[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31705-31708]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0587; Product Identifier 2018-NM-054-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-
10, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. AD 2012-22-10 requires repetitive inspections to determine
that cotter pins are installed at affected wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints and replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-22-10, we
determined that additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment
joint should be inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain
wing-to-fuselage attachment joints are not necessary. This proposed AD
would retain the initial inspection of the wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints, and remove the repetitive inspections of all but the forward
keel beam attachment joint. This proposed AD would also change the
repetitive inspection interval for the forward keel beam attachment
joint. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0587; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, 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: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 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 proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0587;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-054-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267, November
9, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-10''), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-
600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701,

& 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and
Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2012-22-10
requires repetitive inspections to determine that cotter pins are
installed at affected wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and
replacement if necessary. AD 2012-22-10 resulted from a report that
certain wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts do not conform to the
certification design requirements for dual locking features. We issued
AD 2012-22-10 to prevent loss of wing-to-fuselage attachment joints,
which could result in the loss of the wing.

Actions Since AD 2012-22-10 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-22-10, we determined that additional nuts
of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be inspected, and that
repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints
are not necessary.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF-2012-10R1, dated January
22, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet
Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    The manufacturer has determined that wing-to-fuselage attachment
nuts, part number (P/N) SH670-35635-1, SH670-35440-951, SH670-35440-
3, SH670-35635-1, and 95136D-2412, installed at six attachment joint
locations, do not conform to the certification design requirements
for dual locking features. The nuts are not of the self-locking type
as required and do not provide the frictional thread interference
required to prevent the nut from backing off the bolt. As a result,
only a single locking device, the cotter pin, is provided at these
critical joints. In the case where a nut becomes loose, in
combination with a missing or broken cotter pin, the attachment bolt
at the wing-to-fuselage joint could migrate and fall out. Loss of
two attachment joints could potentially result in the loss of the
wing.
    The original version of this [Canadian] AD [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2012-22-10] mandated initial and repeat detailed visual
inspections (DVIs) of each affected wing-to-fuselage attachment
joint to ensure that a cotter pin was installed.
    Design review and analysis of the inspection findings since the
original issue of this [Canadian] AD have led us to determine that
additional nuts at the forward keel beam joint should also be
included in the inspection and that the repetitive inspection of
some wing-to-fuselage attachment joints is not required. This
[Canadian] AD maintains the initial inspection requirements [for
missing or failed (. . .) cotter pins] for six attachment joint
locations, and removes the repetitive inspection requirements for
all but the forward keel beam attachment joint. This [Canadian] AD
also requires a different repetitive inspection interval, and the
[Canadian] AD applicability has been changed for the initial
inspection to account for changes made in production.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision
B, dated October 20, 2017. This service information describes
procedures for detailed inspections of the wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints, and of the attachment nuts at the forward keel beam attachment
joint for missing or failed cotter pins. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 274 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 work-hours x $85 per hour = $935..........................            $100           $1,035         $283,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that may need
these actions.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267, November 9, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0587; Product Identifier 2018-
NM-054-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267,
November 9, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-10'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 and subsequent.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, serial numbers 15001 and subsequent.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that certain wing-to-fuselage
attachment nuts do not conform to the certification design
requirements for dual locking features, and a determination that
additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be
inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-
fuselage attachment joints are not necessary. We are issuing this AD
to address loss of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, which
could result in loss of the wing, and consequent reduced, or
complete loss of, controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Initial Inspection of the Wing-to-Fuselage Attachment Joint

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD: Within 3,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs first after December 14, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-
22-10), perform a detailed inspection for missing or failed cotter
pins at each affected wing-to-fuselage attachment joint, in
accordance with Part A through Part C of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision
B, dated October 20, 2017.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10337
inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15299 inclusive.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19037 inclusive.

(h) Initial and Repetitive Inspections of the Attachment Nuts at the
Forward Keel Beam Attachment Joint

    Within the compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(h) of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection of the attachment nuts
at the forward keel beam attachment joint for missing or failed
cotter pins, in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision
B, dated October 20, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 8,800 flight hours, in accordance with Part
E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY18.003

(i) Corrective Action

    If any cotter pin is found missing or failed during any
inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, replace the
cotter pin using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if the inspection was
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, dated December 21, 2011; or
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision A, dated April
27, 2012.
    (2) For Model CL-600-2C10 airplanes, S/Ns 10002 through 10337
inclusive: This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if the inspection was
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, dated December 21, 2011; or
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision A, dated April
27, 2012.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 516-794-
5531.
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-22-10, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2012-10R1, dated January 22, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0587.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 27, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-14506 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76430-76434]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31191]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0467; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0538; FRL-9765-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring and Biomass Deferral Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) to EPA on May 4, 2011, June 20, 2012, and
September 28, 2012. The proposed revisions modify Wisconsin's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to establish
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to Wisconsin's PSD
permitting requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Additionally, these revisions propose to defer until July 21, 2014, the
application of the PSD permitting requirements to biogenic carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic
stationary sources in the State of Wisconsin. EPA is proposing approval
of Wisconsin's revisions because the Agency has made the preliminary
determination that these revisions are in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0467, or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0538 by one of the following
methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0467, or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0538. 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 email 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. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Wisconsin's Submittals Regarding GHGs
III. What is the background for this proposed action?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP revision?
V. What action is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Wisconsin's Submittals Regarding GHGs

    In separate letters, dated May 4, 2011, June 20, 2012, and
September 28, 2012, WDNR submitted requests to EPA for approval of
revisions to the State's SIP to incorporate rule amendments adopted by
Wisconsin related to GHG provisions.

A. Submittal on the Tailoring Rule Provisions

    The first set of rules, originally submitted on May 4, 2011, became
effective in the Wisconsin Administrative Code on September 1, 2011.
These amendments establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Wisconsin's
PSD regulations at the same emissions thresholds and in the same time
frames as those specified by EPA in the ``PSD and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010), hereafter
referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule,'' ensuring that smaller GHG
sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The amendments to the
SIP clarify the applicable thresholds in the Wisconsin SIP, address the
flaw discussed in the ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas
Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans Final Rule,'' 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010) (the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''), and
incorporate State rule changes adopted at the State level into the
Federally-approved SIP.

B. Submittal on the Deferral of CO2 Emissions From Biogenic Sources

    On June 20, 2012, WDNR submitted final adopted rules related to the
deferral of CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic
sources (biogenic CO2 emissions), when determining whether
the modification of a stationary source would result in a net emissions
increase that would trigger PSD thresholds, and require the application
of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The adopted rules became
effective on April 16, 2012. The purpose of the amendment is to
incorporate the Federal deferral for biogenic CO2 emissions
into the Wisconsin's SIP provisions that govern GHG applicability.
    In today's action, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions into the Wisconsin SIP.

III. What is the background for this proposed action?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this proposed action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those
actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the
GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\1\ and in the preambles to the actions it
cites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from
one another, establish the overall framework for this proposed action
on the Wisconsin SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are
commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions establish regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determine that such
regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subject GHGs
emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limit the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
EPA promulgated this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more
specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSD is implemented through the SIP process. Pursuant to this
process in December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement
the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved
SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call
and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\5\
Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do
apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as
100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHGs, and that do not limit PSD
applicability to GHGs to

the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP
Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the
affected provisions within the SIPs to the extent those provisions
covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA has begun making findings of failure
to submit that would apply in any state unable to submit the
required SIP revision by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such
states. See, e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (December 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,''
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because Wisconsin's SIP already
authorizes WDNR to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Wisconsin is not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule

    On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated the final ``Deferral for
CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs'' (Biomass Deferral). The following is a brief discussion of
the deferral. For a full discussion of EPA's rationale for the rule,
see the notice of final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011).
    The biomass deferral delays the consideration of CO2
emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereinafter
referred to as ``biogenic CO2 emissions'') when determining
whether a stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability
thresholds, including those for the application of BACT \6\ until July
21, 2014. Stationary sources that combust biomass (or otherwise emit
biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct or modify during the
deferral period will avoid the application of PSD to the biogenic
CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The deferral
applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not affect
non-GHG pollutants or other GHGs (e.g., methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O)) emitted from the combustion of biomass
fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to biogenic CO2
emissions in the PSD and Title V programs and does not pertain to any
other EPA programs such as the GHG Reporting Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses
both PSD and Title V requirements. However, EPA is only taking
action on WDNR's PSD program as part of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as emissions of
CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the
combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than
fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ``biogenic
CO2 emissions'' include, but are not limited to:
     CO2 generated from the biological decomposition
of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment or manure management
processes;
     CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected
from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater
treatment or manure management processes;
     CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production
or other industrial fermentation processes;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of municipal solid waste or biosolids;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of tire-derived fuel; and
     CO2 derived from combustion of biological
material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue,
and agricultural material.
    EPA recognizes that use of certain types of biomass can be part of
the national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Efforts are
underway at the Federal, state and regional level to foster the
expansion of renewable resources and promote bioenergy projects,
increase domestic alternative energy production, enhance forest
management and create related employment opportunities. Part of
fostering this development is to ensure that those feedstocks with
negligible net atmospheric impact not be subject to unnecessary
regulation. At the same time, it is important that EPA have time to
conduct its detailed examination of the science and technical issues
related to accounting for biogenic CO2 emissions. The
deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for no more
than three years, to allow the Agency time to complete its work and
determine what, if any, treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions
should be in the PSD and Title V programs. The Agency plans to complete
its science and technical review and any follow up rulemakings within
the three year deferral period and believes that three years is ample
time to complete these tasks. It is possible that the subsequent
rulemaking, depending on the nature of EPA's determinations, would
supersede the biomass deferral rulemaking and become effective in fewer
than three years. In that event, Wisconsin may be required to revise
its SIP accordingly.
    For stationary sources co-firing fossil fuel and biologically-based
fuel, and/or combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire derived fuels,
municipal solid waste (MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions
from that combustion are included in the biomass deferral. However, the
fossil CO2 emissions are not included in the deferral.
Emissions of CO2 from processing of mineral feedstocks
(e.g., calcium carbonate) are also not included in the deferral.
Various methods are available to calculate both the biogenic and fossil
portions of CO2 emissions, including those methods contained
in the GHG Reporting Program (40 CFR part 98). Consistent with the
other pollutants subject to PSD, there are no requirements to use a
particular method in determining biogenic and fossil CO2
emissions.
    EPA's final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for
biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of
the obligation to meet the PSD permitting requirements for other
pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source during
the deferral period, or that may be applicable to the source at a
future date pending the results of EPA's study and subsequent
rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is
applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular
source during the three year effective period and the study and future
rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD permitting
requirements for the biogenic CO2 emissions from a source
with particular characteristics, then the deferral would end for that
type of source and its biogenic CO2 emissions would have to
be appropriately considered in any applicability determinations that
the source may need to conduct for future stationary source permitting
purposes, consistent with that subsequent rulemaking and the Final
Tailoring Rule (e.g., a major source determination for Title V purposes
or a major modification determination for PSD purposes). EPA also
wishes to clarify that we did not require that a PSD permit issued
during the deferral period be amended or that any PSD requirements in a
PSD permit existing at the time the deferral took effect, such as BACT
limitations, be revised or removed from an effective PSD permit for any
reason related to the deferral or when the deferral period expires.
    40 CFR 52.21(w) requires that any PSD permit shall remain in
effect, unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under the
limited conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit that
is issued to a source while the deferral was effective need not be
reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its
biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD applicability after the
deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification
that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not
eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO2 emissions
after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its
biogenic CO2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD
permit to authorize the modification.
    Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the
deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass
deferral action and this

proposed approval of the deferral into the Wisconsin SIP, and will be
addressed through subsequent rulemaking.

C. Wisconsin's Actions

    On July 28, 2010, WDNR provided a letter to EPA, in accordance with
the Tailoring Rule, confirming that the State has the authority to
regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter provided that WDNR
intended to apply the meaning of the term ``subject to regulation''
that was established by EPA in the Tailoring Rule. WDNR explained that
it would apply the term by revising chapters NR 400, 405, and 407 of
the Wisconsin Administrative Code. See the docket for this proposed
rulemaking for a copy of WDNR's letter.
    Wisconsin's initial revision consisted of emergency rules under the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, since WDNR was unable to meet the
January 2, 2011 effective date for applicability of PSD for GHG's. WDNR
passed the emergency rules to implement the PSD program consistent with
the Tailoring Rule on December 15, 2010.
    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010), EPA
withdrew its approval of certain provisions of Wisconsin's SIP, among
other SIPs, to the extent that those provisions of the SIP apply PSD
permitting requirements to GHG emissions from sources emitting at
levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.\7\ In this rule, EPA
found that the affected states, including Wisconsin, had a flaw in
their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was
that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than
the resources available to them under their SIP.\8\ Accordingly, for
each affected state, including Wisconsin, EPA concluded that EPA's SIP
approval action was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA
rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-
emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\9\ EPA
recommended that states adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the
Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under state law,
only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject
to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally-approved SIP by
clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
    \8\ Id. at 75 FR 82542.
    \9\ Id. at 75 FR 82544.
    \10\ Id. at 75 FR 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, Wisconsin's current approved SIP provides the state
with authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring
Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a PSD
permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
    WDNR is currently authorized to regulate the GHG PSD regulations
consistent with the Tailoring Rule at the State level since WDNR passed
emergency rules consistent with the Tailoring Rule. The combination of
these emergency rules and the SIP narrowing rule has allowed WDNR to
implement the PSD GHG regulations consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
At this time, WDNR is formally seeking to revise its SIP with permanent
rules (identical to the emergency rules) for final approval by EPA.
WDNR has formally amended regulations to incorporate the Tailoring Rule
thresholds, and has submitted its amendments to EPA for approval.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's proposed SIP revision?

    The regulatory revisions that WDNR submitted for approval on May 4,
2011, June 20, 2012, and September 28, 2012, establish thresholds for
determining which stationary sources and modifications become subject
to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under WDNR's PSD program
as well as incorporate the biomass deferral that delays until July 21,
2014, the consideration of biogenic CO2 emissions when
determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD thresholds.
Specifically, the submittal regarding the implementation of the
Tailoring Rule includes changes to WDNR's PSD regulations at NR
400.02(74m), NR 400.03(3)(om), NR 400.03(4)(go) and (kg), NR
405.02(28m), and NR 405.07(9).

A. WDNR's Revisions Regarding the Tailoring Rule Provisions

    Wisconsin is currently a SIP approved state for the PSD program,
and has incorporated EPA's 2002 New Source Review (NSR) reform
revisions, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), for PSD into its SIP, 73 FR
76560 (December 17, 2008). In a letter provided to EPA on July 28,
2010, WDNR notified EPA of its interpretation that Wisconsin currently
has the authority to regulate GHGs under its NR 400 and NR 405 PSD
regulations. The current WDNR program (adopted prior to the
promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major stationary
sources (having the potential to emit at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or
more of a regulated NSR pollutant, depending on the type of source) or
modifications undertaken in areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
    Among the changes WDNR has undertaken, WDNR has revised NR 400 to
add the definition of ``Greenhouse gases''. WDNR has also revised NR
405 to define ``Subject to regulation under the Act'', and to establish
the new tailoring rule thresholds for GHG applicability.

B. WDNR's Revisions Regarding the Deferral of CO2 Emissions From
Biogenic Sources

    With respect to the changes undertaken by WDNR regarding the
biomass deferral rule, WDNR has revised 285.60 and 285.63 of the Wis.
State Statutes. Sections 285.60(3m) and 285.63(3m) have been created to
establish that emissions of GHG's from biogenic CO2
emissions are exempt from GHG PSD permitting consistent with 40 CFR
51.66(b)(48). Consistent with Wisconsin's formal request within the
June 20, 2012 submittal, we are proposing to approve only revisions
with respect to PSD for the biomass deferral rule.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's May 4, 2011, June 20, 2012,
and September 28, 2012, SIP submittals, relating to PSD requirements
for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Wisconsin's proposed SIP
revisions establish appropriate emissions thresholds for determining
PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule and biomass deferral rule. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that these SIP submittals are
approvable because they are in accordance with the CAA and EPA
regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As explained on page 7, with respect to the first package
for submittal regarding the Tailoring rule provisions, we are
proposing approval based on the May 4, 2011 SIP submittal which was
sent for parallel processing. EPA is awaiting the formal state-
effective SIP revision request from WDNR. EPA will only then be able
to prepare a final rulemaking action for the SIP revision with
respect to the Tailoring rule provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If EPA does approve Wisconsin's changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into WDNR's SIP, then 40 CFR 52.2572(b), as
included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule, which codifies EPA's limiting its

approval of WDNR's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to
GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, is no longer
necessary. In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to amend 40
CFR 52.2572 to remove this unnecessary regulatory language.

VI. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-31191 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P