[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4940-4947]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2222]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0680; FRL-9625-4 ]

Determination of Failure To Attain by 2005 and Determination of
Current Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards in the Baltimore Nonattainment Area in Maryland

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore severe 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of November 15, 2005, based on three years of complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 2003 through
2005. In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore
area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposed
determination is based upon the most recent three years, 2008-2010, of
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing the area has monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA's review shows that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
since the 2006-2008 monitoring period and that it continues to attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. If this latter proposed determination is made
final, the requirement for the State of Maryland to submit contingency
measures related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area shall be suspended.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0680 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0680, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such

deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0680. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
    The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:

I. What action is EPA proposing?
    A. Proposed Determination of Failure To Attain by Applicable
Attainment Date
    B. Proposed Determination of Current Attainment
II. What is the background for these proposed actions?
    A. What are the geographical boundaries of the Baltimore area?
    B. What is the history of the ozone designations and
classifications and the 1-hour ozone requirements for the Baltimore
area?
    C. What is the background of 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding
requirements in the transition to the 1997 8-hour ozone rule?
III. What is the rationale for and effect of these proposed
determinations for the Baltimore area?
    A. What is the rationale for the proposed determination of
failure to attain by applicable attainment date?
    B. What is the status of the Maryland State Implementation Plan
(SIP) regarding the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for
contingency measures?
C. What would be the effects of these proposed determinations for
the Baltimore area?
IV. How does EPA compute whether an area complies with the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS?
    A. What is the level and form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS?
    B. What are the relevant data handling and rounding conventions
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS?
    C. How is the number of expected exceedance days determined and
how is attainment determined under the form of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the data regarding Baltimore's
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard?
    A. What is EPA's analysis of whether the Baltimore area attained
the 1-hour ozone standard by its 2005 attainment deadline?
    B. What is EPA's proposed determination of whether the Baltimore
area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone standard?
VI. Proposed Actions
    A. Proposed Determination of 1-Hour Ozone Attainment by the
Attainment Deadline of November 15, 2005
    B. Proposed Determination That the Baltimore Area Is Currently
Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations for
the Baltimore 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment area (hereafter ``the
Baltimore area'').

A. Proposed Determination of Failure To Attain by Applicable Attainment
Date

    For the Baltimore area, EPA is proposing to determine that the area
did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, November 15, 2005. This proposed determination is based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data for
the 2003 through 2005 ozone seasons.

B. Proposed Determination of Current Attainment

    EPA is also proposing to determine that the Baltimore area is
currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data showing the
area has monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the most
recent 3-year period 2008-2010. Preliminary data available for 2011
indicate that the Baltimore area continues to attain the standard.
EPA's review shows that the area has monitored attainment continuously
since the 2006-2008 monitoring period. If this proposed determination
is made final, the requirement for the State of Maryland to submit
contingency measures related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Baltimore area shall be suspended.

II. What is the background for these proposed actions?

A. What are the geographical boundaries of the Baltimore area?

    The Baltimore area consists of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
Harford, and Howard Counties and the City of Baltimore in Maryland.

B. What is the history of the ozone designations and classifications
and the 1-hour ozone requirements for the Baltimore area?

    Pursuant to provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA establishes
NAAQS for certain widespread pollutants that cause or contribute to air
pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare (sections 108 and 109 of the CAA). In 1979, we promulgated the
1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202,
February 8, 1979). For ease of communication, we may informally report
ozone concentrations in parts per billion (ppb) where one-thousand ppb
equals one ppm. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb or up to 124 ppb when
rounding is considered. (Rounding is further discussed in section IV.
B. of this document.)
    EPA first designated the Baltimore area as an ozone nonattainment
area in 1978. See, 43 FR 8962 at 9001, March

3, 1978.\1\ Under the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the CAA designated
``by operation of law'' as nonattainment each area of the country that
was already designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The
Baltimore area was one such pre-amendment ozone nonattainment area so
designated nonattainment for ozone. The CAA as amended in 1990 further
classified ``by operation of law'' each ozone nonattainment area as
marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme depending on the
severity of the area's air quality problem. See, CAA sections
107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action designated the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region (see, 40 CFR 81.28), which has the same
boundaries as the Baltimore 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, as
nonattainment for ``photochemical oxidants.'' The term
``photochemical oxidants'' was replaced by ``ozone'' in a February
8, 1979 final rule (44 FR 8202 at 8220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas are subject
to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest
attainment date, November 15, 1993, while severe and extreme areas are
subject to more stringent planning requirements and are provided more
time to attain the standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data,
the Baltimore area was classified as ``severe-15'' with a statutory
attainment date of November 15, 2005. See, 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991.

C. What is the background of 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements
in the transition to the 1997 8-hour ozone rule?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a new, more
protective standard for ozone based on an 8-hour average concentration
(the ``1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS''). In an April 30, 2004 final rule (69
FR 23858), EPA designated and classified most areas of the country
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. We
designated the Baltimore area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is composed of the
same five counties and city as the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. We
classified this area as moderate under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At
the time of designation, the same area remained in nonattainment for
the 1-hour standard.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA issued a final rule entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1'' (the ``Phase 1 Implementation Rule''). Among other
actions, this rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore area
(as well as in most other areas of the country), effective June 15,
2005. See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR 23951 at 23996, April 30, 2004; and 70
FR 44470, August 3, 2005.
    Although EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas remain subject to certain 1-hour anti-backsliding
requirements based on their 1-hour ozone classification. Initially, in
our rules to address the transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone
standard, EPA did not include contingency measures or the section 185
fee program among the measures retained as 1-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements.\2\ However, on December 23, 2006, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined
that EPA should not have excluded these requirements from its anti-
backsliding requirements. See, South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA (SCAQMD v. EPA), 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) rehearing
denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the
issues on which the court granted the petitions for review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that excluded these
requirements. As a result, states must continue to meet the obligations
for 1-hour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and, for severe and extreme
areas, major source fee programs. EPA has issued a proposed rule that
would remove the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e), and that
addresses contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable
further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour standard. See, 74 FR
2936, January 16, 2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, February 12, 2009
(notice of public hearing and extension of comment period).

III. What is the rationale for and effect of these proposed
determinations for the Baltimore area?

A. What is the rationale for the proposed determination of failure to
attain by applicable attainment date?

    After revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue to
provide a mechanism to give effect to the 1-hour anti-backsliding
requirements. See, SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with
this responsibility with respect to 1-hour anti-backsliding contingency
measures and section 185 fee programs, EPA proposes to determine that
the Baltimore area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its
applicable attainment date. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) and the
South Coast court decision, upon revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
for an area, EPA is no longer obligated to determine whether an area
has attained the 1-hour NAAQS by its applicable deadline, except
insofar as it relates to effectuating the anti-backsliding requirements
that are specifically retained. EPA's proposed determination here--that
the area did not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the November 15,
2005 deadline (based on data for 2003-2005) is linked solely to two
required 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding measures: i.e., 1-hour
contingency measures for failure to attain under section 172(c)(9) and
fee programs under sections 182(d)(3), 182(f) and 185.
    A final determination of failure to attain by the area's 2005 1-
hour ozone attainment date will not result in reclassification of the
area under the revoked 1-hour standard. As a severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the Baltimore area is not subject to
reclassification for the 1-hour ozone standard, and in any event EPA is
no longer required to reclassify any area to a higher classification
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon a determination that the area
failed to attain that NAAQS by its attainment date. See, 40 CFR
51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).
    EPA's proposed determination that the area failed to attain the 1-
hour ozone standard by its applicable date, if finalized, would bear on
the area's obligations with respect to two 1-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements whose implementation would be triggered by a
finding of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date: section
172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to attain and sections
182(d)(3) ad 185 major stationary source fee programs.

B. What is the status of the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP)
regarding the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for contingency
measures?

    With respect to the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for
contingency measures, EPA has previously approved the State of
Maryland's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, reasonably available
control measures and reasonable further progress (RFP) \3\ plans, and
RFP/ROP contingency

measures for Baltimore. See, 66 FR 49108, September 26, 2001, 66 FR
54666, Oct. 30, 2001; 68 FR 61103, October 27, 2003; 69 FR 7133,
February 13, 2004); 64 FR 70397, December 16, 1999; 68 FR 40861, July
9, 2003; 65 FR 4638, July 28, 2000; 66 FR 36964, July 16, 2001; and
September 7, 2001, 66 FR 44760, September 7, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, RFP was termed ``rate-of-
progress (ROP).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA did not approve contingency measures for failure to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore area, EPA has reviewed
reductions that resulted from measures that were not relied upon in the
attainment demonstration, and believes that these measures provided
more reductions than necessary to serve the purpose of contingency
measures for this area.
    Contingency measures for failure to attain aim to provide for a 3
percent reduction in emissions. The amount of reductions required is
computed from the same baseline as is used for computing reductions
needed for RFP/ROP for the attainment year. In the case of the
Baltimore area, 3 percent of the ROP baselines for the 2005 attainment
year equates to 8.23 tons per day (TPD) of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) or 13.77 TPD of nitrogen oxides (NOX).
    An RFP/ROP plan includes a target level of emissions needed to meet
the RFP requirement and a demonstration that the projected levels of
emissions in the area by the RFP deadline date will be equal to or less
than the target level after accounting for growth. See, 57 FR 13498 at
13507-13508, April 16, 1992.\4\ As a severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area the ROP plan included target levels of VOC and NOX
emissions for November 15, 2005, which was the Baltimore area's
attainment date for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a moderate 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the RFP plan for the Baltimore area included
target levels of VOC and NOX emissions for December 31,
2008. EPA has approved the ROP/RFP plans for 2005 and 2008; see, 69 FR
7133, February 13, 2004 and 75 FR 31709, June 4, 2010, respectively.
These plans contain projected levels of actual emissions for November
15, 2005 and for December 31, 2008. The RFP/ROP plan for 2005 and for
2008 each uses consistent methods for projecting growth in emissions-
related activities after the baseline years and most importantly use
the same emissions factor model, MOBILE6, for developing emissions
factors for on-road or highway mobiles sources. Comparison of the 2005
and 2008 projected levels of actual emissions suggests that the
Maryland SIP provided for reduction in total emissions of 2.05 TPD of
VOC and 66.97 TPD of NOX emissions after 2005 but by
December 31, 2008. As noted above, the contingency measure requirement
for failure to attain for the Baltimore area under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was 8.23 TPD of VOC or 13.77 TPD of NOX. For further
details of the ROP/RFP plans for the Baltimore area and the derivation
of the projected reductions between 2005 and 2008 refer to the
technical support document prepared for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For specifics relating to the RFP/ROP plans for the
Baltimore area, for example, see the following notices of proposed
rulemaking: 75 FR 958, January 7, 2010, and 68 FR 75191, December
30, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the air quality monitoring data for 2006 and later years
(discussed in section V.B of this document), EPA can conclude that the
Maryland SIP provided for sufficient emission reductions after November
15, 2005 to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as evidenced by attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2008 and continued attainment
thereafter.

C. What would be the effects of these proposed determinations for the
Baltimore area?

    As noted above, EPA is also proposing a separate and independent 1-
hour ozone determination that the Baltimore area currently attains the
1-hour ozone standard, based on complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone data for 2008-2010, and preliminary data available for 2011.\5\
If this determination is finalized, then even if EPA finalizes its
proposed determination that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard by the 2005 deadline, it will not result in any 1-hour ozone
contingency measure obligations for the area. Under EPA's ``Clean Data
Policy'' interpretation,\6\ which was articulated first for the 1-hour
standard and later codified for the 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
51.918), a determination of attainment suspends obligations to make
submissions for attainment-related requirements (including contingency
measures) for that standard.\7\ See, for example, determination of 1-
hour ozone attainment for Baton Rouge, 75 FR 6570, February 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted elsewhere in this proposed determination, the
monitoring data show that the Baltimore area has been attaining the
1-hour ozone standard continuously since 2008.
    \6\ See, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,''
(Clean Data Policy) dated May 10, 1995.
    \7\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, which codified the
Clean Data Policy. Previously Courts of Appeals for several other
Circuits upheld the Clean Data Policy under the 1-hour standard.
See, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA,
99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir.1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537(7th
Cir. 2004) and Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032
(9thCir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirement for
penalty fees, section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to include provisions
required by section 185. Section 185 requires 1-hour ozone SIPs for
severe areas to provide that, if the area has failed to attain by the
attainment date, each major stationary source of ozone precursors
located in the area must begin paying a fee to the state. Thus a final
determination of failure to attain by the area's 1-hour attainment date
would trigger the 1-hour anti-backsliding obligation to implement the
penalty fee program under section 182(d)(3) 182(f) and 185, unless that
obligation is terminated.

IV. How does EPA compute whether an area complies with the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS?

A. What is the level and form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS?

    The relevant regulation, 40 CFR 50.9(a), states the following
regarding the 1-hour ozone NAAQS:
    1. The level of the national 1-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone is 0.12 parts per million; and
    2. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS ``is attained when the expected number of
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above
0.12 parts per million is equal to or less than 1, as determined by
appendix H'' to 40 CFR part 50.
    We consider that a monitor exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard when
that ambient air quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone
concentration above 0.12 ppm at least once in any given calendar day.
Only the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration at the monitor during any
calendar day is considered when determining if the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
was exceeded on that day. That is, even when a monitor records more
than one hourly concentration above 0.12 ppm during a calendar day,
that day counts as only a single ``exceedance day.'' See, 40 CFR 50.9
``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
for ozone'' and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50,
appendix H).

B. What are the relevant data handling and rounding conventions for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS?

    Although the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9 does
not address specific data handling conventions, EPA's publicly
articulated position and the approach that the air quality management
community has long universally adopted, is that the interpretation of
the 1-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient air quality data
consistent with the stated level of the standard, which is 0.12 ppm.
    As early as 1979, EPA's guidance noted that the level as it is
expressed in the standard defines the number of significant figures to
be used in comparisons with the standard. For example, a standard level
of 0.12 ppm means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal
places (0.005 rounds up), and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest
concentration value in excess of the level of the standard. See,
``Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards,''
EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108, January 1979. EPA has consistently
applied the rounding convention in this 1979 guideline. See, 68 FR
19106 at 19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 62041 at 62043, October 31, 2003;
and 69 FR 21717 at 21719, April 22, 2004. In the 1990 CAA Amendments,
Congress expressly recognized the continuing validity of EPA guidance
in the 1990 CAA Amendments. See, generally, H Comm. Rep. 101-490 pp.
197, 232 (1990) (House Energy and Commerce Committee Report).

C. How is the number of expected exceedance days determined and how is
attainment determined under the form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS?

    A nonattainment area attains the 1-hour ozone NAAQS only when all
monitors in that area attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA determines if
an area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by calculating, at each
monitor, the average expected number of days over the standard per year
(i.e., ``average number of expected exceedance days'') during the
applicable 3-year period. See, generally the General Preamble, 57 FR
13498 at 13506, April 16, 1992 and Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA to Regional Air
Office Directors; ``Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and Extensions
for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' February 3, 1994.
    A monitor shows attainment when the average number of ``expected''
number of ``exceedance days'' per calendar year ``is less than or equal
to one (1)'' when averaged over a 3-year period. See, 40 CFR part 50
appendix H and Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, EPA, to Regional Air Office Directors;
``Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'' dated February 3, 1994. The level of the
standard defines the number of significant figures to be used in
comparisons with the standard, and, in this case, the number of
significant figures to be used is one. The smallest value which will
exceed the value of this standard is a value of 1.1, and, the average
over a 3-year period is therefore rounded to one significant figure.
    An observed daily maximum value at a monitor is considered to be
valid if 75 percent of the hours from 9:01 a.m. to 9 p.m. were measured
or if the highest hourly value measured is greater than the level of
the standard. Where there are either no data for a day or data for less
than the 75 percent of the hours between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., a missing
daily maximum ozone value may be assumed to be less than the level of
the standard if the valid daily maxima on both the preceding day and
the following day do not exceed 75 percent of the level of the
standard. A day for which the daily maximum ozone value may be assumed
to be less than 0.0125 ppm is termed ``day assumed less than the
standard.'' See, appendix H to 40 CFR part 50.
    To account for missing data, the procedures in appendix H to 40 CFR
part 50 are used to adjust the actual number of observed exceedances of
the standard in a year to yield the annual number of ``expected
exceedance days'' at an air quality monitoring site.
    The computation of ``expected exceedance days'' is rounded to one
significant figure for both the purposes of estimating the annual
number of expected exceedance days at a monitor and for the annual
average number of expected exceedance days over a 3-year period.
    For example, for the 3-year average, any value less than 1.05
rounds down to 1.0, and, any value of 1.05 or greater rounds up to 1.1.
As stated in a preceding paragraph in this section of this document a
violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedance days
over a consecutive 3-year period is greater than or equal to 1.1.
Therefore, to not violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the maximum aggregate
sum of expected exceedance days over a consecutive 3-year period
allowed is 3.1 because 3.1 divided by 3 is 1.03333, which when rounded
to one significant figure is 1.0 which does not exceed 1. An aggregate
sum of 3.2 expected exceedance days over a consecutive 3-year period do
not meet this standard because 3.2 divided by 3 equals 1.0666, which
when rounded to one significant figure is 1.1 and which is greater than
1.0. For further details refer to the technical support document
prepared for this proposed action regarding the conversion of observed
daily maximum values to expected exceedance days for each monitoring
site.
    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour
ozone standard is based upon three years of complete, quality-assured
and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established State
and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and
entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air
monitors operated by state/local agencies in compliance with EPA
monitoring requirements must be submitted to the AQS database.
Monitoring agencies must annually certify that these data are accurate
to the best of their knowledge, and, for calendar years 2010 and later,
such certifications must be submitted by May 1st for the prior year's
data. See, 40 CFR 58.15. Thus, the certification of the air quality
monitoring data for calendar year 2011 is due no later than May 1,
2012. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database
when determining the attainment status of an area. See, 40 CFR 50.9; 40
CFR part 50, appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A,
C, D, and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality
status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the data regarding Baltimore's attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard?

    As noted previously, the applicable attainment date under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore area was November 15, 2005.\8\ We
base a determination regarding attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by
this deadline on the average number of

expected exceedance days per year for the period 2003-2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, the state may
request, and EPA may grant up to two 1-year attainment date
extensions, provided that certain criteria are met. One criterion is
that there be no more than one exceedance of the 1-year ozone
standard at any monitoring site in the nonattainment area in the
year in which attainment is required. As shown in Table 1, the
Edgewood, Harford County monitoring site recorded two (2)
exceedances in 2005, during the year of the attainment deadline.
Therefore the Baltimore area was not eligible for an attainment date
extension under section 181(a)(5) nor did the State request such an
extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2003 through 2005, ambient air quality for ozone was monitored
on a continuous basis at six monitoring sites within the Baltimore
area. The minimum required monitoring season for the Baltimore area is
214 days from April 1st to October 31st of every year. See, 40 CFR
58.11(c) and Table D-3 ``Ozone Monitoring Seasons by State'' in
appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.

A. What is EPA's analysis of whether the Baltimore area attained the 1-
hour ozone standard by its 2005 attainment deadline?

    During the entire 2003 to 2005 period, six ozone monitoring
stations in the Baltimore area were in operation. Table 1 summarizes
the ozone data collected at these six ozone monitoring stations during
the 2003 to 2005 period and included in AQS for the Baltimore area.
These data are complete and have been quality-assured and recorded in
AQS. Maryland uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its
data and quality assure the data transfers and content for accuracy. We
have used the established rounding conventions set forth in our
guidance documents and regulations.

  Table 1--Number and Average Number of Ozone Expected Exceedance Days and Design Values per Year by Monitor in
                                         the Baltimore Area 2003 to 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Monitor information                      Annual number of expected  exceedance    Average
-------------------------------------------------------------                  days                   number of
                                                             ---------------------------------------   expected
                                                                                exceedance
                                                                                days per
                    Monitor (AQS ID No.)                          2003         2004         2005         year
                                                                                ------------
                                                                                2003-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidsonville Recreation Center, 3801 Queen Anne Bridge               2.1          0.0          0.0          0.7
 Road, Anne Arundel County (24-003-0014)....................
Padonia Elementary School, 9834 Greenside Drive,                      0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
 Cockeysville, Baltimore County (24-005-1007)...............
600 Dorsey Avenue, Essex, Baltimore County (24-005-3001)....          1.0          0.0          1.0          0.7
1300 W. Old Liberty Road, Carroll County (24-013-0001)......          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (APG), Waehli Road,               1.0          1.0          2.0          1.3
 Edgewood, Harford County (24-025-1001).....................
3560 Aldino Road, Harford County (24-025-9001)..............          1.0          0.0          1.0          0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Database, ``Quicklook Criteria Parameters,'' Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated
  March 3, 2011.

    A complete listing of the ozone exceedances for each monitoring
site, as well as a summary of EPA's calculations can be found in the
technical support document prepared for this proposed action. As shown
in Table 1, the average number of expected exceedance days per year
exceeded 1.0 at the Edgewood, Harford County monitoring site. Only
monitors with three complete years of data are shown in Table 1. Since
at least one monitor in the Baltimore area failed to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005, this is sufficient to support the
conclusion that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by
its applicable attainment date. Therefore, we propose to determine that
the Baltimore area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of November 15, 2005.

 B. What is EPA's proposed determination of whether the Baltimore area
is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone standard?

    During the entire period from 2006 through 2011, the same seven
ozone monitoring stations in the Baltimore area were in operation.
Table 2 lists, for each monitor, its AQS identification number, its
location, and its ``short name.''

                              Table 2--Monitor Information Baltimore Area 2006-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Monitor (AQS ID No.)                             Location                             Short name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-510-0054........................  Furley E.S. Recreational Center, 4633 Furley     Furley.
                                      Avenue, Baltimore City.
24-003-0014........................  Davidsonville Recreation Center, 3801 Queen      Davidsonville.
                                      Anne Bridge Road, Anne Arundel County.
24-005-1007........................  Padonia Elementary School, 9834 Greenside        Padonia.
                                      Drive, Cockeysville, Baltimore County.
24-005-3001........................  600 Dorsey Avenue, Essex, Baltimore County.....  Essex.
24-013-0001........................  1300 W. Old Liberty Road, Carroll County.......  South Carroll.
24-025-1001........................  Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (APG),       Edgewood.
                                      Waehli Road, Edgewood, Harford County.
24-025-9001........................  3560 Aldino Road, Harford County...............  Aldino.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Database, ``Quicklook Criteria Parameters,'' Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated
  March 3, 2011 and Report Request ID 937336, Report Code AMP450, dated December 13, 2011.

    Table 3 summarizes the 1-hour ozone data collected at these six
ozone monitoring stations during the 2006 to 2010 period and included
in AQS for the Baltimore area. These data are complete and have been
quality- assured and recorded in AQS. Maryland uses the AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and to quality- assure the data
transfers and content for accuracy. We have used the established
rounding conventions set forth in our guidance documents and
regulations.

               Table 3--Number and Average Number of Ozone Expected Exceedance Days Per Year by Monitor in the Baltimore Area 2006 to 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Monitor information                            Annual number of expected  exceedance days              Average number of expected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      exceedance days per year
                                                                                -----------------------------------
          Monitor--AQS ID No. & ``Short Name''               2006        2007        2008        2009        2010      2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-510-0054--Furley.....................................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
24-003-0014--Davidsonville..............................         0.0         1.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.3         0.3         0.0
24-005-1007--Padonia....................................         0.0         0.0         1.0         0.0         0.0         0.3         0.3         0.0
24-005-3001--Essex......................................         1.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         1.0         0.3         0.0         0.3
24-013-0001--South Carroll..............................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
24-025-1001--Edgewood...................................         2.0         1.0         0.0         1.0         1.1         1.0         0.7         0.7
24-025-9001--Aldino.....................................         1.0         2.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         1.0         0.7         0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Database, ``Quicklook Criteria Parameters,'' Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated March 3, 2011.

    Table 4 summarizes the 1-hour ozone data collected at these six
ozone monitoring stations during the 2009 to 2011 period and included
in AQS for the Baltimore area. These data for 2009 and 2010 are
complete and have been quality-assured and recorded in AQS. The data
for 2011 are those entered in AQS as of December 13, 2011. Data for at
least 90 percent of the 2011 monitoring season days has been entered
into AQS but has not yet been certified by Maryland.\9\ The data shows
that only one monitor recorded an exceedance of the 1-hour ozone
standard; the Edgewood site measured one exceedance of the 1-hour ozone
standard during 2011. As of December 13, 2011, the 2011 data entered
into AQS for the Edgewood site includes 209 days of valid data and also
includes three days assumed less than the standard. Under the
procedures discussed in Section IV of this document, the number of
expected exceedances for the Edgewood site is only 1.0 for 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The deadline for certifying the 2011 data is May 1, 2012.
See, 40 CFR 58.15.

 Table 4--Number and Average Number of Ozone Expected Exceedance Days Per Year by Monitor in the Baltimore Area
                                                  2009 to 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Monitor information                      Annual number of expected  exceedance    Average
-------------------------------------------------------------                  days                   number of
                                                             ---------------------------------------   expected
                                                                                exceedance
                                                                                days  per
            Monitor--AQS ID No. & ``Short Name''                  2009         2010         2011         year
                                                                                ------------
                                                                                2009-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-510-0054--Furley.........................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
24-003-0014--Davidsonville..................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
24-005-1007--Padonia........................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
24-005-3001--Essex..........................................          0.0          1.0          0.0          0.3
24-013-0001--South Carroll..................................          0.0          0.0          1.0          0.0
24-025-1001--Edgewood.......................................          1.0          1.1          1.0          1.0
24-025-9001--Aldino.........................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA AQS Database, ``Quicklook Criteria Parameters,'' Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated
  March 3, 2011, for the 2009 to 2010 data and Report Request ID 937336, Report Code AMP450, dated December 13,
  2011, for the 2011 data.

    As shown in Tables 3 and 4, no monitor in the Baltimore area had a
value of the average number of expected exceedance days per year
exceeding 1.0 in the 3-year period 2006-2008. Furthermore, no monitor
in the Baltimore area has had a value of the average number of expected
exceedance days per year exceeding 1.0 in any 3-year period after 2006-
2008, that is, during the subsequent 3-year periods 2007-2009 and 2008-
2010. Thus the data show that the Baltimore area attained the 1-hour
ozone standard in 2008 and has continued to attain this standard
through 2010 based upon the most recent complete, quality-assured and
certified data. Preliminary data available for 2011 indicate that the
area continues in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard for the
period 2009 through 2011.
    Therefore, we propose to determine that the Baltimore area is
currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring
data, 2008-2010. Preliminary data available for 2011 indicate that the
area continues in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. If we
finalize this determination the State of Maryland's obligation to
submit contingency measures for failure to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard would be suspended.

 VI. Proposed Actions

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking, pursuant to EPA's authority
to ensure implementation of 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements
(CAA sections 301 and 181(b)(2)) EPA is proposing two separate,
independent, and severable determinations.

A. Proposed Determination of 1-Hour Ozone Attainment by the Attainment
Deadline of November 15, 2005

    Pursuant to EPA's authority to ensure implementation of 1-hour
ozone anti-backsliding requirements (CAA section 301 and section
181(b)(2)) and based upon EPA's review of complete, quality-assured and
certified ozone monitoring

data for the 3-year period 2003 to 2005, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area failed to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
November 15, 2005.

B. Proposed Determination That the Baltimore Area Is Currently
Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment

    Second, however, EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore
area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon the most
recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ambient
air monitoring data (2008-2010). The preliminary data that is available
for 2011 show that the area continues to attain the standard. Moreover,
the Baltimore area has monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
since the 2006-2008 monitoring period. If this proposed determination
is made final, the obligation for the State of Maryland to submit
contingency measures related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area would be
suspended. These proposed determinations regarding the 1-hour ozone
standard, if finalized, would bear on the Baltimore area's obligations
with respect to the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements for
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to attain that
standard, and sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major stationary source fee
programs.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make determinations of attainment and
nonattainment based on monitored air quality data and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by statute or regulation.
For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
     In addition, these proposed actions regarding attainment
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore area do not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness Areas.

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

    Dated: January 24, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-2222 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58290-58291]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4022-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4022-DR), dated September 1, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective September 2, 2011.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance
to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters);
97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24077 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/12/2009 01:56:35 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58823-58824]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-104-000]

Interstate Power and Light Company v. ITC Midwest, LLC, Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on September 14, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), Interstate Power and Light Company
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ITC Midwest, LLC
(Respondent) alleging that application of Attachment FF, Section
III.A.2.d.4 of the Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating
Reserve Markets Tariff of the Midwest Independent Transmission
Operator, Inc. is unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory to
the Complainant and its customers.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts of the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 4, 2012.

    Dated: September 17, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23423 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8003-8005]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0129; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-245-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: Several occurrences of loss of the AC [alternating
current] BUS 1 have been reported which led in some instances to the
loss of the AC ESS [essential] BUS and DC [direct current] ESS BUS and
connected systems. The affected systems include multiple flight deck
Display Units (Primary Flight Display, Navigation Display and Upper
Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring display). The loss of
multiple display units, if not corrected expediently during a high
workload period, potentially affects the capability of the flight crew
and could contribute to a loss of situational awareness and consequent
control of the aeroplane, which would constitute an unsafe condition.
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0129;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-245-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information you provide. We will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this
proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0235, dated October 29, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences of loss of the AC [alternating current] BUS
1 have been reported which led in some instances to the loss of the
AC ESS [essential] BUS and DC [direct current] ESS BUS and connected
systems. The affected systems include multiple flight deck Display
Units (Primary Flight Display, Navigation Display and Upper
Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring display).
    The reasons for these events have been investigated but have not
been fully established for all cases.
    Due to the range of system losses some crews reported difficulty
in establishing the failure cause during the events and,
consequently, the appropriate actions to be taken may not be
completed in a timely manner.
    The loss of multiple display units, if not corrected expediently
during a high workload period, potentially affects the capability of
the flight crew and could contribute to a loss of situational
awareness and consequent control of the aeroplane, which would
constitute an unsafe condition.
    This AD therefore mandates the modification of the electrical
network configuration management logic consisting in adding an
automatic switching of the AC and DC ESS BUS power supply such that
upon the loss of the AC BUS 1, the AC BUS 2 will automatically take
over the power supply. On pre-MOD aeroplanes, this power supply
switching can only be accomplished manually from the cockpit and is
covered by an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM)
procedure.

    The modification of the electrical power distribution system
includes, depending on the configuration, adding a new circuit breaker
and new relay to the AC/DC ESS BUS circuit, and adding a diode between
a certain relay and terminal block. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-24-1120, Revision 03, dated
July 10, 2009. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 633 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,200 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $3,867,630, or $6,110 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-0129; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
245-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 9, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232,
and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
manufacturer serial numbers; except airplanes that have received
Airbus modification 37317 in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical power.

Reason

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

    ``Several occurrences of loss of the AC [alternating current]
BUS 1 have been reported which led in some instances to the loss of
the AC ESS [essential] BUS and DC [direct current] ESS BUS and
connected systems. The affected systems include multiple flight deck
Display Units (Primary Flight Display, Navigation Display and Upper
Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring display).
    ``The reasons for these events have been investigated but have
not been fully established for all cases.
    ``Due to the range of system losses some crews reported
difficulty in establishing the failure cause during the events and,
consequently, the appropriate actions to be taken may not be
completed in a timely manner.
    ``The loss of multiple display units, if not corrected
expediently during a high workload period, potentially affects the
capability of the flight crew and could contribute to a loss of
situational awareness and consequent control of the aeroplane, which
would constitute an unsafe condition.
    ``This AD therefore mandates the modification of the electrical
network configuration management logic consisting in adding an
automatic switching of the AC and DC ESS BUS power supply such that
upon the loss of the AC BUS 1, the AC BUS 2 will automatically take
over the power supply. On pre-MOD aeroplanes, this power supply
switching can only be accomplished manually from the cockpit and is
covered by an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM)
procedure.''

    The modification of the electrical power distribution system
includes, depending on the configuration, adding a new circuit
breaker and new relay to the AC/DC ESS BUS circuit, and adding a
diode between a certain relay and terminal block.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the electrical power distribution system, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1120,
Revision 03, dated July 10, 2009.
    (h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD,
in accordance with a service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this
AD, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions specified in this AD.

                   Table 1--Credit Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airbus Service Bulletin--         Revision--            Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A320-24-1120....................  Original..........  May 31, 2007.
A320-24-1120....................  01................  December 19, 2007.
A320-24-1120....................  02................  July 8, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0235, dated October 29, 2009; and
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1120, Revision 03, dated July 10,
2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2010.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-3442 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P