[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21911-21913]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8837]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0244; FRL-9657-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the
requirements regarding air pollution emergency episodes in Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(G). Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act
requires that each SIP provide for authority comparable to that in
section 303 of the Act and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority. EPA is proposing to approve Arizona's SIP revision as
meeting the authority and contingency plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2012-0244, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4152<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
    A. SIP Procedural Requirements
    B. Substantive Emergency Episode Plan Requirements
    C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act
III. EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated revised primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone which set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient
air at 0.08 parts per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour period. 62
FR 38856; 40 CFR 50.10. This proposed action is in response to the
promulgation of these ozone standards.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that these SIPs must address, as
applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(G) regarding authority to
address air pollution emergency episodes and adequate contingency plans
to implement such authority (Emergency Episode Plans). EPA last
approved an Emergency Episode Plan requirement into the Arizona SIP on
September 28, 1982 (47 FR 42572).
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that provides
recommendations to states for making submissions to meet, among other
things, the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-Hour
ozone standards. See Memorandum from William T. Harnett, EPA Air
Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X,
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' October 2, 2007 (2007 Guidance).
    This proposed action addresses only Arizona's submittal to satisfy
the Emergency Episode Plan requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and
does not apply to the remaining ``infrastructure'' SIP elements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We intend to
evaluate and act upon Arizona's SIP submittal addressing these
additional requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in separate actions.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

A. SIP Procedural Requirements

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that each
revision to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements
for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements
include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the
relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed
revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an
opportunity for a public hearing.
    On August 15, 1994, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted section 220 of Chapter 2, Title 18 of the Arizona
Administrative Code (R18-2-220), ``Air pollution emergency episodes''
(hereafter referred to as ``Arizona Emergency Episode Plan'') to EPA
for approval as part of the Arizona SIP.\1\ ADEQ's August 15, 1994
submittal includes public process documentation for the Arizona
Emergency Episode Plan, among other regulations. In addition, the SIP
revision includes documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held
on August 9, 1994 on the proposed version of the Arizona Emergency
Episode Plan. We find that the process followed by ADEQ in adopting the
Arizona Emergency Episode Plan complies with the procedural
requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA's
implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See transmittal letter dated August 15, 1994, from Edward Z.
Fox, Director, ADEQ, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA Region IX, with attachments. We note that although the subject
line of the transmittal letter identifies this SIP submittal as
related to ``New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (NSR/PSD) Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications and New Source Review (NSR) for Minor Sources,''
Attachment 6 of this submittal includes the Arizona Emergency
Episode Plan, which is not related to NSR or PSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Substantive Emergency Episode Plan Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires that each SIP provide for
authority comparable to that in CAA section 303 (``Emergency Powers'')
and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. EPA's
implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (``Prevention of
Air Pollution Emergency Episodes''), establish a ``priority''
classification system under which each region in a state is classified
separately for each of the following criteria pollutants, based on
ambient concentrations of the pollutant: sulfur dioxide
(SO2), particulate matter of 10 microns or less
(PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and ozone. Subpart H specifies the requirements that
each contingency plan must meet, based on the priority classification
of the area in which it applies. See 40 CFR 51.152. Subpart H also
requires that each contingency plan for a ``priority I'' area provide,
at a minimum, for taking action necessary to prevent ambient pollutant
concentrations at any location in such region from reaching specified
``significant harm levels'' (SHL). 40 CFR 51.151. The SHL for ozone is
1,200 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) or 0.6 ppm over a 2-hour
average. Id.
    EPA's 2007 Guidance addressed, among other things, the CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2007
Guidance stated that the SHL for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS would
remain unchanged as 0.60 ppm over a 2-hour average, as indicated in 40
CFR section 51.151, and that the existing ozone-related provisions of
40 CFR part 51, subpart H remained appropriate for purposes of
implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 2007 Guidance at 5. We
have evaluated the Arizona Emergency Episode Plan in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, as applicable for ozone
purposes, consistent with EPA's recommendations in the 2007 Guidance.
Based on this evaluation, we propose to fully approve the Arizona
Emergency Episode Plan as satisfying the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Our technical support document (TSD), which is available in the
docket for today's proposed rule, contains a more detailed discussion
of our evaluation.

C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act

    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 193 of the Act
prohibits the modification, in a nonattainment area, of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, unless
the modification ``insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions
of such air pollutant.''
    The Arizona Emergency Episode Plan is substantively identical to
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) rule currently approved into Arizona's SIP
(R9-3-219, ``Air pollution emergency episodes''), which EPA approved in
1982 (47 FR 42572, September 28, 1982), with one exception which makes
it more stringent than the SIP program. We propose to determine that
our approval of this submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l),
because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the ongoing
process for

ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met,
and the submitted SIP revision is more stringent than the rule
previously approved into the SIP. We also propose to determine that our
approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 193, to the
extent it applies, because the SIP revision would insure equivalent or
greater emission reductions of ozone precursors compared to the SIP-
approved rule. Our TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our
evaluation.

III. EPA's Proposed Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to
approve the SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on August 15, 1994, as
meeting all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposal and will accept
comments until the date noted in the DATES section above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-8837 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40776-40778]
[DOCID:fr13au09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0713; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318 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:

    Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when

the hinge moment of the elevator is close to zero, associated to
elevator free-play.
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 14,
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.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0713;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-303-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 2007-0163, dated June 11, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

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. 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, 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.
    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

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 11 products of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours
per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,760, or
$160 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, 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-2009-0713; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
303-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 14, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes;
certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

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

    ``Some operators have reported airframe vibration under specific
flight conditions including gusts.
    ``Investigations have revealed that under such conditions,
vibrations may occur when the hinge moment of the elevator is close
to zero, associated to elevator free-play.''
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition is excessive vibration of the elevators,
which could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane. The corrective action includes
inspecting the elevators for excessive freeplay, and repairing the
elevator or servo controls, if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, inspect the elevators for excessive
freeplay, using a load application tool and a spring scale assembly,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 20 months.

    Note 1: Guidance on the inspection procedures can be found in
Task 27-34-00-200-001 of the A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM).

    (i) Within 20 months since the date of issuance of the original
French, German, or EASA airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original French, German, or EASA export certificate
of airworthiness, or within 3 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Within 20 months since the last inspection of the elevators
for excessive freeplay performed in accordance with Task 27-34-00-
200-001 of the Airbus A320 Airplane Maintenance Manual.
    (2) If any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD
indicates that the freeplay in the elevator exceeds 7 millimeters,
before further flight, repair the elevator or servo controls in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA
(or its delegated agent).

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) The EASA AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and
A321 series airplanes, but the FAA AD applies only to Airbus Model
A318 series airplanes. The actions required by the EASA AD for
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes are addressed in
FAA AD 2001-16-09, amendment 39-12377, and FAA AD 2005-22-10 R1,
amendment 39-14354.
    (2) This FAA AD does not require modification of the elevator
neutral setting as specified in paragraph 2. of the EASA AD because
this modification is already part of the FAA-approved type design
for Airbus Model A318 series airplanes.
    (3) This FAA AD does not require a detailed inspection to
determine the position of each tail cone triangle as specified in
paragraph 3. of the EASA AD because that action was already
accomplished on all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes during
production.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
    (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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0163, dated
June 11, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 3, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19419 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P