the
ambient air through a stack or through an exhaust and ventilation
system. This rule is not currently part of the federally-approved New
Hampshire SIP. Depending on the process weight rate (0.025 to 1,000
tons per hour (tph)), the PM emission standard in Env-A 2100 for ``new
devices'' ranges from 0.36 to 77.6 pounds per hour (lbs/hr), and for
``existing devices'' from 0.43 to 93.11 lbs/hr. In addition, Env-A 2100
sets allowable visible emissions for stationary sources or devices at
20 percent opacity for any continuous 6-minute period. This rule will
benefit public health and the environment by controlling PM emissions
from certain stationary sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
Env-A 2100 into the New Hampshire SIP.
    Env-A 2400 establishes emission standards for ferrous and non-
ferrous foundries, smelters, and investment casting operations. This
rule is not currently part of the federally-approved New Hampshire SIP.
For existing foundries (installed before or on May 12, 1971) and new
ferrous foundries (installed after May 12, 1971), PM emission standards
in Env-A 2400 are the same as those given for existing and new sources
and devices in Env-A 2100. The standards are the same for non-ferrous
foundries, smelters, and investment casting operations. However, for
these non-ferrous facilities and operations, ``existing'' is defined as
before or on February 18, 1972, and ``new'' is defined as after
February 18, 1972. In addition, for any ferrous foundry installed or
modified after June 15, 1974, PM emissions must not exceed 50
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) or 0.022 grains/dscf.
For all facilities covered under Env-A 2400, allowable visible
emissions are set at 20 percent opacity for any continuous 6-minute
period. This rule will benefit public health and the environment by
controlling PM emissions from foundries, smelters, and investment
casting operations. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Env-A 2400
into the New Hampshire SIP.
    Env-A 2700 establishes emission standards for hot mix asphalt
plants. The PM emission standard is set at 90 mg/dscm or 0.04 grains/
dscf, which is the same standard as in the federal Standards of
Performance for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 FR 46259). In addition,
visible fugitive emissions or visible stack emissions must not exceed
an average of 20 percent opacity for any continuous 6-minute period. On
August 22, 2012, EPA approved one provision of Env-A 2700, which was
part of a SIP revision submitted by New Hampshire on January 28, 2005.
See 77 FR 50651. This provision, Env-A 2703.02(a), states that ``The
owner or operator of a hot mix asphalt plant shall not cause or allow
visible fugitive emissions or visible stack emissions to exceed an
average of 20 percent opacity for any continuous 6-minute period.'' NH
DES withdrew the remaining parts of the January 2005 SIP submittal on
July 23, 2013, when it submitted the version of Env-A 2700 that is
addressed herein. In the July 23, 2013 submission, SIP-approved Env-A
2703.02(a) has been renumbered Env-A 2702.02(a). This rule will benefit
public health and the environment by reducing emissions from hot mix
asphalt plants. Also, by approving the July 23, 2013 submission of Env-
A 2700 in its entirety, the existing provision limiting visible
emissions will be retained in the New Hampshire SIP, thus meeting the
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve Env-A 2700 into the New Hampshire SIP.
    EPA's review of the SIP submittals indicate that all concerns that
EPA has expressed to NH DES about these state regulations have been
adequately addressed. Concerns on the July 23, 2013 submittals were all
in regard to affirmative defense provisions for malfunctions contained
in Env-A 2100 and 2400. To address our concerns, NH DES submitted a
letter withdrawing these provisions from Env-A 2100 and 2400. See
letter to EPA dated July 8, 2013, available in the docket for today's
action. The other regulations that we are proposing to approve herein
(Env-A 807, 2700, and 2800) do not, even as a matter of state law,
contain exceptions

for SSM periods or affirmative defense provisions.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the New Hampshire
SIP, four regulations and part of one regulation, except for
affirmative defense provisions in two of the regulations which NH DES
has withdrawn. The four regulations include one regulation submitted by
the State of New Hampshire on March 31, 2011, Sand and Gravel Sources;
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete Sources
(Env-A 2800), effective October 1, 2010; and three regulations
submitted on July 23, 2013, Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions
Standards (Env-A 2100), effective April 23, 2013; Ferrous and Non-
Ferrous Foundries, Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations (Env-A
2400), effective April 23, 2013; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants (Env-A
2700), effective February 16, 2013. As noted earlier, the affirmative
defense provisions, which NH DES has withdrawn from its SIP submittals,
are not included in this proposed approval action and are contained in
state law only in Env-A 2103.03 and 2405. EPA is also proposing to
approve Env-A 807 (``Testing for Opacity of Emissions''), effective
October 31, 2002.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting comments
to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. 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 New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules stated in
section III above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 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 (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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable 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 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, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 9, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-19869 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1646-1649]
[DOCID:fr13ja09-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0004; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-160-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
Series 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:

    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. * * *
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
* * * * *
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 February 12,
2009.

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, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: account.airworth-
<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> or
425-227-1152.

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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; 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-2009-0004;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-160-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0149, dated August 5, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. The root cause of the
cracking has not yet been determined and tests are ongoing. It is
anticipated that further actions will be required.
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection [for cracking] of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.

The corrective actions include replacing any cracked rod eye end with a
serviceable unit and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued All Operators Telex A320-27A1186, dated June 23,
2008. 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 730 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $759,200, or $1,040 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-2009-0004; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
160-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 12, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133; A320-
111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, -233; and A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 series airplanes; certificated in
any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aircraft of the A320 family. Failure occurred at
the servo-control rod eye-end. Further to this finding, additional
inspections have revealed cracking at the same location on a number
of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In one case, both actuators of
the same elevator surface were affected. The root cause of the
cracking has not yet been determined and tests are ongoing. It is
anticipated that further actions will be required.
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aircraft.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection [for cracking] of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends
and, in case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.

The corrective actions include replacing any cracked rod eye-end
with a serviceable unit and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done after the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane, do the following
actions.
    (1) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, and at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD: Inspect
both the left-hand and right-hand inboard elevator servo-control rod
eye-ends for cracking in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
All Operators Telex (AOT) A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
    (i) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 200 days after accumulating
10,000 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane,
whichever occurs first.
    (2) Not before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles
since first flight of the airplane, and at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD: Inspect
both the left-hand and right-hand outboard elevator servo-control
rod eye-ends for cracking, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
    (i) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 400 days after accumulating
10,000 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane,
whichever occurs first.
    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, before further flight, accomplish all applicable corrective
actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.
    (4) Submit a report of the findings of the inspection required
by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD to Airbus in accordance
with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, dated June 23,
2008, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or
(f)(4)(ii) of this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (i) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 40 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 40 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane an elevator servo-control rod eye-end unless it has
been inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT
A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0149, dated August 5, 2008, and Airbus AOT A320-
27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2008.
Linda Navarro,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-456 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 4843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2662-012-CT; Project No. 12968-001-CT]

FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, City of Norwich Dept. of
Public Utilities; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations,
18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed competing applications for a new license for the
Scotland Hydroelectric Project (Commission Project Nos. 2662-012 and
12968-001). The Scotland Hydroelectric Project is located on the
Shetucket River, in Windham County, Connecticut. The existing licensee
for the project is FirstLight Hydro Generating Company (FirstLight).
The competitor applicant for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No.
12968 is the City of Norwich Department of Public Utilities (Norwich
Public Utilities).
    Staff has prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) that
analyzes the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project
as proposed by FirstLight and Norwich Public Utilities, and concludes
that licensing the project with either proposal, with appropriate
environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
for either project, excluding the last three digits, in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676; or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Janet Hutzel at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01285 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P