[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47679]
[DOCID:fr06au10-156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date: August 12, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time.

Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive the
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in this meeting by
telephone.

Status: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: August 4, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-19590 Filed 8-4-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22693-22700]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07817]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0031; FRL-10007-82-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and
Other Plan Elements for the Chicago Nonattainment Area for the 2008
Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
meet the base year emissions inventory, reasonable further progress
(RFP), RFP contingency measures, and motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
Illinois portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
area (Chicago area) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA is also proposing to approve the 2017
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the Illinois portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is proposing to approve the state's submission as a SIP revision
pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations
because it satisfies the emissions inventory, RFP, RFP contingency
measures, I/M, and transportation conformity requirements for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final
approval of the Illinois SIP as meeting the I/M and RFP requirements of
the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will permanently stop the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks for those specific elements, which
were triggered by EPA's December 11, 2017 finding that Illinois failed
to submit certain required SIP elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2019-0031, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, 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_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 is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's evaluation of the Illinois submittal?
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 Standard

    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 all areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. 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, codified at 40 CFR 50.15.
    \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 the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA
section 172 and the ozone-specific 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, 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 Reasonably Available Control Technology (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 part 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 the state to submit all moderate area
nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to newly reclassified
areas. On August 23, 2019,\8\ 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, 2018, moderate area attainment deadline and thus
reclassified the area from moderate to serious nonattainment. In that
action, EPA established August 3, 2020 and March 23, 2021 as the due
dates for serious area nonattainment plan SIP submissions for newly
reclassified areas. Today's action does not address serious area
nonattainment planning requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.
    \7\ 81 FR 26697.
    \8\ 84 FR 44238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background on EPA's Finding of Failure To Submit SIPs for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS

    On December 11, 2017, EPA found that three states failed to submit
SIP revisions in a timely manner to satisfy certain moderate
nonattainment plan requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\9\ EPA found,
inter alia, that Illinois failed to submit a SIP to meet the following
requirements of the CAA for the Chicago area: A basic I/M program,
contingency measures for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), a nonattainment NSR program for moderate
nonattainment areas,\10\ an ozone attainment demonstration, RACT non-
control techniques guidelines for major stationary sources of VOC, RACT
for major stationary sources of NOX, and RFP for VOC and
NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 82 FR 58118 (effective January 10, 2018).
    \10\ On May 23, 2018, IEPA submitted a SIP revision requesting
EPA's approval of IEPA's certification that its existing SIP
approved Nonattainment NSR regulations fully satisfy the
Nonattainment NSR requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.165 for both
marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. On February 6, 2019 (84 FR 2063), EPA approved IEPA's
certification. This final action permanently stopped the FIP clock
triggered by EPA's December 11, 2017 finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This finding established certain deadlines for the imposition of
sanctions if the states do not submit timely SIP revisions addressing
the requirements for which EPA made the finding and for EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address any outstanding SIP requirements.
Specifically, Illinois was required to submit a complete SIP addressing
the deficiencies that were the basis for the finding within 18 months
of the effective date of the findings (i.e., July 10, 2019) so as to
avoid triggering, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR
52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) in the
affected nonattainment area. Additionally, EPA is required to
promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment area if EPA does not
take final action to approve the state's submittal within 2 years of
the effective date of the findings (i.e., January 10, 2020).
    On January 10, 2019, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted a SIP revision addressing moderate area requirements
for the Illinois portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On March 7, 2019, EPA found that the SIP revision fulfilled the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\11\ Through the
completeness finding, EPA determined that the deficiencies which formed
the basis for the December 11, 2017, finding had been corrected and, as
a result, the sanctions clock at CAA section 179(a) and (b) was
permanently stopped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ [thinsp]Letter from Edward Nam, Director, Air & Radiation
Division, EPA Region 5 to Julie Armitage, Chief, Bureau of Air,
IEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's evaluation of the Illinois submittal?

    IEPA's January 10, 2019, SIP revision for the Chicago area contains
a number of nonattainment plan elements, including a revised 2011 base
year emissions inventory for VOC and NOX, a 15 percent RFP
plan, a 3 percent contingency measure plan, 2017 VOC and NOX
motor vehicle emissions budgets, a VOC RACT certification and negative
declarations, an enhanced I/M certification, an attainment
demonstration, a reasonably available control measure (RACM)
demonstration, and a NOX RACT waiver request. In addition,
on December 5, 2018 IEPA had submitted to EPA support for a Negative
Declaration for the Oil and Gas Industry, which is the subject of a
December 16, 2016 Control Technology Guideline. See 81 FR 74798
(October 27, 2016). EPA will be addressing the attainment
demonstration, the contingency measure plan as it applies to the
attainment demonstration, the RACM demonstration, NOX RACT
submission, and VOC RACT SIP submissions in a separate action.

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.\12\ On
March 7, 2016,\13\ EPA approved the 2011 base year emissions inventory
submitted by IEPA on September 3, 2014, for the Illinois portion of the
Chicago area. IEPA included a revised 2011 base year emissions
inventory in its January 10, 2019, submission. The revised 2011 base
year emissions inventory only modifies the emissions estimates for the
on-road and non-road mobile sectors, with emissions estimates for point
and area sectors remaining unchanged from the inventory approved by
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 78 FR 34178, 34190 (June 6, 2013).
    \13\ 81 FR 11671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the original 2011 base year emissions inventory approved by EPA,
Illinois calculated 2011 on-road mobile

emissions using the 2010 version of the MOVES model. The current
version of the MOVES model is 2014a. In addition, when compiling the
2014 inventory, IEPA used updated estimates of vehicle registrations
(fleet mix) and vehicle miles traveled and found significant
differences from the 2011 values. To maintain consistency of the
inventory for comparison to future years, the 2014 VMT and vehicle
population from 2014 was back-casted to 2011, using the same growth
factor that was used for projecting the vehicle population and VMT from
2014 to 2017, 1.2 percent per year. With this data, MOVES2014a was run
to obtain 2011 emissions.
    The 2010 version of the MOVES model was also used to calculate non-
road emissions in the original base year inventory. To maintain
consistency, the 2011 non-road inventory was recalculated using
MOVES2014a.\14\ Because it is important to maintain a consistent
methodology when comparing emissions inventories from different years
and because MOVES2014a is the current version of the model, EPA is
proposing to approve the updated 2011 base year emissions inventory as
a revision to the Illinois SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ MOVES does not calculate off-road emissions for commercial
marine vessels, aircraft, or rail locomotives. Emission estimates
for these source types remain unchanged from the original 2011 base
year inventory.

                                       Table 1--Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory in Tons per Summer Day
                                                                         [tpsd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            VOC                                                NoX
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       County                                                        Non-                                               Non-
                                                       Point     Area    On- road    road      Total      Point     Area    On- road    road      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook...............................................     27.01    123.60     86.53     52.60    289.74      42.52     14.60    182.22     78.83    318.17
DuPage.............................................      4.11     25.77     20.19     16.38     66.45       5.49      4.53     45.63     19.19     74.85
Grundy (P).........................................      1.87      0.51      0.23      0.66      3.26       5.39      0.06      0.91      0.99      7.35
Kane...............................................      3.25     13.45     10.48      8.37     35.55       3.80      1.77     22.27     14.41     42.25
Kendall (P)........................................      0.50      1.33      0.70      0.92      3.45       0.77      0.19      1.53      1.08      3.57
Lake...............................................      2.14     19.35     14.69     16.89     53.07      13.74      3.52     32.47     15.01     64.74
McHenry............................................      1.21      8.46      6.86      5.39     21.92       0.86      1.17     13.99      8.78     24.80
Will...............................................      8.16     17.57     14.56      9.10     49.40      47.42      1.30     33.61     17.80    100.13
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................     48.26    210.04    154.24    110.31    522.85     119.99     27.13    332.64    156.10    635.86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 15 Percent RFP Plan and 3 Percent Contingency Plan

1. Background
    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 emissions 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 percent reduction in
VOC emissions from the baseline anthropogenic emissions within 6 years
after November 15, 1990. The state must meet the 15 percent 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),\15\ addressed, among other things, the RFP
requirements as they apply to areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\16\ EPA interprets the
15 percent VOC emission reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1)
such that a state that has already met the 15 percent 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 percent ozone
precursor emission reductions (VOC and/or NOX) over the
first 6 years after the baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
state previously met the 15 percent VOC reduction requirement of CAA
section 182(b)(1) for the Illinois portion of the Chicago area under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the state may rely upon both VOC and
NOX emissions reductions to meet the RFP requirement for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \16\ Ibid., at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
However, states selecting a pre-2011 alternate baseline year must
achieve 3 percent 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.
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin have selected the EPA-recommended base
year of 2011.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a
decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018), in which several parties challenged
different aspects of EPA's SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS. In this decision, the Court upheld 2011 as a reasonable
baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but vacated the provision
allowing for an alternate year. Because Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Indiana have selected 2011 as the baseline year, the decision does
not impact the Illinois RP plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States may not take credit for VOC or NOX reductions
occurring from sources outside the nonattainment area for purposes of
meeting the 15 percent RFP and 3 percent RFP requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B). The Illinois 15 percent
RFP represents emissions reductions which occurred in the Illinois
portion of the nonattainment area from 2011 to 2017, thereby satisfying
this requirement.
    Except as specifically provided in 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 the 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
percent of the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment
area.\18\ 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 to rectify the failure to attain or to
meet RFP requirements.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the SIP Requirements Rule (80 FR at 12285) and April
16, 1992 General Preamble section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at 13511).
    \19\ 80 FR 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 as moderate
and above that have already completed the initial 15 percent 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 states to use promulgated Federal measures as
contingency measures as long as they provide emission reductions in the
relevant years in excess of those needed for attainment or RFP.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Illinois's 15 Percent RFP and 3 Percent RFP Contingency Measures
Plan
    To demonstrate that the Illinois portion of the Chicago area has
achieved 15 percent RFP over the 6-year attainment planning period,
Illinois is using a 2011 base year inventory and a 2017 RFP inventory.
Illinois used growth factors to project emissions from 2011 to 2017.
For point and area source categories along with non-road categories not
calculated by the MOVES model, growth factors were primarily derived
using Version 6.2 of the ``Notice of Data Availability of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' (NODA). This data set projected 2011
emissions to 2017 and 2025. For large NOX emitting units,
however, a growth factor was applied based on actual 2011 to 2016
growth in emissions as reported to the IEPA. In addition, when the NODA
predicted that a coal-firing emission unit would shut down but it
actually switched to natural gas, the state conservatively assumed a
growth factor of 1.0. Two coal-fired sources were shut down in 2012.
These sources were updated to zero in the 2017 inventory.
    Illinois calculated on-road emissions using EPA's MOVES2014a model.
Vehicle population and vehicle miles traveled were assumed to increase
at a rate of 1.2 percent per year from 2011. Off-road emissions other
than commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and rail locomotive were also
calculated using the MOVES2014a model. 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 in the nonattainment area. The MOVES model assumed
increases in vehicle or equipment population and usage while projecting
decreases in ozone precursor emissions from 2011 to 2017. The estimated
emissions reductions are therefore not due to reductions in source
activity, but to the implementation of control measures. Tables 2 and 3
list the Federal permanent and enforceable control programs modeled by
the MOVES model.

                       Table 2--Federal On-Road Emission Control Programs Modeled by MOVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       On-road control program                Pollutants              Model year *              Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light    VOC & NOX..............  2004-09+ (Tier 2),       40 CFR parts 85 & 86.
 duty trucks--emissions and fuel                                 2017+ (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 parts 59, 80,
 formulation, passenger vehicle                                                           85, & 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 3--Federal Non-Road Emission Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model or Considered in Development of
                                                the MAR Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      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 parts 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 (Tiers 1--3).  40 CFR part 1051.
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw--   VOC & NOX..............  2005-2012 (Tiers 2 & 3)  40 CFR parts 90 & 1054.
 emission standards.
Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw--   VOC....................  2008-2016..............  40 CFR parts 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.

    Table 4 shows Illinois's 2017 projected emissions inventory.

                                                       Table 4--Projected 2017 Emissions Inventory
                                                                         [tpsd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            VOC                                                NoX
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       County                                               On-      Non-                                      On-      Non-
                                                       Point     Area      road      road      Total      Point     Area      road      road      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook...............................................     26.96    116.65     44.63     38.40    226.64      29.33     14.50     89.71     61.96    195.50
DuPage.............................................      4.07     22.98     10.60     12.22     49.87       6.77      4.64     22.72     12.94     47.07
Grundy (P).........................................      1.91      0.48      0.11      0.44      2.94       9.81      0.06      0.45      1.45     11.76
Kane...............................................      3.22     12.12      5.43      6.28     27.05       3.36      1.84     11.00      9.69     25.89
Kendall (P)........................................      0.51      1.27      0.37      0.67      2.81       0.87      0.19      0.76      0.73      2.55
Lake...............................................      2.14     17.04      7.70     12.45     39.33      15.93      3.74     16.17     11.36     47.20
McHenry............................................      1.14      7.77      3.65      3.90     16.46       0.78      1.21      6.97      5.73     14.69
Will...............................................      8.16     16.49      7.59      6.69     38.92      56.72      1.25     16.62     13.43     88.01
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................     48.10    194.79     80.08     81.05    404.02     123.57     27.42    164.40    117.28    432.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois submitted documentation showing that emission reductions
in the Illinois portion of the Chicago area met the 15 percent RFP and
3 percent RFP contingency measures requirements through shutdown of the
two coal-fired electric generating units and Federal permanent and
enforceable control measures within the on-road and non-road mobile
source sectors. Table 5 shows the calculations Illinois used to
determine that these reductions meet the RFP and RFP contingency
measures requirements.

                           Table 5--2017 RFP and Contingency Target Level Calculations
                                               [Emissions in tpsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Description                  Formula                   VOC                          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2011 Base Year Inventory.........  ...............  522.85......................  635.86
B. RFP Reductions totaling 15%......  ...............  5%..........................  10%
C. RFP Emissions Reductions Required             A*B   26.14.......................  63.59
 Between 2011 & 2017.
D. RFP Target Level for 2017........              A-C  496.71......................  572.27
E. Contingency Percentage...........  ...............  0%..........................  3%
F. Contingency Emission Reduction                A*E   0...........................  19.08
 Requirements.
G. RFP + Contingency Reduction                      C+F26.14.......................  82.66
 Requirements.
H. Reductions between 2011 and 2017:  ...............  ............................  ...........................
    Federal on-road control programs  ...............  74.16.......................  168.24
    Federal non-road control          ...............  29.26.......................  38.82
     programs.
    Crawford shutdown...............  ...............  negligible..................  8.11
    Fisk shutdown...................  ...............  negligible..................  3.62
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................  ...............  103.42......................  218.79
I. Adjustments to reductions:         ...............  ............................  ...........................

    Agency hold-back................  ...............  19.00.......................  95.00
    Allocation to mobile source       ...............  52.92.......................  39.60
     budget.
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................  ...............  71.92.......................  134.60
J. Creditable reduction.............             H-I   31.50.......................  84.19
K. Compare creditable reductions to    JG   Yes.........................  Yes
 RFP and contingency reduction
 requirements to determine if at
 least 18% reduction is achieved.
L. RFP + Contingency Target Level...             A-G   496.71......................  553.20
M. 2017 Projected Emissions.........  ...............  404.02......................  432.67
N. Compare RFP & Contingency Target             MX 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.\22\ The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone standard in the
SIP Requirements Rule (80 FR 12264).
    \22\ 40 CFR 93.101.
    \23\ 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 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, 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. See 40 CFR 93.118(f). 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.\24\ 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.''
\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 69 FR 40004.
    \25\ 68 FR 38974, 38984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Illinois RFP and contingency measure plan includes VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the Illinois portion of the Chicago area for
2017. EPA reviewed the VOC and NOX MVEBs through the
adequacy process. Illinois's January 10, 2019, RFP and contingency
measure SIP submission, including the VOC and NOX MVEBs for
the Illinois portion of the Chicago area, was available for public
comment on EPA's adequacy website on February 22, 2019, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa. The EPA
public comment period on adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the Illinois
portion of the Chicago area closed on March 25, 2019. No comments on
the submittal were received during the adequacy comment period. The
submitted RFP and contingency measure plan, which included the MVEBs,
was endorsed by the Governor's designee and was subject to a state
public hearing. The 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 percent RFP and 3 percent RFP contingency
measures requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

                  Table 6--2017 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Illinois Portion of the Chicago Area
                                                     [tpsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Allocation of surplus
                                     2017 on-road emissions     reductions to on-road          2017 MVEBs
                                                                    mobile sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...............................                    80.08                     52.92                    133.00
NOX...............................                   164.40                     39.60                    204.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 6, the 2017 MVEBs exceed the estimated 2017 on-
road sector emissions. In an effort to accommodate future variations in
travel demand models and vehicle miles traveled forecast, Illinois
allocated a portion of the surplus RFP and contingency plan reductions
to the mobile sector. Illinois has demonstrated that the Illinois
portion of the Chicago area can meet the 15 percent RFP and 3 percent
RFP contingency measure requirements of the 2008 ozone NAAQS with
mobile source emissions of 133.00 tpsd of VOC and 204.00 tpsd of
NOX in 2017, because despite partial allocation of the RFP
and RFP contingency measures plan surplus reductions, emissions will
remain under 2017 RFP plus contingency measure target levels. EPA has
found adequate and is thus proposing to approve the 2017 VOC and
NOX MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in
the Illinois portion of the Chicago area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
because EPA has determined that the area can meet the 15 percent RFP
and 3 percent RFP contingency measure requirements of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs.

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 1990 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.
    The Illinois portion of the Chicago area was required to adopt an
enhanced I/M program under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA approved
Illinois's enhanced I/M program on February 22, 1999 (64 FR 8517) and
on August 13, 2014 (79 FR 47377). The Illinois I/M program for the
Chicago nonattainment area is governed by: 625 ILCS 5/13C--Illinois
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law of 2005; 35 Illinois Administrative
Code 240--Emissions Standards and Limitations for Mobile Sources; and
35 Illinois Administrative Code 276--Procedures to be followed in the
performance of inspections of Motor

Vehicle Emissions. These requirements remain in place in the Illinois
ozone SIP. In its January 10, 2019, submission, Illinois certified that
the existing SIP-approved enhanced I/M program in place for the Chicago
area satisfies the I/M requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the CAA for
the Illinois portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We
agree that Illinois has satisfied the CAA section 182(b)(4) I/M
requirement for the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Illinois SIP pursuant
to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because
IEPA's January 10, 2019, SIP plan submission satisfies the emissions
inventory, RFP, RFP contingency measures, transportation conformity,
and I/M requirements of the CAA for the Illinois portion of the Chicago
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final approval of these portions of
IEPA's January 10, 2018 SIP revision would permanently stop the FIP
clocks triggered by the December 11, 2017 finding with respect to a
basic I/M program and RFP. Final approval of these portions of IEPA's
submittal will not affect the FIP clocks triggered by the December 11,
2017 finding for the following SIP elements: Contingency measures for
VOC and NOX, an attainment demonstration, RACT non-control
techniques guidelines for major stationary sources of VOC, and RACT for
major stationary sources of NOX.

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, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 8, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-07817 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33817-33821]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0073; Product Identifier 2017-NM-100-AD; Amendment
39-19318; AD 2018-13-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing
skin at the farthest outboard fastener of the inboard segment of a
certain stringer. This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin
at the inboard segment of a certain stringer, and repair if necessary.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 22, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 22,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S 102nd Street, Suite 200,
Seattle, WA 98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.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>. It is also available

on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0073.

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-
0073; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 9, 2018 (83 FR 5738). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin
at the farthest outboard fastener of the inboard segment of stringer L-
9.5 on airplanes with winglets installed per Supplemental Type
Certificate ST01920SE. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the lower
outboard wing skin at the inboard segment of a certain stringer, and
repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking
in the lower outboard wing skin, which could result in failure and
subsequent separation of the wing and winglet and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Aviation Partners Boeing
(APB) concurred with the NPRM.

Request To Provide Credit for Previously Approved Repairs

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) and American Airlines (AAL) asked that
credit be given for repair deviations approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) using 8100-9
forms dated after June 15, 2017. ANA stated that Boeing ODAs will be
using APB analysis methodology to evaluate and approve the repairs. ANA
and AAL stated that Boeing indicated in Multi-Operator Message MOM-MOM-
17-0480-01B, dated August 29, 2017, that repairs approved after June
15, 2017, would be acceptable as alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs) to the final rule if using the referenced service information.
Both commenters asked that credit language for those previously
approved repairs be added to the content of the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenters' requests for the reasons provided.
The revised APB analysis methodology was approved by the FAA on June
15, 2017. Therefore, we have added paragraph (i)(2) to this AD to
include that approval.

Request To Allow Alternative Oversize Fastener Holes

    AAL asked that we allow oversize fasteners of at least 1/64 inch to
be installed at all fastener locations common to inboard stringer L-
9.5. AAL stated that the referenced service information and the APB
modification drawing are very restrictive regarding oversize fasteners
that are outside of the five critical fasteners at each end of inboard
stringer L-9.5. AAL added that hole damage during fastener removal at
the existing stringer L-9.5 is common.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. This type of
deviation would require an engineering evaluation to assess inboard
stringer L-9.5 and the skin fastener locations to determine if it is
feasible for the oversize fasteners to be installed. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for
approval of an AMOC, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate
that installing 1/64-inch oversize fasteners at all fastener locations
common to inboard stringer L-9.5 will provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Add Alternative Alodine Type

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) asked that we add a new paragraph to the
proposed AD specifying that Alodine coating ``Bonderite M-CR 600 Aero''
is an acceptable alternative to ``Alodine 600'' coating. Delta stated
that APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11,
2017, calls out Alodine 600 in paragraph 2.B.2, ``Parts and Materials
Supplied by the Operator,'' and in Drawing 767-9420, Sheet 1, in
paragraph 3.B, Part 2, Steps 4 and 5, as an ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance) step. Delta noted that the name of the Alodine coating
``Alodine 600'' has been changed to ``Bonderite M-CR 600 Aero.'' Delta
added that the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
(SAIB) that cited an AMOC for the use of Bonderite products.
    We agree with the commenter's request, for the reason provided.
Alodine products made by Henkel manufacturing have been renamed to
Bonderite. We issued SAIB HQ-18-09, dated February 5, 2018, which cited
the AMOC that allows the use of Henkel Bonderite products as an
alternative to Henkel Alodine products. We have revised paragraphs
(g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(2)(i) of this AD to allow the use of Bonderite M-
CR 600 Aero and Bonderite M-CR 600 RTU Aero as an alternative coating.

Requests To Clarify Compliance Time Definition

    United Airlines (UAL) and Delta asked that we clarify the
``Compliance Times'' definition specified in the preamble of the NPRM.
The commenters stated that the initial compliance time is defined as
1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight cycles after winglet installation,
but it should be 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours after
winglet installation. The commenters noted that this should be
corrected to be consistent with the compliance time specified in the
referenced service information.
    We agree with the commenters that the compliance time definition in
the NPRM is inaccurate, and should specify ``The initial compliance
time is the later of: 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours after
winglet installation, whichever occurs first.'' This language provided
notice regarding compliance times that were specified in the referenced
service information. The compliance time is correct in the referenced
service information and does not conflict with this AD. Since that
section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change
to this AD is necessary.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described

previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated
April 11, 2017. The service information describes procedures for an
HFEC inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at the
inboard segment of stringer L-9.5, and on-condition actions that
include repetitive HFEC inspections, a preventive modification (repair)
that includes installing new stringers, repetitive post-modification
(repair) HFEC inspections for cracking, and repair. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                            Estimated Costs--Required Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product                  Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC Inspections.....................  1 work-hour x $85 per              $0   $85, per inspection      $11,900, per inspection cycle.
                                        hour = $85, per                         cycle.
                                        inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs--On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                       Labor cost         Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventive Modification (Repair)....  50 work-hours x $85              $0  $4,250.
                                       per hour = $4,250.
Post-modification (repair)            1 work-hour x $85 per             0  $85, per inspection cycle.
 Inspections.                          hour = $85, per
                                       inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for on-condition repairs that might be necessary as a
result of the post-modification (repair) inspections specified in this
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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 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 and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-13-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19318; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0073; Product Identifier 2017-NM-100-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 22, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, with Aviation
Partners Boeing winglets installed; as identified in Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated
April 11, 2017.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower
outboard wing skin at the farthest outboard fastener of the inboard
segment of stringer L-9.5 on airplanes with winglets installed per
Supplemental Type Certificate ST01920SE. We are issuing this AD to
address fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin, which
could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and
winglet and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections, Preventive Modification (Repair),
Repetitive Post-Modification (Repair) Inspections, and Repair

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at the
inboard segment of stringer L-9.5, in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (1) For airplanes on which ``Condition 1'' is found, as defined
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017,
during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph
(g) or paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD: Do the actions required by
paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the inspection specified in the introductory text of
paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11,
2017.
    (ii) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and
(g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD:
    (A) Before further flight, do the preventive modification in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1,
dated April 11, 2017. The use of Alodine 600-RTU, Henkel Bonderite
M-CR 600 Aero, or Henkel Bonderite M-CR 600 RTU Aero coating is an
acceptable alternative to Alodine 600 coating.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD:  Guidance on
identifying alternative Henkel Bonderite Alodine coatings can also
be found in Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) HQ-18-
09, dated February 5, 2018. The SAIB may be viewed online at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/F87909D65FCE4BFA8625822B005AE82A?OpenDocument&Highlight=hq-18-09.

    (B) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, do an HFEC inspection for
cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017; and repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (2) For airplanes on which ``Condition 2'' is found as defined
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017,
during any inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph
(g) or paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD: Do the actions required by
paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before further flight, repair in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017. The use of
Alodine 600-RTU, Henkel Bonderite M-CR 600 Aero, or Henkel Bonderite
M-CR 600 RTU Aero coating is an acceptable alternative to Alodine
600 coating.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD:  Guidance on
identifying alternative Henkel Bonderite Alodine coatings can also
be found in SAIB HQ-18-09, dated February 5, 2018. The SAIB may be
viewed online at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/F87909D65FCE4BFA8625822B005AE82A?OpenDocument&Highlight=hq-18-09.

    (ii) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, do an HFEC inspection for
cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017; and repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (3) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, repair before
further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated
April 11, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions,
and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance), this
AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11,
2017, specifies a compliance time of ``after the initial issue date
of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) For Group 2 airplanes: This paragraph provides credit for
the actions specified in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, that are required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, dated November 30, 2016.
    (2) Repairs of the lower outboard wing skin approved after June
15, 2017, and before the effective date of this AD, if approved by
the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, are approved for the applicable repairs required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures

identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a
step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the RC requirement is
removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any
deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Allen
Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle
ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013,
Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle,
WA 98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com.
    (4) 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
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13362 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24698-24701]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-82]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017; FRL-8162-2]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Critical Use
Exemption Applications for the Years 2008 and 2009

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of applications and information on
alternatives.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption
from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2009 and beyond. In addition,
those applicants who missed last year's deadline to apply for a
critical use exemption for the year 2008 may file a supplemental
application in response to the notice. This exemption is an annual
exemption and all entities interested in obtaining a critical use
exemption must provide EPA with technical and economic information to
support a ``critical use'' claim, and must do so by the deadline
specified in this notice even if they have previously applied for an
exemption. This notice also invites interested parties to provide EPA
with new data on the technical and economic feasibility of methyl
bromide alternatives.

DATES: Applications for the critical use exemption must be postmarked
on or before July 10, 2006. Applications for an exemption are due one
month earlier to EPA this year to reflect the compressed schedule for
review of applications in 2007.

ADDRESSES: Applications for the methyl bromide critical use exemption
should be submitted in duplicate (two copies) by mail to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention: Marta Montoro/Methyl
Bromide Review Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery (other than U.S. Post
Office overnight) to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention: Marta
Montoro/Methyl Bromide Review Team, 1310 L St., NW., Room 827L,
Washington, DC 20005. EPA also encourages users to submit their
applications electronically to Marta Montoro, Stratospheric Protection
Division, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If the application is submitted
electronically, applicants are requested to fax a signed copy of
Worksheet 1 to Marta Montoro at<PHONE_NUMBER> by the application
deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General Information: U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information
Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.

    Technical Information: Colwell Cook, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Economic Information: Elisa Rim, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulatory Information: Marta Montoro, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applications are due one month earlier to
EPA due to the compressed review schedule for critical use exemptions
in the year 2007. The 19th Meeting of the Parties is scheduled to be
held in September 2007, almost two months earlier than previous
meetings of the parties which typically occur in November or December.
The EPA will submit a nomination for critical uses earlier than the end
of January and will shorten its own review process by one month. In
addition, in this notice, EPA is notifying applicants that their
application process is being shortened by one month with July 10th as
the deadline for applications. EPA also renewed the Information
Collection Request (ICR) for the applications on August 31, 2005. The
ICR is now valid through August 31, 2008. As a result of the ICR
renewal, the format and numbering of the application worksheets changed
minimally.

Table of Contents

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for
applications?
    A. Who can respond to this request for information?
    B. Who can I contact to find out if a consortium is submitting
an application form for my methyl bromide use?
    C. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide
critical use exemption?
    D. What alternatives must applicants address when applying for a
critical use exemption?
    E. What portions of the applications will be considered
confidential business information?
    F. Must I submit a ``Notice of Intent to Apply?''
    G. What if I submit an incomplete application?
    H. What if I already applied in 2002 and/or 2003 and/or 2004?
II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?
    A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for implementing
the critical use exemption to the methyl bromide phaseout?
    B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for granting a
critical use exemption after the methyl bromide phaseout?
III. How is the U.S. implementing the critical use exemption?
    A. When will the exemption become available to U.S. users of
methyl bromide?
    B. What is the projected timeline for the critical use exemption
application process?

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications?

A. Who can respond to this request for information?

    Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must fill

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. The application form may be submitted either by

a consortium representing multiple users who have similar circumstances
or by individual users who anticipate needing methyl bromide in 2009
and beyond and believe there are no technically and economically
feasible alternatives. EPA encourages groups of users with similar
circumstances of use to submit a single application (for example, any
number of pre-plant users with similar soil, pest, and climatic
conditions can join together to submit a single application). In some
instances, state agencies will assist users with the application
process (see discussion of voluntary state involvement in Part I.B.
below).
    In addition to requesting information from applicants for the
critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an
opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on
methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical and/or economic
feasibility research). The application form for the methyl bromide
critical use exemption and other information on research relevant to
alternatives must be sent to the addresses specified above or e-mailed
to the address specified above. The applicant's signature, which is
required in order for EPA to process your application, is on Worksheet
1 of the application. If you submit your application electronically,
you must fax a signed copy of worksheet 1 to Marta Montoro at (202)
343-2338.

B. Whom can I contact to find out if a consortium is submitting an
application form for my methyl bromide use?

    Please contact your local, state, regional, or national commodity
association to determine whether they plan to submit an application on
behalf of your commodity group.
    Additionally, you should contact your state regulatory agency
(generally this will be the State Department of Agriculture or State
Environmental Protection Agency) to receive information about their
involvement in the process. If your state agency has chosen to
participate, EPA encourages all applicants to first submit their
applications to the state regulatory agency, which will then forward
them to EPA. The National Pesticide Information Center Web site (http://ace.orst.edu/info/npic/state1.htm
) provides information on identifying

the lead pesticide agency in each state.

C. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption?

    An application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption
can be obtained either in electronic or hard-copy form. EPA encourages
use of the electronic form. Applications can be obtained in the
following ways:
    1. PDF format and Microsoft Excel at EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr
;

    2. Hard copy ordered through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996;
    3. Hard-copy format at Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017. The
Docket is located in room B-102, EPA West Building, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Office is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket
materials.

D. What alternatives must applicants address when applying for a
critical use exemption?

    To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide is
``critical,'' applicants are expected to demonstrate that there are no
technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the
user of methyl bromide. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have
developed an ``International Index'' of methyl bromide alternatives
which lists chemical and non-chemical alternatives by crop (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/in_alt_in.html
). The chemicals and non-chemical

practices included on this index were identified by the international
technical advisory groups under the Montreal Protocol: The Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The MBTOC and the TEAP determined
that alternatives in the International Index have the ``technical
potential'' to replace methyl bromide in at least one circumstance of
use on the identified crop (Report of the Technical and Economic
Assessment Panel, 1997) (http://www.teap.org/html/teap_reports.html).

In addition, the U.S. Government has developed the U.S. Index of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives, also listed by crop (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/us_alt_in.html
). The U.S. Index reflects whether chemical

alternatives included in the International Index have been registered
for use in the United States.
    Applicants must address technical, regulatory, and economic issues
that limit the adoption of ``chemical alternatives'' and combinations
of ``chemical'' and ``non-chemical alternatives'' listed for their crop
within the ``U.S. Index'' of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Applicants
must also address technical, regulatory, and economic issues that limit
the adoption of ``non-chemical alternatives'' and combinations of
``chemical'' and ``non-chemical alternatives'' listed for their crop in
the ``International Index.''

E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential
business information?

    The person submitting information to EPA in response to this Notice
may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the
information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, at the
time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or
other suitable form of notice employing language such as ``trade
secret,'' ``proprietary,'' or ``company confidential.'' Allegedly
confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should be
clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to
facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires
confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the
occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information
covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to
the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part
2, subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA,
it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to
the applicant.
    If you are asserting a business confidentiality claim covering part
or all of the information in the application, please submit a non-
confidential version that EPA can place in the public docket for
reference by other interested parties. Do not include on Worksheet 6
(formerly Worksheet 5, ``Application Summary'') any information that
you wish to claim as confidential business information. Any information
on Worksheet 5 is not considered confidential and will not be treated
as such by the Agency. EPA will place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the
public domain. EPA will place applications that are not confidential
business information in the docket in their entirety. Please note that
claiming business confidentiality may delay EPA's ability to review
your application.

F. Must I submit a ``Notice of Intent to Apply?''

    A ``Notice of Intent to Apply'' is not required, but would
facilitate the application review process. If EPA is aware of the
consortia and the individuals who intend to submit applications 30 days
before the application deadline, the technical experts will be better
positioned to review the application. This notice may be submitted to
Marta Montoro at the addresses above.

G. What if I submit an incomplete application?

    EPA will not accept any applications postmarked after July 10,
2006. If the application is postmarked by the deadline but is
incomplete or missing any of the following data elements listed in the
``Re-Application Information Document'' available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr
 EPA will not accept the application and will not

include the application in the U.S. nomination submitted for
international consideration. These required elements include Worksheets
1, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4, 5, and 6 (formerly Worksheet 5). EPA will accept
applications that are substantially complete with only minor errors.
EPA reviewers may also call applicants to further clarify their
application, even if it is complete.
    All consortia or users who have not applied to EPA in the previous
year (2005) must submit an entire completed application with all
worksheets.

H. What if I already previously applied for a critical use exemption?

    In March 2004 and in November 2004, the Parties decided that
critical use exemptions would be granted for one year. As a result,
users must apply to EPA for critical use exemptions on an annual basis.
However, if a user group submitted a complete application to EPA in
2004, the user is only required to submit revised copies of the
selected worksheets listed above, though the entire application with
all worksheets must be on file with EPA. A list of the worksheets you
must fill out each year is detailed above and is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. The remaining worksheets must only be

completed if any information has changed since 2005. If a user
submitted a critical use exemption application to EPA in 2002, 2003, or
2004 (first, second or third rounds) but did not submit an application
in 2005 (fourth round) then all worksheets in the application must be
submitted again in their entirety.

II. What is the Legal Authority for the critical use exemption?

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for implementing the
critical use exemption to the methyl bromide phaseout?

    In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act by
adding CAA sections 604(d)(6), 604(e)(3), and 604(h) (Section 764 of
the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Pub. L. No. 105-277; October 21, 1998)). The amendment requires
EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol for industrialized countries.
Specifically, the amendment requires EPA to make regulatory changes to
implement the following phaseout schedule:
    25% reduction (from 1991 baseline) in 1999.
    50% reduction in 2001.
    70% reduction in 2003.
    100% reduction in 2005.
    EPA published regulations in the Federal Register on June 1, 1999
(64 FR 29240) and November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), instituting the
phaseout reductions in the production and import of methyl bromide in
accordance with the schedule listed above. Additionally, the 1998
amendment allowed EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl
bromide from the phaseout for critical uses starting January 1, 2005
``to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol'' (section 764 of
the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998), section 604(d)(6) of the Clean
Air Act).

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for granting a critical use
exemption after the methyl bromide phaseout?

    The Montreal Protocol provides an exemption to the phaseout of
methyl bromide for critical uses in Article 2H, paragraph 5. The
Parties to the Protocol included provisions for such an exemption in
recognition that substitutes for methyl bromide may not be available by
2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the Parties to be
``critical uses.''
    In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed
to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ``critical
use'' determination:
    (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ``critical''
only if the nominating Party determines that:
    (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability
of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market
disruption; and
    (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable
from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination.
    (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for
a critical use should be permitted only if:
    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken
to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl
bromide;
    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also
bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide;
    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made
to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of
alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the
circumstances of the particular nomination * * *. Non-Article 5 Parties
[e.g., the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programmes are in place
to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes * * *.
    In the context of the phaseout program, the use of the term
consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the ``use'' of
a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the formula:
consumption = production + imports -exports, of controlled substances
(Article 1 of the Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). A Class I
controlled substance that was produced or imported through the
expenditure of allowances prior to its phaseout date can continue to be
used by industry and the public after that specific chemical's phaseout
under EPA's phaseout regulations, unless otherwise precluded under
separate regulations.
    In addition to the language quoted above, the Parties further
agreed to request the TEAP to review nominations and make
recommendations for approval based on the criteria established in
paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b) of Decision IX/6.

III. How does the U.S. implement the critical use exemption?

B. Under the provisions of both the CAA and the Montreal Protocol, the
critical use exemption became available to approved users on January 1,
2005. Allowances for subsequent years are authorized through
regulations. The critical use exemption process has an international
component and a domestic component.

    The projected schedule for the next three years is as follows:

April 26, 2006--Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption for 2009 and beyond.
July 10, 2006--Deadline for submitting critical use exemption
applications to EPA.
Fall 2006--U.S. Government (EPA, Department of State, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and other interested federal agencies) create U.S.
critical use nomination package.
January 31, 2007 but earlier December 2006 deadline strongly encouraged
for this year--Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S. nomination
package to the Protocol Parties.
Early 2007--Review of critical use nomination packages by Technical and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee (MBTOC).
Mid 2007--Parties consider TEAP/MBTOC recommendations.
September 2007--Parties authorize critical use exemptions for
production and consumption in 2008 (supplemental request) and 2009.
Early-Mid 2008--EPA publishes proposed rule and final rule for 2008
supplemental request, if applicable.
Mid 2008--EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use
exemptions in the U.S. for 2009.
Late 2008--EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use exemptions
in the U.S. for the 2009 control period.
January 1, 2009--Critical use exemption permits limited production and
import of methyl bromide for specific uses for the 2009 control period.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    Dated: April 11, 2006.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
 [FR Doc. E6-6256 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P