[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28685-28686]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0046; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-1]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hannibal, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Hannibal,
MO. Decommissioning of the Hannibal non-directional beacon (NDB) at
Hannibal Regional Airport, Hannibal, MO, has made this action necessary
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Hannibal Regional Airport. This action also would change
the airport name to Hannibal Regional Airport, and update the
geographic coordinates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011.

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 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0046/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ACE-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. Commenters 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-2011-0046/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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 ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Hannibal Regional Airport, Hannibal, MO. Airspace reconfiguration is
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Hannibal NDB and
cancellation of the NDB approach. This action would also update the
airport name from ``Hannibal Municipal Airport'' to ``Hannibal Regional
Airport'' and adjust the geographic coordinates to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 modify controlled airspace at Hannibal Regional Airport,
Hannibal, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Hannibal, MO [Amended]

Hannibal Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 39[deg]43'31'' N., long. 91[deg]26'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Hannibal Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 11, 2011.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-12124 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30225]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1747-000]

Beaver Dam Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Beaver Dam Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 9, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12706 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Nitric Acid New Source Performance Standards – EPA’s Responses to
the

Petition for Reconsideration

Background

The initial Nitric Acid Plants New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
were published in the Federal Register (FR) on December 23, 1971 (36 FR
24881) and codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart G, pursuant to section
111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the
CAA, we have reviewed the NSPS three times. The first review was
completed on June 19, 1979 (44 FR 35265). The second review was
completed on April 5, 1984 (49 FR 13654). No changes were made to the
NSPS as a result of these two reviews. However, based on the results of
the third review, which we completed in August 2012, we determined it
was appropriate to revise the NSPS. The revisions to the NSPS based on
the third review were published on August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48433). The
revisions included a change in the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission limit,
from 3.0 pounds of NOx per ton of nitric acid production (3.0 lb/T) on a
3-hr basis to 0.5 lb/T on a 30-day average basis, and additional testing
and monitoring requirements.

Throughout the rulemaking process for this third review, we received
comments, data and information that supported these revisions. This
information is contained in the docket which is available at
http://www.regulations.gov. The revisions were proposed on October 14,
2011 (76 FR 63878). We received additional data and comments during the
comment period. These data and comments were considered and analyzed
and, where appropriate, revisions to the NSPS were made. The revised
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ga) were finalized on August 14, 2012 (77
FR 48433). The NSPS apply to new, modified or reconstructed nitric acid
production units (NAPUs) that commence construction, modification or
reconstruction after October 14, 2011.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) Requirements

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA states that “[o]nly an objection to a
rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during
the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impractical to raise such
objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for
reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as
would have been afforded had the information been available at the time
the rule was proposed.”

As to the first procedural criterion for reconsideration, a petitioner
must show why the issue could not have been presented during the comment
period, either because it was impractical to raise the issue during that
time or because the grounds for the issue arose after the period for
public comment (but within 60 days of publication of the final action).
In the EPA’s view, an objection is of central relevance to the outcome
of the rule only if it provides substantial support for the argument
that the promulgated regulation should be revised. See, e.g., the
EPA’s “Denial of the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202 of
the Clean Air Act,” 75 FR 49556, 49561 (August 13, 2010). See also, 75
FR 49556, 49560 – 49563 (August 13, 2010) and 76 FR 4780, 4786 –
4788 (January 26, 2011) for additional discussion of the standard for
reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

On October 10, 2012, Dyno Nobel Inc. (DNI) submitted a Petition for
Reconsideration and judicial review of the final rule for Nitric Acid
Plants (77 FR 48433). The EPA has carefully reviewed the points raised
in the Petition and is denying the Petition for the reasons described
below.

A.  Subcategory for Modified or Reconstructed Plants that Use NSCR to
Control NOx

Claim: The petitioner states that “as EPA long ago recognized,”
nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) is not an end of pipe control
technology, as some would describe selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
The petitioner claims that there are significant and fundamental
differences between NAPUs using SCR and NSCR. NSCR is designed
differently from an SCR because an NSCR is built into, and is an
integral part of the operation of a NAPU, particularly in terms of heat
balance and energy generation for other parts of the NAPU. NAPUs with an
NSCR must keep temperatures elevated in order to create the reductive
environment within the unit that eliminates NOx. To ensure temperatures
and pressures are adequate for this reductive environment, the NSCR is
placed upstream of the tail gas expander. Because of these differences,
the petitioner believes the EPA should have established a subcategory
for NAPUs with NSCR with regard to emissions limits for modified or
reconstruction of existing sources.

EPA’s Response: Section 111(b)(2) of the CAA states that “The
Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within
categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such
standards.” Pursuant to this discretionary authority, the general EPA
policy is that if one or more segments of an industry have significant
differences in class, type or size of production processes or designs,
which result in significant differences in the potential emissions, then
we consider developing a subcategory or subcategories for these
different segments. However, we believe it is inappropriate to establish
subcategories based on differences in control technologies, and decline
to exercise our discretion to do so here.

As we explained in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, the
EPA clearly considers NSCR, as well as SCR, to be emissions control
technologies. Therefore, for this reason alone, it would not be
appropriate to establish a subcategory for units with NSCR. We are
unaware of the basis of DNI’s claim that the EPA “recognized” NSCR
as not being an emissions control technology. This is incorrect. None of
the 14 NAPUs in the U.S. using NSCR has additional NOx control after
NSCR. NSCR is the emissions control technology for these 14 NAPUs. There
are about 50 NAPUs in the U.S. The petitioner owns and operates seven of
the 14 NSCR units.

A possible justification for developing a subcategory (or a different
emissions limit) for existing NAPUs that become subject to this NSPS
through modification or reconstruction would be a determination that it
is technically impossible or cost prohibitive for a number of existing
NAPUs with NSCR to achieve the NSPS emission limit if these units are
modified or reconstructed. As described below in section C, there are
examples where some existing NAPUs with NSCR already achieve the NSPS
emission limit and, therefore, would have no additional control costs if
they were modified or reconstructed. Furthermore, the costs for most
other existing NSCR units to comply with the NSPS, if such units were
modified or reconstructed, are not expected to be excessive (as
described further in section D below). If it were the case that the
costs to comply with the NSPS for one specific NAPU with NSCR were
excessive, that would not by itself justify developing a subcategory for
one, or for a very limited number, of the NSPS affected facilities.
Thus, there is no basis for subcategorizing units using NSCR from units
using SCR.

B.  Petitioner Believes EPA had Insufficient Data

Claim: The petitioner claims that the EPA cannot meet the legal
requirement that data relied on for setting an NSPS must be sufficiently
“representative of potential industry–wide performance” because
none of the plants that were tested for the NSPS review (i.e., test
plants) use NSCR. Also, the test plants in the EPA’s analysis do not
face the conditions, limitations in the ability to modify plant
operations, or the resulting impacts on NOx emissions that NAPUs with
NSCR face. The petitioner claims the EPA cannot meet the mandates of
National Lime Association v. EPA (DC Circuit 1981) and Sierra Club v.
Costle (DC Circuit 1981) that data used in setting an NSPS must be
sufficiently “representative of potential industry-wide
performance.”

EPA’s Response: As required under section 111(a) of the CAA, 1990
Amendments, NSPS emission limits are based on the emission levels
achieved by the best systems of emission reduction (BSER) while
considering the costs and any nonair quality health, environmental
impact and energy requirements of these systems. As noted in the
preamble to the final rule (77 FR 48436), we concluded that SCR is BSER
for NAPUs. As discussed in detail in the preambles to the proposed and
final rule as well as the Response to Comment document, we determined we
had ample emission test data to support SCR as BSER and that we had
sufficient data to determine the appropriate revised emissions limit for
NOx. However, we also explained that the NSPS does not require the use
and installation of a specific control device as long as the affected
facility complies with the NSPS. For example, as described in more
detail in section C below, available data indicate that some NAPUs with
NSCR can meet the revised limit without the need for any additional
controls.

C.  Achievability of Complying with Standard for Existing Plants Using
NSCR

Claim: The petitioner claims that there are insufficient data showing
that existing plants using NSCR can meet the emission limit. The
petitioner notes that there was no notice in the proposed rule that the
EPA would use continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data from
DNI’s Oregon plant as the primary basis for supporting the rule for
NSCR. The petitioner believes that this plant is not representative of
NAPU using NSCR in the U.S. for at least three reasons. First, the plant
is very small, only 70 tons per day (TPD) of nitric acid is produced.
DNI’s largest NAPU produces 520 TPD. Second, the plant is not a
typical NAPU as it was built for the sole function of scrubbing
emissions from an on-site urea plant. This plant functions without
maximizing acid purity or production rate as do other NAPUs. Thus, the
relative vessel sizes and flow rates that are found in an NSCR used at a
commercial NAPU are much different than DNI’s Oregon plant. Third, the
fuel used for the plant’s NSCR (purge gas from an on-site ammonia
plant – 65-percent hydrogen) is unusual. Four of DNI’s seven NAPUs
with NSCR use methane which, according to the petitioner, is the common
fuel for NSCRs at NAPUs. The petitioner also claims that the use of
hydrogen in fuel results in significantly lower NOx emissions at the
Oregon plant. Furthermore, the petitioner states that the only other
data cited by the EPA to support that the NSPS emissions limit is
achievable for NAPUs with NSCR are monthly averages from the JR Simplot
plant, which, according to the EPA, indicate a “strong probability”
that this NAPU with NSCR would comply with this NSPS.

EPA’s Response: As noted in the preambles to the proposed and final
rules, the EPA has determined that SCR is BSER, so there is no
requirement that the EPA conclude that NAPUs with NSCR can meet the
revised limit without additional controls. Nevertheless, we still
evaluated the potential for NAPUs with NSCR to achieve the revised
limit. As explained further below, we disagree that there are
insufficient data showing that some existing plants with NSCR can
achieve the revised limit.

As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we had long term CEMS
data from two NAPUs with NSCR which indicated difficulty in meeting the
NSPS emission limit. However, we also noted we had monthly block
averages (often 30-day periods, which are the same time period of the
NSPS emission limit) from two other facilities using NSCR, including
DNI’s Oregon plant (also known as the Deer Island plant or St. Helens
plant) and the JR Simplot-Helm plant, that indicated these plants are
achieving the NSPS limit. We noted that the monthly averages for both
plants ranged from 0.15 to 0.36 lb NOx/T of 100-percent acid; well below
the emission standard of 0.50 lb/T. We also noted that since these data
were not rolling 30-day averages like the NSPS emission limit, but
rather monthly averages, it was not exactly a direct comparison with
CEMS data. However, we stated that these monthly averages indicate that
at least some NAPUs with NSCR would be able to achieve the emission
limit without additional controls (76 FR 63882).

In the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 48437), we provided additional
information and analyses that indicate the same two NAPUs with NSCR
described in the proposal (i.e., DNI’s Oregon Plant and JR
Simplot-Helm plant) can meet the NSPS emission limit. Regarding the DNI
Oregon plant, we received CEMS data for this plant after proposal that
allowed us to calculate 30-day rolling averages. Based on these data, we
determined that the maximum rolling 30-day emission rate was 0.21 lb/T
acid for the DNI Oregon plant, which is well below the NSPS limit of
0.50 lb/T.  Regarding the JR Simplot-Helm plant, we explained again
that, based on available data, this plant had monthly averages that
ranged from 0.15 to 0.36 lb/T, which indicates this unit can also
achieve the limit of 0.50 lb/T. Therefore, similar to the proposal, we
concluded again in the preamble to the final rule that the NOx emission
limit was achievable for some NAPUs with NSCR.

Since the final rule, we have re-analyzed the JR Simplot data, which
includes CEMS data. This re-analysis of JR Simplot CEMS data showed that
it is possible to determine 30-day rolling averages for this unit. For
the period, January 1, 2011, thru August 1, 2011, the 30-day rolling
averages range from 0.063 to 0.19 lb/T. The average 30-day average was
0.11 lb/T. Thus, this unit, which is controlled with NSCR, easily meets
the NSPS emission limit.

With this re-analysis of the JR Simplot data, we have CEMS data from two
NAPUs with NSCR that clearly achieve the NSPS limit. Parameters for the
JR Simplot plant refute DNI’s contention that the DNI plant in Oregon
is only able to meet the emission limit because it is non-representative
of NAPUs with NSCR for the three points that DNI mentions. The JR
Simplot plant is larger (230 TPD) than DNI’s Oregon plant (41 TPD).
The sole plant function at JR Simplot is to produce nitric acid. It also
uses a fuel for NSCR (butane) that is similar to methane used in four of
the seven NSCR controls at DNI plants.

While reviewing DNI’s reconsideration petition, we requested CEMS data
for DNI’s other plants with NSCR. DNI submitted data for two of their
other units with NSCR, including the only unit with NSCR that DNI
identified as being considered for modification (i.e., Unit 3 at DNI’s
Cheyenne, Wyoming plant). These data indicate that for many 30-day
periods, Unit 3 had emissions below the NSPS limit. We acknowledge that
this existing NAPU has not achieved emissions below the NSPS limit for
all periods in the past. However, that does not mean that they would not
be able to comply with the NSPS emission limit in the future if they
decide to modify this unit, especially if they take reasonable measures
to improve process operations and/or add emissions controls during the
modification or reconstruction process.

It is uncertain what equipment and/or controls DNI would have to install
in order to be in continuous compliance with the NSPS if they decided to
modify or reconstruct this unit. Nevertheless, we expect that by adding
a pre-heater, they could significantly reduce their NOx emissions during
startups and shutdowns. Furthermore, by changing the catalyst more
frequently, they could decrease their NOx emissions. We believe by
applying these two relatively inexpensive measures, it is likely that
this DNI unit could be in continuous compliance with the revised NSPS
limit. Otherwise, the other option would be to install an SCR control
which would be more expensive, but still reasonable. Costs for
retrofitting an SCR are described below in section D.

D.  Costs of Complying for Modified or Reconstructed NAPUs Currently
Using NSCR

Claim: The petitioner claims that it would not be possible to meet the
NOx standard without cost-prohibitive retrofits for existing NAPUs with
NSCR. The petitioner stated that it is considering modifying a plant
that currently uses NSCR and claims that retrofit costs required for an
NSCR plant to install SCR and meet the NSPS were not considered in the
rulemaking.

The petitioner also claims the EPA stated in its proposed rule that it
was “uncertain” whether NAPUs with NSCR could meet the NOx emission
limit as the EPA had not reviewed any CEMS data for these units that met
this limit. The petitioner states that the EPA did not evaluate the
additional steps that are required for these units to meet the emission
limit. Also, according to the petitioner, the EPA did not evaluate the
impacts these steps would have on operations and the costs for these
steps.

In December 2012, after DNI submitted its petition, in response to
questions from the EPA, DNI supplied information on estimated costs for
its Donora, PA plant to retrofit SCR to an existing NAPU with NSCR. With
these estimates, DNI asserts that the total annual cost to retrofit the
Donora unit to install an SCR would be an estimated $1,565,000, and that
the cost effectiveness of this control would be $11,000 per ton of NOx
removed.

EPA’s Response: As noted in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR
48439), we evaluated the costs of controls for an actual NAPU plant that
was modified. The plant installed SCR at a capital cost of $2,700,000.
The cost effectiveness was $1,360/T of NOx removed. We concluded that
these costs and cost effectiveness were reasonable.

The EPA concludes that retrofitting a NAPU with an NSCR to add SCR (or
add other control measures) to meet the NSPS would not, in the vast
majority of circumstances, incur substantially more costs than
retrofitting any other NAPU. With regards to the Donora unit, it has a
unique design, is the only remaining NAPU of its kind and is equipped
with a 1960s era NSCR device that is considerably less effective than
more modern NSCR devices. For this reason, the Donora NAPU emits
considerably more NOx than most NSCR controlled NAPUs, and retrofitting
it with an SCR may present engineering challenges and potential
additional costs that would not be present for retrofitting the vast
majority of other NAPUs. Therefore, the EPA believes these estimated
costs provided by DNI are not representative of a typical existing NAPU
with NSCR that may need to retrofit controls to meet the NSPS.

Most existing NAPUs use SCR, the control technology that we determined
is the BSER. There are no expected additional control costs for most (or
all) of these units if they are modified or reconstructed and become
subject to the NSPS, as we expect most (or all) of existing NAPUs with
SCR to be in compliance with the emission limit. For a few cases,
minimal changes may be needed for NAPUs with SCR and, if so, costs are
expected to be low.

For the 14 NAPUs with NSCR, some already are complying with the NSPS
(e.g., the DNI Oregon and JR Simplot plants), so little or no control
costs would be incurred if these existing NAPUs with NSCR become subject
to this NSPS through modification or reconstruction. Control costs may
well be minimal or zero for several other of the 14 NSCR units. Some
NAPUs with NSCR could incur larger costs if they become subject to the
NSPS, but the costs are generally not expected to be more than $1,360/T.
Finally, even if there are one or a few NAPUs with NSCR that would not
be able to meet this NSPS in a cost-effective manner, courts have
recognized that an NSPS may be considered "adequately
demonstrated" even if not all existing sources would be able to meet
it. Portland Cement Assn. v. Ruckelhaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir.
1973) ("We begin by rejecting the suggestion of the cement manufacturers
that the Act's requirement that emission limitations be ‘adequately
demonstrated' necessarily implies that any cement plant now in existence
be able to meet the proposed standards.").

It should be noted that rather than the Donora unit, the NAPU that DNI
is considering modifying is Cheyenne Unit 3. The additional air
pollution control/practices and associated costs needed for Cheyenne
Unit 3 are uncertain. However, as shown in section C above, CEMS data
for this unit show many periods of compliance. Furthermore, there are a
number of possible options under which this unit could meet the revised
NSPS for a reasonable cost. First, an SCR might not have to be
installed. For example, we believe Unit 3 could potentially comply by
fine tuning the NSCR, adding additional catalyst to the NSCR, adding a
preheater to lower NOx emissions during startups and replacing the
catalyst more frequently. If these measures did not achieve the NSPS
emission limit, Cheyenne’s Unit 3 could possibly comply with the NSPS
by installing a “mini” SCR with much less catalyst and using much
less ammonia than a full-size SCR. In any event, making retrofits or
other improvements necessary to meet the NSPS at Cheyenne Unit 3 would
be considerably less expensive than what DNI claims would be necessary
for the Donora unit. Since DNI’s cost estimates are entirely based on
the cost of retrofits to the Donora unit, the cost of retrofitting
Cheyenne Unit 3 would be much lower than estimated by DNI, and are
likely consistent with the EPA’s estimated cost-effectiveness value of
$1,360/T for a modified or reconstructed NAPU (77 FR 48442).
Nevertheless, as stated above in section A, if the costs for most plants
would be reasonable, but costs for an individual NAPU are considerably
higher, that itself would not justify developing a subcategory for one
or for a very limited number of NAPUs.

Finally, an in-depth look at DNI’s Donora plant estimates suggests
that these costs could be overestimated. We note that the estimated
annual cost provided by DNI associated with retrofitting the Donora unit
is mostly energy costs ($916,000 per year or 59 percent of the total
annual cost) calculated based on steam losses associated with the
removal of an economizer that DNI asserts is necessary to accommodate
the installation of an SCR. We believe more cost-effective options
likely exist for replacing this lost steam, such as installing a
replacement economizer, that were not evaluated in DNI’s analysis.

E.  DNI Did Not Have a Chance to Comment on Analysis Presented in Final
Rule

Claim: The petitioner states that section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
requires the EPA to grant reconsideration when the petitioner:

	“[C]an demonstrate to the Administrator that is was impracticable to
raise [an] objection [during the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public
comment…and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome
of the rule.”

The petitioner further states the standards for reconsideration are
clearly met. First, no interested party, including DNI, had any notice
in the proposed NSPS that the EPA would utilize CEMS data from DNI’s
Oregon plant as the primary basis for supporting the rule’s
application to NAPUs with NSCR and rejecting the petitioner’s request
for a separate emission limit for these units. This is clearly stated in
the preamble to the final rule as the EPA admits that these data were
evaluated “after proposal.” If the EPA had included this evaluation
in the proposed rule, the petitioner states that they would have
commented that DNI’s Oregon plant is not representative of overall
industry performance of NAPUs with NSCR.

Also, the petitioner stated that, as noted in their subsequent comments
regarding the DNI Oregon plant, their objection is most certainly “of
central relevance to the outcome.” The petitioner states that DNI’s
Oregon plant is the only hourly CEMS data showing compliance with the
NSPS emission limit. Thus, the petitioner believes that the Nitric Acid
NSPS is arbitrary and capricious as it relates to NAPU with NSCR.

EPA’s Response: First, it should be noted that data for DNI’s Oregon
plant were described in the preamble to the proposed rule. At proposal,
we stated we had monthly block averages for this NAPU, as well as for
the JR Simplot plant (76 FR 63882). These averages were well below the
NSPS emission limit. These averages were not 30-day rolling averages,
however, these data still indicated these two NSCRs could likely meet
the NSPS emission limit of 0.50 lb/T on a 30-day rolling average.

The data that the EPA further evaluated after proposal and prior to
promulgation were hourly CEMS data for DNI’s Oregon plant that we
requested in the preamble to the proposed rule. These data were
requested to assist in evaluating whether NSCR can achieve the NSPS
emission limit. The rolling 30-day averages for this NAPU with NSCR meet
the NSPS emission limit. We also had data from another NAPU controlled
by NSCR, JR Simplot, as described above (in section C). In the proposal,
we noted that monthly averages from the JR Simplot plant were below the
revised limit. After the final rule was promulgated, we re-analyzed data
from the JR Simplot plant based on evaluation of hourly CEMS data. The
re-evaluation of the JR Simplot hourly data also show that JR
Simplot’s emissions are well below the NSPS emission limit and could
easily comply with the NSPS. The CEMS data for these two NAPUs with NSCR
show that the NSPS emission limit can be achieved by some NAPUs with
NSCR.

F.  Conclusion

In response to the reconsideration petition, we have reviewed the
data/analysis supplied by the petitioner. Also, we have reviewed and
analyzed previously available data to evaluate the claims made in the
reconsideration petition. Our responses to all issues raised by the
petitioner are explained in detail above in sections A through E, and
summarized below.

Regarding the petitioner’s request for a subcategory for modified or
reconstructed nitric acid plants that use NSCR, the main points are as
follows:

First, in section A, we explained that we believe it is inappropriate to
establish subcategories based on differences in control technologies, so
it is inappropriate to establish a subcategory for plants using NSCR.
Also, we believe it is technically possible for existing NAPUs with NSCR
to achieve the NSPS emission limit if they were to be modified or
reconstructed.

Second, as described in sections C – E above, we believe it is
feasible for some units with NSCR to comply with this NSPS without the
need for any additional controls as some existing units with NSCR are
already achieving the NSPS emission limit.

Third, as described in section D above, we believe other units with NSCR
that are modified or reconstructed, could comply with the NSPS limit by
improving their controls at reasonable costs.

Finally, regarding the petitioner’s argument that the EPA did not meet
the legal requirement of having representative emission data to set an
emission limit, as explained in section B above, we had ample test data
to support SCR as BSER and to establish a revised emission limit.

Therefore, based on our review and evaluation of all issues raised by
the petitioner and relevant available data and information, we have
concluded that reconsideration is not warranted.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8

Enclosure

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2465-2467]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01237]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1068; Product Identifier 2018-NM-140-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A319-113 and -114 airplanes, and Model A320-211 and -
212 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a life-
limit of 64,000 flight cycles has been established for certain titanium
crossbeams of the forward engine mount. This proposed AD would require
repetitive replacements of all affected crossbeams of the forward
engine mount. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 25, 2019.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the
``Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51'' section in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; 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, Transport Standards 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 http://www.regulations.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1068; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-1068;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-140-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0212, dated September 28, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0212'') (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model
A319-113 and -114 airplanes, and Model A320-211 and -212 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    The forward engine mount crossbeam of the CFM56-5A engine, [part
number] P/N 238-0204-501, is made of titanium. A life limit of
64,000 FC [flight cycles] has been demonstrated. Due to potential
transferability of a crossbeam from one aeroplane to another, it is
necessary to track the life of this part and to remove it before
exceeding the life limit.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to forward engine
mount crossbeam failure, possibly resulting in engine detachment in
flight and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published the
SB [Service Bulletin A320-71-1073, dated June 8, 2018], providing
instructions to identify the P/N of the crossbeam installed on an
aeroplane and to remove affected crossbeam before exceeding the life
limit. Airbus also issued SB A320-71-1076, providing modification
instructions for installation of improved forward engine mount steel
crossbeams P/N 642-2002-503.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
implementation of the new life limit for the affected crossbeams.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0212 describes procedures for repetitive replacements
of all affected crossbeams of the forward engine mount. 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 and it is publicly available through the EASA
website.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced
above. We are

proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2018-0212 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2018-0212, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Service information specified in EASA AD 2018-0212 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2018-0212 will be available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2018-1068 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 59 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Labor cost                   Parts cost               Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 134 work-hours x $85    Up to $23,278.............  Up to $34,668.............  Up to $2,045,412.
 per hour = $11,390.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 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-2018-1068; Product Identifier 2018-NM-
140-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 25, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319-113 and -114
airplanes, and Model A320-211 and -212 airplanes, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a life-limit of 64,000
flight cycles has been established for certain titanium crossbeams
of the forward engine mount. We are issuing this AD to address
failure of a crossbeam of the forward engine mount, which could
result in detachment of the engine and consequent reduced
controllability of 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0212,
dated September 28, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0212'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0212

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0212 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2018-0212 specifies replacing
``with instructions provided by Airbus,'' for this AD, the
replacement must be done using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2018-0212 specifies flight
cycles (FC), this AD requires using ``total flight cycles.''
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0212 does not apply.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(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 local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district 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, International
Section, Transport Standards 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): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0212 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2018-0212, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; 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 EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2018-0212 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-1068.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 10, 2019.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-01237 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8036-8039]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-10]

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

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0137; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-201-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300, and
A340-200 and -300, Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Several reports have been received from A330 and A340 operators
concerning chafing of the electrical harness behind the lavatory,
located at L (level) 53, resulting in a number of short-circuits.
This harness contains cables for lighting, plugs, loudspeakers and
oxygen controls and indications.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the short
circuit of wires dedicated to oxygen, which, in case of emergency,
could

result in a large number of passenger oxygen masks (up to 32% of all
seats) not being supplied with oxygen, possibly causing personal
injuries.
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0137;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-201-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0161, dated August 25, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several reports have been received from A330 and A340 operators
concerning chafing of the electrical harness behind the lavatory,
located at L (level) 53, resulting in a number of short-circuits.
This harness contains cables for lighting, plugs, loudspeakers and
oxygen controls and indications.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the short
circuit of wires dedicated to oxygen, which, in case of emergency,
could result in a large number of passenger oxygen masks (up to 32%
of all seats) not being supplied with oxygen, possibly causing
personal injuries.
    For the reasons described above, AD 2008-0154 was issued to
require a wiring modification of the affected harnesses on right and
left sides of the passenger compartment between frames (FR) 39.1 and
39.2 and between FR 53.3 and 53.4, on pre-modification 48825
aircraft (i.e. non-enhanced cabin).
    Since that AD was issued, it has been found that due to
discrepancies in the referenced Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) at
original issue, the modification should have been mandated at
Revision 1 of the SB, rather than indicating that application of the
SB at original issue is acceptable.
    For that reason, this EASA AD retains the requirements of EASA
AD 2008-0154, which is superseded, amends the requirement to specify
that the SB must be accomplished at Revision 1 and that for aircraft
on which the SB at original issue has already been accomplished,
additional work must be done.

The modification includes rerouting the affected electrical harnesses
and replacing certain wiring mounts and brackets in the passenger
compartment. For all airplanes, additional work is required. The
additional work includes interchanging certain fixed brackets and
modifying certain wiring routing. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-92-3066, Revision
01, dated August 1, 2008; and Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4071,
Revision 02, dated November 28, 2008. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 210 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered

under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $151,200, or $16,800 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0137; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
201-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 25, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -
301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes;
and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all
manufacturer serial numbers, certificated in any category, except
those on which Airbus Modification 48825 has been embodied in
production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Several reports have been received from A330 and A340 operators
concerning chafing of the electrical harness behind the lavatory,
located at L (level) 53, resulting in a number of short-circuits.
This harness contains cables for lighting, plugs, loudspeakers and
oxygen controls and indications.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the short
circuit of wires dedicated to oxygen, which, in case of emergency,
could result in a large number of passenger oxygen masks (up to 32%
of all seats) not being supplied with oxygen, possibly causing
personal injuries.
    For the reasons described above, AD 2008-0154 was issued to
require a wiring modification of the affected harnesses on right and
left sides of the passenger compartment between frames (FR) 39.1 and
39.2 and between FR 53.3 and 53.4, on pre-modification 48825
aircraft (i.e., non-enhanced cabin).
    Since that AD was issued, it has been found that due to
discrepancies in the referenced Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) at
original issue, the modification should have been mandated at
Revision 1 of the SB, rather than indicating that application of the
SB at original issue is acceptable.
    For that reason, this EASA AD retains the requirements of EASA
AD 2008-0154, which is superseded, amends the requirement to specify
that the SB must be accomplished at Revision 1 and that for aircraft
on which the SB at original issue has already been accomplished,
additional work must be done.

The modification includes rerouting the affected electrical
harnesses and replacing certain wiring mounts and brackets in the
passenger compartment. For all airplanes, additional work is
required. The additional work includes interchanging certain fixed
brackets and modifying certain wiring routing.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 20 months after the effective
date of this AD, do the following actions, as applicable.
    (1) Except as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, modify
the affected passenger compartment electrical harnesses, including
the ``ADDITIONAL WORK,'' in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-92-3066,
Revision 01, dated August 1, 2008; or Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A340-92-4071, Revision 02, dated November 28, 2008; as
applicable.
    (2) For airplanes that have already been modified prior to the
effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3066, dated November
27, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4071, dated November
27, 2007; as applicable: Accomplish the ``ADDITIONAL WORK'' in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-92-3066, Revision 01, dated August 1, 2008; or
the ``ADDITIONAL WORK'' in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4071,
Revision 02, dated November 28, 2008; as applicable.
    (3) Actions accomplished according to Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A340-92-4071, Revision 01, dated August 1, 2008, including
the ``ADDITIONAL WORK,'' as applicable, are acceptable for complying
with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your
local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0161, dated August 25, 2008; Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-92-3066, Revision 01, dated August 1, 2008; and Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-92-4071, Revision 01, dated August
1, 2008, and Revision 02, dated November 28, 2008; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 5, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3776 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P