[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43499-43503]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0581; Product Identifier 2020-NM-057-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-22-08, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
The FAA also proposes to supersede AD 2018-17-19, which applies to
certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -
113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212,
-214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -
271N airplanes. The FAA also proposes to supersede AD 2019-19-15, which
applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-
111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N
airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. AD 2019-19-15 requires
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since
the FAA issued AD 2019-19-15, the FAA has determined that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For EASA material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in
this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    For the Airbus material identified in this proposed AD that will
continue to be incorporated by reference, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.airbus.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-2020-0581.

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-
0581; 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2020-0581;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-057-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 that are received, 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
attention of 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 FAA issued AD 2019-19-15, Amendment 39-19751 (84 FR 54480,
October 10, 2019) (``AD 2019-19-15''), for certain Airbus SAS Model
A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -
132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232,
-233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. AD
2019-19-15 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2019-19-15 to address the
failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. AD 2019-19-15 specifies that
accomplishing the revision required by that AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-19373 (83 FR 44460, August
31, 2018) (``AD 2018-17-19''). AD 2018-17-19 specifies that
accomplishing the revisions required by that AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313 (80 FR 68434,
November 5, 2015) (``AD 2015-22-08'') and AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-
18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (``AD 2015-05-02''). AD 2015-05-02
was already superseded by AD 2017-22-03, Amendment 39-19083 (82 FR
49091, October 24, 2017) (``AD 2017-22-03'').
    AD 2018-17-19 corresponds to EASA AD 2017-0215, dated October 24,
2017 (``EASA AD 2017-0215''), and requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness
Limitations (SL-ALI), Revision 05, Issue 02, dated April 19, 2017
(``ALS Part 1, Revision 05''). EASA AD 2017-0215 superseded EASA AD
2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014 (``EASA AD 2014-0141''), which
corresponds with FAA AD 2015-22-08. EASA AD 2017-0215 stated it
supersedes EASA AD 2014-0141 and requires accomplishment of the actions
specified in A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1 Revision 05 (which includes
the life limits required by EASA AD 2014-0141).
    Although the applicability of EASA AD 2017-0215 was all airplanes,
the corresponding FAA AD 2018-17-19 only applied to airplanes with an
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before April 19, 2017 (the date of approval
of ALS Part 1, Revision 05). Airplanes with an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
after April 19, 2017, must comply with the airworthiness limitations
specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the
type certificate data sheet.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 2019-19-15, AD 2018-17-19, and
AD 2015-22-08.

Actions Since AD 2019-19-15 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2019-19-15, the FAA has determined that new
or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0080, dated April 1, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0080'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -
271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes.
Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not
included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued after November 13, 2019,
must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the
approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet;
this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the
applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the failure of certain life-limited parts,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See
the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0080 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD would also require Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness

Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations
(SL-ALI), Revision 06, Issue 02, dated November 30, 2018, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of November 14, 2019 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019).
    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 and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA has evaluated all pertinent information and determined
an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2019-19-15.
This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance
or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD
2020-0080 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any
differences with EASA AD 2020-0080 are identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(l)(1) of this proposed 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, EASA AD 2020-0080
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0080 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD 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 the EASA AD.
    Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0080 that is required
for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0080 will be available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0581 after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,553 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2019-19-15 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the agency has estimated that this action
takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance
or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313
(80 FR 68434, November 5, 2015); AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-19373 (83
FR 44460, August 31, 2018); and AD 2019-19-15, Amendment 39-19751 (84
FR 54480, October 10, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0581; Product Identifier 2020-NM-
057-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 31, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-22-08, Amendment 39-18313 (80 FR 68434,
November 5, 2015) (``AD 2015-22-08''); AD 2018-17-19, Amendment 39-
19373 (83 FR 44460, August 31, 2018) (``AD 2018-17-19''); and AD
2019-19-15, Amendment 39-19751 (84 FR 54480, October 10, 2019) (``AD
2019-19-15'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 13,
2019.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -
151N, and -153N airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX,
and -272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the failure of certain life-limited
parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-19-15, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before November 30, 2018: Within 90 days
after November 14, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-19-15),
revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate Airbus SAS A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI), Revision 06, Issue 02, dated
November 30, 2018. The initial compliance time for doing the revised
actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus SAS A318/A319/
A320/A321 ALS Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI),
Revision 06, Issue 02, dated November 30, 2018, or within 90 days
after November 14, 2019, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the
maintenance or inspection program revision required by paragraph (i)
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2019-19-15, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative life
limits may be used unless approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0080, dated April 1, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0080'').
Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0080

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraph (1), (3), and (4) of
EASA AD 2020-0080 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080 specifies revising ``the
AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate the ``limitations'' specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0080 within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080 is at the applicable compliance
times specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0080, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0080 does not apply
to this AD.

(k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals are allowed except as specified in the
provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-
0080.

(l) 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 (m)(4) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2019-19-15 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020-0080 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0080 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be

done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0080, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (2) For information about the Airbus material identified in this
AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93
36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet https://www.airbus.com.
    (3) 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-2020-0581.
    (4) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on July 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15335 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 4896-4897]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61415; File No. SR-NSCC-2010-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
Guarantee of Payment in Connection With the Envelope Settlement Service

January 25, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2010, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make modifications to
NSCC's Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') to eliminate NSCC's guarantee of
payment in connection with the Envelope Settlement Service (``ESS'') as
provided for under Rule 9, Addendum D, Addendum K, and Procedure XV of
the Rules.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The Envelope Settlement Service (``ESS'') is primarily provided for
under Rule 9 and Addendum D of the Rules with related provisions in
Addendum K and Procedure XV, each of which is proposed to be amended as
further described below.
    ESS allows an NSCC member (``Member'') through the facilities of
NSCC, to physically deliver a sealed envelope \4\ containing securities
and such other items as NSCC may permit from time to time, to a
specified receiving Member. NSCC then delivers the envelope to the
receiving Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 9 provides that except as NSCC may determine to be
appropriate or necessary, NSCC will not examine the contents of the
envelopes or verify the amounts of money shown on the credit list,
and it shall not be responsible with respect thereto except to
deliver the envelopes accepted by it to the authorized
representatives of the Members to whom they are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The delivering Member must attach to each envelope (in duplicate),
a credit list, which reflects the total money value, if any, of the
envelope's contents. If after receipt of the envelope NSCC determines
that the envelope delivered is properly listed on the accompanying
credit list, NSCC stamps the duplicate credit list and makes it
immediately available to the Member's representative making the
delivery. Envelopes listed on the credit list shall be deemed to have
been accepted by NSCC when the duplicate credit list is stamped.
    As a related feature of ESS, the payment shown on the credit list
is processed as part of the Members' daily end of day net money
settlement obligations in reliance on the agreement between the
delivering and receiving parties that that amount is the contract
amount.
    Pursuant to this rule change, the NSCC will amend Rule 9 and
related provisions so that the NSCC does not guarantee the payment
obligation to the receiving Member in an ESS delivery and so that
credits and debits of the payment amount of an envelope may be
reversed. The rationale for these changes is to protect the NSCC
against the risk of Member non-payment.
    The payment reversal may be effected by the NSCC even if the
receiving Member has taken possession of the envelope; however, if the
receiving Member has not yet taken possession of the envelope at the
time of a payment reversal, NSCC will return the envelope to the
delivering Member. Any dispute between the delivering and receiving
Members must be resolved by them outside the facilities of the NSCC.
    The primary substantive changes are in Rule 9, Addendum D and
Addendum K with a conforming change to Procedure XV. Technical clean-up
changes are also made in each.
    Changes to Rule 9 affirmatively provide that NSCC does not
guarantee the payment obligation in ESS and that payment credits and
debits may be reversed. Technical and conforming changes clarify the
concepts of delivering and receiving Members and that settlement
processing is subject not only to the rights of the NSCC under Section
2 of Rule 12 but also to the new reversal provision in Section 4 of
Rule 9.
    Addendum D is similarly amended to conform to amended Rule 9 to
state that ESS is not guaranteed and that payment credits and debits
may be reversed as provided in Rule 9. Clarification that settlement
processing is subject to the rights of NSCC under Rule 9, new Section
4, and Rule 12, Section 2, is also carried over to Addendum D. Addendum
D also covers other services for which no change is being made in this
filing. Therefore, certain of the revisions to Addendum D clarify that
the amendments are limited to ESS. Historical statements in Addendum D
have been eliminated.
    The change to Addendum K deletes the provision that formerly
provided a guarantee for ESS and thereby deemed ESS to be a ``System''
within the meaning of Rule 4; without the guarantee, ESS will not be
considered a ``System.''
    Consistent with this change, clearing fund deposits allocated to
ESS will be eliminated under Procedure XV, which will reduce the cost
to members using ESS. The change to Procedure XV clarifies that when
the clearing fund component titled ``For Other Transactions'' (that is,
for other than CNS transactions and balance order transactions) is
computed, ESS will not be included.
    In considering the elimination of the guarantee, NSCC surveyed
selected Members and learned that they did not consider it vital that
NSCC be responsible for their ESS payment obligations and that they do
not rely on the NSCC to guarantee such payments. The proposed rule
changes will therefore conform to current market expectations.
    However, Members expressed a strong desire for NSCC to maintain the
central delivery service. The proposed changes are designed to meet
this expressed need of certain Members while reducing risk to NSCC and
its Members generally. The burden of risk is shifted to those that
should bear it, outside NSCC's facilities. The changes will also
insulate other Members from any impact on net settlement due to an ESS
payment dispute.

    NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because the proposed rule
change facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions by protecting the NSCC's net settlement process
while continuing to provide a central delivery point for physical
deliveries of envelopes with constrained payment processing. The
changes will reduce the NSCC's exposure to potential losses from Member
defaults, insolvencies, mistakes, and fraud and will appropriately
shift the risk outside NSCC, to the contracting Members in an ESS
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commissions Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or Send an e-mail to rule-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number SR-NSCC-2010-01 on the
subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2010-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/
rule_filings/2010/nscc/2010-01.pdf. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2010-01 and should be submitted on
or before February 19, 2010.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1852 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26312-26313]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0053]

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements, Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a federal agency may collect certain information from
the public, the agency must receive approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB''). Under procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before
seeking OMB approval, federal agencies must solicit public comment on
proposed collections of information, including extensions and
reinstatements of previously approved collections. In compliance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice describes one
collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please be sure to
mention the docket number of this document and cite OMB Clearance No.
2127-0609, ``Criminal Penalty Safe Harbor Provision.''
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Kolodziej, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-100, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
OMB Clearance Number 2127-0609 ``Criminal Penalty Safe Harbor
Provision.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comment on the following proposed extension, without change, of a
currently approved collection of information:

Criminal Penalty Safe Harbor Provision

    Type of Request--Extension, without change, of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Clearance Number--2127-0609.
    Form Number--This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--Three (3) years from the
date of approval of the collection.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--Each person seeking safe
harbor protection from criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30170 related
to an improper report or failure to report is required to submit the
following information to NHTSA: (1) A signed and dated document that
identifies (a) each previous improper report and each failure to report
as required under 49 U.S.C. 30166, including a regulation, requirement,
request or order issued thereunder, for which protection is sought and
(b) the specific predicate under which the improper or omitted report
should have been provided; and (2) the complete and correct information
that was required to be submitted but was improperly submitted or was
not previously submitted, including relevant documents that were not
previously submitted to NHTSA or, if the person cannot do so, provide a
detailed description of that information and/or the content of those
documents and the reason why the individual cannot provide them to
NHTSA. See 49 U.S.C. 30170(a)(2) and 49 CFR 578.7; see also 66 FR 38380
(July 24, 2001) (safe harbor final rule); 65 FR 81414 (Dec. 26, 2000)
(safe harbor interim final rule).
    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the
Information--This information collection was mandated by Section 5 of
the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 30170(a)(2). The information
collected will provide NHTSA with information the Agency should have
received previously and will also promptly provide the Agency with
correct information to do its analyses, such as, for example,
conducting tests or drawing conclusions about possible safety-related
defects. NHTSA anticipates using this information to help it to
accomplish its statutory assignment of identifying safety-related
defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and, when
appropriate, seeking safety recalls.
    Description of the Likely Respondents, Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the

Collection of Information--This collection of information applies to
any person who seeks a ``safe harbor'' from potential criminal
liability for violating section 1001 of title 18 with respect to the
reporting requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30166, with the specific intention
of misleading the Secretary with respect to a safety-related defect in
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that caused death or serious
bodily injury to an individual. Thus, the collection of information
applies to the manufacturers, and any officers or employees thereof,
who respond or have a duty to respond to an information provision
requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30166 or a regulation, requirement,
request or order issued thereunder.
    We believe that there will be very few criminal prosecutions under
section 30170, given its elements. Since the safe harbor related rule
has been in place, the Agency has not received any reports.
Accordingly, the rule is not likely to be a substantial motivating
force for a submission of a proper report. We estimate that no more
than one person a year would invoke this new collection of information,
and we do not anticipate receiving more than one report a year from any
particular person.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens
Resulting from the Collection of Information--2 hours.
    As stated before, we estimate that no more than one person a year
would be subject to this collection of information. Incrementally, we
estimate that on average it will take no longer than two hours for a
person to compile and submit the information we are requiring to be
reported. Therefore, the total burden hours on the public per year is
estimated to be a maximum of two hours.
    Since nothing in the rule requires those persons who submit reports
pursuant to this rule to keep copies of any records or reports
submitted to us, recordkeeping costs imposed would be zero hours and
zero costs.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.

    Issued: April 21, 2016.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-10201 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


August 11, 2004 Mr. Donald S. Welsh ( 3RA00) Regional Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA, 19103 2029 RE: Delaware's Comments on MDE's Petition to Reclassify Kent and Queen Anne's County Ozone Nonattainment Area's under the 8 Hour Standard Dear Mr. Welsh:

We recently received a copy of the Maryland Department of Environment's ( MDE) petition to EPA, to reclassify Maryland's Kent and Queen Anne's County " moderate" ozone nonattainment area ( NAA) to a " marginal" classification.

As you know, over the past 30 years we have learned that our ozone nonattainment problem is pervasive, and that both the extent of the problem and the emissions that cause the problem are very large in scale. Given the pervasive nature of ozone, Delaware believes that the only solution is to subject upwind areas to the same level of control as downwind nonattainment areas ( see Delaware's July 14, 2003, February 2, 2004, and February 27, 2004 letters for a detailed discussion of this issue).

Delaware acknowledges that Maryland has implemented a number of non mandated control strategies in Kent and Queen Anne's County. Even so, Delaware believes Maryland's petition effectively reduces their responsibility as an upwind area to Delaware, and therefore requests that it not be approved by the EPA.

EPA's guidance for the ozone NAA " bump downs" requires any bump down request to address five issues: ( 1) discontinuity, ( 2) attainment, ( 3) emission reductions, ( 4) trends, and ( 5) years of data ( Reference 1). In addition, Section 181( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( CAAA) require that any bump down petition address the pollution 2 transport between the subject area and any affected areas. As a downwind state from Maryland, Delaware is providing EPA with the following comments.

1. Discontinuity EPA guidance requires that, " a five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas" ( Reference 1). The MDE states in its petition that approval of that petition would create no discontinuity within Maryland. However, looking beyond Maryland's boarders, a discontinuity would be created if the request were approved. All adjoining Delaware County's are classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, so reclassifying Kent and Queen Anne's County to marginal would create a " hole" between the Baltimore moderate NAA and the Delaware NAA. Further, MDE states in their petition, " whether comparing emissions or demographics there are very few connections between the remaining Moderate Nonattainment areas and Kent and Queen Anne's Counties." While this may be true within Maryland, there is a relatively strong resemblance between Kent and Queen Anne's County and the relatively rural southern Delaware moderate NAA counties.

Attached to this letter is a comparison of 2001 2003 8 hour ozone design values between Kent and Queen Anne's County and the three counties in Delaware ( see attached Table 1). Kent and Queen Anne's County have the highest 8 hour ozone design values in this comparison. It would be illogical to classify Kent and Queen Anne's County as marginal nonattainment, since the adjacent counties in Delaware, with lower monitored design values, are classified as moderate nonattainment, and the Maryland Counties to the west are also classified as moderate nonattainment ( i. e., based on monitoring data, going from west to east, the air quality does not get better in Kent and Queen Anne's County, then get worse in Delaware).

2. Attainment EPA guidance requires that when a state submits its bump down petition it must provide evidence that the area would attain compliance with the NAAQS by the earlier date associated with the lower classification, which would be 2007 in this case. The petition provides as evidence the following: reduced transport emissions due to the NOx SIP Call, trend of exceedances and attainment of the 1 hour ozone standard, EPA's modeling results.

First, Delaware agrees that the NOx SIP Call will reduce upwind emissions to both Maryland and Delaware. However, the NOx SIP Call will not result in Kent and Queen Anne's County attaining the 8 hour ozone standard by 2007. Additionally, base case 2010 Clear Skies Initiative modeling ( see below) indicates Kent and Queen Anne's will remain nonattainment in 2010, and since this modeling includes full implementation of the NOx SIP Call, and other federal initiatives, Delaware believes, lacking other reductions, attainment by 2007 is unlikely.

Second, a trend of exceedances and recent attainment of the 1 hour ozone standard does not support attainment the 8 hour ozone standard in 2007. Continuous improvement 3 relative to the 1 hour ozone standard over the past decade is the general trend of all 1 hour ozone nonattainment areas in the nation. Attainment of, or approaching attainment of the 1 hour standard does not necessarily co occur or guarantee attainment of the 8 hour standard, witnessed by the fact that many 1 hour attainment areas in the nation are now classified nonattainment under the 8 hour standard.

Third, the petition states that the EPA modeling efforts in the Clear Skies Initiative indicate that the Kent and Queen Anne's County may expect 5 10 ppb ozone reduction by 2010, and that " the 10 ppb benefit will get us very close to the new standard." This statement is more consistent with a moderate classification than a marginal classification ( i. e., moderate areas have a 2010 attainment date). Even so, this modeling shows that in 2010 Kent County will be still above the standard ( i. e., Kent will not attain by 2007 nor 2010), so it does not support a bump down to a marginal classification.

3. Emission Reductions The EPA's guidance requires that a bump down request provide evidence that the area would achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary to attain in the shorter time period. As stated in the petition, Maryland has implemented numerous federal and regional measures in Kent and Queen Anne's county over the past decade or so. Delaware believes that those measures have played a critical role in controlling emissions in this region. However, these measures don't seem to have reduced the emissions in these counties significantly ( see discussion in 4 below).

In Table 3 and Table 4 of the petition, emission reductions are shown for the time period 2002 to 2014. There is no emission reduction and percentage calculations for the shorter time period, i. e., from 2002 to 2007. There is no information in the petition that shows emission reductions and percentages are appropriate, and enough to enable Kent and Queen Anne's County to attain by 2007.

Delaware believes a moderate classification is consistent with Maryland's obligation to reduce emissions and mitigate their negative contribution on downwind states ( see transport discussion below). For example, Rate of progress ( ROP) emission reduction requirements are mandated in moderate NAA's by the CAAA, are subject to EPA and public review, and will help Maryland mitigate its negative impact on Delaware. No ROP reductions are required under the CAAA for marginal areas, so if the bump down were approved Maryland emission reduction requirements would be reduced.

4. Trends EPA guidance requires that near term and long term trends in emissions and air quality support a bump down reclassification. The petition did not provide any near term emissions trend analysis. Although emission reductions are estimated for 2002 and 2014, there is no evidence that indicates near term reductions ( i. e., before 2007) will occur. The long term data provided in the petition actually demonstrates a net emission increase between 1990 and 2002 ( for VOC emissions: 19.98 TPD in Table 1 and 15.26 TPD in Table 3, a 24% 4 decrease; for NOx emissions: 9.79 TPD in Table 2 and 12.45 TPD in Table 4, a 27% increase).

Regarding evidence for air quality improvement, the petition provides monitoring data ( i. e., design values), and the number of exceedances of the 1 hour ozone standard. The 8 hour ozone standard reflects the fact that citizens are more vulnerable to longer time ( 8 hours) exposure at lower ambient ozone concentrations. Therefore, any air quality trend analysis should evaluate 8 hour, not 1 hour ozone trends.

Based on publicly available data, Delaware conducted a trend comparison of the 8 hour ozone design values of the Millington site with the nearest monitors in Delaware, which are Lum's Pond site ( Summit Bridge) in New Castle County, and Killen's Pond site ( Felton) in Kent County. The 8 hour design values are the three year average of the 4th highest daily 8 hour average, truncated to three decimals. The results of the comparison are shown in Figure 1 ( attached to this letter), and indicate that the 8 hour ozone trend at the Millington site is increasing, not decreasing. In addition, we reviewed the number of days exceeding the 8 hour ozone standard at the Millington site ( Figure 2). Again, the trend is increasing instead of decreasing. Delaware believes that the trends in both design values and exceedance days do not show evidence of air quality improvement under the 8 hour standard.

5. Years of Data The petition indicates the 2001 2003 design value of Kent and Queen Anne's County is 0.095 ppb. Delaware agrees that this most recent design value meets the 5% eligibility requirement for bump down reclassification. However, as indicted above, this design value is higher than the design values of all three of Delaware's moderate nonattainment counties ( see attached Table 1).

6. Transport and Contribution The petition does not provide analysis on how it will address emission transport and contribution from Maryland to downwind states, including Delaware.

The EPA specified in its supporting document to the Interstate Transport Rule that Maryland is an upwind state contributing significantly to the 2010 8 hour ozone nonattainment in Delaware's New Castle County ( Reference 2). While the Interstate Transport Rule modeling indicated that the State of Maryland significantly contributed to Delaware in 2010, it did not specifically address Kent and Queen Anne's County. To estimate the contribution of Kent and Queen Anne's County to Delaware, we conducted CALGRID modeling.

Delaware conducted CALGRID modeling using 2010 OTC NOx Resolution emissions, which accounts for 22% NOX reduction from CSA2003 elevated point sources. This modeling shows as much as 10 ppb contribution from Maryland's Kent and Queen Anne's County to Delaware's 1 hour ozone concentrations ( see Figure 3 attached to this letter). Although this modeling is addressing the 1 hour ozone concentration, it reflects the 5 fact that Kent and Queen Anne's County contribute significantly to Delaware's ozone nonattainment problem.

7. Concluding Remarks Based on this review Delaware believes:

1. The petition's use of the 1 hour ozone data to support this request is not appropriate. 8 hour ozone emission trend and air quality analysis ( see attached Figures 1 and 2) does not support the petition. 2. The petition did not provide adequate evidence to show attainment of the Kent and Queen Anne's County in 2007. A bump down could reduce Maryland emission reduction obligations, which could adversely impact its own attainment efforts and efforts of the downwind states as well. 3. The petition does not adequately address issues regarding ozone/ precursor transport. Delaware is against approval of any bump down petition, unless transport and contribution issues are addressed to our satisfaction. 4. It would be illogical to classify Kent and Queen Anne's County as marginal nonattainment, since the adjacent counties in Delaware, with lower monitored design values, are classified as moderate nonattainment, and the Maryland Counties to the west are also classified as moderate nonattainment ( i. e., based on monitoring data, going from west to east, the air quality does not get better in Kent and Queen Anne's County, then get worse in Delaware).

If you have any question, or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at ( 302) 739 4791.

Sincerely,

Ali Mirzakhalili Administrator cc: John A. Hughes John B. Blevins Diane L. Franks, MDE Judith Katz David Arnold 6 References 1. " Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas with Deferred Effective Dates", USEPA, 40 CFR Part 81, Federal Register: April 30, 2004 ( Volume 69, Number 84), Rules and Regulations, Page 23857 23951.

2. Appendix G: Metrics for 8 Hour Ozone Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment Counties in 2010, Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling Analyses, USEPA, January 2004.

Table 1. Comaprison of 2001 2003 Design Values of Kent/ Queen Anne's NAA and Delaware Maryland Delaware Kent/ Queen Anne's New Castle Kent Sussex 2001 2003 0.095 0.094 0.090 0.091 Figure 1. Comparison of the 8 hour ozone design values.

Ozone 8 hr Design Values 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105 0.110 1989  1991 1990  1992 1991  1993 1992  1994 1993  1995 1994  1996 1995  1997 1996  1998 1997  1999 1998  2000 1999  2001 2000  2002 2001  2003 ppm Millington Lums Killens Millington Trend 7 Figure 2. Trend of number of days exceeding the 8 hour ozone standard at Millington.

Number of Days Exceeding Ozone 8 hour Standard Millington, Kent County MD 0 5 10 15 20 25 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Num. Days 8 Figure 3. Kent/ Queen Ann's contribution to Delaware.