[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76553-76557]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1584; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01522-R;
Amendment 39-22281; AD 2022-26-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW169 helicopters. This AD was prompted by a
report of a protruding pushbutton screw (screw) on a cockpit door
internal handle resulting in an interference with

the collective stick travel. This AD requires inspecting each screw and
depending on the results, modifying the cockpit door handle and
reporting information, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also
prohibits installing an affected door handle assembly unless certain
actions are accomplished. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 30, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 30,
2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by January 30, 2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1584; 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 listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is incorporated by reference (IBR)
in this final rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected];
internet easa.europa.eu. You may find the IBR material on the EASA
website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1584.
    Other Related Service Information: For Leonardo Helicopters service
information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A.
Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta
520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone (+39) 0331-
225074; fax (+39) 0331-229046; or at
customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. This service information is
also available at the FAA contact information under Material
Incorporated by Reference above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hughlett, Aerospace Engineer,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2022-0233-E, dated
November 30, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0233-E), to correct an unsafe condition
for Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A.,
AgustaWestland S.p.A., Model AW169 helicopters, all serial numbers.
    This AD was prompted by a report of a protruding screw on the left-
hand (LH) cockpit door internal handle resulting in an interference
with the collective stick travel. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
a discrepancy with the screw. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in reduced collective stick authority and subsequent
reduced control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2022-0233-E for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0233-E requires a one-time inspection of the LH and
right-hand (RH) pilot and co-pilot door handle assemblies having part
number (P/N) 4F5211A02331 for marking of green paint on the screw. If
no green paint is found during the inspection, EASA AD 2022-0233-E
requires inspecting the condition and torque of the screw and modifying
the cockpit door handle. Depending on the results of the inspection,
EASA AD 2022-0233-E also requires reporting any discrepancy or loose
screw to Leonardo Helicopters. Additionally, EASA AD 2022-0233-E
prohibits installing a pilot and co-pilot door handle assembly P/N
4F5211A02331 unless certain requirements are met.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin No. 169-228, dated November 29, 2022. This service information
specifies procedures for inspecting the screw head installed on the LH
and RH door handle assemblies for green paint. If there is no green
paint, this service information specifies procedures for inspecting the
condition of the screw and inspecting the screw for proper tightening.
If there are any anomalies or a loose screw, this service information
specifies reporting the finding to Product Support Engineering. This
service information also specifies procedures to modify the door handle
assembly by applying a sealing compound, applying torque, and painting
the screw head green.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described
in its emergency AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all
pertinent information and determining that the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2022-0233-E, described previously, as IBRed, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except
as discussed under ``Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
EASA AD 2022-0233-E is IBRed in this FAA final rule. This AD,
therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2022-0233-E in its entirety
through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as

exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that
are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-
0233-E does not mean that operators need comply only with that section.
For example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions
and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not
limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance
Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-0233-E. Service information referenced in
EASA AD 2022-0233-E for compliance will be available at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2022-1584 after this final rule is published.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0233-E specifies
checking the screw for condition and proper tightening, and if there
are any anomalies or loose screws, reporting the finding to Product
Support Engineering. This AD requires inspecting the screw for a
discrepancy, which may be indicated by a protruding screw head,
improper torque, or a loose screw. If there is any discrepancy, this AD
requires replacing the screw with an airworthy screw.
    EASA AD 2022-0233-E specifies reporting inspection results within 7
days after completing an inspection that detects any discrepancy or
loose screw, whereas this AD requires reporting those inspection
results within 10 days after completing the inspection, if the
inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD; or
reporting those inspection results within 10 days after the effective
date of this AD, if the inspection was done before the effective date
of this AD. Additionally, for the purposes of this AD, a discrepancy
may be indicated by a protruding screw head, improper torque, or loose
screw.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because when an affected component fails, the proximity of the affected
component could create interference with part of an assembly that is
critical to the control of a helicopter. This unsafe condition may
currently exist in other helicopters and consequences of this unsafe
condition could occur during any phase of flight without any previous
indications. In addition, the compliance time for the initial
inspection is within 13 hours time-in-service or 30 days, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD, which is shorter than
the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the
final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1584; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-01522-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Michael
Hughlett, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 11 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Visually inspecting each screw head for green paint takes a minimal
amount of time for a nominal cost.
    If required, inspecting a non-painted screw and modifying the door
handle assembly takes about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43
per door handle assembly.
    If required, replacing a screw with an airworthy screw takes a
minimal amount of time and has a nominal parts cost.
    If required, reporting information takes about 1 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $85.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-26-03 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-22281; Docket No. FAA-2022-
1584; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01522-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 30,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW169 helicopters,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 5200, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a protruding pushbutton
screw (screw) on the left-hand cockpit door internal handle
resulting in an interference with the collective stick travel. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address a discrepancy with the screw. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced
collective stick authority and subsequent reduced control of the
helicopter.

(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 Emergency AD
2022-0233-E, dated November 30, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0233-E).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0233-E

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0233-E requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0233-E refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0233-E specifies ``check for condition and proper tightening of the
cockpit door handle screw. In case of any anomalies or screw loose,
report the finding to Product Support Engineering;'' for this AD,
replace that text with ``inspect the screw for a discrepancy, which
may be indicated by a protruding screw head, improper torque, or
loose screw. If there is any discrepancy, before further flight,
replace the screw with an airworthy screw.'' Inspection results are
still required to be reported in accordance with paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2022-0233-E.
    (4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0233-E specifies
reporting inspection results to Leonardo S.p.a. within 7 days after
completing an inspection that detects any discrepancy or loose
screw, this AD requires reporting those inspection results at the
applicable compliance time in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this
AD. Additionally, for the purposes of this AD, a discrepancy may be
indicated by a protruding screw head, improper torque, or loose
screw.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after completing the
inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0233-E.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Michael Hughlett,
Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5110; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD
2022-0233-E, dated November 30, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA Emergency AD 2022-0233-E, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 7, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27296 Filed 12-13-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27734-27738]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12812]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0217; EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299; EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373;
FRL-9979-39--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Regional Haze Plan and Visibility Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of West Virginia (West Virginia) to change reliance on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) with the purpose of addressing certain regional haze
requirements and visibility protection requirements for the 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Upon EPA's final approval of this SIP revision, EPA is
proposing to convert the Agency's June 7, 2012 limited approval/limited
disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP to a full approval;
and EPA is proposing to remove the federal implementation plan (FIP)
for West Virginia issued to address deficiencies previously identified
in the Agency's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's
regional haze SIP revision. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve
the portions of two previous SIP revisions submitted by West Virginia
to address visibility protection requirements for the 2010
SO2 and the 2012 particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. These proposed actions are supported by EPA's recent final
determination that a state's participation in CSAPR continues to meet
EPA's regional haze criteria to qualify as an alternative to the
application of best available retrofit

technology (BART). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0217; EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299; and/or EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373 at
http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected].
For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 16, 2015, the State of West
Virginia via the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) submitted a revision to update its regional haze plan and to
meet the visibility protection requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze and the Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \1\ On December 2,
1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in
Class I areas that are reasonably attributable to a single source or
small group of sources.\2\ Then, in 1990 Congress added section 169B to
the CAA to address regional haze issues. EPA subsequently promulgated
regulations pursuant to section 169B to address regional haze, known as
the Regional Haze Rule.\3\ The Regional Haze Rule focuses on visibility
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area, requiring states
to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving
visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Mandatory Class I federal areas are
defined as national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas
and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 mandatory Class I federal areas where visibility is identified
as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). When we use
the term Class I area in this action, we mean a mandatory Class I
federal area.
    \2\ These regulations are the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI) provisions. 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
    \3\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop, and submit for approval by
EPA, a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including the
protection of visibility in Class I areas.\4\ Section 169A(b)(2) of the
CAA requires that applicable states \5\ SIPs must contain such emission
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary
to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility
goal. Such measures include the application of BART by any BART-
eligible sources \6\ that emit air pollutants such as SO2
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) \7\ that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area. The BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule generally direct
states to follow these steps to address the BART requirements: (1)
Identify all BART-eligible sources; (2) determine which of those
sources may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area, and are therefore subject to
BART requirements; (3) determine source-specific BART for each source
that is subject to BART requirements; and (4) include the emission
limitations reflecting those BART determinations in their SIPs.\8\
However, the Regional Haze Rule also provides states with the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program instead of requiring source-specific BART controls, as long as
the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
    \5\ States that have a federal Class I area, listed by the
Administrator under subsection 169A(a)(2) of the CAA, and/or states
from which the emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any federal Class I
area.
    \6\ A BART-eligible source is any one of the 26 specified source
categories listed in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51, Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.
    \7\ SO2 and NOX are considered the most
significant visibility impairing pollutants.
    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a 2005 revision to the Regional Haze Rule,\9\ EPA demonstrated
that CAIR \10\ would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART.
This is often referred to as the CAIR-better-than-BART determination.
Based on this determination, EPA amended its regulations so that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade programs under 40 CFR part 96
pursuant to an EPA approved CAIR SIP, or states that remain subject to
a CAIR federal trading program under 40 CFR part 97, need not require
affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Several states subject to
CAIR, including West Virginia, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade
programs as an alternative to BART to achieve greater reasonable
progress towards national visibility goals for their first SIP revision
submitted to address regional haze.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
    \10\ CAIR involved the District of Columbia and 27 eastern
states, including West Virginia, in several regional cap and trade
programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions that
contribute to the nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
    \11\ West Virginia submitted a comprehensive regional haze SIP
revision on June 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated CAIR.\12\ In December 2008,
the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA without vacatur while a
replacement rule consistent with the Court's opinion was developed.\13\
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and issued federal trading programs to implement the rule in the

states subject to CSAPR.\14\ CSAPR was to become effective January 1,
2012; however, as discussed later, the timing of CSAPR's implementation
was impacted by a number of court actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \13\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \14\ CSAPR is a regional cap-and-trade program meant to replace
CAIR. Similar to CAIR, it is focused on eastern states (including
West Virginia) and requires participants to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting another
state's ability to attain or maintain the following NAAQS: 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After promulgating CSAPR, EPA conducted a technical analysis to
determine whether compliance with CSAPR would satisfy the requirements
of the Regional Haze Rule addressing alternatives to BART. In a June 7,
2012 action, EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that
participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given
pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program or an integrated
CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP
revision--qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that
pollutant.\15\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this
amendment, both states and EPA have relied on the CSAPR-better-than-
BART determination to satisfy the BART requirements for states that
participate in CSAPR.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 77 FR 33656 (June 7, 2012).
    \16\ The D.C. Circuit recently upheld EPA's CSAPR-better-than-
BART determination. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-
1342 (D.C. Cir. March 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR.\17\ The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the
United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was
remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance
with the high court's ruling.\18\ On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the
CSAPR budgets to a number of states.\19\ The remanded budgets included
the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the
Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states, including
those for West Virginia. The D.C. Circuit litigation ultimately delayed
implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015.\20\ Thus, the rule's
Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1,
2014 began on January 1, 2017 instead. EPA has now taken all actions
necessary to respond to the D.C. Circuit's remand of the various CSAPR
budgets. On September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a determination that the
changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage following the remand of certain
of the budgets by the D.C. Circuit do not alter EPA's conclusion that
CSAPR remains better-than-BART. In sum, EGU participation in a CSAPR
trading program remains available as an alternative to BART for states
participating in CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \18\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
    \19\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
    \20\ Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed
a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to delay, by three years, all CSAPR
compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of
the stay on CSAPR. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted
EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim
final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as January
1, 2015 and delayed the implementation of CSAPR Phase 1 to 2015 and
CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule,
the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

    On March 23, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval and a limited
disapproval of a SIP revision submitted by WVDEP on June 18, 2008
addressing regional haze program requirements.\21\ The limited
disapproval of this SIP revision was based upon West Virginia's
reliance on CAIR as an alternative to BART and as a measure for
reasonable progress. On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a determination
that for states covered by CSAPR, including West Virginia, CSAPR
achieves greater reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goals in Class I areas than source-specific BART. In this same June 7,
2012 action, EPA also promulgated FIPs that replaced reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR to meet BART and reasonable progress
requirements, to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze
SIPs for several states, including West Virginia.\22\ Consequently, for
West Virginia and other states, this particular aspect of their
regional haze requirements was satisfied by EPA's issuance of a FIP
(hereafter referred to as partial RH FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 77 FR 16937 (March 23, 2012).
    \22\ 77 FR 33643 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 16, 2015, the State of West Virginia submitted a
revision to its Regional Haze SIP to change its present reliance from
CAIR to CSAPR for the purpose of meeting BART for regional haze and
addressing reasonable progress requirements, thereby eliminating West
Virginia's need for the partial RH FIP. The SIP revision was also
submitted to meet outstanding visibility protection requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4 Requirement

    The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions meeting the
applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). SIP revisions that
are intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA are
often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a)
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. Several of these
applicable elements are delineated within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions in that state from having certain
adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate
transport of air pollution. There are four prongs within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs
1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4.
This rulemaking action addresses prong 4 which is related to
interference with measures by another state to protect visibility.
Prong 4 requires that a state's SIP include adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be
included in another state's SIP. One way in which prong 4 can be
satisfied is if a state has a fully approved regional haze program
within its SIP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its September 16, 2015 SIP submittal, which is the
subject of this rulemaking action, West Virginia demonstrates it should
receive full approval of its regional haze SIP with the switch to
reliance upon CSAPR and requests amending the portion of its October
16, 2014 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS to address the prong 4 requirement for visibility protection for
this NAAQS. West Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision submittal for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted to EPA subsequently on May
12, 2017, refers to the

September 16, 2015 SIP submittal to address prong 4 for visibility
protection for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because West Virginia
did not have a fully approved regional haze program at the time EPA
took action to approve the infrastructure SIPs for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determined that it
would take separate action on the prong 4 portions of the October 16,
2014 SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and of the May
12, 2017 SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, at a later
date.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 79 FR 62022 (October 16, 2014) and 82 FR 22076 (May 12,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    West Virginia submitted a SIP revision on September 16, 2015 to
correct its regional haze and visibility protection deficiencies. West
Virginia submitted the September 16, 2015 SIP revision seeking to
correct the deficiencies identified in EPA's July 13, 2011 limited
disapproval action, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR in its regional haze SIP.\25\ Specifically, the September 16,
2015 submittal changes the West Virginia regional haze program to state
that West Virginia is relying on CSAPR in its regional haze SIP to meet
the BART and reasonable progress requirements to support visibility
improvement progress goals for West Virginia's Class I areas, Dolly
Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ West Virginia was included in the CSAPR federal trading
programs on August 8, 2011. 76 FR 48208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the September 16, 2015 submittal revises the prong 4
portion of the infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, which had been submitted on October 16, 2014, to address this
visibility protection requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
At the time of this SIP submittal, West Virginia did not have a fully
approved regional haze program as the Agency had issued a limited
disapproval of the State's regional haze plan on July 13, 2011, due to
its reliance on CAIR. Subsequently, West Virginia submitted to EPA on
May 12, 2017 a SIP revision regarding the infrastructure requirements
in CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In order
to meet prong 4 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this May 12, 2017
submittal referred to West Virginia's September 16, 2015 regional haze
SIP submittal to address the prong 4 requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    The State's September 16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision replaces
reliance upon CAIR for reliance upon CSAPR to address the deficiencies
identified in EPA's limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional
haze SIP.\26\ EPA is proposing to find that this revision would satisfy
the NOX and SO2 BART and reasonable progress
requirements for EGUs in West Virginia and therefore make West
Virginia's regional haze program fully approvable. Upon EPA's final
approval of this SIP, West Virginia will have a SIP in place to address
all of its regional haze requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
find that West Virginia's reliance in its SIP upon CSAPR for certain
BART and reasonable progress requirements is in accordance with the CAA
and Regional Haze Rule requirements (including 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)) as
EPA has recently affirmed that CSAPR remains better-than-BART for
regional haze requirements.\27\ Because West Virginia's approved
regional haze SIP will address EGU BART and reasonable progress
requirements upon final approval of the September 16, 2015 SIP
submission, EPA is proposing to convert the Agency's prior limited
disapproval/limited approval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP to a
full approval. EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's June 7, 2012
partial RH FIP for West Virginia, which replaced reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR to address the previously deficient regional haze
requirements. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portion of West Virginia's October 16, 2014 SIP submission, as revised
by the September 16, 2015 regional haze submittal, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and to approve the prong 4 portion of the May 12,
2017 SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which refers
to the September 16, 2015 regional haze submittal, as the West Virginia
SIP will now meet prong 4 visibility requirements of the CAA with a
fully approved regional haze SIP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In this respect, the September 16, 2015 SIP submission
therefore mirrors the requirements from EPA's partial RH FIP for
West Virginia.
    \27\ See 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017) (reaffirming CSAPR
better-than-BART). See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-
1342 (D.C. Cir. March 20, 2018) (upholding CSAPR as better-than-
BART).
    \28\ All other applicable infrastructure requirements under
section 110(a)(2) for the West Virginia's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS have been or will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve West
Virginia's September 16, 2015 SIP submission to change reliance on CAIR
to reliance on CSAPR for certain elements of West Virginia's regional
haze program; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
West Virginia's regional haze program to a full approval; (3) approve
West Virginia's October 16, 2014 SIP submission, as revised September
16, 2015, as satisfying prong 4 regarding visibility protection for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS; (4) approve West Virginia's May 12, 2017
infrastructure SIP submission, referring to the September 16, 2015
regional haze SIP submission, as satisfying prong 4 regarding
visibility protection for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (5)
remove West Virginia's partial regional haze FIP which replaced certain
regional haze requirements as these requirements will now be contained
within the West Virginia regional haze SIP upon final approval of the
September 16, 2015 SIP submittal. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing West Virginia's
regional haze requirements and visibility protection for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the withdrawal of
the West Virginia regional haze regional FIP, 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.
In addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to
determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section
307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to
certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Furthermore, section
307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of section 307(d)
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.'' EPA
proposes that the provisions of 307(d) apply to EPA's action on the
West Virginia SIP revision. The withdrawal of the provisions of the
West Virginia regional haze regional FIP is subject to the requirements
of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under
section 110(c) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

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

    Dated: May 30, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-12812 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85169-85171]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) 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 Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN 235-100, CN 235-200, and
CN 235-300 airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve. This proposed
AD would require an inspection of the affected fuel valves and,
depending on findings, applicable corrective action(s). We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a motorized cross-feed
fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the fuel valve and
consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence
of an ignition source, an airplane fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 9, 2017.

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 service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de
Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2016-
9386; 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 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: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2016-9386;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-056-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 Union, has issued
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0071, dated April 11, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense
and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300
airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Leakage of a motorised cross-feed fuel valve Part Number (P/N)
7923227F was reported on a CN-235-100M aeroplane. The leakage was
observed through the valve electrical connectors and detected during
accomplishment of a functional check in accordance with the CN-235
aeroplane Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB-PV01M), task 28.007.
Identical motorised fuel valves are installed on CN-235 and C-295
aeroplanes, corresponding to civil type design, as cross-feed, shut-
off and defueling valves, as applicable to aeroplane model and
configuration.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of a motorised fuel valve and consequent improper fuel
system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition
source, possibly resulting in an aeroplane fire.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defense &
Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)-CN235-28-0001
and AOT-C295-28-0001 to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an
inspection of the affected motorised fuel valves and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [(valve
replacement)].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9386.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued AOT-CN235-28-0001, dated
February 19, 2016; and AOT-C295-28-0001, dated February 19, 2016. The
service information describes procedures for inspecting and replacing
the motorized fuel valves. The service information also describes
procedures for reporting inspection findings. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to 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 these same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $170          $2,380
                                      = $170.
Reporting..........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour                0              85           1,190
                                      = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement................................  5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425.         $38,448         $38,873
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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);
    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 Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2016-9386; Directorate
Identifier 2016-NM-056-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 9, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known
as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-
235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel
valve, which was detected during accomplishment of a functional
check. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a
motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the
fuel valve and consequent improper

fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition
source, an airplane fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of Motorized Fuel Valves

    Within the compliance time defined in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, as applicable, do a general visual inspection of each
motorized fuel valve having part number (P/N) 7923227F for the
presence of fuel on the electrical connectors and inside the
receptacles, as specified in, and in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001 or Airbus Defense and Space
AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 6,000 flight cycles or more since first flight: Do
the inspection within 30 flight cycles or 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated fewer than 6,000 flight cycles since first flight:
Do the inspection within 400 flight hours after the effective date
of this AD.

(h) Replacement of Affected Parts

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any leaking of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F is
detected: Before the next flight, replace the affected fuel valve
with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus Defense and Space AOT-CN235-28-0001 or Airbus Defense and
Space AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.
A serviceable part is defined as a part that is not defective; it
could be a used or brand new part.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, replacement of a motorized
fuel valve having P/N 7923227F with a serviceable used part on an
airplane is allowed, provided that, within 30 flight cycles or 30
days, whichever occurs first after installation, the part passes an
inspection done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Defense and Space AOT-CN235-28-0001 or AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated
February 19, 2016, as applicable.

(j) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD, report the inspection results (both positive and
negative) to Airbus DS Technical Assistance Center (AMTAC);
telephone +34 91 600 79 99; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The report must include the inspection results, a description of any
discrepancies found, operator name, the airplane model and serial
number, valve part number and serial number, and the number of
landings and flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Airworthiness Directive 2016-0071, dated April 11, 2016, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9386.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Defense and Space, Technical Services/Engineering Support,
Avenida de Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91
585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 31 0527; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 2, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27307 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P