Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29341 

Application No. Title Date filed 

61/619,123 ......... Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle Control Methods ............................................................................................ April 2, 2012. 

HYDRAULIC COMPONENT LICENSED INVENTIONS

Patent No. Title Date issued 

6,619,325 ........... Hydraulic Hybrid Accumulator Shut-off Valve ....................................................................................... September 16, 2003. 

6,996,982 ........... Method and Device for Switching Hydraulic Fluid Supplies, such as for a Hydraulic Pump/Motor ..... February 14, 2006. 

7,014,429 ........... High-Efficiency, Large Angle, Variable Displacement Hydraulic Pump/Motor ...................................... March 21, 2006. 

7,108,016 ........... Lightweight Low Permeation Piston-in-Sleeve Accumulator ................................................................. September 19, 2006. 

7,121,304 ........... Low Permeation Hydraulic Accumulator ............................................................................................... October 17, 2006. 

7,305,914 ........... Hydraulic Actuator Control Valve .......................................................................................................... December 11, 2007. 

6,170,524 ........... Fast Valve and Actuator ........................................................................................................................ January 9, 2001. 

7,305,915 ........... Efficient Pump/Motor with Reduced Energy Loss ................................................................................. December 11, 2007. 

7,374,005 ........... Opposing Pump/Motors ......................................................................................................................... May 20, 2008. 

7,500,424 ........... Hydraulic Machine Having Pressure Equalization ................................................................................ March 10, 2009. 

7,527,074 ........... Hydraulic Pressure Accumulator ........................................................................................................... May 5, 2009. 

7,537,075 ........... Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle with Integrated Hydraulic Drive Module and Four-Wheel-Drive, and Method of Operation Thereof (Div.).May 26, 2009. 

7,553,085 ........... Fluid Bearing and Method of Operation ................................................................................................ June 30, 2009. 

7,594,802 ........... Large Angle Sliding Valve Plate Pump/Motor ....................................................................................... September 29, 2009. 

7,617,761 ........... Opposing Pump/Motors (divisional) ....................................................................................................... November 17, 2009. 

7,677,871 ........... High-Efficiency, Large Angle, Variable Displacement Hydraulic Pump/Motor (Divisional) ................... March 16, 2010. 

8,052,116 ........... Quiet Fluid Supply Valve ....................................................................................................................... November 8, 2011. 

8,100,221 ........... Engine-Off Power Steering System ....................................................................................................... January 24, 2012. 

8,020,587 ........... Piston-in-Sleeve Hydraulic Pressure Accumulator ................................................................................ September 20, 2011. 

7,987,940 ........... Hydraulic Accumulator and Fire Suppression System .......................................................................... August 2, 2011. 

Application No. Title Date filed 

11/233,822 ......... Independent Displacement Opposing Pump/Motors and Method of Operation ................................... September 22, 2005. 

11/540,089 ......... Safe Over-Center Pump/Motor .............................................................................................................. September 29, 2006. 

12/701,438 ......... Variable Length Bent-Axis Pump/Motor ................................................................................................ February 5, 2010. 

12/567,938 ......... Hydraulic Circuit and Manifold with Multi-Function Valve ..................................................................... September 28, 2009. 

13/415,109 ......... Modular Hydraulic Hybrid Drivetrain ...................................................................................................... March 8, 2012. 

13/232,677 ......... Engine-Off Power Steering System ....................................................................................................... September 14, 2011. 

12/215,438 ......... On-Demand Power Brake System and Method .................................................................................... June 26, 2008. 

13/433,839 ......... On-Board Hydraulic Fluid Degasification System for a Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle ................................ March 29, 2012. 

61/609,597 ......... Radial Hydraulic Motor for a Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle ......................................................................... March 12, 2012. 

61/635,085 ......... Integrated Hydraulic Accumulator Dual Shut-Off Valve ........................................................................ April 18, 2012. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by EPA at the address listed 

below by June 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Read, Attorney Advisor, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Vehicle Fuel Emissions 

Laboratory, Office of Air and Radiation, 

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105, telephone (734) 214–4367. 

Dated: May 10, 2012. 

Geoff Cooper, 

Assistant General Counsel, General Law 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11965 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0375, FRL–9672–8] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Request for Methyl Bromide Critical 

Use Exemption Applications for 2015 

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 2015. 

Critical use exemptions last only one 

year. All entities interested in obtaining 

a critical use exemption for 2015 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 applied for an 

exemption in previous years. Today’s 

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 2015 critical 

use exemption must be postmarked on 

or before August 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to 

submit their applications electronically 

to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. If the 

application is submitted electronically, 

applicants must fax a signed copy of 

Worksheet 1 to 202–343–9055 by the 

application deadline. Applications for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption can also be submitted by 

U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Attention Methyl Bromide 

Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by courier delivery to: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Attention Methyl Bromide Review 

Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

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: Bill Chism, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, 703–308– 

8136. Email: chism.bill@epa.gov. 

Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Stratospheric Protection 

Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

202–343–9055. Email: 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. How do I obtain an application form for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption? 

C. What must applicants address when 

applying for a critical use exemption? 

D. What if I applied for a critical use 

exemption in a previous year? 

E. What portions of the applications will be 

considered confidential business 

information? 

II. What is the legal authority for the critical 

use exemption? 

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority 

for the critical use exemption? 

C. What is the timing for applications for 

the 2015 control period? 

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 complete 

the application form available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ 

cueinfo.html. The application may be 

submitted either by a consortium 

representing multiple users who have 

similar circumstances or by individual 

users. EPA encourages groups of users 

with similar circumstances to submit a 

single application (for example, any 

number of pre-plant users with similar 

soil, pest, and climactic conditions can 

join together to submit a single 

application). You should contact your 

local, state, regional or national 

commodity association to find out 

whether it plans to submit an 

application on behalf of your 

commodity group. 

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). 

B. 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 hardcopy form. EPA encourages use of the 

electronic form. Applications can be 

obtained in the following ways: 

1. PDF, Microsoft Word, and 

Microsoft Excel formats at EPA’s Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ 

cueinfo.html; 

2. PDF, Microsoft Word, and 

Microsoft Excel formats at Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0375. The docket 

can be accessed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To obtain hard 

copies of docket materials, please email 

the EPA Docket Center: a-and-rdocket@epa.gov. 

3. Hard copies can be ordered through 

the Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Hotline at 1–800–296–1996. 

C. What must applicants address when 

applying for a critical use exemption? 

To support the assertion that a 

specific use of methyl bromide meets 

the requirements of the critical use 

exemption, applicants must 

demonstrate that there are no 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives available for that use. EPA’s 

Web site contains a list of available and 

potential alternatives. This list can be 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

mbr/alts.html. Applications must 

address the technical and economic 

feasibility of using these alternatives. 

Specifically, applications must include 

the following information for the U.S. to 

successfully defend its nominations for 

critical uses. 

Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and 

Nuts 

Applicants must address potential 

economic losses due to pest pressures, 

changes in quality, changes in timing, 

and any other economic implications for 

producers when converting to 

alternatives. Alternatives for which such 

information is needed include: Sulfuryl 

fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), 

phosphine, and/or controlled 

atmosphere/temperature treatment 

system (CATTS). The applicant should 

include the costs to retrofit equipment 

or design and construct new fumigation 

chambers for these alternatives. For the 

economic assessment applicants must 

provide the following: The amount of 

fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide 

and alternatives), price per pound of the 

fumigant gas from the most recent use 

season, application rates, differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) 

associated with alternatives, the amount 

of commodity treated with each 

fumigant/treatment and the value of the 

commodity being treated/produced. 

Also provide cost information on any 

other practices or equipment used (e.g. 

sanitation and IPM) that are not needed 

when methyl bromide is used for 

fumigation. Include information on the 

size of fumigation chambers where 

methyl bromide is used, the percent of 

commodity fumigated under tarps, the 

length of the harvest season, peak of the 

harvest season and duration, and 

volume of commodity treated daily at 

the harvest peak. 

Where applicable, also provide the 

following: Examples of specific 

customer requests regarding pest 

infestation and examples of any 

phytosanitary requirements of foreign 

markets (e.g., import requirements of 

other countries) that may necessitate use 

of methyl bromide accompanied by 

explanation of why the methyl bromide 

quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

exemption is not applicable for this 

purpose. The application must also 

contain a description of your future 

research plans which includes the 

pest(s), chemical(s), or management 

practice(s) you will be testing in the 

future to support this CUE. Also include 

information on what pest control 

practices organic producers are using for 

their commodity. 

Structures and Facilities (Flour Mills, 

Rice Mills, Pet Food) 

Applicants must address potential 

economic losses due to pest pressures, 

changes in quality, changes in timing, 

and any other economic implications for 

producers when converting to 

alternatives. Alternatives for which such 

information is needed include: Sulfuryl 

fluoride, micro-sanitation, and/or heat. 

The applicant should include the costs 

to retrofit equipment for these pest 

control methods. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season, application rates, differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) 

associated with alternatives, and value 

of the commodity being treated/ 

produced. List how many mills have 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29343 

been fumigated with methyl bromide 

over the last three years; the rate, 

volume, and target CT of methyl 

bromide at each location; volume of 

each facility; number of fumigations per 

year; and date facility was constructed. 

Where applicable, also provide the 

following: Examples of specific 

customer requests regarding pest 

infestation and examples of any 

phytosanitary requirements of foreign 

markets (e.g., import requirements of 

other countries) that may necessitate use 

of methyl bromide accompanied by 

explanation of why the QPS exemption 

is not applicable for this purpose. The 

application must also contain a 

description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s), or management practice(s) 

you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. Also include 

information on what pest control 

practices organic producers are using for 

their facilities. 

Dried Cured Pork 

Applicants must list how many 

facilities have been fumigated with 

methyl bromide over the last three 

years; the rate, volume, and target CT of 

methyl bromide at each location; 

volume of each facility; number of 

fumigations per year; and the materials 

from which the facility was constructed. 

The application must also contain a 

description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s), or management practice(s) 

you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. 

Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and 

Tomato 

Applicants must address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

Georgia three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl 

disulfide (DMDS), and any 

fumigationless system (if data are 

available). Applications must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and/or your region’s 

production of these crops using these 

alternatives, including the costs to 

retrofit equipment and the differential 

impact of buffers for methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. The 

application must also contain a 

description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s), or management practice(s) 

you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. 

Strawberry Fruit 

Applicants must address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

Georgia three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium), and any 

fumigationless system (if data are 

available). Applications must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and/or your region’s 

production of these crops using these 

alternatives, including the costs to 

retrofit equipment and the differential 

impact of buffers for methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. The 

application must also contain a 

description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s), or management practice(s) 

you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. 

Nursery Stock, Orchard Replant, 

Ornamentals, and Strawberry Nursery 

Applicants must address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

Georgia three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl 

disulfide (DMDS), and steam. 

Applications must address regulatory 

and economic implications for growers 

and/or your region’s production of these 

crops using these alternatives, including 

the costs to retrofit equipment and the 

differential impact of buffers for methyl 

bromide plus chloropicrin compared to 

the alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. The 

application must also contain a 

description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s), or management practice(s) 

you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. 

D. What if I applied for a critical use 

exemption in a previous year? 

Critical use exemptions are valid for 

only one year and do not automatically 

renew. All users desiring to obtain an 

exemption for 2015 must apply to EPA 

even if they have applied for critical 

uses in previous years. Because of the 

latest changes in registrations, costs, and 

economic aspects for producing critical 

use crops and commodities, applicants 

must fill out the application form 

completely. 

E. What portions of the applications will 

be considered confidential business 

information? 

You 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.’’ You should clearly 

identify the allegedly confidential 

portions of otherwise non-confidential 

documents, and you may submit them 

separately to facilitate identification and 

handling by EPA. If you desire 

confidential treatment only until a 

certain date or until the occurrence of a 

certain event, your notice should state 

that. 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 EPA receives it, EPA 

may make it available to the public 

without further notice. 

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 the 

‘‘Worksheet 6: Application Summary’’ 

page of the application any information 

that you wish to claim as confidential 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

business information. Any information 

on Worksheet 6 shall not be considered 

confidential and will not be treated as 

such by the Agency. EPA will place a 

copy of Worksheet 6 in the public 

domain. Please note, claiming business 

confidentiality may delay EPA’s ability 

to review your application. 

II. What is the legal authority for the 

critical use exemption? 

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

In October 1998, Congress amended 

the Clean Air Act to require EPA to 

conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for 

methyl bromide to the provisions of the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer for 

industrialized countries and to allow 

EPA to provide a critical use exemption. 

These amendments were codified in 

Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing 

regulations, the production and 

consumption of methyl bromide was 

phased out as of January 1, 2005. 

Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, 

allows EPA to exempt the production 

and import of methyl bromide from the 

phaseout for critical uses, to the extent 

consistent with the Montreal Protocol. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 

prohibit the production and import of 

methyl bromide in excess of the amount 

of unexpended critical use allowances 

held by the producer or importer, unless 

authorized under a separate exemption. 

Methyl bromide produced or imported 

by expending critical use allowances 

may be used only for the appropriate 

category of approved critical uses as 

listed in Appendix L to the regulations 

(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl 

bromide that was produced or imported 

through the expenditure of production 

or consumption allowances prior to 

2005 is not confined to critical uses 

under EPA’s phaseout regulations; 

however, other restrictions may apply. 

B. What is the Montreal Protocol 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

The Montreal Protocol provides that 

the Parties may exempt ‘‘the level of 

production or consumption that is 

necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them 

to be critical uses’’ (Art. 2H para 5). The 

Parties to the Protocol included this 

language in the treaty’s methyl bromide 

phaseout provisions in recognition that 

alternatives might 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 and an exemption from 

the production and consumption 

phaseout: 

(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. * * * NonArticle 5 Parties [e.g., developed 

countries, including the U.S.] must 

demonstrate that research programs are 

in place to develop and deploy 

alternatives and substitutes. * * * 

EPA has defined ‘‘critical use’’ in its 

regulations at 40 CFR 82.3 in a manner 

similar to Decision IX/6 paragraph (a). 

C. What is the timing for applications 

for the 2015 control period? 

There is both a domestic and 

international component to the critical 

use exemption process. The projected 

timeline for the process for the 2015 

critical use exemption is as follows: 

May 17, 2012: Solicit applications for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption for 2015. 

August 15, 2012: Deadline for 

submitting critical use exemption 

applications to EPA. 

Fall 2012: U.S. Government (EPA, 

Department of State, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and other interested 

Federal agencies) prepares U.S. Critical 

Use Nomination package. 

January 24, 2013: Deadline for U.S. 

Government to submit U.S. nomination 

package to the Protocol Parties. 

Early 2013: Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP) and Methyl 

Bromide Technical Options Committee 

(MBTOC) review the nominations for 

critical use exemptions. 

Mid 2013: Parties consider TEAP/ 

MBTOC recommendations. 

November 2013: Parties decide 

whether to authorize critical use 

exemptions for methyl bromide for 

production and consumption in 2015. 

Mid 2014: EPA publishes proposed 

rule for allocating critical use 

exemptions in the U.S. for 2015. 

Late 2014: EPA publishes final rule 

allocating critical use exemptions in the 

U.S. for 2015. 

January 1, 2015: Critical use 

exemption permits the limited 

production and import of methyl 

bromide for specified uses for the 2015 

control period. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

Sarah Dunham, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11842 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Economic Impact Policy 

This notice is to inform the public 

that the Export-Import Bank of the 

United States has received an 

application for a $4.3 billion direct loan 

to support the export of approximately 

$3.3 billion in U.S. equipment and 

services to establish a new 

petrochemical facility in Saudi Arabia. 

The U.S. exports will enable the 

facility to produce approximately: 

750,000 metric tons of linear low 

density polyethylene (LLDPE); 350,000 

metric tons of linear density 

polyethylene (LDPE); 250,000 metric 

tons of elastomers; 200,000 metric tons 

of glycol ethers; 70,000 metric tons of 

propylene glycol (MPG); 208,000 metric 

tons of ethanolamines and 

ethyleneamines; 400,000 metric tons of 

polyether polyols; 200,000 metric tons 

of toluene diisocyanate (TDI); and 

400,000 metric tons of polymeric methyl 

diphenyl diisocyanate (PMDI). Initial 

production at this facility is expected to 

be phased in from 2016 to 2018. 

Available information indicates the 

Saudi petrochemical producer plans to 

sell its products as follows: The majority 

of LDPE, LLDPE and glycol ethers will 

be sold primarily in the Asia-Pacific 

market, and the balance will be sold in 

the Europe, Middle East and Africa 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES