[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62856-62859]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0688; FRL-9918-10-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Control of Emissions From Hand-Fired Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012, related to a
Missouri rule titled ``Control of Emissions from Hand-Fired
Equipment.'' Today's action approves a revision to the Missouri SIP
that allows the burning of discarded clean wood in non-residential
(commercial owned and operated) heating devices, with restrictions to
ensure environmentally-sound operation, in the St. Louis metropolitan
area.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 22, 2014,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
20, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0688, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0688. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is a SIP?
II. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
III. What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me?
IV. What is being addressed in this document?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
established by the EPA. These standards are established under section
109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants.
These pollutants are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
EPA for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

II. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to EPA and requests that it be included into the
state's SIP. EPA must provide public notice and seek additional public
comment before it takes final action on the state's request to modify,
or revise its implementation plan.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright, but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have

approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date by
referencing it directly in the CFR.

III. What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. After the regulation is Federally-approved, EPA is
authorized to take enforcement action against violators of the state
requirement. As a result of Federal enforceability, citizens are also
offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section
304 of the CAA.

IV. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the SIP
submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012, related to Missouri
rule 10 CSR 10-5.040, ``Control of Emissions from Hand-Fired
Equipment.'' This revision allows commercial facilities to burn clean
scrap wood in hand-fired equipment operating in the St. Louis
metropolitan area, as long as the device is operated at the same
location that the clean scrap wood is generated.
    To ensure that emissions of pollutants that result from this
provision will not affect the ability of the St. Louis metropolitan
area to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
MDNR estimated the emission increases the area may experience as
commercial facilities utilize the provision. The MDNR analysis first
estimated the number of facilities that would take advantage of the
provision, then estimated the amount of pollutants emitted from hand-
fired heating equipment using clean scrap wood as a fuel. The MDNR
analysis of emissions relied on EPA's compilation of air pollution
emission factors (AP-42) guidance to estimate the emissions from
commercial facilities taking advantage of the new provision. The
analysis submitted by MDNR determined that on a seasonal basis the
greatest pollutant increase would be a less than 0.5 percent increase
in carbon monoxide (CO), with other NAAQS pollutants showing increasing
that are orders of magnitude lower. A description of the analysis and
estimated emissions that result from the provision, prepared by MDNR,
is included in the docket for this final rule.
    In EPA's review of MDNR's technical analysis, we agree that due to
the limited number of commercial facilities utilizing the provision the
resulting increase in emissions caused by burning clean wood in heating
devices would be negligible. MDNR's analysis assumed individual heating
units using a mix of oak and pine with a moisture content indicative of
``dry wood'' over a normal heating season. The estimated emissions from
this analysis show that the devices produce a negligible increase in
NAAQS pollutants when compared to the current St. Louis metropolitan
area emissions inventory.
    In the analysis, MDNR specifically estimated the emissions from the
operation of up to 50 devices in the metropolitan area burning clean
dry wood at commercial facilities. While it is difficult to establish
realistic assumptions for this type of analysis, EPA believes this
component of the analysis is reasonable. At the time MDNR submitted the
SIP revision request to EPA for approval, there were three commercial
facilities in the St. Louis metropolitan area known to be using clean
scrap wood for heating purposes in five different combustion/heating
devices. These devices were operating at one pallet repair facility,
one lumber yard, and one arborist. These facilities generate
unadulterated, clean scrap wood waste as a normal course of doing
business.
    To calculate the potential emissions from the devices, MDNR used
EPA's AP-42 guidance and assumed the device[s] would only operate
during the heating season (22 weeks) for comfort heating at the
facilities as opposed to operating year round for the purpose of
destroying secondary materials generated by the commercial activity.
EPA believes estimating emissions based on the use of heating devices
only during the heating season is a reasonable assumption to make to
increase the accuracy of the estimate. MDNR's analysis estimated the
emissions from six pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM) of 10 microns
and less than 2.5 microns in size, CO, oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The analysis results are shown in table 1
below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2008 baseline emissions, used in the comparison shown in
table 1, was collected from EPA's 2008 emissions inventory for the
St. Louis metropolitan area and includes emissions from point and
nonpoint sources in the following counties and municipalities in MO:
Franklin County; Jefferson County; St. Charles County; St. Louis
County; and St. Louis City.

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of Devices
                                                                Emissions       2008       Increase  ---------------------------------------------------
                          Pollutant                             per device    Baseline    per device              5                        50
                                                                  (tons)     emissions       (%)     ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                               (tons)                     Tons       Percent        Tons       Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................................................       0.0815       16,670     0.000489       0.4077      0.00245       4.0771      0.02446
PM10.........................................................       0.0947      109,306     0.000087       0.4735      0.00043       4.7347      0.00433
CO...........................................................       0.1578       33,867     0.000466       0.7891      0.00233       7.8912      0.02330
NOX..........................................................       0.1289       44,285     0.000291       0.6444      0.00146       6.4445      0.01455
SOX..........................................................       0.0066      213,756     0.000003       0.0329      0.00002       0.3288      0.00015
VOC..........................................................       0.0045       43,430     0.000010       0.0224      0.00005       0.2236      0.00051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis shows that increases in emissions in the St. Louis
metropolitan area produced through the use of this provision are
insignificant, and will not meaningfully impact the attainment status
of the area with respect to the NAAQS.
    The St. Louis metropolitan area is currently classified as moderate
nonattainment for PM2.5 and marginal nonattainment for
ozone. PM2.5, or fine particulate matter is produced by a
variety of commercial and noncommercial sources in the St. Louis
metropolitan area, and based on the analysis even if 50 commercial
facilities were to begin heating with scrap wood generated onsite, the
resulting emissions would only increase the current PM2.5
emission's inventory by a factor of 0.0002 (or 4.1 tons out of 16,670
tons). EPA agrees that this relatively slight increase in
PM2.5 emissions will not

have a measurable impact on ambient PM2.5 concentrations in
the area. Furthermore emissions trends for PM2.5 currently
depict a decrease in ambient concentrations and this trending decrease
in PM2.5 far exceeds the emissions increase in
PM2.5 projected by MDNR's analysis.
    Ozone, the other pollutant that the St. Louis metropolitan area is
currently not attaining, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere
like PM or NOX. MDNR's analysis did not specifically address
ozone concentrations; however, due to a number of factors assessed by
EPA, we agree that the impact on attaining the ozone NAAQS will be
minimal. In support of this position, EPA notes that the restrictions
for the exceptions will greatly limit the number of commercial
facilities using the provision and therefore limit additional
pollutants released into the St. Louis metropolitan airshed. Also, EPA
considered that additional building heating is needed during periods of
the year in which colder temperatures and shorter periods of daylight
exist (months preceding and following the winter solstice) thus,
minimizing impacts on ambient ozone concentrations. In summary, EPA
agrees with MDNR's analysis that any additional ozone precursor
emissions that the revised provision adds to the area will not
contribute to the formation of ground level ozone in a meaningful way,
because the emissions occur during a period of the year in which the
conditions that favor ozone formation do not exist.
    MDNR solicited comments on the proposed provision during the
process to finalize this revision. In response to these solicitations,
MDNR received fifteen comments (two from EPA Region 7, one from the
commercial operator originally requesting the rule change, and the rest
from the St. Louis Health Department). In general, the comments
highlighted technical aspects of the provision that required
modification to increase clarity and aid compliance. MDNR modified the
proposed provision to address comments from EPA and the St. Louis
Health Department.

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. and
meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section
110 and implementing regulations.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve this SIP revision. We
are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed
rule to approve this SIP revision, if adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial

review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct
final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 24, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the table heading entitled ``Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air
Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area'' and
the entry under ``Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution
Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area'' for ``10-
5.040'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
       Missouri citation                  Title            effective   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 5--Air Quality Regulations and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.040.......................  Control of Emissions        05/30/12  10/21/14 [Insert
                                  from Hand-Fired                       Federal Register
                                  Equipment.                            citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24866 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44319-44321]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0657; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00478-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
maintenance, a fuse pin retaining the main landing gear support
structure (MLGSS) was found incorrectly engaged in the trunnion block
and improperly secured with the associated retaining pin, due to
incorrect installation during assembly. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the fuse pins and associated retaining pins of the MLGSS for
such discrepancies, and corrective action if necessary, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed
for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0657.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0657; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0657; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00478-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Nick
Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0112, dated April 22, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0112), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus
SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
maintenance, a fuse pin retaining the MLGSS was found incorrectly
engaged in the trunnion block and improperly secured with the
associated retaining pin; this was due to incorrect installation during
assembly. The FAA is proposing this AD to address incorrect fuse pin
installations, which could lead to premature failure of the retaining
pin and subsequent fuse pin migration and disconnection, and could
ultimately lead to main landing gear collapse and possible damage to
the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0112 describes procedures for a detailed inspection
for discrepancies (missing or migrated fuse pins, and fuse pins
improperly secured with the associated retaining pin) in the left- and
right-hand sides of the MLGSS trunnion block. The service information
also describes procedures for corrective

action (including replacement of discrepant fuse pins and the MLG
forward pintle assembly). This material is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0112 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0112 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0112 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0112 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0112. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0112 for compliance
will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0657 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 17 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85           $1,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                             Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 30 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up   Up to $4,410......................  Up to $6,960.
 to $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all
known costs in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0657; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00478-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 27, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0112, dated April 22,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0112).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
maintenance, a fuse pin retaining the main landing gear support
structure (MLGSS) was found incorrectly engaged in the trunnion
block and improperly secured with the associated retaining pin, due
to incorrect installation during assembly. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address incorrect fuse pin installations, which could lead to
premature failure of the retaining pin and subsequent fuse pin
migration and disconnection, and could ultimately lead to main
landing gear collapse and possible damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0112.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0112

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0112 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0112 specifies
contacting Airbus for approved instructions for corrective actions
for certain conditions, those corrective actions must be done using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0112 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0112
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0112, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0657.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Nick Wilson,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on August 4, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16934 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 37519-37520]
[DOCID:fr01jy08-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58017; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding a Clerical Change to a NASDAQ Rule

June 25, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 19, 2008, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. The Exchange filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to make a clerical correction to the Nasdaq
rulebook. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq's
principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.complinet.com/nasdaq.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to make a clerical correction to the Nasdaq
rulebook. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to renumber Nasdaq Rule 7039 to
Nasdaq Rule 7041.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq is renumbering Nasdaq Rule 7039 to Rule 7041 because
Nasdaq has filed other proposed rule changes that necessitate a
renumbering of Rule 7039. See e-mail from Jonathan Cayne, Nasdaq, to
Joseph Morra, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, dated June 20, 2008. Nasdaq is making no changes to Rule
7039, other than to change its number to 7041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
makes a minor clerical change to renumber an existing Nasdaq rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received with respect
to the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change is effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\9\ because it is

concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-056. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-056 and should be submitted on or before July
22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-14830 Filed 6-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P