 Original Message From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11: 12 AM To: King, Neil Subject: RE: EPA's Rationale Regarding Ni Emissions in PCWP MACT The PCWP MACT is independent of any decisions concerning NATA. I do not know the status of the consideration of your comments for the 1999 NATA.

" King, Neil" < Neil. King@ wilmerhale To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA . com> cc: Subject: RE: EPA's Rationale Regarding Ni 09/ 08/ 2004 10: 34 AM Emissions in PCWP MACT Dear Ms. Kissell:

Thanks very much for the prompt response. I suspected the 65% nickel subsulfide assumption was based on the 1996 NATA rationale, but I wanted to confirm the point.

Although it probably is too late to do anything about it now as far as the Plywood and Composite Wood Product MACT is concerned, I do want to let you know that the nickel producing industry believes the 65% subsulfide speciation assumption reflected in the1996 NATA is completely unfounded. In August 2002, we submitted Comments on the draft 1996 NATA, explaining why the 65% assumption overstated the nickel subsulfide portion of total nickel emissions by an order of magnitude or more, and we asked that an appropriate correction be made in the 1999 NATA. We are hopeful that such a correction will be made, and we trust that the approach reflected in the PCWP MACT does not imply that our request has been rejected. For your information, I am attaching a copy of those Comments, along with the accompanying cover letter.

Incidentally, although it is not used in the methodology for making a low risk demonstration, the preamble to the PCWP MACT Rule states that nickel carbonyl might be emitted from PCWP facilities. 69 Fed. Reg. at 45948. Although we have little familiarity with such facilities, we would be very surprised to find nickel carbonyl emissions from any of the processes ( including directfired process units) at PCWP facilities.

Neil J. King Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 2445 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 USA + 1 202 663 6061 + 1 202 772 6061 fax neil. king@ wilmerhale. com _____

This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP immediately  by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster@ wilmerhale. com < mailto: postmaster@ wilmerhale. com>  and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. _____

For more information about Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, please visit us at http:// www. wilmerhale. com < http:// www. wilmerhale. com/>.

 Original Message From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9: 46 AM To: King, Neil Subject: EPA's Rationale Regarding Ni Emissions in PCWP MACT Mr. King,

It seemed easier to email you than to telephone.

For the Plywood and Composite Wood Product MACT, EPA assumed that 65% of nickel emissions are subsulfide based on the 1996 NATA rationale. The NATA rationale follows and the web link is  http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata/ nettables. pdf Facilities are also free to measure nickel emissions to achieve a more accurate speciation profile.

NATA Rationale:

Nickel. The IRIS URE for nickel inhalation shown in Table 1 below was derived from evidence of the carcinogenic effects of insoluble nickel compounds in crystalline form. Soluble nickel species, and insoluble species in amorphous form, do not appear to produce genotoxic effects by the same mode of action as insoluble crystalline nickel. Nickel speciation information for some of the largest nickel emitting sources ( including oil combustion, coal combustion, and others) suggests that at least 35% of total nickel emissions may be soluble compounds. The remaining insoluble nickel emissions are not wellcharacterized however. Consistent with this limited information, this analysis has conservatively assumed that 65% of emitted nickel is insoluble, and that all insoluble nickel is crystalline. On this basis, the nickel URE ( based on nickel subsulfide, and representative of pure insoluble crystalline nickel) was adjusted to reflect an assumption that 65% of the total mass of nickel may be carcinogenic. The ATSDR MRL in Table 2 was not adjusted, however, because the noncancer effects of nickel are not thought to be limited to the crystalline, insoluble form.

( See attached file: Cover letter for NATA Comments. doc)( See attached file: NATA Response 3. doc) August 20, 2002 Mr. David Guinnup U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code C404 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Re: National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Dear Mr. Guinnup:

On behalf of the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association ( NiPERA), the Nickel Development Institute ( NiDI), and Inco United States, Inc., I am enclosing Comments regarding the Unit Risk Estimate (" URE") that was used in the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996 (" NATA 1996") to characterize estimated cancer risks associated with exposures to nickel compounds in the ambient air.

As you will see, NiDI, NiPERA, and Inco believe that the URE used in NATA 1996 was inappropriate and produced an exaggerated estimate of the number of people living in census tracts where exposures to nickel compounds are estimated to pose a lifetime cancer risk exceeding 10 6 ( one in one million). Although we do not have the data inputs for EPA's exposure model, we expect that use of a corrected and more appropriate URE would result in a downgrading of nickel compounds from the category of " Important National Cancer Risk Contributor" to the category of " Important Regional Cancer Risk Contributor." If this proves to be correct, we hope that EPA will reflect the change in an electronic addendum or other correction of NATA 1996, as well as in the work currently under way to prepare NATA 1999.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Neil J. King Enclosures cc: K. Jack Kooyoomjian, Ph. D. Introduction Earlier this year, EPA published its Final National Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996 (" NATA 1996"). In this report, EPA categorized nickel compounds as an Important National Cancer Risk Contributor   implying that more than 25 million people live in census tracts where exposures to nickel compounds pose an estimated upper bound lifetime cancer risk exceeding 1 in a million. This categorization was predicated on three major assumptions:

1. That the utilization of a Unit Risk Estimate ( URE) of 4.8 x 10 4 ( per µ g/ m3) derived solely for nickel subsulfide is an appropriate basis upon which to categorize the contributing cancer risk for all nickel compounds once a " speciation adjustment"   reflected in assumptions ( 2) and ( 3) below   is made to account for the mix of nickel compounds actually present in ambient air.

2. That 65% of nickel in the ambient air is in insoluble form.

3. That all of this 65% can ( conservatively) be deemed to be " crystalline nickel," which EPA appears to equate with nickel subsulfide.

The present comments, submitted on behalf of the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association ( NiPERA), the Nickel Development Institute ( NiDI), and Inco United States, Inc., discuss each of these assumptions and whether it is appropriate to use them in characterizing population cancer risks attributable to nickel compounds in the ambient air. Alternative methods for determining the appropriate basis on which to characterize these risks are presented.

Background In 1986, the EPA published a Health Assessment Document ( HAD) for Nickel and Its Compounds. In this document, nickel species were categorized with respect to potential carcinogenicity, and unit risk estimates for carcinogenic nickel species were derived. At that time, the species determined by the Agency to be carcinogenic were nickel refinery dust from pyrometallurgical sulfide nickel matte refineries and nickel subsulfide. Nickel carbonyl was found to be a " probable" carcinogen based on certain animal data. No other nickel compounds were classified as being carcinogenic, although their carcinogenic potential was discussed.

A URE of 2.4 x 10 4 was derived for nickel refinery dust based upon an analysis of data relating to carcinogenic risk in five cohorts employed in the refining of 1 Huntington, West Virginia refinery workers exposed to nickel subsulfide, Huntington workers not exposed to nickel subsulfide ( referred to as " non refinery workers"), Copper Cliff Ontario Canada refinery workers, Clydach, Wales refinery workers, and Kristiansand, Norway refinery workers.

2 nickel. 1 Unit risk estimates were calculated for each of the cohorts, and the midpoint of these estimates ( 2.4 x 10 4) was selected as characterizing the risk of nickel refinery dust overall. Because nickel subsulfide was thought to be the principal carcinogenic agent in refinery dust, EPA then multiplied the URE that it had calculated for nickel refinery dust by a factor of 2 to account for what the Agency believed at that time was " roughly, the 50% nickel subsulfide composition of refinery dust." ( Nickel HAD at page 8 218.). This resulted in an artificially constructed URE of 4.8 x 10 4 ( per µ g/ m3) for nickel subsulfide.

In addition to deriving UREs, the Nickel HAD also reported on nickel levels in the ambient air. The composition of nickel in the ambient air varied according to the major industrial sources emitting nickel. Particles found in the ambient air as a result of oil and coal combustion ( the largest source contributor to nickel in the air) appeared to be predominantly in the form of nickel sulfate, with lesser amounts of nickel oxide and complex metal oxides containing nickel ( Henry and Knapp, 1980; Dietz and Wieser, 1983). Nickel emissions from metallurgical processes ( e. g. steel manufacturing, nickel alloy manufacturing, iron and steel foundries) were found to be in the form of complex oxides of nickel and other metals and metallic nickel ( Page, 1983; Koponen et al., 1981). Emissions from chemical and catalyst manufacturing, including plating, appeared to be combinations of soluble, oxidic, and metallic nickel ( Radian Corporation, 1983). Emissions from primary nickel production were deemed inconsequential as only one nickel mine operated in the U. S. at that time. This mine has since been closed. In summary, nickel subsulfide was not found to be present in a significant amount in any of the exposure scenarios described above.

Selection of an Appropriate URE and Speciation Adjustment As noted above, EPA used the " contrived" URE for nickel subsulfide ( 4.8 x 10 4) with a " speciation adjustment" to characterize the carcinogenic risk posed by nickel compounds in the ambient air. The speciation adjustment was based on the assumption that insoluble compounds constitute 65% of nickel in the ambient air and that all of this insoluble nickel is " crystalline" ( by which EPA apparently means to suggest that the insoluble nickel is nickel subsulfide). The URE for nickel subsulfide was then multiplied by 0.65 to derive a URE ( 3.1 x 10 4) that was applied to the exposure concentrations of total nickel species in order to develop the risk characterization for nickel compounds in NATA 1996.

We believe this approach is not well founded, for two reasons. First, in contrast to the URE for nickel refinery dust ( which was based directly upon actual human data involving cancer risks for workers exposed to nickel refinery dust), the URE for nickel subsulfide was artificially derived   i. e., it was not based upon actual data for a cohort of workers who were exposed exclusively to nickel subsulfide ( or even to a mixture of compounds in which the nickel subsulfide component 2 As of this date, EPA has not completed an evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of soluble nickel compounds. See IRIS Summary for Nickel, Soluble Salts. However, under the cosponsorship of EPA, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (" TERA") critically reviewed all the relevant evidence in 1999 and, in a peer reviewed report, concluded that: ( 1) " water soluble salts of nickel are distinctly different from water insoluble nickel compounds with respect to carcinogenic potential"; ( 2) the carcinogenicity of inhaled soluble nickel compounds " cannot be determined"; and ( 3) " quantitative estimates of cancer risk from the inhalation of soluble nickel compounds . . . are not recommended." TERA, 1999 at 113, 116. These conclusions are consistent with the results of NTP inhalation bioassays in which soluble nickel showed no evidence of carcinogenicity ( NTP 1996b). See note 4 infra.

3 was well characterized). Hence, only limited confidence can be placed in the URE for nickel subsulfide as the basis to estimate the carcinogenic risk that nickel compounds in the ambient air pose to the general population whose exposures to nickel subsulfide are negligible or non existent.

Second, even if one could be more confident about the URE for nickel subsulfide, it is perfectly clear that nickel subsulfide does not constitute anything like 65% of the nickel species in ambient air. As noted above, data in the Nickel HAD indicated that the predominant species from the important nickel emitting sources in the U. S. are soluble nickel compounds ( predominantly nickel sulfate), oxidic nickel compounds ( including complex oxides of nickel and other metals), and some metallic nickel. No significant source of nickel subsulfide was identified. More recent studies employing various analytical methods suggest that, if present at all, sulfidic nickel exists below the limit of detection ( 0.5  2% of total nickel emissions) ( EPRI, 1999; Galbreath et al., 2000). In another study in Germany, only 6% of total ambient nickel was found to be sulfidic ( Füchtjohann et al., 2001). Consequently, EPA's 65% assumption overstates the nickel subsulfide component of nickel species in ambient air by an order of magnitude or more.

That said, we agree with EPA's approach of characterizing nickel related cancer risk on the basis of the insoluble fraction of nickel compounds in ambient air2. We also believe it is not unreasonable to assume that, as a conservative upper bound, 65% of nickel found in the ambient air may be insoluble compounds   though that is almost certainly too high. A recent study suggests that the percent contribution of soluble nickel from oil fired utility boilers ( a major source contributor of nickel to the ambient air) could be much higher than 35%, thereby decreasing the total amount of nickel that may be found as insoluble species ( Galbreath et al., 2000). Moreover, not all insoluble nickel in ambient air will be nickel compounds. Some of the insoluble nickel in ambient air is metallic nickel. Emissions from metallurgical sources and certain chemical sources are bound to contain some metallic nickel. Indeed, a recent paper speciating nickel in the ambient air suggests that up to 10% of total nickel may be metallic nickel, rather than nickel compounds ( Füchtjohann et al., 2001). Thus, a speciation adjustment of 50%, rather than 65%, probably would be more appropriate to 3 Metallic nickel has not been shown to be carcinogenic in humans ( Cox et al., 1981; Enterline and Marsh, 1982; Cragle et al., 1984; ICNCM, 1990; Arena et al., 1998; Moulin et al., 2000, Egedhal et al., 2001) and therefore should not be included in the calculation of potentially carcinogenic insoluble nickel species.

4 Recent NTP and mechanistic studies support the contention that, of the various nickel species, nickel subsulfide is the most potent carcinogen, with oxidic nickel being less potent, and soluble nickel showing no evidence of carcinogenicity ( NTP, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Costa, 1991; Oller et al., 1997; Haber et al., 2000).

4 account for the percent total mass of nickel presumed to be insoluble compounds. 3 Whether insoluble compounds are deemed to constitute 50% or 65% of total nickel in ambient air, the URE for nickel refinery dust, rather than the " contrived" URE for nickel subsulfide, should be used as the basis to characterize potential cancer risks to the general population associated with the presence of insoluble nickel compounds in the ambient air. The URE for refinery dust is a more reasonable surrogate to use for this purpose for two reasons: ( 1) In contrast to the URE for nickel subsulfide, it is derived directly from epidemiological data; and ( 2) the composition of refinery dust ( mainly oxidic nickel, with lesser amounts of sulfidic, metallic, and soluble nickel) is more comparable to the composition of nickel compounds in the ambient air than nickel subsulfide alone. Even this approach would be conservative, because the URE for nickel refinery dust reflects, in part, the carcinogenic potency of nickel subsulfide ( the most potent of nickel compounds believed to be carcinogenic), and nickel subsulfide is a much more significant component of refinery dust than it is of nickel species in the ambient air. 4 Applying a 65% insoluble nickel " speciation adjustment" to the URE for nickel refinery dust ( 2.4 x 10 4) produces a URE value of 1.6 x 10 4 ( per µ g/ m3). If a 50% insoluble nickel " speciation adjustment" were employed, the resulting URE value would be 1.2 x 10 4 ( per µ g/ m3).

Alternatively, if EPA wished to use a cohort whose nickel exposures were more comparable to the composition of nickel species in the ambient air than the refinery cohorts, the UREs for Huntington non refinery workers could be considered. These workers were exposed mainly to a combination of oxidic, metallic, and soluble nickel   with no exposure to nickel subsulfide. UREs for this cohort range from 9.5 x 10 6 to 2.1 x 10 5 ( per µ g/ m3) ( EPA, 1986). The midpoint of this range is 1.5 x 10 5.

Conclusion Since we do not have the exposure modeling data that EPA used in developing its risk characterization for nickel compounds in NATA 1996, we are not in a position to say whether use of a more appropriate URE value and/ or " speciation adjustment" would change the risk category in which nickel compounds were placed. But, even without lowering the " speciation adjustment" to 50%, use of 5 If the URE for the Huntington non refinery workers were used, an even greater reduction would be expected.

5 the URE for nickel refinery dust, rather than the URE for nickel subsulfide, likely would reduce by half the number of people living in census tracts where exposures to nickel compounds are estimated to pose an upper bound lifetime cancer risk exceeding 1 in a million. 5 That alone might downgrade the categorization of nickel compounds from Important National Cancer Risk Contributor to Important Regional Cancer Risk Contributor   indicating that nickel compounds in the ambient air do not pose a risk of concern to the U. S. population on a national basis, although pockets of risk may exist regionally. We request that EPA perform the appropriate calculations and reflect the results in an addendum or other correction of NATA 1996, as well as in the work that is being done to develop NATA 1999.

References Arena, V. C., Sussman, N. B., Redmond, C. K., Costantino, J. P., Trauth, J. M. ( 1998). Using alternative comparison populations to assess occupation related mortality risk. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 40: 907 916.

Costa ( 1991). Molecular mechanisms of nickel carcinogenesis. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol Toxicol. 31: 321 37.

Cox, J. E., Doll, R., Scott, W. A., Smith, S. ( 1981). Mortality of nickel workers: Experience of men working with metallic nickel. Br. J. Ind. Med. 38: 235 239.

Cragle, D. L., Hollis, D. R., Newport, T. H., Shy, C. M. ( 1984). A retrospective cohort mortality study among workers occupationally exposed to metallic nickel powder at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. In: Sunderman, F. W., Jr., ed. Nickel in the Human Environment: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium; March 1983; Lyon, France. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, ( IARC Scientific Publication No. 53), pp. 57 63.

Dietz, R. N., Wieser, R. F. ( 1983). Sulfate formation in oil fired power plant plumes: V. 1, Parameters affecting primary sulfate emissions and a model for predicting emissions and plume opacity. Upton, NY, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Report No. EA 3231.

Egedahl, R., Carpenter, M., Lundell, D. ( 2001). Mortality experience among employees at a hydrometallurgical nickel refinery and fertilizer complex in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta ( 1954 95). Occup. Environ. Med. 58: 711 715. 6 Enterline, P. E., Marsh, G. M. ( 1982). Mortality among workers in a nickel refinery and alloy manufacturing plant in West Virginia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68: 925 933.

EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 1986). Health Assessment Document for Nickel and Nickel Compounds. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D. C. EPA/ 600/ 8 83/ 012FF.

EPRI. Electric Power Research Institute. ( 1999). Measurement of nickel subsulfide emissions from oil fired power plants. Technical Brief 11422. Available from EPRI, Palo Alto, California.

Füchtjohann, L., Jakubowski, N., Gladtke, D., Klockow, D., Broekaert, J. A. C. ( 2001). Speciation of nickel in airborne particulate matter by means of sequential extraction in a micro flow system and determination by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J. Environ. Monit. 3: 681 687.

Galbreath K. C., Toman, D. L., Zygarlicke, C. J., Huggins, F. E., Huffman, G. P., Wong, J. L. ( 2000). Nickel speciation of residual oil fly ash and ambient particulate matter using x ray absorption spectroscopy. J. Air Waste Man. Assoc. 50: 1876 1886.

Haber, L. T., Erdreicht, L., Diamond, G. L., Maier, A. M., Ratney, R.; Zhao, Q., Dourson, M. L. ( 2000). Hazard identification and dose response of inhaled nickel soluble salts. Reg. Toxicol. Pharm. 31: 210 230.

Henry, W. M., Knapp, K. T. ( 1980). Compound forms of fossil fuel fly ash emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14: 450 456.

ICNCM. International Committee on Nickel Carcinogenesis in Man. ( 1990). Report of the International Committee on Nickel Carcinogenesis in Man. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 16( 1): 1 84.

Koponen, M., Gustafsson, T., Kalliomäki, P., Pyy, L. ( 1981). Chromium and nickel aerosols in stainless steel manufacturing, grinding, and welding. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 42: 596 601.

Moulin J. J., Clavel, T., Roy, D., Danaché, B., Marquis, N., Févotte, J., Fontana, J. M. ( 2000). Risk of lung cancer in workers producing stainless steel and metallic alloys. Int. Arch Occup. Environ. Health 73: 171 180.

NTP. National Toxicology Program Technical Report. ( 1996a). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Nickel Subsulfide in F344/ N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. NTP TR 453, NIH publication Series No. 96 3369. 7 NTP. National Toxicology Program Technical Report. ( 1996b). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate in F344/ N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. NTP TR 454, NIH Publication Series No. 96 3370.

NTP. National Toxicology Program Technical Report. ( 1996c). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Nickel Oxide in F344/ N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. NTP TR 451, NIH Publication Series No. 96 3363.

Oller, A. R., Costa, M., Oberdörster, G. ( 1997). Carcinogenicity assessment of selected nickel compounds. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 143: 152 166.

Page, J. H. ( 1983). [ Letter and attachments to Ms. Donna Sivulka]. July 14. Available for inspection at: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Radian Corporation. ( 1983). Locating and estimating emissions from sources of nickel. Research Triangle Park, NC. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division. EPA Contract No. 68 02 3513.

TERA. Toxicological Excellence for Risk Assessment. ( 1999). Toxicological Review of Soluble Nickel Salts. Cincinnati, OH.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43496-43499]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0584; Product Identifier 2020-NM-069-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 and EMB-545 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks, delamination, and
failure of the flight deck side windows during certification fatigue
tests. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the
flight deck side windows for any cracking or delamination, corrective
action if necessary, and eventual replacement of the windows, as
specified in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification
Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[ordm] 209, Jardim Esplanada, CEP
12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; telephone 55
(12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.anac.gov.br/en/.
You may find this IBR material on the ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. For service information
identified in this final rule,

contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 560), Rodovia
Presidente Dutra, km 134, 12247-004 Distrito Eug[ecirc]nio de Melo--
S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP--Brazil; telephone +55 12 3927-
0386; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.mytechcare.embraer.com. 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-2020-0584.

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-
0584; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0584;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-069-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM based on 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 the FAA receives, without change,
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact the FAA receives about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01, effective May 22, 2020 (``Brazilian AD
2020-04-01R01'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 and EMB-545 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks, delamination,
and failure of the flight deck side windows during certification
fatigue tests. The FAA is proposing this AD to address such cracks and
delamination, which could cause the flight deck side windows to fail
and lead to an in-flight depressurization event. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 describes procedures for repetitive
detailed inspections of the flight deck side windows for any cracking
or delamination, and replacement of the windows. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, Brazilian AD 2020-
04-01R01 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This
proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Brazilian AD
2020-04-01R01 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Service information specified in Brazilian AD 2020-04-
01R01 that is required for compliance with Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01
will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0584 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 49 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 work-hour x $85 per hour = $850...........................              $0             $850          $41,650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
            Labor cost                   Parts cost           product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765  $9,280 per window...         $10,045
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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.

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):

    Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2020-0584; Product Identifier 2020-
NM-069-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 31, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 and EMB-545
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) AD
2020-04-01R01, effective May 22, 2020 (``Brazilian AD 2020-04-
01R01'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks, delamination, and
failure of the flight deck side windows during certification fatigue
tests. The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracks and
delamination, which could cause the flight deck side windows to fail
and lead to an in-flight depressurization event.

(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, Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01.

(h) Exceptions and Clarifications to Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01

    (1) Where Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 refers to its effective
date, or ``17 April, 2020, the effective date of the original issue
of this AD,'' this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 refers to the compliance
time of the repetitive inspections, ``at each 750 Flight Hours
(FH),'' this AD requires a compliance time of, ``at intervals not to
exceed 750 flight hours.''
    (3) Where Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 refers to, ``in case of no
crack, delamination or any other damage which do not allow to
properly perform the required inspection by this AD, no action is
required at this time,'' this AD requires that in the case of no
crack or delamination that no further action is required until the
next inspection interval.
    (4) Where Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 refers to the compliance
time for the replacement of the flight deck side windows as,
``before the airplane logs 3,400 Flight Cycles Since New (FCSN),''
this AD requires a compliance time of ``before the airplane logs
3,400 FCSN, or within 50 flight cycles, whichever occurs later.''

    (5) Replacement of the flight deck side windows as specified in
paragraph (c)(1) of Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 terminates the
repetitive inspections for the flight deck side windows specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01.
    (6) The ``Alternative method of compliance (AMOC)'' section of
Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01 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)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about Brazilian AD 2020-04-01R01, contact
National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification
Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, no 209, Jardim Esplanada, CEP
12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; telephone
55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.anac.gov.br/
en/. You may find this Brazilian AD on the ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. 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-2020-0584.
    (2) 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_ADDRESS>

    Issued on July 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2020-15333 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P