Notes from the PSD Training on 2/21/08

Salt Lake City, Utah

These notes represent a summary of discussion at a training given by EPA
staff.  Statements made by the EPA trainers during these discussions do
not necessarily reflect current or future official agency policy and
these notes should not be relied upon as such.

Please see the binder materials as reference from the meeting.  The
following are areas of discussion that occurred during the training
session.  Questions from tribal participants are in regular font.
Responses by EPA staff are italicized.

How are Areas of Influence defined?

Areas of influence are generally areas where the source may be outside
the nonattainment area but can impact the air quality in the
nonattainment area.  There is a similar concept in PSD where a source
outside a Class I area may impact the air quality in the Class I area.
Under the PSD program we use the term Significant Impact Area and
generally it is assumed to be within 50 km of the Class I area.

What is the relationship between the PSD Refinements of Increment
Modeling Procedures rule and the Flexible Air Permits Rule?

How does the window of time for comment under the Flexible Air Permit
rule apply to the PSD NSR rule?

The Flexible Air Permit rule and the Refinements of Increment Modeling
Procedures rule are two separate rules.  The timeframe for commenting on
one does not affect the other.

The Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule is complex and it
could create a significant work load for some tribes.  I know that the
PSD program has been in place for sometime, but it is safe to say right
now that this is the first time tribes have seen its importance to their
programs and are developing their tribal infrastructure.

The Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule will become
increasingly relevant once the Tribal NSR rule is final.  Once the
Tribal NSR rule is online then tribes will be paying very close
attention to all NSR and NSR related programs.  This includes the
Flexible Air Permit program which can become problematic.  Even though
the Flexible Air Permit program does alleviate tribes (and states) from
having to continually watch for every source permit application, since
the emissions from a source are lumped into one permit for every “x”
amount of years (x equaling 5 or 10 years to my understanding), with the
resources currently stretched for tribal programs, implementation will
become very difficult.  If a tribe has only a staff of one or two, the
collection of information for these three pending rules (Flexible Air
Permit, the PSD Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures, and the
Tribal NSR rule) could become too much to carry out in addition to the
goals and objectives already laid out in current (and future) tribal air
program work plans.

One participant asks: How can we reasonably expect (and actually carry
out) the increasing demand of a tribal air program with dwindling
resources, when these resources are currently not enough to carry out
all the goals and objectives by both the Agency and tribes?  While to
describe this as a sort of “unfunded mandate” is incorrect, I am not
sure of what better analogy to use.  It seems that the Refinements of
Increment Modeling Procedures rule, the Flexible Air Permits rule, and
Tribal NSR rule would logically require more funding for tribes in order
to be able to add this work to their current workload.  We need more
money for more staff, but that is not a reality any of us see hope in
currently.  With the Refinements of Increment Modeling Procedures rule
slated for finalization in October 2008, there is little hope tribes
could increase the budget for FY2009, as we are currently working on the
2010 budget.

What is the Flexible Permit Rule?

Rule introduces the “flexible air permits” concept to both the major
NSR program and the Title V program.

Under the Title V program, a “flexible air permit” would explain a
facility’s operational plans and possible changes to those plans for
the duration of the permit term – typically five years – as well as
plans for protecting the air quality.  This type of  permit includes
also 2 options:

Alternative Operating Scenarios (AOSs) – for example: an AOS for an
existing boiler will allow the unit to switch from oil to coal (if it
were previously able to do so) without a permit revision, even though
the change would be subject the source to different Clean Air Act
requirements.

Approved Replicable Methodologies (ARMs) – For example: An ARM could
specify a replicable testing procedure for updating an emissions factor,
rather than requiring a permit revision to accomplish its update.  To be
approvable, an ARM must deliver replicable results (usually numerical)
when operating on the same input data.

Under the Major NSR program, a “flexible air permit” would be
accomplished through a “Green Group” – a collection of emission
points ducted to a common, high performing air pollution control device.
 The total annual emissions in the “Green Group” are protective of
the NAAQS and increments.  State, Tribal, and Local permitting
authorities retain discretion when a “Green Group” is appropriate.
The permit would limit future emission growth over a 10-year period.

For more information visit:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20070828.html"
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20070828.html

What part of the proposal was considered policy changes or
clarifications and what part of the proposal was considered regulatory
changes?  When would policy changes be implemented?  At proposal or when
the rule goes final?

Most of this proposal lies in the area of policy change.  The purpose
behind this proposal is to clarify some key areas where the current
regulations allow the source and permit authority discretion on how to
address key calculations in reviewing increment consumption.  Generally
speaking, no changes are implementable at the proposal stage.  However,
since there are States currently allowing for wide ranging approaches to
these calculations, there are some who may, as current practice, be
employing these techniques.

Can you provide us with guidance in calculating and establishing Air
Quality Related Values (AQRVs)?

For the December 2000 Federal Land Managers (FLM) Air Quality Related
Value Group (FLAG) document, developed by the (FLMs) go here:
HYPERLINK "http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/"
http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/  @ 4 MB

If interested in a non-EPA course designed to provide the detailed
modeling requirements for Class I Area analysis go to:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.awma.org/events/view_event.html?typeid=3&id=10"
http://www.awma.org/events/view_event.html?typeid=3&id=10

Some participants expressed concern that they needed training on
modeling to be better able to review and understand the permitting
process.

We agreed to raise the need to ITEP, OAR, and others to determine how
best to try to address this need.

Variance Process – there was a lot of concern raised by the tribes
about the variance process.  Particularly would the tribes, EPA, or some
other federal agency act as the Federal Land Manager for Tribal Class I
areas?

Our intention in the proposal is that the Tribe or EPA acting for and in
consultation with the tribe will be the decision maker.

One participant brought up a discussion about confusion in reading the
language of the CAA.  They pointed out that the variance discussions are
found under section 165(d) where it speaks specifically of the Federally
owned Class I areas vs. section 164 which discusses the state and tribal
redesignated Class I areas (i.e., Non-Federal Class I areas).
Specifically, the participant questioned whether CAA 165(d) would be
interpreted to apply to tribally designated Class I areas.

This is an area that EPA has never explored and we agreed we needed to
go back and review the language of the Act.

If a source has impacts on increments, but there are no increments
available, can the source obtain mitigating emissions reductions?  How
are they calculated?

Yes, the source can obtain mitigating emissions reductions.  They are
calculated based on reductions in actual emissions from one or more of
the sources that were modeled as increment consuming in this particular
area.  Thus, the mitigating emissions come from a source or sources
located in the vicinity of the proposed source.  Tribes might have to
work with the State if the increment consuming sources are coming from
outside the reservation boundaries.

One of the tribes is in a situation were no major sources existed at the
time the mandatory major source baseline date was triggered and no
permit application has been filed after that.  They question how and
when the minor source baseline date gets triggered because they are
concerned about the impacts on their air quality.

Since there have never been any major sources in the area, the
increments are not being consumed even though the major source baseline
dates for SO2 and PM where established (i.e., triggered) in 1975 and for
NOx in 1988.  For that reason, when the first major source comes to the
area, this source will establish the minor source baseline date and will
start consuming increment from then on for the particular pollutants it
will trigger.

We had a question about the legislative history of how the significant
impact area is determined.  The presenter said the area is determined to
be 50 km or the modeled area of significant impact, whichever is less.
The question is why we went to the “whichever is less.”

We generally only recommend that sources model out to the point of
significant impact because beyond that point the sources emissions are
not considered to "cause or contribute to" a violation of either the
NAAQS or increment.  Thus, modeling beyond the point of significant
impact may provide some additional air quality information but it will
not generally affect the outcome of the source's permit.  We put the
50-km limit on the modeling because that is the approximate range of
accuracy for Gaussian models, such as AERMOD.  States may (and some
probably do) require modeling beyond 50 km if the source's impacts are
still significant at the 50-km distance.  We limit it because the
results beyond 50 km could be questionable/inconclusive.

On the issue of alternative 2 years of representative data, the
participants expressed concern that by allowing for alternative years,
this would place more burdens on the tribes in conducting permit
reviews.

On AQRVs, does the tribe have to define them before they can object to a
permit based on impacts to AQRVs?  The concern is that developing AQRVs
is very difficult and takes significant investment of resources and
time.  In addition, it takes both technical and scientific capacity that
the tribes might not have on staff.

No, but it would make the permit process easier because then the source
and the reviewing authority will know what resources or values are
currently being specially protected by the tribe.

There was concern that the FLM oversight might get undermined by
political pressure when variances are granted.

Did the RIA look at impacts on the resources of the tribes?  There is a
concern that the flexibility allowed in the proposal would have
significant impact on the tribe’s ability to review and comment on
permits.  For example, they feel this rule is an unfunded mandate
because the Tribe and FLM have the burden to prove impacts on AQRVs and
there is no increase in funding available to the tribes to handle this
burden.

This rule does not impose any new Federal mandates on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector, since the PSD increment
analysis is already required under existing regulations.  In this rule,
we are only proposing to refine our existing regulations and policy on
how this analysis may be conducted and are not imposing any additional
analytical requirements.  Concerns about permit review resources will be
raised to OAR and others to determine how best to try to address this
need.  For more information about the Statutory and Executive Orders:
see pages 31394-31396 of the proposal.

What is the address of the NSR website?

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nsr"  http://www.epa.gov/nsr

For regulatory actions visit:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html"
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html

There was a concern expressed that a tribe’s AQRV may be a cultural or
spiritual practice.  If that is the case, the tribe may not be willing
or able to provide detailed information to the public on, for example,
what the AQRV specifically is or where it is located.

One approach might be to provide a surrogate for that practice so that
sensitive information can be held by the tribe.  One participant gave an
example of how a tribe addressed this issue when it developed a water
quality standard.  The tribe identified a native plant for protection,
but did not discuss how that plant is used or why it is culturally
important.  Clearly, this is an area where EPA and the tribe will need
to work closely on how to provide enough information to the sources so
that they can address concerns without violating the need for the tribe
to protect their life ways.

One suggestion for ways to bring more resources into reviewing permits
and variances might be to coordinate with DOI, particularly in their
role as the trustee for the tribe.

A comment was made that the final rule should be clearer on the fact
that sources should provide all appropriate data to tribes so they are
better able to review the permits and variances.

There was a lot of concern and discussion about the proposal to use
annual averaging data for the 3 and 24-hour increments vs. the current
maximum allowable.  A tribe requested EPA to review the Sierra Club
comments submitted to the docket for a good explanation of the concern.

There was concern expressed that by allowing the amount of discretion to
the States that this proposal allows, States may err on the side of
industry instead of putting the emphasis on protecting air quality due
to political pressure.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  5


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5152-5153]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0394; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-8]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Easton, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Easton, PA,
as the Allentown VORTAC has been decommissioned and new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed at Braden
Airpark. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also would recognize the airport's name change and update the
geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2012-0394; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-8, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0394; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-8) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-0394; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-8.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through 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 the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's 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

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface to support new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures developed at Braden Airpark, Easton, PA. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the
Allentown VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR/DME approach, and for
continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also,
the airport name would be changed from Easton Airport to Braden
Airpark, and the geographic coordinates of the airport also would be
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Braden Airpark,
Easton, PA.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists 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

0
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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

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

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Easton, PA [Amended]

Braden Airpark, Easton, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]44'32'' N., long. 75[deg]14'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.2-mile radius of the Braden Airpark. This Class E
airspace area is effective from sunrise to sunset, daily.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 12, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-01382 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64952-64955]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0339; Product Identifier 2020-NM-046-AD; Amendment
39-21281; AD 2020-21-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports
that the latches for the forward and aft pressure relief doors could be
opened during exposure to fire, leading to a breach in the engine core
firewall. This AD requires modification and re-identification of the
affected thrust reversers (TRs) and latch access doors (LADs), as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 18, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain
publication listed in this AD as of November 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0339.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0339; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3218; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0060, dated March 16, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0060'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
27, 2020 (85 FR 23252). The NPRM was prompted by reports that the
latches for the forward and aft pressure relief doors could be opened
during exposure to fire, leading to a breach in the engine core
firewall. The NPRM proposed to require modification and re-
identification of the affected thrust TRs and LADs, as specified in
EASA AD 2020-0060. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a possible
breach in the engine core firewall. This condition, if not corrected,
could lead to an uncontained engine fire, possibly resulting in reduced
control of the airplane. See the

MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), stated its
support for the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Marking Requirement

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the word ``it'' in paragraph
(h)(2) of the proposed AD be replaced with ``the LAD'' to indicate the
latch access door. The commenter asserted that the meaning of the word
``it'' in that paragraph is vague and should be clarified.
    The FAA partially agrees with the request to modify paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD. The agency agrees that the word ``it'' in that
paragraph can be interpreted in more than one way, and not only as a
reference to the LAD. Since paragraph (h)(2) references the TR and the
LAD, to avoid confusion over the meaning, the FAA has removed the word
``it'' from paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Request To Allow Alternative Marking Method

    Delta requested that an exception be added to the proposed AD
stating that operators may apply markings to the LAD composite
substrate by any convenient means, as long as the markings remain
within 1 inch of the identification decal. The commenter expressed
concern that the use of the term ``stamp,'' as specified in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0060, could suggest that a
stamping tool is required.
    The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees to
clarify the use of the word ``stamp'' in this AD. The terms ``marked''
and ``stamped'' as used in this AD refer to any method of permanent
marking, including stamping or ink marking as acceptable. The FAA has
revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that any permanent
marking method is acceptable.

Request To Explain Why an AD Is Appropriate

    Delta requested a change to the wording of paragraph (e) of the
proposed AD. Delta argued that the current paragraph is not descriptive
enough to fully explain airworthiness shortcomings and why an AD is
appropriate. Delta provided suggested additional wording for paragraph
(e) of the proposed AD.
    The FAA disagrees with this request. Based on the risk assessment
performed by EASA and Airbus, the FAA determined that an unsafe
condition exists, and provided relevant background information in the
NPRM. The wording of paragraph (e) has not been changed with regard to
this request.

Request To Eliminate Adhesive Cure Time Requirement

    Delta requested that the cure time of the placard adhesive not be
required for compliance because it has nothing to do with the unsafe
condition being addressed by the proposed AD. Delta noted that the
service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0060 includes a
requirement to allow curing the adhesive, and requested that the FAA
add an exception to exclude this requirement.
    The FAA does not agree with this request. Because placards contain
vital information, proper adhesive curing times are essential and
should not be removed from the requirements of this AD, although
requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) remain an option
for all operators. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    The FAA infers a request by DAL to extend the compliance time
indicated in the proposed AD. The commenter asserted that the 3-month
compliance time is too short and that no evidence has been given for
this urgency.
    The FAA disagrees with the request to increase the compliance time
of this AD. Prior to publication of EASA AD 2020-0060, the manufacturer
offered 2 years to address the unsafe condition as part of a monitored
retrofit campaign. In developing an appropriate compliance time for
this action, EASA considered the urgency associated with the subject
unsafe condition, and the encouraged voluntarily compliance through the
monitored retrofit campaign as that would be most convenient for the
operator's normal scheduled maintenance. The FAA's NPRM provided
additional time for U.S. operators to plan and execute corrective
actions beyond EASA's compliance time. The FAA believes the 2-year
campaign, followed by publication of the EASA AD, followed by the
intervening time for the FAA to publish the NPRM and this AD, has
allowed sufficient notice and planning opportunities for the U.S.
fleet. This AD has not been changed with regard to this request.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0060 describes procedures for modification and re-
identification of the affected TRs and LADs. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,530........................            * $0           $1,530           $4,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide a parts cost estimate for the
  required actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-21-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21281; Docket No. FAA-2020-0339;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 18, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Exhaust.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that the latches for the forward
and aft pressure relief doors could be opened during exposure to
fire, leading to a breach in the engine core firewall. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address this condition, which if not corrected,
could lead to an uncontained engine fire, possibly resulting in
reduced control 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 Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0060, dated March 16, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0060'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0060

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0060 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (1.3) of EASA AD 2020-0060 requires marking
the service bulletin reference on the identification plate of the
affected thrust reverser (TR) or latch access door (LAD), this AD
allows marking on or within an inch of the identification plate or
decal. For this AD, any method of permanent marking, including
stamping or ink marking, is acceptable.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0060 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) 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, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0060 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

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0060,
dated March 16, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0060, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0339.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability

of this material at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to:
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 1, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22623 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P