[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40715-40723]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17590]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0212; FRL-9982-29--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan
and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for
the 2008 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
meet the base year emissions inventory, reasonable further progress
(RFP), RFP contingency measure, nitrogen oxides (NOX)
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-
Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago area) for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA is
also proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 transportation conformity
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Wisconsin portion of
the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve
this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and
EPA's regulations because it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, RFP
contingency measure, NOX RACT, I/M, and transportation
conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area,
which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0212, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

A. Background on the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Promulgation of a revised NAAQS
triggers a requirement for EPA to designate areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standards. For the
ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at
the time of designation.\2\ Ozone nonattainment areas are classified
based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the
area's ``design value,'' which represents air quality in the area for
the most recent 3 years). The classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436.
    \2\ CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).
    \3\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas that EPA designates nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are
subject to certain requirements, including the general nonattainment
area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and the ozone-specific
nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 182. Ozone
nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/
or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control
requirements than those in higher classifications. For marginal areas,
a state is required to submit a baseline emissions inventory, adopt
provisions into the SIP requiring emissions statements from stationary
sources in the area, and implement a nonattainment new source review
(NSR) program for the relevant ozone NAAQS.\4\ For moderate areas, a
state needs to comply with the marginal area requirements, plus
additional moderate area requirements, including the requirement to
submit a modeled demonstration that the area will attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 6 years after
designation, the requirement to submit an RFP plan, the requirement to
adopt and implement certain emissions controls, such as RACT and I/M,
and the requirement for greater emissions offsets for new or modified
major stationary sources under the state's nonattainment NSR
program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 182(a).
    \5\ CAA section 182(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background on the Chicago 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area

    On June 11, 2012,\6\ EPA designated the Chicago area as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and part of Grundy
and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana;
and the eastern portion of Kenosha County in Wisconsin. On May 4,
2016,\7\ pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA determined that
the Chicago area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20,
2015, marginal area attainment deadline and thus reclassified the area
from marginal to moderate nonattainment. In that action, EPA
established January 1, 2017, as the due date for all moderate area
nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to newly reclassified
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
    \7\ 81 FR 26697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission

    Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision on April 17, 2017, and
supplemental information on January 23, 2018, to address the moderate
nonattainment area requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the
Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submission contained several
nonattainment plan elements, including a revised 2011 base year
emissions inventory for the two ozone-forming precursor pollutants,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, a 15% RFP plan, a
3% RFP contingency measure plan, 2017 and 2018 VOC and NOX
MVEBs, and an enhanced I/M program certification. The submission also
included an attainment demonstration, a nonattainment NSR
certification, and a VOC RACT certification, which will be addressed in
a separate action(s).

A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and
7511a(a)(1), require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions,
comprehensive, accurate, and complete emissions inventories for all
areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. An emissions
inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of VOC and
NOX from all sources located in the relevant designated
nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has recommended that
states use 2011 as a base year for the emissions estimates.\8\ EPA
approved on March 7, 2016,\9\ the 2011 base year emissions inventory,
which Wisconsin submitted on November 14, 2014, for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area. In its April 17, 2017, submission,
supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin included a revised 2011
base year emissions inventory submission. Relative to its original
inventory, Wisconsin's revised 2011 base year emissions inventory
modifies the emissions estimates for the point, on-road mobile, and
non-road mobile sector, with emissions estimates for the area source
sector remaining unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 78 FR 34178 at 34190.
    \9\ 81 FR 11673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology differences between Wisconsin's modified inventory
and original inventory are summarized in Table 1 and the emissions
difference are shown in Table 2. Relative to the original inventory,
the modified inventory includes a more conservative (worst-case)
emissions estimate from the one electric generating unit (EGU) in the
Wisconsin portion of the area. Wisconsin estimated the modified
inventory on-road emissions using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES) model version 2014a, whereas it estimated the original
inventory on-road mobile sector emissions with an older version of the
model--MOVES version 2010b. Finally, Wisconsin estimated the modified
inventory non-road mobile sector ``MAR'' emissions, which include
commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using EPA's 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2 and it estimated the
``non-MAR'' emissions, which are the non-road mobile emissions sources
excluding commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using MOVES
2014a, whereas the original inventory relied on the older NEI version 1
and National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Because the
modifications to the original EPA-approved inventory are based on
updated resources and information as summarized above, EPA finds the
updated inventory approvable and is proposing to approve the revised
2011 base year emissions inventory as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP.

 Table 1--Methodology Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory
             and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sector             Original inventory      Modified inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................  EGUs & non-EGUs: WI AEI  EGUs: CAMD for a
                          for an average day in    maximum day; non-EGU:
                          the third quarter.       WI AEI for an average
                                                   day in the year.
Area...................  NEI v2.................  NEI v2.
Onroad.................  MOVES 2010b (Min/Max     MOVES 2014a (Min/Max
                          Temps: 70/94 [deg]F).    Temps: 70/94 [deg]F).
Nonroad................  air & rail: NEI v1;      MAR: NEI v2; non-MAR:
                          com.mar.: LADCO/NEI      MOVES 2014a.
                          v1; non-MAR: NMIM
                          model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMD = EPA's Clean Air Markets Division database, com.mar. = commercial
  marine, EGU = electric generating unit, MAR = commercial marine,
  aircraft and rail locomotive, MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emissions
  Simulator, NEI = National Emissions Inventory, NMIM = National Mobile
  Inventory Model, WI AEI = Wisconsin's Air Emissions Inventory (which
  is used to develop NEI emissions).

   Table 2--Emissions Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved
                                                    Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC                             NOX
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                          Approved                        Approved
                                                     inventory     RFP inventory     inventory     RFP inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................            0.70            0.72            8.80           11.16
Area............................................            4.78            4.78            1.09            1.09
On-road.........................................            2.14            2.42            4.67            5.15
Non-road........................................            2.42            1.51            2.33            2.07
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           10.04            9.43           16.89           19.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 15% RFP Plan and 3% Contingency Plan

    The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment
for ozone achieve RFP toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. CAA section
172(c)(2) contains a general requirement that nonattainment plans must
provide for emission reductions that meet RFP. For areas classified
moderate and above, section 182(b)(1) imposes a more specific RFP
requirement that a state had to meet through a 15% reduction in VOC
emissions from the baseline anthropogenic emissions within 6 years
after November 15, 1990. The state must meet the 15% requirement by the
end of the 6-year period, regardless of when the nonattainment area
attains the NAAQS. As with other nonattainment plan requirements for
more recent iterations of the ozone NAAQS, EPA has promulgated
regulations and guidance to interpret the statutory requirements of the
CAA.
    EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP
Requirements Rule),\10\ addressed, among other things, the RFP
requirements as they apply to areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\11\ EPA interprets the
15% VOC emission reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1) such
that a state that has already met the 15% requirement for VOC for an
area under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
would not have to fulfill that requirement through reductions of VOC
again. Instead, EPA is interpreting CAA section 172(c)(2) to require
states with such areas to obtain 15% ozone precursor emission
reductions (VOC and/or NOX) over the first 6 years after the
baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin previously met the
15% VOC reduction requirement of CAA section 182(b)(1) for Kenosha
County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\12\ Therefore, the state may rely
upon NOX and/or VOC emissions reductions to meet the RFP
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 80 FR 12264.
    \11\ 80 FR 12264 at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110.
    \12\ For both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
the entirety of Kenosha County was part of the 6-county Milwaukee
nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Kenosha County
(partial) is part of the Chicago nonattainment area, since the
statistical area delineated based on U.S. Census Bureau data was
updated to include Kenosha County as part of the Chicago statistical
area. Wisconsin met the 15% VOC reduction requirement for the
Milwaukee area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which included the
entirety of Kenosha County, therefore, the Wisconsin portion of the
2008 Chicago nonattainment area (Kenosha County inclusive and east
of I-94) has already met the 15% VOC reduction requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's SIP Requirements Rule indicates the base year for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, for which areas were designated nonattainment effective
July 20, 2012, can be 2011 or a different year of the states'
choosing.\13\ However, EPA required that states selecting a pre-2011
alternate baseline year must achieve 3% emission reductions each year
after the initial 6-year period has concluded up to the beginning of
the attainment year. For a multi-state area, states must agree on the
same base year. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana have all selected the
EPA-recommended base year of 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, No.
15-1115, decided February 16, 2018, the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled to reverse the portion of the
rule that allowed for alternate years. However, since all 3 states
for this multi-state area chose the default of 2011 as the base
year, the decision has no impact here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States may not take credit for VOC or NOX reductions
occurring from sources outside the nonattainment area for purposes of
meeting the 15% RFP and 3% RFP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2),
182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). Wisconsin's 15% RFP represents emissions
reductions which occurred in Wisconsin's portion of the nonattainment
area in the time period from 2011 to 2017 thereby satisfying this
requirement.
    Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the
CAA, all state control measures approved into the SIP or Federal
measures that provide emissions reductions that occur after the
baseline emissions inventory year are creditable for purposes of the
RFP requirements, provided that the reductions meet the standard

requirements for creditability which include being enforceable,
quantifiable, permanent, and surplus in terms of not having previously
been counted toward RFP.
    States must also include contingency measures in their
nonattainment plans. The contingency measures required for areas
classified as moderate and above under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) must provide for the implementation of specific measures if
the area fails to attain or to meet any applicable RFP milestone. The
state must submit these measures for approval by EPA into the SIP as
adopted measures that would take effect without further rulemaking
action by the state or EPA upon a determination that an area failed to
attain or to meet the applicable milestone. Per EPA guidance for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS, contingency measures should represent one
year's worth of RFP progress, amounting to reductions of at least 3% of
the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. The
purpose of the contingency measures is to provide additional emission
reductions in the event of a failure to attain or meet any applicable
milestone, which would occur while the state is revising its SIP for
the area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the contingency measures, EPA's prior guidance for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS specifies that some portion of the
contingency measures must include VOC reductions. This previous
limitation is no longer necessary in all areas. In particular, EPA has
concluded that states with nonattainment areas classified moderate and
above that have already completed the initial 15% VOC reduction
required by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet the contingency
measures requirement based entirely on NOX controls if that
is what the state's analyses have demonstrated would be most effective
in bringing the area into attainment. There is no minimum VOC
requirement. Also, EPA is continuing its long-standing policy that
allows promulgated Federal measures to be used as contingency measures
as long as they provide emission reductions in the relevant years in
excess of those needed for attainment or RFP.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin submitted documentation showing that emission reductions
in the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area met the 15% RFP and 3%
contingency requirements. Table 3 shows Wisconsin's estimated
reductions from all sectors. Table 3 shows that the area's total VOC
emissions decreased by 13.04% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.20% from 2017 to
2018. Table 3 shows the area's total NOX emissions decreased
by 15.41% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.25% from 2017 to 2018.

                          Table 3--Wisconsin's Source Sector Emissions in Tons per Summer Day (tpsd) for Eastern Kenosha County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                         Sector                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011            2017            2018            2011            2017            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            0.72            0.87            0.87           11.16           10.87           10.87
Area....................................................            4.78            4.77            4.74            1.09            1.08            1.08
Onroad..................................................            2.42            1.56            1.44            5.15            3.05            2.75
Nonroad.................................................            1.51            1.00            0.96            2.07            1.47            1.40
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (% decrease from 2011-2017 and 2017-2018).....            9.43            8.20            8.02           19.47           16.47           16.10
                                                          ..............        (13.04%)         (2.20%)  ..............        (15.41%)         (2.25%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin is able to meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements
entirely through Federal permanent and enforceable control measures
within the mobile source sectors. Table 4 specifically contains the
calculations showing Wisconsin's mobile source emissions reductions
meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements. The MOVES model for the
on-road and non-road sectors assumed increases of 11-13% in vehicle or
equipment population and usage while projecting a 34-41% reduction in
ozone precursor emissions from 2011 to 2017. The estimated emissions
reductions, therefore, cannot be attributed to reductions in source
activity. Table 4 shows that of the 14.95% total VOC reductions from
2011-2018, 14.63% \16\ came from the mobile sector. Table 4 also shows
that of the 17.31% total NOX reductions from 2011-2018,
15.77% came from the mobile sector. Wisconsin is choosing to count 5%
VOC reductions and 10% NOX reductions from 2011-2017 to meet
the 15% RFP requirement, and 1% VOC reductions and 2% NOX
reductions from 2011-2018 to meet the 3% RFP contingency requirement.
In other words, 6% VOC reductions and 12% NOX reductions for
a total of 18% to satisfy the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector
from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).

   Table 4--Wisconsin's Mobile Source Emissions Reductions From 2011-2017 Are Sufficient To Meet the 15% RFP Requirement and Wisconsin's Mobile Source
        Emissions Reductions From 2017-2018 Are Sufficient To Meet the 3% RFP Contingency Requirement for Wisconsin's Portion of the Chicago Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011            2017            2018            2011            2017            2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total emissions (tpsd)..................................            9.43            8.20            8.02           19.47           16.47           16.10
% Reduction from base year emissions from 2011-2017 and   ..............          13.04%           1.91%  ..............          15.41%           1.90%
 2017-2018, respectively................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total...............................................  ..............              14.95%              ..............              17.31%
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile sector (onroad + nonroad) emissions (tpsd).......            3.93            2.56            2.40            7.22            4.52            4.15
% Reductions attributable to the mobile sector from base  ..............          12.94%           1.70%  ..............          13.87%           1.90%
 year emissions from 2011-2017 \17\ and 2017-2018,
 respectively...........................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............              14.63%              ..............              15.77%
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin's choice for 15% RFP requirement and 3% RFP     ..............              5%              1%  ..............             10%              2%
 contingency requirement, respectively..................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............                6%                ..............                12%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \17\ Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector
from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MOVES model incorporates a number of Federal emissions control
programs into its projections. These emissions reduction measures are
permanent and enforceable and are implemented everywhere, including in
the nonattainment area. Tables 5 and 6 list the Federal permanent and
enforceable control programs modeled by the MOVES model for the on-road
sector and the non-road sector, respectively.

      Table 5--Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model for the Onroad Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       On-road control program                Pollutants              Model year *              Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light    VOC & NOX..............  2004-09+ (Tier 2) 2017+  40 CFR Part 85 & 86.
 duty trucks--emissions and fuel                                 (Tier 3).
 standards.
Light-duty trucks and medium duty      VOC....................  2004-10................  40 CFR Part 86.
 passenger vehicle--evaporative
 standards.
Heavy-duty highway compression         VOC & NOX..............  2007+..................  40 CFR Part 86.
 engines.
Heavy-duty spark ignition engines....  VOC & NOX..............  2005-08+...............  40 CFR Part 86.
Motorcycles..........................  VOC & NOX..............  2006-10 (Tier 1 & 2)...  40 CFR Part 86.
Mobile Source Air Toxics--fuel         Organic Toxics & VOC...  2009-15 **.............  40 CFR Part 59, 80, 85,
 formulation, passenger vehicle                                                           & 86.
 emissions, and portable container
 emissions.
Light duty vehicle corporate average   Fuel efficiency (VOC &   2012-16 & 2017-25......  40 CFR Part 600.
 fuel economy standards.                NOX).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years
  for replacing earlier tier requirements.
** The range in model years reflects phased implementation of fuel, passenger vehicle, and portable container
  emission requirements as well as the phasing by vehicle size and type.

 Table 6--Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model or Considered in Development of
                                    the MAR Inventory for the Nonroad Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Nonroad control program *               Pollutants             Model year **              Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft.............................  VOC & NOX..............  2000-2005+.............  40 CFR Part 87.
Compression Ignition.................  VOC & NOX..............  2000-2015+ (Tier 4)....  40 CFR Part 89 & 1039.
Large Spark Ignition.................  VOC & NOX..............  2007+..................  40 CFR Part 1048.
Locomotive Engines...................  VOC & NOX..............  2012-2014 (Tier 3)       40 CFR Part 1033.
                                                                 2015+ (Tier 4).
Marine Compression Ignition..........  VOC & NOX..............  2012-2018..............  40 CFR Part 1042.
Marine Spark Ignition................  VOC & NOX..............  2010+..................  40 CFR Part 1045.
Recreational Vehicle.................  VOC & NOX..............  2006-2012 (Tier 1-3)...  40 CFR Part 1051.
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw--   VOC & NOX..............  2005-2012 (Tier 2 & 3).  40 CFR Part 90 & 1054.
 emission standards.

Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw--   VOC....................  2008-2016..............  40 CFR Part 1045, 54, &
 evaporative standards.                                                                   60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Compression ignition applies to diesel non-road compression engines including engines operated in
  construction, agricultural, and mining equipment. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road
  motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. Small spark ignition engines include engines operated in lawn and hand-
  held equipment.
** The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years
  for replacing earlier tier requirements.

    These emissions reductions are surplus, meaning that Wisconsin has
not previously claimed them for the purposes of other ozone NAAQS
requirements. These emission reductions are also permanent,
enforceable, and occurred during the 6-year attainment planning time
period, which started with the 2011 base year. Wisconsin has
demonstrated that these emissions reductions result in at least an 18%
reduction (15% for RFP and 3% for the RFP contingency measure
requirements, respectively) from the 2011 base year inventory emissions
net of growth (and including a MVEB safety margin of 7.5% which will be
discussed in more detail below). Thus, EPA is proposing to approve
these emissions reductions as satisfying the 15% RFP and 3% RFP
contingency measure requirements for the moderate nonattainment plan
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA notes that the measures Wisconsin is relying upon to meet the
contingency measures requirement are already implemented. Contingency
measures may include Federal measures and local measures already
scheduled for implementation, as long as the resulting emission
reductions are in excess of those needed for attainment or to meet RFP
in the nonattainment plan. EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude a
state from implementing such measures before they are triggered by a
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain. For more information on
contingency measures, see the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498,
13510) and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (March 6, 2015, 80 FR
12264, 12285).
    The appropriateness of relying on already-implemented reductions to
meet the contingency measures requirement has been addressed in two
Federal circuit court decisions. See Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v.
United States EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L.
Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 (Jan. 8, 2018). EPA believes that the
language of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect
to this issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret
the statutory language to allow approval of already implemented
measures as contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters
such as providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not
relied upon to meet RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for
the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could
rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called
``early triggered'' contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the
Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in
Bahr leaves a split among the Federal circuit courts, with the Fifth
Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to
allow early triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit
rejecting that interpretation. The Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin
is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or
any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.
    Because there is a split in the Federal circuits on this issue, EPA
expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may elect
to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9)
allowing early triggered measures to be approved as contingency
measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional
Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the
Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in circuits
other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early
triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant
CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and
intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the
attainment plan development process.
    As shown above, the emissions reductions projected through 2018 are
sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency measures,
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow approval of
already implemented control measures as contingency measures in states
outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval of the
contingency measures submitted by the state in the nonattainment plan
for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area.

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, or projects that receive Federal funding or support, such as
the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Under the CAA,
states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy plans
for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas that qualify
for redesignation to attainment of the ozone standards (maintenance
areas).\18\ These control strategy plans (including reasonable further
progress plans and attainment plans for purposes of the ozone NAAQS)
and maintenance plans must include MVEBs for the relevant criteria
pollutant or its precursor pollutants (VOC and NOX for
ozone) to address pollution from on-road transportation sources. The
MVEBs are the portion of the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will meet an RFP milestone or
provide for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.\19\ The MVEB serves
as a ceiling on emissions

from an area's planned transportation system.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone standards in
EPA's March 6, 2015 implementation rule (80 FR 12264).
    \19\ 40 CFR 93.101.
    \20\ The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to
the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188).
The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and
how to revise the MVEB, if needed, subsequent to initially
establishing a MVEB in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When reviewing submitted control strategy or maintenance plan
submissions, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs contained
therein are adequate for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds that the submitted MVEBs are adequate for
transportation purposes, then the MVEBs must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission;
provision for a public comment period; and EPA's adequacy
determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in
EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of
March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to
codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004.\21\ Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in a June 30, 2003, proposed rule titled,
``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Changes.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 69 FR 40004.
    \22\ 68 FR 38974, 38984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 16, 2015, Wisconsin submitted an early progress SIP
submission with MVEBs for its portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone
nonattainment area. On April 1, 2015, EPA found Wisconsin's MVEBs
adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations.\23\ As
part of its nonattainment plan submitted on April 17, 2017, and
supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin submitted new 2017 and 2018
NOX and VOC MVEBs, which are lower than Wisconsin's previous
MVEBs found adequate by EPA. Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBs include a
safety margin that Wisconsin applied in the form of a 7.5% greater
mobile source activity than actually projected for 2017 and 2018,
respectively. By applying this additional 7.5% on the front end of the
analysis, Wisconsin's MOVES model output estimates of NOX
and VOC emissions for 2017 and 2018 include a built-in safety margin.
States typically do this in an effort to accommodate future variations
in travel demand models and vehicle miles traveled forecast. As shown
in Table 4 above, Wisconsin has demonstrated that the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago area can meet the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency measure
emission reduction requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with mobile
source (onroad + nonroad) emissions, which include an onroad budget of
1.56 tpsd VOC and 3.05 tpsd NOX in 2017 and 1.44 tpsd VOC
and 2.75 tpsd NOX in 2018 (Table 7 below), and these
emissions will remain under 2017 and 2018 RFP plus contingency measure
target levels, even with the inclusion of the added 7.5% safety margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 80 FR 17428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBS were developed as part of an
interagency consultation process which includes Federal, state, and
local agencies. The MVEBS were clearly identified and precisely
quantified. These MVEBs, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with the 15% RFP and 3% contingency
measure emission reduction requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for this area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's
revised 2017 and 2018 MVEBs into the Wisconsin SIP. If EPA finalizes
this approval, these MVEBs will replace the MVEBs previously
established for the 2008 ozone NAAQS early progress plan and Wisconsin
must use these updated MVEBs for future transportation conformity
determinations for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment
area. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are listed in Table 7.

  Table 7--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Eastern Kenosha
                        County for 2017 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Emissions  (tons per summer
                                                       day)
                  Year                   -------------------------------
                                                VOC             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................            1.56            3.05
2018....................................            1.44            2.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Motor Vehicle I/M Program Certification

    The requirement to adopt a motor vehicle I/M program for moderate
ozone nonattainment areas is described in CAA section 182(b)(4) and the
regulations for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart S. Under these cumulative requirements, states with
areas classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone with 1990 Census-
defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt
basic I/M programs, while serious and higher classified ozone
nonattainment areas outside of the northeast ozone transport region
with 1980 Census-defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are
required to adopt enhanced I/M programs. The Chicago area meets the
criteria for mandatory I/M under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago area is already operating an enhanced I/M
program due to being designated nonattainment and classified as serious
or above under an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA initially approved on August
16, 2001,\24\ Wisconsin's I/M program and later approved on September
19, 2013,\25\ revisions to Wisconsin's I/M program. Wisconsin's
approved enhanced I/M program in the SIP is consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for the alternate low
enhanced performance standards. In its April 17, 2017, submission,
Wisconsin certified that it still meets the Federal enhanced I/M
performance requirement. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that
Wisconsin has met the I/M requirement for its portion of the Chicago
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 66 FR 42949.
    \25\ 78 FR 57501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. NOX RACT Certification

    Section 182(f) of the CAA requires RACT level controls for major
stationary sources of NOX located in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. ``RACT'' is defined as the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.\26\ Section 302 of
the CAA defines a major stationary source as any facility which has the
potential to emit 100 tons per year of any air pollutant. EPA approved
Wisconsin's NOX RACT program into the SIP on October 19,
2010,\27\ for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin's
NOX RACT requirements

are codified at NR 428.20 to 428.26 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. Wisconsin's NOX RACT rules are applicable to major
stationary sources of NOX located in Wisconsin's moderate
ozone nonattainment areas, including Kenosha County. The only major
source of NOX in the portion of Kenosha County that is
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is Wisconsin Electric
Power Company, D/B/A We Energies-Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. This
source has selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology for
controlling NOX emissions from each of its two coal-fired
boilers and has been subject to an emission limit of 0.10 pounds of
NOX per Million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU) since May 1,
2009. Because Wisconsin has EPA-approved NOX RACT rules
applicable to Kenosha County sources in its SIP, and EPA considers the
current control technology and limit at the major stationary source in
the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment portion of Kenosha County to be RACT
for NOX, EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has
satisfied the NOX RACT requirements for its moderate
nonattainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Wisconsin portion
of the Chicago nonattainment area, which is the portion of Kenosha
County inclusive and east of Highway 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 44 FR 53762.
    \27\ 75 FR 64155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Emissions Statement Certification

    For marginal ozone nonattainment areas, states must adopt SIP
provisions requiring emissions statements from stationary sources of
VOC and NOX.\28\ States may waive this requirement for
sources emitting less than 25 tons per year of VOC and less than 25
tons per year of NOX.\29\ Under NR 438 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code, Wisconsin requires annual NOX and VOC
emission reporting from any facility in the state that emits
NOX above 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per year and VOC above
6,000 pounds (3 tons) per year. This includes facilities in
nonattainment areas such as the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA previously approved NR
438 into the Wisconsin SIP on December 6, 1993.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
    \29\ CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
    \30\ 58 FR 64155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of a moderate ozone nonattainment plan, states should
certify that the proper emissions statement reporting requirements are
in place. If an area has a previously approved emission statement
provision in the SIP in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, then such rule should be sufficient for purposes of
the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The state
should review the existing rule to ensure it is adequate and, if it is,
may rely on it to meet the emission statement requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. In cases when an existing emission statement requirement
is still adequate to meet the requirements of the implementation rule
for the 2008 ozone standard, states can provide the rationale for that
determination to EPA in a written statement in its SIP submission to
meet this requirement.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 80 FR 12264 at 12291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate submission to EPA on August 15, 2016, Wisconsin
included a certification that its emissions statement provision in the
SIP is still adequate to meet the requirements for the Wisconsin
portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone nonattainment area. In Wisconsin's
January 23, 2018, supplemental submission to EPA regarding Wisconsin's
moderate area ozone nonattainment plan for the Chicago area, Wisconsin
requested that EPA act on its August 15, 2016, emission statement
certification as part of the action on Wisconsin's nonattainment plan
elements included in this proposal. Because Wisconsin has an EPA
approved SIP provision requiring stationary sources to report annually
their NOX and VOC emissions at least as high as 25 tons per
year for each precursor, EPA proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the
emissions statement requirement for its nonattainment plan for the
Chicago area for the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Wisconsin's SIP pursuant
to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because
Wisconsin's April 17, 2017, nonattainment plan submissions and January
23, 2018, supplement along with a prior submission on August 15, 2016,
satisfy the emission inventory, RFP, RFP contingency measure,
NOX RACT, emissions statement, I/M, and transportation
conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 1, 2018.
James Payne,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-17590 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32797-32798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72291; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor

June 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 May 22, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. 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 Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 519. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor, to
provide details regarding order size protections. The proposal codifies
existing functionality applicable to orders on the Exchange.
    Currently, Rule 519 only provides details regarding the System's
order price protections. However, in addition to order protections
based on price, the System also employs order protections based on
size. The Exchange now proposes to codify these existing order size
protections into Rule 519. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
provide that the System prevents certain orders from executing or being
placed on the Book if the size of the order exceeds the order size
protection designated by the Member. Members may designate or disable
the order size protection on a firm wide basis. The default maximum
size of orders are determined by the Exchange and announced to Members
through a Regulatory Circular.\3\ The order size protections provide
market participants the flexibility to designate the level of
protection they need to help prevent the potential submission of
erroneously sized orders on the Exchange. The proposed change is
designed to protect investors and the public interest by codifying the
order size protections that apply to orders that help market
participants avoid the potential submission of erroneously sized orders
on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
amendment removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects
investors and the public interest by helping to eliminate potential
confusion on behalf of market participants by clearly stating the
System's functionality with regard to orders that trigger order size
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the current default maximum size of
orders is 10,000. However, Members may designate a maximum order
size on a firm wide basis from 0 to 999,999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes several technical changes to enable the
incorporation of the order size protections into the Rules alongside
the existing order price protections, including changing a citation in
Rule 530.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \4\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \5\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is designed to protect investors and the public
interest by codifying the order size protections that apply to orders
that help market participants avoid the potential submission of
erroneously sized orders on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed amendment removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
helping to eliminate potential confusion on behalf of market
participants by clearly stating the System's functionality with regard
to orders that trigger order size protections.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-
market competition because it applies to all MIAX participants equally.
In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to
protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the
Exchange's order size protections.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-MIAX-2014-20 and should be
submitted on or before June 27, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13107 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 91-94]
[FR Doc No: E9-31137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1227; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-119-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Canadair) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) 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: Two cases of a crack on a ``dry'' ADG (Air Driven
Generator) (Hamilton Sundstrand part number in the 761339 series) in
the aft area of the strut and generator housing assembly, have been
reported on CL-600-2B19 aircraft. The same part number is also
installed on CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) aircraft. Investigation determined
that the crack was in an area of the strut where the wall thickness of
the casting was below specification, due to a manufacturing anomaly in
a specific batch of ADGs. Structural failure and departure of the ADG
during deployment could possibly result in damage to the aircraft
structure. If deployment were activated by a dual engine shutdown, ADG
structural failure would also result in loss of hydraulics for the
flight controls. The unsafe condition is possible loss of control of
the airplane. 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 February 18,
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
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1227;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-119-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-24, issued May 19, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Two cases of a crack on a ``dry'' ADG (Air Driven Generator)
(Hamilton Sundstrand part number in the 761339 series) in the aft
area of the strut and generator housing assembly, have been reported
on CL-600-2B19 aircraft. The same part number is also installed on
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) aircraft. Investigation determined that the
crack was in an area of the strut where the wall thickness of the
casting was below specification, due to a manufacturing anomaly in a
specific batch of ADGs. Structural failure and departure of the ADG
during deployment could possibly result in damage to the aircraft
structure. If deployment were activated by a dual engine shutdown,
ADG structural failure would also result in loss of hydraulics for
the flight controls.
    This directive gives instructions to check the part number of
the installed ADG and, for ADGs with a part number in the 761339
series, the serial numbers of the ADG and the strut and generator
housing assembly are also to be checked. If these serial numbers are
within specified ranges * * *, initial and subsequent repeat
fluorescent penetrant inspections of the ADG strut are required.
    This directive also gives instructions to perform a fluorescent
penetrant inspection after each unscheduled in-flight ADG deployment
and a [general] visual inspection after each unscheduled on-ground
ADG deployment. Instructions regarding re-identification (where
applicable) and replacement parts are also included.

The unsafe condition is possible loss of control of the airplane. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A604-24-017, Revision
01, dated January 15, 2007; and Service Bulletin 604-24-019, dated
October 1, 2007. 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 378 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 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 $60,480, or $160 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:

Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Canadair):
Docket No. FAA-2009-1227; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-119-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 18, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate
previously held by Canadair) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes;
certificated in any category; serial numbers 5408 through 5665
inclusive.

Subject

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

Reason

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

    Two cases of a crack on a ``dry'' ADG (Air Driven Generator)
(Hamilton Sundstrand part number in the 761339 series) in the aft
area of the strut and generator housing assembly, have been reported
on CL-600-2B19 aircraft. The same part number is also installed on
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) aircraft. Investigation determined that the
crack was in an area of the strut where the wall thickness of the
casting was below specification, due to a manufacturing anomaly in a
specific batch of ADGs. Structural failure and departure of the ADG
during deployment could possibly result in damage to the aircraft
structure. If deployment were activated by a dual engine shutdown,
ADG structural failure would also result in loss of hydraulics for
the flight controls.
    This directive gives instructions to check the part number of
the installed ADG and, for ADGs with a part number in the 761339
series, the serial numbers of the ADG and the strut and generator
housing assembly are also to be checked. If these serial numbers are
within specified ranges * * *, initial and subsequent repeat
fluorescent penetrant inspections of the ADG strut are required.
    This directive also gives instructions to perform a fluorescent
penetrant inspection after each unscheduled in-flight ADG deployment
and a [general] visual inspection after each unscheduled on-ground
ADG deployment. Instructions regarding re-identification (where
applicable) and replacement parts are also included.

The unsafe condition is possible loss of control of the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
inspect to determine the part number of the installed ADG and
accomplish the actions required by paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii)
of this AD, as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records
is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the
ADG can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (i) If the part number of the ADG is 604-90800-23 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405), the strut wall thickness is within
specification and no further action is required by this paragraph.

    (ii) If the part number of the ADG is 604-90800-1, -17 or -19
(Hamilton Sundstrand part number in the 761339 series), inspect to
determine the ADG serial number and do the applicable action
required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A), (f)(1)(ii)(B), or (f)(1)(ii)(C)
of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable
in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the ADG can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (A) If the serial number of the ADG is 2000 or higher, the strut
wall thickness is within specification and only re-identification is
required. Do the actions required by paragraph (f)(8) of this AD.
    (B) If the serial number of the ADG is in the range 0101 through
1999 inclusive, and the symbol 24-3 is marked in the serial number
block of the identification plate, the strut wall thickness is
within specification and only re-identification is required. Do the
actions required by paragraph (f)(8) of this AD.
    (C) If the serial number of the ADG is in the range 0101 through
1999 inclusive, and the symbol 24-3 is not marked in the serial
number block of the identification plate, inspect to determine the
serial number of the strut and generator housing assembly and do the
applicable action required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C)(1) or
(f)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    Note 1: Guidance on serial number location can be found in
Figure 1, Sheet 1, of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10AG-
24-3, Revision 3, dated March 12, 2009.

    (1) If the serial number of the strut and generator housing
assembly is in the range 0001 through 2503 inclusive, the
fluorescent penetrant inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD is required. For airplanes on which an unscheduled in-flight
or on-ground ADG deployment has occurred after accomplishing the
actions required by this paragraph, do the actions required by
paragraph (f)(6), (f)(7), or (f)(8) of this AD, as applicable.
    (2) If the serial number of the strut and generator housing
assembly is 2504 or higher, the strut wall thickness is within
specification and only re-identification is required. Do the actions
required by paragraph (f)(8) of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes having a strut and generator housing assembly
identified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C)(1), except for airplanes with
serial numbers 5611 through 5665 on which Bombardier conducted the
initial fluorescent penetrant inspection prior to aircraft delivery
and on which the ADG has not been replaced since aircraft delivery:
Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a
fluorescent penetrant inspection of the ADG strut, and replace the
ADG, as applicable, in accordance with paragraphs 2.A., 2.C., and
2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A604-24-017, Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007. If the
ADG is replaced by an ADG with part number 604-90800-23 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405), no further action is required by
this paragraph. Accomplishing the requirements in paragraph (f)(4)
of this AD is required for airplanes on which each ADG has been
inspected in accordance with this paragraph.
    (3) Accomplishment of the fluorescent penetrant inspection
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the
applicable service information identified in the Table 1 of this AD
is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD.

                 Table 1--Acceptable Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document                   Revision              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Alert Service          Original..........  May 6, 2005.
 Bulletin 604-24-017.
Hamilton Sundstrand Service       Original..........  April 14, 2005.
 Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-3.
Hamilton Sundstrand Service       Revision 1........  April 19, 2005.
 Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-3.
Hamilton Sundstrand Service       Revision 2........  November 14, 2006.
 Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-3.
Hamilton Sundstrand Service       Revision 3........  March 12, 2009.
 Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2: In Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-3,
the fluorescent penetrant inspection is referred to as a ``penetrant
check.''

    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, for airplanes on which
the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD has been done
and on which a scheduled ADG operational test is performed: Before
further flight after each test, do a general visual inspection of
the ADG strut for cracks, and replace the ADG if any crack is found,
in accordance with paragraphs 2.A., 2.C., and 2.D. of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A604-24-017, Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007. If the ADG is
replaced by an ADG with part number 604-90800-23 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405), no further action is required by
this paragraph.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, for airplanes
identified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C)(1) of this AD on which an
unscheduled in-flight ADG deployment occurs: Before further flight
after each deployment, do a general visual inspection of the ADG
strut for cracks, and replace the ADG if any crack is found, in
accordance with paragraphs 2.A., 2.B., and 2.D. of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A604-24-017, Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007. [If the ADG is
replaced by an ADG with part number 604-90800-23 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405), no further action is required by
this paragraph.] The general visual inspection required by this
paragraph is not required if the fluorescent penetrant inspection
required by paragraph (f)(6) of this AD is performed before further
flight.
    (6) For airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C)(1) of
this AD on which an unscheduled in-flight ADG deployment occurs:
Within 3 days or 10 hours time-in-service, whichever comes first,
after each deployment, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of
the ADG strut, and replace the ADG, as applicable, in accordance
with paragraphs 2.A., 2.C., and 2.D. of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-24-017,
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007. If the ADG is replaced by an
ADG with part number 604-90800-23 (Hamilton Sundstrand part number
1711405), no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (7) For airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C)(1) of
this AD on which an unscheduled on-ground ADG deployment task is
done: Before further flight after each deployment, do a general
visual inspection of the ADG strut for cracks, and replace the ADG
if any crack is found, in accordance with paragraphs 2.A., 2.B., and
2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A604-24-017, Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007. If the
ADG is replaced by an ADG with part number 604-90800-23 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405), no further action is required by
this paragraph.
    (8) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A),
(f)(1)(ii)(B), and (f)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of this AD: Within 400 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD, re-identify the ADG, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 604-24-019, dated October 1, 2007. Following re-
identification, no further action is required by this paragraph.

    Note 3: Paragraph (f)(8) of this AD is applicable only if
required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A), (f)(1)(ii)(B), or
(f)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of this AD. The strut wall thickness of the ADGs
specified in these paragraphs is not below specification.

    (9) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
an ADG having part number 604-90800-1, -17, or -19 (Hamilton
Sundstrand part number in the 761339 series) on any airplane if the
serial number of the ADG is in the range 0101 through 1999 strut and
the serial number of the generator housing assembly is in the range
0001 through 2503.

    Note 4: The Bombardier CL-604 Illustrated Parts Catalog
specifies that, for an ADG with a Hamilton Sundstrand part number in
the 761339 series, future procurement is to be an ADG with Hamilton
Sundstrand part number 1711405.

    (10) Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-24-017,
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007; and Service Bulletin 604-24-
019, dated October 1, 2007; specify submitting certain information
to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that submission.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 5: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although the MCAI or service information tells you to
submit information to the manufacturer, paragraph (f)(10) of this AD
specifies that such submittal is not required.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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: Program Manager,
Continued Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7300; 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.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-24,
issued May 19, 2009; Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-24-017,
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2007; and Bombardier Service Bulletin
604-24-019, dated October 1, 2007; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-31137 Filed 12-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P