In_Reply_To:  <OF6276E46F.23BCE888-ON85257323.003F42AE-85257323.0041098A@LocalDomain>
$RFSaveInfo:  6276E46F23BCE88885257323003F42AE
$Links:
ldf_createddate:  null
ldf_from:  null
ldf_archive:  null
ldf_temp:  null
$AltNameLanguageTags:
InheritedReplyTo:
InheritedFrom:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedAltFrom:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedFromDomain:
Logo:  StdNotesLtr21
tmpImp2:
DefaultMailSaveOptions:  1
Query_String:
Principal:  CN=Bryan Hubbell/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
SentToDocu:  False
Subject:  Re: Where are we on UVB?
ldf_locale:  en-US
ReturnReceipt:  0
delTmpEncrypt:
delTmpImportance:
delTmpReturnReceipt:
delTmpSign:
SendTo:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
CopyTo:  conner.lisa@epa.gov,evans.ron@epa.gov,hubbell.bryan@epa.gov,CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA,mcgartland.al@epa.gov,CN=Pat Dolwick/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA,CN=Karen Martin/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA,CN=Harvey Richmond/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
InetSendTo<EMAIL_ADDRESS>InetCopyTo:  .,.,.,Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov,.,Dolwick.Pat@epamail.epa.gov,Martin.Karen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>$StorageTo:  1
$StorageCc:  .,.,.,1,.,1,1,1
$Mailer:  Lotus Notes Release 6.5.2 June 01, 2004
$MessageID:  <OFD259EAB9.49A08790-ON85257323.00446815-85257323.00686C80@LocalDomain>
From:  CN=Bryan Hubbell/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
INetFrom<EMAIL_ADDRESS>PostedDate:  07/25/2007 03:00:40 PM
$Signature:
Encrypt:
$UpdatedBy:  ,CN=RTAIRMAIL1/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
$Orig:  D259EAB949A087908525732300446815
Categories:
$Revisions:
RouteServers:  CN=RTAIRMAIL1/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
RouteTimes:  07/25/2007 03:00:41 PM-07/25/2007 03:00:41 PM
$MsgTrackFlags:  0
DeliveredDate:  07/25/2007 03:00:41 PM

I have attempted to answer your questions below.  The overarching comment
I have is that any scoping level estimate would not pass the tests that
other endpoints have gone through and failed.  I will go through below the
specific reasons why such a scoping analysis will be fatally flawed.  I
will point out the incredible difficulty we have had providing ozone
mortality estimates in our RIA's even given the huge amount of literature,
the well specified C-R functions, the good modeling and monitoring data
available, etc.  We finally have made some progress, but it took over 10
years!! to get there.  There definitely seems to be a double standard when
it is an effect that OMB would like to see added.  Other examples where
benefits have been excluded because of "too much uncertainty" include the
impacts of acidification on recreational fishing, the impacts of nitrogen
deposition, impacts of ozone on forest yields, impacts of ozone on forest
recreation values, impacts of ozone on urban ornamentals, impacts of PM
and ozone on birth outcomes, value of visibility changes in non-class I
areas, and value of visibility changes in class I areas outside of the 3
Chestnut and Rowe study areas.

I would certainly like to see us find a way to evenly evaluate the state
of science and economics in each of these areas, but I do not think it
fair or approrpriate to decide on an ad hoc basis that we will commit to
doing a scoping excercise for one specific "disbenefit" that a group of
non-experts has decided rises to the level of significance.  We have
expert panels that have determined that this is likely to be a non-issue,
and we should listen to them.  In addition, we have a rulemaking which
states that quantification is inappropriate, and we have language in the
proposed ozone standards that says it is not appropriate to quantify the
effect  ( "Thus, the Criteria Document concludes that any assessment that
attempts to quantify the consequences of increased UV-B exposure on humans
due to reduced ground-level O3 must include consideration of both negative
and positive effects. However, as with other impacts of UV-B on human
health, this beneficial effect of UV-B radiation has not been studied in
sufficient detail to allow for a credible health benefits or risk
assessment. In conclusion, the effect of changes in surface-level O3
concentrations on UV-induced health outcomes cannot yet be critically
assessed within reasonable uncertainty (Criteria Document, p. 10-36)".)

Not that it has any real relevance to quantification, but it should also
be noted that if quantification were to be attempted, as noted in the CD,
the beneficial effects of UV-b on vitamin D production. (" Beyond these
well recognized adverse health effects associated with various wavelengths
of UV radiation, the Criteria Document (section <IP_ADDRESS>) also discusses
protective effects of UV-B radiation. Recent reports indicate the
necessity of UV-B in producing vitamin D, and that vitamin D deficiency
can cause metabolic bone disease among children and adults, and may also
increase the risk of many common chronic diseases (e.g., type I diabetes
and rheumatoid arthritis) as well as the risk of various types of cancers.)

Please see below for my direct responses.

Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell
Senior Advisor for Science and Policy Analysis
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02)
RTP, NC 27711
(919) 541-0621

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US
07/25/2007 07:50 AM

	To
	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	Subject
	Re: Where are we on UVB?

I didn't have time to write up a more detailed explanation of how we might
"scope out" the UVB benefits (disbenefit).  But here is what I was
thinking.  After you read this, if someone could respond why this isn't
possible, then I think we might have enough to begin a discussion.

I think we would all agree that quantifying all the benefits, disbenefits,
and costs should be the goal of any analysis.  Bryan has argued, somewhat
effectively in my mind, that we can't have double standards for
disbenefits and benefits.  I agree with him.  I think we can't add effects
if the science is such that we have no confidence in the number, even is
we qualify it.   But I would be happy to discuss other benefit categories
that have fallen out of the RIA because someone thought it wasn't "good"
enough.

  In this case, it seems to me we understand the science quite well --
that is, the effect, the mode of action, the exposure, the UV filtering
etc. are all well understood conceptually.  It must be the case that the
issue is quantifying the exposure changes (UVB changes)  from the new
Ozone NAAQS.  I don't think we can do this perfectly, but it seems to me
that it might be possible to perform some exercises to show that how big
this disbenefit is likely to be.

First, the Strat Ozone RIA contains both estimates of skin cancers and UV
exposure.  I recall, but its been a while, that the dose-response curve is
based on collecting skin cancer data by city and UV exposure.   Hence we
have a relationship between UV and skin cancer.

Next, we understand the relationship between the ozone column and UV
filtering.

I recall a conversation with Bryan where he indicated that we also know
how much of the ozone column is from ground level ozone.  He cited a
number, to support an argument that this total disbenefit is likely to be
small.  Tropospheric ozone on average represents around 10 percent of
total column ozone. However, according to our atmospheric modelers, this
percentage varies over the continental U.S.  In addition, the Final
Response for the Ozone Remand indicates that during the summer,
tropospheric ozone in the Eastern U.S. contributes only 1 percent to total
column ozone.  It may be possible to get gridded estimates of total column
ozone from CMAQ which could be used to calculate the tropospheric
contribution to total column ozone by location.  He sounded convincing to
me, which is why it might be important to quantify this disbenefit, even
if crudely, so we can show that the number isn't a dramatic offset to the
benefits already quantified.  (We could, after we do this, discuss how to
present these numbers in the RIA.  They could, for example, be placed in
an appendix and clearly labeled speculative bounding exercise.)

If we know how much of the UV filtering is from ground level ozone, why
not calculate for a given metropolitan area that mean percent reduction in
ground level ozone by season (based on the air quality modeling already
done).  This could be done, with some additional effort, because we are
typically focused on other shorter term metrics for the health benefits
analysis.  However, this does not address the need for additional modeling
to indicate how the change in EXPOSURE to UV-B would change.  UV-B
exposure does not depend on average ozone shielding, but rather on the
time-weighted exposure pattern which would need to reflect how much of the
total exposure to UV-B occurs in areas with different levels of baseline
ozone and different levels of reduction in ozone.  We do not have the
ability to estimate these actual exposures.  As such we are missing the
essential dose piece of the equation.  We can proxy the change in dose
using the average change in ozone shielding across an urban area, but this
introduces a definite bias of unknown magnitude or sign.  Generally when
this has been the case (see urban visibility), we have been given guidance
to avoid quantifying the effect, even when we know that the effect
estimate is non-zero.  Reduce UV filtering accordingly, and calculate the
number of increased cancers that are expected to result from such a
change.  The actual reduction in UV filtering is also not easily
determined by looking at the temporally averaged ozone concentrations,
because the time of day matters when determining UV exposure --
"atmospheric absorption is more complete in winter months and both early
and late in the day, as compared to the absorption around mid-day near the
summertime solar zenith" Source: Final Response to Ozone Remand

I know this would be very crude -- ground level ozone is not constant
across time, the changes are not constant, etc.  People's activities
change etc.  Some of this might already be captured in the epi study if
they used cancer estimates and UV exposure, activity patterns are already
implicitly captured, for example.)  These are not small issues.  The
effect of a NAAQS on tropospheric ozone is very complex and
heterogeneous.  Peak values may be affected more than daily or seasonal
means, and ozone concentrations are altered in vary heterogenous ways
across different locations.  To accurately estimate the effect of changes
in tropospheric ozone on UV-b impacts requires matching the spatial and
temporal distributions of the ozone concentration changes to the spatial
and temporal distribution of UV-B exposure.  Note that "the biologically
effective dose of radiation that actually reaches target molecules
generally depends on the duration of exposure at particular locations,
time of day, time of year, behavior (i.e., ‘‘sun avoidance’’and ‘‘sun
seeking’’ behavior), and, for the skin, characteristics that include
pigmentation and temporal variations (e.g., changes in the pigmentation
due to tanning)" Source:  Final Repsonse for the Ozone Remand.   There is
a much more detailed discussion in the Final Response to the Remand about
these exposure issues.  But such a calculation could, I think, show
whether this number is likely to be small or large, and it seems to me
that this is the most important question surrounding this disbenefit.
Note that the $ disbenefits would be even smaller relative to other
factors because of the potentially long latency period between exposure
and incidence of cancer.  As such, the $ benefits would need to be
discounted over that latency period.  There are also several other issues
with comparing disbenefits with benefits, because the disbenefits are
based on a lifetime cumulative exposure calculation, and the pattern of
exposures over a lifetime can greatly influence the resulting impacts.  In
addition, we would need to convert this somehow to an annualized impact
for comparison with the annual impacts we show for other health effects.
This would require a great deal of work to understand the strat ozone
modeling results and determine how to approrpiately convert that analysis
into something that could be used with the current data we have for
tropospheric ozone.

I apologize but I just don't know enough about this to understand why this
can't be done.  It is not that it can't be done, it is a question of
whether it can be done credibly, and if not, should it be done at all.
Previous policy has been to not do it if it could not be done credibly.
If someone could respond, I could then engage Brian and others to make
some headway.

Also, if you could send the response to the courts, that might be helpful
too.  (Or tell me how to get my hands on it.)

Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

OriginalModTime:  07/25/2007 07:50:16 AM
In_Reply_To:  <OFC25603A9.7A660043-ON85257322.00794AE8-85257322.00799B8B@LocalDomain>
ldf_createddate:  null
ldf_from:  null
ldf_archive:  null
ldf_temp:  null
$AltNameLanguageTags:
InheritedReplyTo:
InheritedFrom:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedAltFrom:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedFromDomain:
Logo:  StdNotesLtr28
useApplet:  True
tmpImp2:
DefaultMailSaveOptions:  1
Query_String:
Principal:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
SentToDocu:  False
Subject:  Re: Where are we on UVB?
ldf_locale:  en-US
Sign:  0
ReturnReceipt:  0
delTmpEncrypt:
delTmpImportance:
delTmpReturnReceipt:
delTmpSign:
SendTo:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
CopyTo:  conner.lisa@epa.gov,evans.ron@epa.gov,hubbell.bryan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>InetSendTo<EMAIL_ADDRESS>InetCopyTo:  .,.,.,.
$StorageTo:  1
$StorageCc:  .,.,.,.
$Mailer:  Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
$MessageID:  <OF6276E46F.23BCE888-ON85257323.003F42AE-85257323.0041098A@LocalDomain>
From:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
INetFrom<EMAIL_ADDRESS>PostedDate:  07/25/2007 07:50:23 AM
Encrypt:
RouteServers:  CN=DCCCWMAIL14/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US,CN=RTAIRMAIL1/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
RouteTimes:  07/25/2007 07:50:23 AM-07/25/2007 07:50:30 AM,07/25/2007 07:50:31 AM-07/25/2007 07:50:31 AM
$Orig:  6276E46F23BCE88885257323003F42AE
Categories:
$Revisions:  07/25/2007 07:50:31 AM
$MsgTrackFlags:  0
DeliveredDate:  07/25/2007 07:50:31 AM
$UpdatedBy:  ,CN=DCCCWMAIL14/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US,CN=EPAHUB15/O=USEPA/C=US
$RespondedTo:  2

I didn't have time to write up a more detailed explanation of how we might
"scope out" the UVB benefits (disbenefit).  But here is what I was
thinking.  After you read this, if someone could respond why this isn't
possible, then I think we might have enough to begin a discussion.

I think we would all agree that quantifying all the benefits, disbenefits,
and costs should be the goal of any analysis.  Bryan has argued, somewhat
effectively in my mind, that we can't have double standards for
disbenefits and benefits.  I agree with him.  I think we can't add effects
if the science is such that we have no confidence in the number, even is
we qualify it.   But I would be happy to discuss other benefit categories
that have fallen out of the RIA because someone thought it wasn't "good"
enough.

  In this case, it seems to me we understand the science quite well --
that is, the effect, the mode of action, the exposure, the UV filtering
etc. are all well understood conceptually.  It must be the case that the
issue is quantifying the exposure changes (UVB changes)  from the new
Ozone NAAQS.  I don't think we can do this perfectly, but it seems to me
that it might be possible to perform some exercises to show that how big
this disbenefit is likely to be.

First, the Strat Ozone RIA contains both estimates of skin cancers and UV
exposure.  I recall, but its been a while, that the dose-response curve is
based on collecting skin cancer data by city and UV exposure.   Hence we
have a relationship between UV and skin cancer.

Next, we understand the relationship between the ozone column and UV
filtering.

I recall a conversation with Bryan where he indicated that we also know
how much of the ozone column is from ground level ozone.  He cited a
number, to support an argument that this total disbenefit is likely to be
small.  He sounded convincing to me, which is why it might be important to
quantify this disbenefit, even if crudely, so we can show that the number
isn't a dramatic offset to the benefits already quantified.  (We could,
after we do this, discuss how to present these numbers in the RIA.  They
could, for example, be placed in an appendix and clearly labeled
speculative bounding exercise.)

If we know how much of the UV filtering is from ground level ozone, why
not calculate for a given metropolitan area that mean percent reduction in
ground level ozone by season (based on the air quality modeling already
done).  Reduce UV filtering accordingly, and calculate the number of
increased cancers that are expected to result from such a change.

I know this would be very crude -- ground level ozone is not constant
across time, the changes are not constant, etc.  People's activities
change etc.  Some of this might already be captured in the epi study if
they used cancer estimates and UV exposure, activity patterns are already
implicitly captured, for example.)   But such a calculation could, I
think, show whether this number is likely to be small or large, and it
seems to me that this is the most important question surrounding this
disbenefit.

I apologize but I just don't know enough about this to understand why this
can't be done.   If someone could respond, I could then engage Brian and
others to make some headway.

Also, if you could send the response to the courts, that might be helpful
too.  (Or tell me how to get my hands on it.)

Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

OriginalModTime:  07/24/2007 06:15:30 PM
In_Reply_To:  <OFC25603A9.7A660043-ON85257322.00794AE8-85257322.00799B8B@LocalDomain>
ldf_createddate:  null
ldf_from:  null
ldf_archive:  null
ldf_temp:  null
$AltNameLanguageTags:
InheritedReplyTo:
InheritedFrom:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedAltFrom:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
InheritedFromDomain:
Logo:  StdNotesLtr28
tmpImp2:
DefaultMailSaveOptions:  1
Query_String:
Principal:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
SentToDocu:  False
Subject:  Re: Where are we on UVB?
ldf_locale:  en-US
Sign:  0
ReturnReceipt:  0
delTmpEncrypt:
delTmpImportance:
delTmpReturnReceipt:
delTmpSign:
SendTo:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
CopyTo:  conner.lisa@epa.gov,evans.ron@epa.gov,hubbell.bryan@epa.gov,CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
InetSendTo<EMAIL_ADDRESS>InetCopyTo:  .,.,.,.
$StorageTo:  1
$StorageCc:  .,.,.,.
$Mailer:  Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
$MessageID:  <OFE3A791EE.7F076AC0-ON85257322.0079DE13-85257322.007A462F@LocalDomain>
From:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
INetFrom<EMAIL_ADDRESS>PostedDate:  07/24/2007 06:15:34 PM
Encrypt:
$UpdatedBy:  ,CN=DCCCWMAIL14/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
RouteServers:  CN=DCCCWMAIL14/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US,CN=RTAIRMAIL1/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
RouteTimes:  07/24/2007 06:15:34 PM-07/24/2007 06:15:39 PM,07/24/2007 06:15:39 PM-07/24/2007 06:15:40 PM
$Orig:  E3A791EE7F076AC0852573220079DE13
Categories:
$Revisions:
$MsgTrackFlags:  0
DeliveredDate:  07/24/2007 06:15:40 PM

I would like ot see the FR notice if possible.  I was asked to write up
how we might do a "scoping" assessment of this benefit and then ask you
why we can't do this.  Such an analysis may tell us if this is a small
deal or a potential big deal.  I will write it up tonight and ask for your
reaction.

I think OPEI is looking for language that will say that EPA will explore
this issue and assess whether a quantitative analysis is feasible.  I know
you don't want to do that, but since Brian doesn't have time to study the
issue enough between now and when you want it released, this is the fall
back position for OPEI.  He may talk to Bob and George Gray to see if they
can support such a statement.   I will know more tomorrow when I see him.
We missed each other today.

Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US
07/24/2007 06:08 PM

	To
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>	Subject
	Where are we on UVB?

Al,

I think we last left this with me responding to you about the fact that we
have nothing in writing other than the CD.  Karen Martin reminded me today
that we also have the response we wrote to the court's remand on this
issue explaining why we could not do quantitative assessments of UVB at
that time.  I think this was done around 2000.   Nothing has changed from
our perspective since there is no new research that has been conducted
that would enable us to do a credible assessment.  Let me know if you want
to see that FR notice.   But, meanwhile, we need to get the proposed RIA
out this week, so can we move forward and continue our discussions, on the
understanding that we remain of the view that it is not possible to do a
quantitative analysis and that we will meet with Brian to explain why in
further detail than he's heard from me so far?

Thanks.

Subject:  Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob
From:  CN=Al McGartland/OU=DC/O=USEPA/C=US
ComposedDate:  07/19/2007 05:25:41 PM
PostedDate:  07/19/2007 05:24:58 PM
SendTo:  CN=Lydia Wegman/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA,CN=Bryan Hubbell/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA,"Dr. Al McGartland"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CopyTo:  CN=Ron Evans/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US@EPA
Importance:  2
SenderTag:
Logo:  StdNotesLtr28
$Links:
$Orig:  19F7BC628919BA4A8525731D0075A4C4
$UpdatedBy:  CN=EPAHUB16/O=USEPA/C=US
$MessageID:  <OF19F7BC62.8919BA4A-ON8525731D.0075A4C4@LocalDomain>
RouteServers:  CN=EPAHUB16/O=USEPA/C=US,CN=RTAIRMAIL1/OU=RTP/O=USEPA/C=US
RouteTimes:  07/19/2007 05:24:58 PM-07/19/2007 05:24:59 PM,07/19/2007 05:25:48 PM-07/19/2007 05:25:49 PM
Categories:
$Revisions:
$MsgTrackFlags:  0
DeliveredDate:  07/19/2007 05:25:54 PM

I can't opine on the uv-b issue because I don't know enough.  I need to
learn more.  There are several technical issues that will, I think
determine how feasible any quantification of benefits will be.   If you
are committing to exploring how we can do this I think we are OK.

Would you all be adverse to me asking a consultant if this is feasible?
An independent second opinion might help.
Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

    ----- Original Message -----

    From:  Lydia Wegman
    Sent: 07/19/2007 01:19 PM
    To: Bryan Hubbell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Cc:  Ron Evans
    Subject: Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

Thanks to both of you for wending our way through the CEA issue and
reaching a solution.  The language Art gave me on that issue is:  "We are
investigating options for conducting a CEA and expect to provide estimates
based on that analysis in the final RIA."

On UV-B we need to have a full discussion of the issue.  As Bryan says, we
in OAQPS all continue to believe that we do not have the information
available to do a quantitative assessment of UV-B effects.   We all feel
quite strongly about it.  I think the next step needs to be a meeting with
Brian, our shop and ORD to discuss this issue.   We would need to invite
Bob Meyers as well.  I have told Art that we are not willing to put
language about further analyses related to UV-B in the proposed RIA.    If
Brian is insistent on that, we need to schedule the discussion on this
subject immediately.  If not, we can wait until the proposed RIA is
completed and then meet in August or September.   Let me know Al if you
think we can wait until after the proposed RIA is done.  Thanks.

Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US
07/19/2007 12:56 PM

	To
	Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
	Subject
	Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

Thanks Al.  Clearly we need to continue our discussions on all of these
issues.   At this point, we will need a specific sentence characterizing
the CEA agreement.  I believe thaqt Lydia got that sentence from Art last
night, so hopefully she can provide it.

We still need a final decision on UV-b.  My very firm belief is that it is
both scientifically and practically inappropriate to conduct a
quantitatove impact assessment for the uv-b screening impacts of reducing
tropospheric ozone to meet alternative ozone standards.

On the issue of costs, we also want to make progress, and I believe that
Ron is planning to initiate discussions on this issue in early september.

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Al McGartland
    Sent: 07/19/2007 12:30 PM
    To: Bryan Hubbell
    Cc: Ron Evans; Lydia Wegman
    Subject: Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

I talked with Brian Mannix.  We can agree to this approach for the RIA.
Thanks for being flexible.
Just fyi.  Brian asked about some of the other issues -- this may give you
some hints about what is important to him.

He is very interested in making progress on how we model the cost of
reductions when the we can no longer identfy control options.
Specifically, assuming a perfectly elastic supply curve for emission
reductions is difficult for him to accept.  Hopefully, our offices will
make some headway on this.

He (and I) are very interested in the ethanol issue and how this may
affect future ozone levels

Finally, perhaps not surprisingly, Brian discussed UV filtering issue.  I
told him we agreed on some qualitative text for the proposal.  He thinks
you need to do an analysis of this as well for the final.  He mentioned
that Lydia had talked to him about this some time ago.  Lydia, you
probably recall the conversation.  Brian said he didn't agree with your
arguments.

Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US
07/19/2007 10:10 AM

	To
	Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	"bryan hubbell"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "page steve"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	Subject
	Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

My understanding is that Art has agreed to limit the language in the
proposal to a commitment to evaluate the available data and methods and
state that we "expect" to provide a CEA analysis for the final.  I am okay
with this language as long as we understand that the exact form and extent
of such an analysis will be dependent on our review.  In addition there
needs to be an understanding that OAQPS currently does not have the staff
available to develop an extensive new method, and as such, funding and
staff will need to be committed by OPEI.  If we can agree on this, then we
can move forward.  Al, if you can call me as soon as you are available,
perhaps we can close on this.  Margo Schwab has indicated she is
comfortable with this understanding.

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Al McGartland
    Sent: 07/18/2007 06:25 PM
    To: Ron Evans
    Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lydia Wegman; Marjorie Jones;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Subject: Re: CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

Several points:

(1) It is required by Circular A-4.  Hence we should do it unless there is
some overwhelming problem in doing so.  I don't think there is.  And, in
the case of PM and ozone, it is a very useful analysis to have along side
the Benefit-Cost analysis (BCA).

(2) I don't understand why the lack of SAB advice should stop us.  There
are lots of issues where Economics has methods etc., for which the SAB has
not opined.  We still go forward and use these methods.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is a widely used tool, most often involving
life-years.  It is well accepted -- SAB advice should not be necessary to
move foward.

(3) Bryan, you, Nathalie and I participated in a meeting in your building
where we discussed how we might do CEA for ozone.  We then deployed an RA
to gather the necessary data.   We would, of course, have the analysis
peer reviewed, but I think its doable.  We would have to make assumptions
about the extent of preexisting conditions on folks who would die as a
result of ozone exposure.  We would, of course, convene the Bryan, Pamela,
Margo, Al group to work out the specifics of this methodology.

(4) There are lots of risk assessments that go forward before the NAS or
the SAB weigh in.  Why can't we do one here?

(5) I'm not sure what you mean by using the same assumptions as that for
PM.  The epi studies for PM allowed us to calculate teh remaining life
years if a straightforward manner.  As you point out, ozone won't.

(6)  In some people's minds, the CEA is at least as important as the BCA,
yet EPA doesn't give it an equal effort.

I responded to Doug's email.  I haven't heard back from him on the post
2020 issue.

Al McGartland, PhD.
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics
US EPA
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US
07/18/2007 05:28 PM

	To
	Al McGartland
	cc
	Lydia Wegman, Bryan Hubbell, Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	Subject
	CEA ozone analyses, advice to Bob

Al, I talked to Lydia after our OMB call and indicated that you said that
Brian and Bob needed to talk before any deal with OMB was complete.  Lydia
asked me to share the information we have provided to Bob on why we think
that committing to a specific CEA analysis for ozone in the final ozone
RIA is not a good idea.  Can you give us an idea on why Brian differs on
this issue and what points he would like to raise to Bob?  Hopefully we
can come to a common understanding and agreement amongst ourselves and
eliminate the need for a specific discussion between them.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA):

There is no advice from SAB on doing CEA for ozone mortality
specifically.  The question of how to appropriately address CEA analysis
is currently raised in two separate advisory panels.  We are awaiting
feedback from the NAS panel on ozone mortality, doing this kind of
analysis was one of the items raised for their consideration.  In
addition, a number of specific charge questions were submitted to the
Science Advisory Board Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)
pertaining to estimating the value of premature mortality reductions.
Currently there is insufficient data on ozone and its effects to calculate
life years.  This NAS advice specifically focused on ozone mortality is
due in December 2007 but would come too late to be incorporated into the
RIA as their advice would not come in the form of a methodology; the EEAC
advice is expected sooner and may provide information used in developing a
methodology but may not have specific guidance on ozone.  OPEI has offered
to have a contractor develop a methodology but we need the caveat that
there may not be sufficient data to do an analysis (or NAS may indicate
that we should not do this analysis until further data is developed).  It
is for this reason that we have been unwilling to commit to the analysis
in the RIA.  We have offered to commit to the analysis IF we used the
identical assumptions as used for PM in the PM RIA with appropriate
caveats.

Ron Evans
Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group
HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA
Mail Drop C-439-02
919-541-5488
919-541-0839 fax


Placeholder for information received claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)

Information regarding emission factors claimed as CBI received from
SEMI.  This information is being maintained in a separate confidential
portion of the docket.

For more information please contact Kirsten Cappel by phone at (202)
343-9556 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78215-78219]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0425; Project Identifier 2016-NE-13-AD; Amendment
39-21346; AD 2020-25-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-24-08
for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (RRD) RB211-Trent 875-17,
RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-
Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 model
turbofan engines. AD 2016-24-08 required repetitive inspections of the
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly and repair or
replacement of any fairing assembly that fails inspection. This AD
retains the requirements to perform repetitive inspections of the
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly and repair or
replacement of any fairing assembly that fails inspection. As a
terminating action to these inspections, this AD also requires the
modification of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 8, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE24 8BJ; phone: (+44) 1332 242424; fax: (+44) 1332 249936;
email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; internet:
https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781) 238-7759. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0425.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0425; 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 AD, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (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: Scott Stevenson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-24-08, Amendment 39-18725 (81 FR
86567, December 1, 2016) (AD 2016-24-08). AD 2016-24-08 applied to all
RR RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-
Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent
895-17 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 24, 2019 (84 FR 29423). The NPRM was prompted by RRD
developing a modification of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing
assembly that terminates the need for repetitive inspections of this
part. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the requirements to
perform repetitive inspections of the engine upper bifurcation nose
fairing assembly and repair or replacement of any fairing assembly that
fails inspection. As a terminating action, in the NPRM the FAA also
proposed to require modification of the engine upper bifurcation nose
fairing assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition of these products.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2018-0088, dated April 18, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI
states:

    Inspection of in-service Trent 800 engines identified cracking
and/or material release from the upper bifurcation fairing, which
mates to the aeroplane thrust reverser upper bifurcation forward
fire seal. Both sets of hardware create the engine firewall to
isolate the engine compartment fire zone, which is a firewall
feature of the aeroplane type design. Damage (missing materials and
holes/openings) to the upper bifurcation fairing creates a breach of
the engine fire wall, which may decrease the effectiveness of the
engine fire detection and suppression systems due to excess fan air
entering the engine compartment fire zone. This could delay or
prevent the fire detection and suppression system from functioning
properly, and can result in an increased risk of prolonged burning,
potentially allowing a fire to reach unprotected areas of the
engine, strut and wing.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an
uncontrolled fire, possibly resulting in damage to, or loss of, the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RR published the
NMSB to provide inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued
AD 2016-0084 to require repetitive inspections of the upper
bifurcation fairing and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, RR developed modification (mod)
72-J803, which introduces a revised upper bifurcation nose fairing
assembly, featuring an additional support bracket assembly at the
right hand seal land. RR also published the modification SB to
provide instructions for in-service engines. This modification
removes the need for repetitive inspections.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0084, which is superseded, and requires
a modification, which constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0425.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were
Rolls-Royce plc (RR); American Airlines (AAL); The Boeing Company
(Boeing); Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL); and two individual commenters.
Five commenters requested changes to this AD, which included adding or
updating the unsafe condition, terminating action, installation
prohibition, and credit for previous actions. One commenter requested
clarification regarding on-wing rework. One commenter expressed support
for the AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Remove Statement Indicating the Unsafe Condition Could Cause
a Fire

    Boeing requested that paragraph (e), Unsafe Condition, of this AD
be revised to replace ``. . . could result in engine fire and damage to
the airplane'' with ``. . . could result in reduced ability to detect
and/or control an engine fire which could lead to damage to the
airplane.'' Boeing reasoned that unsafe condition is not expected to
cause an engine fire. Instead, when material is liberated from the
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly, the core zone fire
detection and extinguishing may be less effective in the event of a
fire. This is due to airflow that may be allowed to pass into the fire
zone through an alternate path and at an unknown rate compared to the
intended design.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that a cracked engine
upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly and material release would not
lead to an engine fire. The unsafe condition of this AD, however, is
not the cracking of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly
and material release, but the resulting failure of the engine fire
control system. Since the engine fire control system would be
inadequate to detect and control an engine fire, regardless of cause,
the resulting hazard is the engine fire and consequent damage to the
airplane. The FAA did not change this AD.

Request To Clarify Engine Upper Bifurcation Nose Fairing Assembly With
FRSJ739 Repair

    DAL requested that Note 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this AD be updated
to clarify inspection if on-wing repair FRSJ739 was applied. DAL
reasoned that RRD added a second sheet to Figure 1 when it published
Revision 2 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-
72-AJ165, on August 21, 2018. This second sheet includes the entire
length of the bracket in Zone A if on-wing repair FRSJ739 was applied.
The proposed AD did not provide any distinctions for on-wing repair
FRSJ739.
    The FAA disagrees. As stated in Note 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this
AD, Figure 1 of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165, Revision 2, dated August
21, 2018, provides guidance on the engine upper bifurcation nose
fairing assembly inspection locations. Operators are not required to
use Figure 1 to comply with this AD. Therefore, this AD is not required
to reference on-wing repair FRSJ739.

Request To Add Credit for Previous Actions Paragraph

    DAL requested that the FAA add a Credit for Previous Actions
paragraph to this AD for previous initial and repetitive inspections
completed using RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165, Initial Issue, dated
March 31, 2016, required by AD 2016-24-08.
    The FAA disagrees. AD 2016-24-08 and this AD do not require use of
RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165 to perform the initial and repetitive
inspections. RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165 is provided as guidance on
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly inspection locations.
Therefore, this AD does not need to provide credit for inspections
performed using RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165. The FAA did not change
this AD.

Request To Update Terminating Action With the Latest Service
Information

    AAL, Boeing, DAL, and an individual commenter requested that
paragraph (h), Mandatory Terminating Action, of this AD be updated to
include RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-J803, Revision 2, dated
April 1, 2019. The commenters reasoned that RR SB RB.211-72-J803,
Revision 1, dated July 13, 2018, has been superseded by Revision 2,
dated April 1, 2019. Boeing also suggested adding language that allows
any later revisions of the service information to be equivalent action
as RRD may publish further revisions.
    The FAA agrees to revise the reference to RR SB RB.211-72-J803 in
paragraph (h) of this AD from Revision 1, dated July 13, 2018, to
Revision 2, dated April 1, 2019. The FAA disagrees with adding language
that allows any later revisions of the service information. Since later
revisions of the service information have not been published or
reviewed by the agency, the FAA will not require their use.
    With the update to RR SB RB.211-72-J803 in this AD from Revision 1,
dated July 13, 2018, to Revision 2, dated April 1, 2019, the FAA
determined the need to update the estimated costs to reflect the
increase in labor hours from 2 work-hours to 8 work-hours for both on-
wing and in-shop visits.

Request To Add On-Wing Mandatory Terminating Action

    DAL requested that the on-wing rework instructions introduced in
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of RR SB RB.211-72-
J803, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2019, be included as an option for the
mandatory terminating action to the AD. DAL

added that paragraph (i), Installation Prohibition, will ensure that
de-modification of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly
will not be possible once the reworked engine upper bifurcation nose
fairing assembly is installed.
    The FAA agrees that the on-wing rework instructions should be added
as an option to the mandatory terminating action in addition to the in-
shop rework procedure. RR SB RB.211-72-J803, Revision 2, dated April 1,
2019, provides an option to perform the on-wing rework instructions. As
a result, operators can perform the rework in-shop or on-wing. The FAA
added the on-wing rework instructions to the mandatory terminating
action section of this AD.
    The FAA also agrees that de-modification of the engine upper
bifurcation nose fairing assembly will not be possible once the
reworked engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly is installed.
As noted in the following comment response, the FAA removed the
installation prohibition proposed in the NPRM as the mandatory
terminating actions requiring the modification of the engine upper
bifurcation nose fairing assembly makes this installation prohibition
unnecessary.

Request To Revise Installation Prohibition

    RR and AAL requested that paragraph (i), Installation Prohibition,
of the proposed AD be revised. Rolls-Royce was concerned if an upper
bifurcation panel (upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly) is required
to complete an on-wing repair, it will prevent the installation of the
original panel without the part being modified to the later standard.
AAL reasoned that a serviceable engine upper bifurcation nose fairing
assembly that needs to be repaired or replaced per AD 2016-24-08, but
has not been, may be removed during non-related maintenance. The FAA
infers that RR's concern aligns with AAL reasoning that removal of a
panel for on-wing activity, such as maintenance or repair unrelated to
the rework, will make the part ineligible for installation. Therefore,
AAL proposed that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be revised to
``After the effective date of this AD, do not install an engine upper
bifurcation nose fairing assembly, P/N FK25470, onto any engine that
has or had an engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly, P/N
KH75280, installed.''
    The FAA agrees that the installation prohibition would prevent the
installation of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly, P/N
FK25470, onto any engine after the effective date of this AD, even for
work unrelated to this AD. The mandatory terminating action requires
the modification of engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly, P/N
FK25470 and, as such, the installation prohibition is not necessary.
The FAA removed the installation prohibition from this AD.

Support for the AD

    An individual commenter expressed support for the AD as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed RR SB RB.211-72-J803, Revision 2, dated April 1,
2019; Revision 1, dated July 13, 2018; and Initial Issue, dated
December 7, 2017. The service information describes procedures for
modification of the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly.
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 ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165, Revision 2, dated
August 21, 2018. The NMSB provides guidance on engine upper bifurcation
nose fairing assembly inspection locations. The FAA also reviewed AMM
TASK 70-20-02, Water Washable Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection
(Maintenance Process 213), and OMat 632, high sensitivity fluorescent
penetrant inspection. This service information provides guidance on
performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 70 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. Based on updated information since
publication of the NPRM, the FAA revised the estimated number of
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry from 125 in the NPRM to
70 in this final rule.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect engine upper bifurcation nose   3.25 work-hours x $85                 $0         $276.25      $19,337.50
 fairing assembly.                       per hour = $276.25.
Modify engine upper bifurcation nose    8 work-hours x $85 per                50             730          51,100
 fairing assembly.                       hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
or replacements that would be required based on the results of the
mandated inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number
of engines that might need these repairs or replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair engine upper bifurcation nose fairing    8 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $500          $1,180
 assembly.                                       $680.

Replace engine upper bifurcation nose fairing   30 work hours x $85 per hour =               500           3,050
 assembly.                                       $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has determined that 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 that 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:
0
a. Removing airworthiness directive AD 2016-24-08, Amendment 39-18725
(81 FR 86567, December 1, 2016); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:
    2020-25-04 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate
previously held by Rolls-Royce plc): Amendment 39-21346; Docket No.
FAA-2019-0425; Project Identifier 2016-NE-13-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 8, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-24-08, Amendment 39-18725 (81 FR 86567,
December 1, 2016).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG
(RRD) (Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) RB211-
Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent
884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent
895-17 model turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7130, Engine
Fireseals.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by RRD developing a modification of the
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly as a result of
reports of cracking and material release from an engine upper
bifurcation fairing. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the engine fire control system. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 7,500 engine flight hours (FHs) since new or since
the last inspection or within 150 flight cycles (FCs) after January
5, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-24-08), whichever occurs
later, inspect the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly
for cracks or missing material. Use paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to
perform the inspection.
    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD within every 7,500 engine FHs since the last inspection.
    (3) Inspect the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly
as follows.

    Note 1 to Paragraph (g)(3):  Figure 1 of Rolls-Royce plc (RR)
Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ165,
Revision 2, dated August 21, 2018, provides guidance on the engine
upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly inspection locations.

    (i) Visually inspect upper bifurcation fairing seal face 22,
seal support 23, and Zone A for any cracks or material loss on the
right side.
    (A) If fairing seal face 22 is found to have released material,
repair or replace the fairing before further flight.
    (B) If there is a single crack found on fairing seal face 22,
shorter than 6 mm, repair or replace the fairing within 100 engine
FCs, or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (C) If there is a single crack, longer than 6 mm, found on
fairing seal face 22, repair or replace the fairing within 15 engine
FCs or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (D) If there are two or more cracks found on fairing seal face
22, replace the fairing within 15 engine FCs or at the next engine
shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (E) If there is any cracking or material loss found on seal
support 23, replace the fairing within 15 engine FCs or at the next
engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) If the visual inspection required by paragraph (g)(3)(i) of
this AD does not detect any cracks, fluorescent penetrant inspect
Zone A.
    (A) If a crack shorter than 6 mm is detected, repair or replace
the fairing within 100 engine FCs, or at the next engine shop visit,
whichever occurs first.
    (B) If a crack longer than 6 mm is detected, repair or replace
the fairing within 15 engine FCs or at the next engine shop visit,
whichever occurs first.

    Note 2 to Paragraph (g)(3)(ii):  AMM TASK 70-20-02, Water
Washable Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (Maintenance Process 213),
and OMat 632, high sensitivity fluorescent penetrant inspection,
provides guidance on performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection.

(h) Mandatory Terminating Action

    As a mandatory terminating action to the inspections of the
engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, perform one of the following:
    (1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, modify the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing assembly
in

accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C., of
RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-J803, Revision 2, dated April 1,
2019; paragraph 3.B., Revision 1, dated July 13, 2018; or paragraph
3.B., Original Issue, dated December 7, 2017; or
    (2) Before the next engine shop visit after the effective date
of this AD, modify the engine upper bifurcation nose fairing
assembly in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.D., of RR SB RB.211-72-J803, Revision 2, dated April 1,
2019.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is defined
as the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance
involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges,
except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes
of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 Related Information. You may email your request to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Scott Stevenson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-
0088, dated April 18, 2018, for more information. You may examine
the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0425.

(l) 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) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-J803,
Revision 2, dated April 1, 2019.
    (ii) RR SB RB.211-72-J803, Revision 1, dated July 13, 2018.
    (iii) RR SB RB.211-72-J803, Initial Issue, dated December 7,
2017.
    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE24 8BJ; phone: (+44) 1332 242424; fax: (+44) 1332 249936;
email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; internet:
https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. 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_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 30, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26730 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P