June 28, 2007

Mr. Gerardo C. Rios

Chief, Permits Office

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Dear Mr. Rios:

This letter amends the revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) application submitted to your office on December 11, 2006 for the
Big West of California, LLC Bakersfield Refinery Clean Fuels Project
(CFP).  There are several amendments to be made to the application,
specifically:

The refinery has committed to meeting a fuel gas sulfur content limit of
40 ppmv total sulfur (as H2S) on a 4-hour average basis;

Basic information is presented about the additional equipment that will
be necessary to achieve this fuel gas sulfur level;

The location of the existing Mild Hydrocracker and its two heaters 14-H1
and 14-H2 was incorrectly modeled;

Additional supporting information is presented regarding the cost
effectiveness of installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on the
two CFP heaters that are less than 50 MMBtu/hr (VGO Feed Heater, 47
MMBtu/hr; and VGO-HDS Fractionator Feed Heater, 35 MMBtu/hr);

An analysis of the proposed NSPS Subpart Ja and how it affects the
project combustion units and FCCU, which indicates that a short-term NOx
emissions limit will be required for the FCCU, additional CEMS or
parametric monitoring will be required for PM emissions from the FCCU,
and additional NOx CEMS monitoring will be required for the VGO-HDS
heaters; and

Additional clarifications on the design and operation of the ground
flare that will serve CFP units.

Each of these amendments and additional ground flare data are described
in detail below.

Fuel Gas Sulfur Limit

As you are aware, Big West has worked extensively with our process
design engineers to achieve a fuel gas sulfur limit lower than 100 ppmv.
 As presented in the July 12, 2006 letter from J. Scott Lewis of Linde
BOC Process Plants LLC (provided as an attachment to an email dated July
24, 2006 from Ev Ashworth), the contractor for the amine treatment
system was only willing to guarantee that 50 ppmv H2S could be achieved.
However, as the design has progressed, we were able to develop detailed
fuel gas balance scenarios to ascertain the expected fuel gas sulfur
content in normal and “worst-case” operating situations. Big West
now anticipates that with the addition of a caustic scrubber to remove
the potentially high level of sulfur in the fuel gas from Area 3 that
may, in some circumstances, be introduced into the Area 4 fuel gas
system, Big West can meet a limit of 40 ppmv total sulfur (as H2S)
averaged over a 4-hour period at all times.

This modification will not adversely affect the PSD permit application.
Modeling will not be performed again, as the current modeling is
conservative in its inclusion of 100 ppmv sulfur in the combusted fuel
gas.  To meet the 40 ppmv limit, the facility will need to treat fuel
gas supplied to Area 2 from the Area 3 Delayed Coker Gas Amine Treater,
to reduce non-H2S sulfur compounds in the total fuel gas burned in Areas
2 and 4.  The new treatment unit will use caustic to extract these
sulfur compounds; the sulfur compounds will be converted to disulfides
and returned to a hydrotreater for conversion to H2S.

The addition of this caustic scrubbing unit does not directly affect the
PSD permit application, as the only emissions from the unit will be
volatile organic compounds (VOC), which is not within the scope of the
PSD permit. The refinery will submit a revised application for a Permit
to Construct with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
to support construction of the revised Area 4 fuel gas treatment unit.

A revised Table 5-3, that reflects the lower SO2 emissions resulting
from combustion of fuel gas subject to a 40 ppmv sulfur content limit,
is presented below.

Table 5-3: Big West Clean Fuels Project Source Emission Ratesa

Source

ID

Model ID	NOx

(g/s)	SO2b

(g/s)	CO

(g/s)	PM10

(g/s)

VGO Feed Heater (47 MMbtu/hr)	vgohtr	0.1438	0.0833

0.0333	0.2189	0.0441

VGO HDS Fractionator Feed Heater (35 MMBtu/hr)	vgofrhtr	0.1071	0.0620

0.0248	0.1630	0.0329

Hydrogen Plant Reformer	h2reform	0.4904	1.1364

0.4545	0.5971	0.6018

FCCU Regenerator (annual) c	fccuregen	1.0604	1.4765	1.9046	1.1647

FCCU Regenerator (1-hr, 3-hr, 8-hr, 24-hr) c	fccuregen	2.1208	3.6913
16.1407	1.1647

Existing MHC Feed Heaters

(14-H1 & 14-H2)	mhc14h12	0.3748	0.1596

0.0638	1.4904	0.0845

HF Alky Isostripper Reboiler	hfreboil	0.1645	0.3812

0.1525	0.2003	0.2018

SWAATS Unit	swaats	0.0000	0.2322	4.3994

0.3384	0.0000

Ground Flared	gndflare	0.0279	0.0089

0.0057	0.1519	0.0107

Diesel Firewater Pump Engines (annual)	firepump	0.0222	0.0000	0.0130
0.0007

Diesel Firewater Pump Engines (24-hr)	firepump	0.0809	0.0001	0.0474
0.0027

Diesel Firewater Pump Engines (8-hr)	firepump	0.2428	0.0003	0.1422
0.0082

Diesel Firewater Pump Engines (3-hr)	firepump	0.6475	0.0007	0.3792
0.0219

Diesel Firewater Pump Engines (1-hr)	firepump	1.9425	0.0022	1.1375
0.0656

Cooling Tower 1	coolt1	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0303

Cooling Tower 2	coolt2	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0303

a Strikeout values are from the December 2006 revised PSD application.

b  Revised sulfur emission rates reflect combustion of refinery fuel gas
at 40 ppmv total sulfur, expressed as H2S.

c  FCCU heater is a limited-use startup heater.  FCCU regenerator
emission rates are larger than those from the FCCU startup heater, so
FCCU regenerator emissions were used in the modeling.

d Flare emission rates are annual averages that include process unit
startups and shutdowns as well as continuous pilot flaring.

Mild Hydrocracker Location

It recently came to our attention that the location of the existing mild
hydrocracker, which has been included as an affected unit in the PSD air
quality impact analysis modeling for the  Clean Fuels Project, was
misrepresented in these dispersion modeling runs. The UTM coordinates
should not have been  311795.2 Easting and 3917118.9 Northing (NAD27) as
presented in Table 5-4 of the December 2006 revised application, but
rather should be approximately 220 m SSE, at 311837.5 Easting and
3916901.5 Northing.

The dispersion modeling to compare maximum project impacts with Class II
significance levels and monitoring significance levels has been
performed again to take this change into account. The affected tables
and figures from the December 2006 revised PSD application are included
below. As noted above, this revised modeling analysis does not reflect
the new and reduced fuel gas total sulfur content limit of 40 ppmv.
However, this conservative approach demonstrates that the revised
location of the Mild Hydrocracker does not result in any exceedances of
relevant EPA PSD Significance Levels.  The modeling to determine Air
Quality Related Values (AQRV) impacts on Class I areas has not been
revised, as the effect of a 200 m shift of one emission source would be
imperceptible at the distance of the nearest Class I areas (~80 km).

Figure 5-2: Big West – Boundary Receptors and Source Locations

Figure 5-3: Big West Far Grid of Receptors

Figure 5-5: Maximum Impact Locations with Fine Grid for Maximum 3-hour
SO2 Impact

Table 5-9: Maximum Project Impacts Compared with Class II Significance
Levels and Monitoring Significance Levelsa

Pollutant	Averaging

Period	Maximum Predicted Impact

(µg/m3)	Class II Significance Level

(µg/m3)	Monitoring Significance Level

(µg/m3)

NO2	Annual	0.56b

0.68	1.0	14

SO2	Annual	0.74

0.83	1.0	NA

	3-hour	10.67

10.71	25.0	NA

	24-hour	3.18

3.37	5.0	13

CO	1-hour	181.31

183.42

	2,000	NA

	8-hour	44.08

31.38	500	575

Notes:

     a Strikeout values are from the December 2006 revised PSD
application.

       b EPA default Ambient Ratio Method factor of 0.75 applied.

     NA = Not applicable/not defined

Cost Effectiveness of SCR on VGO-HDS Heaters

The BACT analysis presented in section 4.2.1 of the December 2006
revised PSD application concluded that BACT for NOx for refinery
combustion units less than 50 MMBtu/hr is the installation of low NOx
burners to achieve a NOx emission limit of 20 ppmv @ 3% O2. This
conclusion was reached with the following reasoning:

The most stringent limit found to be achieved in practice or required by
a state implementation plan (SIP) was 25 ppmv @ 3% O2.

The lowest vendor guarantee that the refinery was able to secure for
state-of-the-art low NOx burners on a refinery heater of this size is 20
ppmv @ 3% O2.

While the addition of SCR would be technically feasible and could
achieve lower NOx emissions, this is not achieved in practice on a small
refinery heater and is not considered cost effective; the cost
effectiveness, calculated at $13,766 and $12,779 per ton of NOx control
for the smaller and larger heaters, respectively, was far above the
SJVAPCD’s cost effectiveness threshold for NOx control.

You and your staff have indicated that EPA may not agree with the cost
effectiveness thresholds as established by SJVAPCD and requested a more
complete accounting of costs associated with the installation of SCR.
Because the design of the project has progressed since the cost
estimates were initially prepared over a year ago, and detailed cost
estimates have been obtained for the other CFP heaters, a more complete
cost estimate can now be provided.  As we have explained to your staff,
a more detailed cost analysis was not provided in the December 2006
revised PSD application because the estimated cost-effectiveness
exceeded the SJVAPCD BACT cost-effectiveness thresholds.  We note that
the addition of SCR units on the VGO-HDS heaters this late in the
project design would significantly increase these costs – unit
redesign/placement, re-engineering, cancellation charges for parts
already ordered, etc. – none of these schedule- and redesign-related
costs have been included. Only incremental costs between installation of
low NOx burners alone and installation of low NOx burners and SCR have
been included in our revised cost-effectiveness analysis.

Revised Tables C-4 are attached, which provide the new cost estimates
and cost effectiveness calculations. As before, guidance from the EPA
OAQPS Cost Manual, 6th Edition, Chapter 2 regarding cost estimates for
SCR was followed, except where more specific data were available. Cost
effectiveness estimates for the smaller and larger heaters were $45,170
and $39,450 per ton, respectively.

In summary, there are no existing refinery heaters or boilers <50
MMBtu/hr that are permitted to achieve NOx emission rates lower than
proposed here, the proposed NOx emission limits for the VGO heaters are
more stringent than any applicable SIP or proposed NSPS Subpart Ja
requirements, and the cost effectiveness for SCR control is
significantly more expensive than the BACT cost effectiveness thresholds
required for refinery units or similar sources in California or
elsewhere in the United States (under EPA, South Coast, Bay Area or San
Joaquin Valley air district guidelines).  We therefore conclude that SCR
controls as applied to the VGO-HDS heaters are not representative of the
lowest achievable NOx emission rate.

Proposed NSPS Subpart Ja

On May 17, 2007, EPA proposed amendments to the New Source Performance
Standards for Petroleum Refineries (Subpart Ja and proposed
modifications to Subpart J, see 72 FR 27178, 5/17/2007).  NSPS
requirements are effective based on the date of proposal; therefore,
affected facilities in the Clean Fuels Project will have to comply with
these requirements.  We note that the proposed rule is subject to review
and comment, and may be modified by EPA in light of these comments.
Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the table below, the affected units
under CFP can comply with Subpart Ja requirements with the following
changes to the proposed project:

Unit	Proposed NSPS Ja Requirement	CFP Controls/Design

FCCU	PM: 0.5 lb/1,000 lb coke burn-off	Same

	PM Monitoring: Method 5 performance test; PM CEMS or control device
operating parameter monitoring	Proposed continuous opacity monitoring;
will incorporate Ja monitoring requirements (PM CEMS or parameter
monitoring)

	NOx: 80 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 7-day rolling average	More stringent: 40
ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) daily average; 20 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 365-day rolling
average

	NOx Monitoring: CEMS	Same

	SO2: 50 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 7-day rolling average; 25 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 )
365-day rolling average	More stringent: 50 ppmv (dry, 0% O2) daily
average; 20 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 365-day rolling average

Claus Sulfur Recovery Plant	Provides new SO2 and H2S emissions limits
Not applicable to SWAATS unit

Process Heater and Other Fuel Gas Combustion Device	NOx: 80 ppmv (dry,
0% O2 ) 24-hour rolling average	More stringent (<20 ppmv @ 3% O2 15
minute average for CEMS)

	NOx Monitoring: CEMS	Proposed periodic sampling on VGO-HDS units to
verify compliance; will install CEMS

	SO2: 20 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 3-hour rolling average – or fuel gas limit
of 160 ppmv H2S 3-hour rolling average; 8 ppmv (dry, 0% O2 ) 365-day
rolling average – or fuel gas limit of 60 ppmv H2S 365-day rolling
average	More stringent: 40 ppmv total sulfur limit, expressed as H2S  on
a 4-hour average

As summarized above, the current BACT emission limits for the CFP units
are equal to or more stringent than the proposed Subpart Ja
requirements; however, a new short-term NOx standard will be
incorporated to address the proposed Ja standard for new FCCUs.
Further, additional monitoring will be required to meet the proposed
Subpart Ja monitoring requirements; specifically, installation of NOx
CEMS for the VGO-HDS heaters and installation of a PM CEMS or parametric
monitoring of PM emissions from the FCCU.

Other Issues

Separately, in recent email correspondence, Ms. Kathleen Stewart raised
several issues regarding the ground flare, for which our responses are
provided below:

The flare is designed to handle only process upset gases, taken to
include gases released during startup, shutdown and malfunctions; it
therefore is not designed to comply with Subpart J or proposed Subpart
Ja. Furthermore, it will not be permitted to handle releases subject to
Subpart J or Ja under its federally enforceable operating permit;

The minimum heat content of gases that will vent to the flare during
process upset conditions, startups and shutdowns will be 300 Btu/scf.
We do not anticipate any instance where the heat content of process
upset gases will lower than 300 Btu/scf;

No pressure relief devices will vent directly to the flare;

The presence of a pilot flame on the ground flare will be monitored with
thermocouples, which will record temperature, and hence, the presence of
a pilot flame;

The flow of gases released to the ground flare will be monitored with a
GE Sensing ultrasonic flow meter (product brochure and technical data
are attached).  Please note that this unit does not require daily
calibrations; Big West will calibrate the unit consistent with
manufacturer’s recommendations; flow accuracy and repeatability data
are provided in the brochure;

The heat content and sulfur content of gases released to the flare
during process upset conditions will be monitored by a sampling system
that will consist of evacuated cylinders, which will sample gases during
a release.  We are working with vendors to define the specifications for
this sampling system, which we understand is used by other facilities in
California and required under the Motiva Consent Decree to measure heat
content and sulfur concentrations in gases that are released to a flare.
The sample gas obtained from the automated sampling system will then be
analyzed for heat content (ASTM Method D2382-88; D3588-91 or D4891-89)
and sulfur content (EPA Method 15/16 GC-FPD or equivalent); and

Finally, we wish to confirm that the sulfur content of the torch oil
used in the startup of the FCCU will be verified through testing.

A CD of the modeling input and output files will be sent to you under
separate cover; copies will be provided directly to Ms. Carol Bohnenkamp
as well. Please contact Mr. Everard Ashworth of Ashworth Leininger Group
(805.370.1469) to discuss any concerns or questions raised by this
letter.  Thank you again for your continued assistance on this important
project.  Thank you again for your continued assistance on this
important project.

Very truly yours,

Eugene Cotten

Vice President-Refining

Enclosure

cc:	Carol Bohnenkamp, USEPA

	Kathleen Steward, USEPA

Vince Memmott, P.E., Flying J Inc.

Bill Chadick, HSE Director, Big West

Everard Ashworth, ALG

Richard Karrs, SJVAPCD

Leonard Scandura, SJVAPCD

Perry Fontana, QEP, URS

Mike McCorison, US Forest Service

Table C-4: BACT Annual Cost Analysis – Refinery Combustion Units <50
MMBtu/hr

Table C-4: BACT Annual Cost Analysis – Refinery Combustion Units <50
MMBtu/hr (cont.)

Big West of California, LLC

A Subsidiary of Flying J Inc.

6451 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308
  Page   PAGE  1

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Big West of California, LLC

A Subsidiary of Flying J Inc.


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72328-72330]
[DOCID:fr28no08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0752; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-22-AD;
Amendment 39-15750; AD 2008-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. JT15D-5; -
5B; -5F; and -5R Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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 follows:

    There have been several reported incidents of high altitude,
dual engine flameout on JT15D-5 engine powered aircraft operating in
certain meteorological conditions. Subsequent to the investigation
of incidents, review of the engine design has revealed that the Fuel
Control Hydro Mechanical Unit (HMU) P3 servo can be exposed to
excessive moisture and freezing.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent engine flameouts of one or both
engines, caused by excessive moisture and freezing in the P3 servo
during certain flight conditions.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 2, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2008 (73
FR 49619). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states the following:

    There have been several reported incidents of high altitude,
dual engine flameout on JT15D-5 engine powered aircraft operating in
certain meteorological conditions. Subsequent to the investigation
of incidents, review of the engine design has revealed that the Fuel
Control Hydro Mechanical Unit (HMU) P3 servo can be exposed to
excessive moisture and freezing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Reference Hawker Beechcraft Service Bulletin for Wire
Harness

    One commenter, Flight Options, requests that we reference Hawker
Beechcraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB 73-3888, Revision 1, dated
July, 2008, in the AD. That SB instructs to re-route and secure the
throttle solenoid wire harness, and instructs to install a serviceable
compressor air to HMU delivery tube, using Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.
(P&WC) Alert SB No. JT15D-72-A7611, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2008.
The commenter states that without the proposed AD referring to the
Hawker Beechcraft SB, operators could leave wire harnesses unsecured,
potentially leading to other system failures.
    We partially agree. We recognize that instructions to re-route and
secure the throttle solenoid wire harness are contained in the Hawker
Beechcraft SB, and operators should refer to these requirements during
the modification. We do not agree that securing the throttle solenoid
wire harness needs to be mandated by this AD. However, we have added
the Hawker Beechcraft SB reference to the Related Information paragraph
in the AD.

Suggestion To Use Hawker Beechcraft SB for AD Compliance

    Flight Options suggests that the Hawker Beechcraft SB No. SB 73-
3888,

Revision 1, or later Revision, is a satisfactory method of compliance
with the proposed AD.
    We agree that the SB contains a satisfactory method of compliance,
but it also imposes additional requirements which are unnecessary.
Accordingly, we do not agree that compliance to the Hawker Beechcraft
SB needs to be mandated to prevent flameouts of one or both engines. We
did not change the AD.

Request To Change Compliance Period

    Flight Options requests that we change the proposed compliance
period of ``200 hours after the effective date of this AD or by
December 31, 2008'' to ``400 hours after the effective date of this AD
or by March 31, 2009''. The commenter did not provide any data to
substantiate their request.
    We do not agree. A short compliance period is necessary, in the
interest of safety. However, we changed the compliance to ``within 200
flight hours after the effective date of this AD or within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first''.

Suggestion To Add P&WC Alert SB No. JT15D-72-A7611, Revision 1, to
Previous Credit Paragraph

    Flight Options suggests that we add P&WC Alert SB No. JT15D-72-
A7611, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2008 to the Previous Credit paragraph
(h). The commenter notes that P&WC added two engine models to that SB
revision.
    We do not agree. Engines that have been made compliant per that SB
before the effective date of the AD are covered by compliance paragraph
(e) which states ``Unless already done, do the following actions.'' We
did not change the AD.

Request To Remove Cessna Airplanes From Applicability

    One commenter, Cessna Aircraft Company, requests that we remove the
references to Cessna airplanes from the applicability, as the affected
engines are not installed on Cessna airplanes.
    We agree. We removed the Cessna references from the AD.

Request To Remove Mitsubishi Airplanes From Applicability

    Hawker Beechcraft requests that we remove the references to
Mitsubishi MU-300 and MU-300-10 airplanes from the applicability, as
the affected engines are not installed on Mitsubishi airplanes.
    We agree. We removed the Mitsubishi references from the AD.

Claim That AD Is Not Needed

    One commenter, Hawker Beechcraft, claims that the AD is not needed.
The commenter states that the earlier FAA AD 2006-21-02 addresses the
problem, which at the time of AD issuance, was believed to be the
result of ice buildup in the engine core.
    We do not agree. While icing of the engine core stators remains the
most obvious contributor to the engine flameout issue, more recent
tests by P&WC have shown that freezing of the compressor air to HMU
delivery tube at altitudes of 37,000 feet and higher, is also a
contributing element. This AD is necessary to address required engine
installation changes.

Request To Revise AD 2006-21-02

    Hawker Beechcraft requests that we revise FAA AD 2006-21-02 to
incorporate the replacement of the compressor air to HMU delivery tube,
which is the subject of the proposed AD. The commenter states that
having two ADs addressing dual-engine flameouts will be confusing to
operators.
    We do not agree. While the first AD addresses operational issues at
the airplane level, a separate AD is required to mandate an engine
configuration change to incorporate improvements to the compressor air
to HMU delivery tube. This will eliminate a second contributor to the
in-flight engine shutdowns seen in service.

Request To Add the JT15D-5F Engine Model to the Costs of Compliance

    Hawker Beechcraft requests that we add the JT15D-5F engine model to
the costs of compliance, as this model is also affected by P&WC ASB No.
JT15D-72-A7611, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2008.
    We agree. We inadvertently listed the JT15D-5R engine model twice;
the second listing should have been -5F. We changed the costs of
compliance to read ``* * * and $3,169 per product for JT15D-5B and -5F
engines''.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 1,500 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$1,981 per product for JT15D-5 and -5R engines, and $3,169 per product
for JT15D-5B and -5F engines. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $4,222,500. Our cost estimate is
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-24-10 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Amendment 39-15750. Docket
No. FAA-2008-0752; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-22-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
2, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp. (P&WC) turbofan engines with compressor air to HMU delivery
tube, part number (P/N) 3119150-01 installed:
    (1) JT15D-5 turbofan engines, serial numbers (SNs) below and
including SN PCE-100411.
    (2) JT15D-5 turbofan engines, SNs below and including SN PCE-
JA0818.
    (3) All JT15D-5B turbofan engines.
    (4) All JT15D-5F turbofan engines.
    (5) JT15D-5R turbofan engines SNs below and including SN PCE-
JG0104.
    (6) All JT15D-5 turbofan engines converted to model JT15D-5R by
incorporation of P&WC Service Bulletin No. 7605.
    These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Hawker
Beechcraft models 400, 400A, and 400T airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Transport Canada AD CF-2008-23, dated June 27, 2008, states:

    There have been several reported incidents of high altitude,
dual engine flameout on JT15D-5 engine powered aircraft operating in
certain meteorological conditions. Subsequent to the investigation
of incidents, review of the engine design has revealed that the Fuel
Control Hydro Mechanical Unit (HMU) P3 servo can be exposed to
excessive moisture and freezing. To preclude P3 servo freezing, P&WC
has issued JT15D Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) JT15D-72-A7611 to re-
route compressor delivery air to the HMU and improve moisture
separation. Considering the potentially hazardous consequence of
possible in-flight dual engine flameout, this airworthiness
directive is issued to mandate the incorporation of P&WC ASB JT15D-
72-A7611 to the affected JT15D-5 engines, in order to minimize the
possibility of this hazard.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent engine flameouts of one or
both engines caused by excessive moisture and freezing in the P3
servo during certain flight conditions.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD
or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, remove from service compressor air to HMU delivery
tube, P/N 3119150-01.
    (2) Install a serviceable compressor air to HMU delivery tube in
accordance with P&WC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. JT15D-72-
A7611, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2008.

Prohibition of Compressor Air to HMU Delivery Tube, P/N 3119150-01

    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
compressor air to HMU delivery tube, P/N 3119150-01, onto any
engine.

Definition

    (f) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable compressor air to
HMU delivery tube is a compressor air to HMU delivery tube that is
other than the tube part number listed in this AD.
    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Previous Credit

    (h) Replacement of the compressor air to HMU delivery tube using
P&WC ASB No. JT15D-72-A7611, dated March 26, 2008, before the
effective date of this AD, meets the requirements of this AD.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2008-23, dated June 27,
2008, for related information.
    (j) Hawker Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. SB 73-3888, Revision
1, dated July 2008, also pertains to the subject of this AD.
    (k) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Alert Service
Bulletin No. JT15D-72-A7611, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2008, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 19, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-28062 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 50685]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4189-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4189-DR), dated August 13,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 13, 2014, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Tennessee resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding during the period of June 5-10, 2014, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Tennessee.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael Moore, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Tennessee have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Anderson, Bledsoe, Carroll, Decatur, Henry, Hickman, Houston,
Lawrence, Lewis, Madison, Marion, Maury, McNairy, Moore, Perry,
Roane, Sequatchie, and Tipton Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas in the State of Tennessee are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-20145 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13242-13244]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0044; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-25]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Bakersfield,
CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class D airspace, at
Meadows Field Airport. This action also proposes to modify the Class E
airspace designated as a surface area and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Additionally, this
action proposes several administrative corrections to the Class D,
Class E2, and Class E5 text headers. Lastly, this action proposes to
update the term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' in the last sentence of
the Class D's airspace description to ``Chart Supplement.'' This action
would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0044; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-25, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Meadows Field
Airport, Bakersfield, CA, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both

docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed
above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. FAA-2021-0044; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-25''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying
the Class D airspace at Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield, CA. The
Class D is not sized properly to contain IFR arrivals descending below
1,000 feet above the surface, or IFR departures to 700 feet above the
surface. To properly contain IFR arrivals, the circular radius should
be reduced from 5 miles to 4.5 miles. To properly contain IFR
departures flying toward or over rising terrain, three areas should be
added to the circular radius, one to the southeast of the airport and
two to the northwest of the airport.
    Additionally, this action proposes to modify the lateral boundaries
of the Class E airspace designated as a surface area, to be coincident
with the Class D airspace area.
    The action also proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. The airspace is not sized
properly to contain IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the
surface, or IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface. This
airspace area should be reduced southeast of the airport and increased
northwest of the airport.
    Further, this action proposes to remove the Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace area
is wholly contained within the Los Angeles en route airspace area, and
duplication is not necessary.
    This action also proposes to update the last sentence in the Class
D and Class E2 airspace descriptions by replacing the term ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement.''
    Lastly, the action proposes several administrative updates. The
second line of the Class D, Class E2, and Class E5 text headers
includes the city name ``Bakersfield''. The city name should be removed
from this line of text. The airport's geographic coordinates listed in
the third line of the text header for the Class D, Class E2, and Class
E5 do not match the FAA's database. The coordinates should be updated
to lat. 35[deg]26'02'' N, long. 119[deg]03'28'' W.
    Class D, E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA D Bakersfield, CA [Amended]

Meadows Field Airport, CA
    (Lat. 35[deg]26'02'' N, long. 119[deg]03'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of the airport, and within
1.8 miles each side of the 134[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.5-mile

radius to 5.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles
each side of the 316[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4.5-mile radius to 5.3 miles northwest of the airport, and
within 1.9 miles each side of the 331[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 6.8 miles northwest of Meadows
Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Bakersfield, CA [Amended]

Meadows Field Airport, CA
    (Lat. 35[deg]26'02'' N, long. 119[deg]03'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-
mile radius of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the
134[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.5-mile
radius to 5.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles
each side of the 316[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4.5-mile radius to 5.3 miles northwest of the airport, and
within 1.9 miles each side of the 331[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 6.8 miles northwest of Meadows
Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Bakersfield, CA [Amended]

Meadows Field Airport, CA
    (Lat. 35[deg]26'02'' N, long. 119[deg]03'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.8 miles east
and 8.8 miles west of the 337[deg] bearing from the airport,
beginning 3.5 miles northwest of the airport and extending to 19.6
miles northwest of Meadows Field Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 22, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-04016 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50576-50577]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0413; Amdt. No. 29-55]
RIN 2120-AJ51

Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic Structures; OMB Approval
of Information Collection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; OMB approval of information collection.

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

SUMMARY: This document notifies the public of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB's) approval of the information collection requirement
contained in the FAA's final rule, ``Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of
Metallic Structures,'' which was published on December 2, 2011.

DATES: The rule published on December 2, 2011, and became effective on
January 31, 2012. However, at the time of publication, the new
information collection requirements imposed by 14 CFR 29.571, lacked
OMB approval. This document announces receipt of OMB's June 28, 2012
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Sharon Y. Miles, Regulations and Policy Group,
Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0111; telephone number (817)
222-5122; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
legal questions concerning this action, contact Theresa D. Dunn,
Directorate Counsel, ASW-7G8, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0007; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final rule, ``Fatigue Tolerance
Evaluation of Metallic Structures,'' published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 75435) on December 2, 2011. In that rule, the FAA addresses
advances in structural fatigue substantiation technology for metallic
structures that provides an increased level of safety by avoiding or
reducing the likelihood of the catastrophic fatigue failure of a
metallic structure. These increased safety requirements help ensure
that should serious accidental damage occur during manufacturing or
within the operational life of the rotorcraft, the remaining structure
could withstand, without failure, any fatigue loads that are likely to
occur, until the damage is detected or the part is replaced.
    In a correction document (77 FR 4890), published February 1, 2012,
the FAA revised the DATES section of the final rule, noting that
affected parties were not required to comply with the new information
collection requirements in Sec.  29.571 until OMB approved the FAA's
request to collect the information. Section 29.571 includes new
provisions requiring an applicant, when trying to obtain type
certification of a rotorcraft, to submit substantiating data to show
that the rotorcraft complies with specific certification requirements.
OMB's approval for the information collection requirement was pending
at the time of Sec.  29.571 publication.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FAA submitted the new
information collection requirements for OMB review. OMB approved the
collection on

June 28, 2012, and assigned the information collection OMB Control
Number 2120-0752, which expires on June 30, 2015.
    This publication informs affected parties of the approval and
announces that as of June 28, 2012, affected parties are required to
comply with the new information collection requirements in Sec.
29.571.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-20684 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9437-9439]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1015; Project Identifier 2019-CE-014-AD; Amendment
39-21942; AD 2022-04-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH and Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG
Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders and Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau
GmbH Model Duo Discus T gliders with a Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo
Model 2350C or 2350D engine installed. This AD was prompted by
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as failure of the bearing of the upper pulley of the belt
driven reduction gear resulting in separation of the propeller from the
engine. This AD requires replacing a certain hex-nut and establishing a
life limit for the ball bearing assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 29, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 29,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, D71050 Sindelfingen,
Germany; phone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email:
germany.com">[email protected]germany.com; website: http://aircraft.solo-online.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1015.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1015; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH
Model DG-1000T gliders and Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Duo
Discus T gliders with a Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo Model 2350C or
2350D engine, all serial numbers, installed. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2021 (86 FR 68168). The NPRM was
prompted by MCAI originated by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0029, dated February 8, 2019
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe
condition on Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo Model 2350B, 2350BS, 2350C,
and 2350D engines. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported of failure of the bearing of the
upper pulley of the belt driven reduction gear, resulting in
separation of the propeller from the engine.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to similar
occurrences, with possible reduced control of, and damage to, the
aircraft.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Solo redesigned the
nut securing the pulley bearing on the axle and introduced a life
time limit of 15 years for the reduction gear bearings.
    For the reason stated above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement
of affected parts with serviceable parts, and introduces a life
limit for the affected ball bearings.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1015.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin 4603-18,
dated January 22, 2019. The service information specifies procedures
for replacing the hex-nut at the excentric axle and the ball bearing
assemblies at the bearing block of the reduction gear. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI applies to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo Model 2350B,
2350BS, 2350C, and 2350D engines. None of these model engines have an
FAA engine type certificate. However, Model 2350C and Model 2350D
engines are certificated by the FAA with the type certificate for
certain gliders. This AD does not apply to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo
Model 2350B and 2350BS engines because they are not part of an FAA
glider type design.
    The MCAI requires replacing an affected ball bearing assembly
before it accumulates 15 years since first installation on an engine.
This AD requires replacing both ball bearing assemblies simultaneously
before either accumulates 15 years since first installation on an
engine.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 gliders of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates that for gliders with an affected hex-nut,
replacement would take about 0.5 work-hour and require a part costing
$95. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, the FAA estimates the cost to replace the hex-nut on U.S.
operators to be $1,380 (assuming all 10 gliders have this
configuration) or $138 per glider.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that for gliders with the affected
ball bearing assemblies, replacement would take about 4 work-hours for
both ball bearing assemblies and require ball bearing assemblies
costing $118 (2 units). The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the ball bearing
assembly replacement on U.S. operators to be $4,580 (assuming all 10
gliders have this configuration) or $458 per glider.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2022-04-01 DG Flugzeugbau GmbH and Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
Gliders: Amendment 39-21942; Docket No. FAA-2021-1015; Project
Identifier 2019-CE-014-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 29, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders
and Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Duo Discus T gliders,
certificated in any category, with a Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Solo
Model 2350C or 2350D engine, all serial numbers, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine
(Turbine/Turboprop).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the
bearing of the upper pulley of the belt driven reduction gear. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent separation of the propeller from
the engine. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
loss of control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions and Compliance

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, remove
the nut installed at the excentric axle from service and replace it
with a nut in accordance with the Condition section, paragraph a),
of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin 4603-18, dated January
22, 2019.
    (2) Before either ball bearing assembly at the bearing block of
the reduction gear accumulates 15 years since first installation on
an engine or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15
years, remove both ball bearing assemblies from service and replace
with new (zero hours time-in-service) ball bearing assemblies in
accordance with the Condition section, paragraph b), of Solo
Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin 4603-18, dated January 22, 2019.
    (3) After replacing the ball bearing assemblies required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, record compliance in the aircraft log
book. The entry must include: (1) Reduction gear part number (P/N)
and serial number; and (2) date ball bearing assemblies were
replaced.
    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a hex-
nut P/N 0028143 on any engine.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install ball
bearing assembly P/N 0050110 on any engine unless it is new (zero
hours time-in-service).

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0029, dated February 8, 2019, 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-2021-1015.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin 4603-18, dated
January 22, 2019.
    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2)(i): This service information contains
German to English translation. EASA used the English translation in
referencing the document from Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH. For
enforceability purposes, the FAA will cite the service information
in English as it appears on the document.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Solo
Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, D71050 Sindelfingen, Germany;
phone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email: germany.com">[email protected]germany.com; website: http://aircraft.solo-online.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 1, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03591 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P