### 9793 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

AD, modify the airplane by installing additional stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB680–53–08, dated September 28, 2015. Doing this modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 7,000 or more total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,800 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 7,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3,600 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(j) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, dated December 22, 2014.

(2) Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2015.
(k) No Reporting Requirement

Although Cessna Service Bulletin SB680– 53–08, dated September 28, 2015; and Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05 Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(l) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, ACE– 118W, 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(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.

(n) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Kalowski, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4186; fax: 316–946–4107; email: paul.kalowski@faa.gov.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: 316–517–6215; fax: 316–517–5802; email: citationpubs@txtav.com; Internet: https:// support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/ newlogin.jsp. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 18, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2016–04136 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0003; FRL–9942–85– Region 10]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Spokane,**  **Washington: Second 10-Year PM** 10 **Limited Maintenance Plan**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted on January 4, 2016, by the State of Washington for the Spokane area, which includes the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Millwood and surrounding unincorporated areas in Spokane County, Washington. This plan addresses the second 10-year maintenance period for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10 ). A limited maintenance plan is used to meet Clean Air Act requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA is proposing to determine Washington’s submittal meets the limited maintenance plan criteria. The Spokane area currently has monitored PM 10 levels well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and levels have not increased since the area was redesignated to attainment in 2005. The EPA is also proposing to approve minor updates to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) regulations controlling PM 10 related to the maintenance plan.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2016–0003 at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, 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 :**  Jeff Hunt at (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@
epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents
I. Background II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM 10 Areas A. Requirements for the Limited

Maintenance Plan Option B. Conformity Under the Limited

Maintenance Plan Option III. Review of the State’s Submittal

A. Has the State demonstrated that the

maintenance area qualifies for the limited maintenance plan option? B. Does the State have an approved

attainment emissions inventory? C. Does the limited maintenance plan

include an assurance of continuedoperation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58? D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act

requirements for contingency provisions? IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

The Spokane area was designated as nonattainment for PM 10 by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and SRCAA worked with the community to establish PM 10 pollution control


### 9794 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1 The data evaluated includes a 2013 flagged exceptional event that has not been fully evaluated by the EPA to date. If this flagged data were factored strategies. Primary control strategies include a residential wood smoke control program, paving unpaved streets, requirements for improved sweeping and sanding practices on paved roads, and regulatory orders at the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation Trentwood facility for PM 10 . The Spokane area attained the PM 10 NAAQS in 1994, with continued attainment ever since.

The EPA partially approved the PM 10 attainment plan for the Spokane area on January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3800). The EPA then approved the remaining attainment plan elements and a 10-year maintenance plan, redesignating the area from nonattainment to attainment effective August 30, 2005 (70 FR 38029, published July 1, 2005). The purpose of the current limited maintenance plan is to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement, section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act, to ensure compliance through 2025.

II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM 10 Areas A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas. See memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM 10 Nonattainment Areas’’ (limited maintenance plan option memo). The limited maintenance plan option memo contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in the memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) are no longer necessary.

To qualify for the limited maintenance plan option the State must demonstrate the area meets the criteria described below. First, the area should have attained the PM 10 NAAQS. Second, the most recent five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, called the 24-hour average design value, should be at or below 98 micrograms per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 ). Third, the State should expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM 10 emissions and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the memo identifies core provisions that must be included in all limited maintenance plans. These provisions include an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions. B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.

While qualification for the limited maintenance plan option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM 10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:

• Transportation plans and projects provide for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;

• Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;

• The MPO’s interagency consultation procedures meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;

• Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;

• The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;

• Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and

• Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.

In approving the 2nd 10-year limited maintenance plan, the Spokane maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.

III. Review of the State’s Submittal

A. Has the State demonstrated that the maintenance areas qualify for the limited maintenance plan option?

As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo outlines the requirements to be met for an area to qualify. First, the area should be attaining the PM 10 NAAQS. Under 40 CFR 50.6, the primary and secondary PM 10 NAAQS are attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 mg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. The EPA determined that the Spokane area attained the PM 10 NAAQS and formally redesignated the area from nonattainment to attainment, beginning the first 10-year maintenance period effective August 30, 2005 (70 FR 38029, published July 1, 2005). We have evaluated the most recent monitoring data that shows that the Spokane area continues to attain the PM 10 NAAQS with the number of annual exceedances equal to 0.3 for the period 2012 through 2014, well below the 1.0 threshold for meeting the NAAQS. 1


### 9795 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

into the analysis, the calculated number of annual exceedances would drop to 0.0.

Second, the average design value for the past five years of monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98 mg/m 3 for the PM 10 NAAQS. The critical design value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The 5-year average design value for Spokane based on PM 10 monitoring data from 2009 through 2014 is 80 mg/m 3

. The EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by the State and finds that the Spokane area 5-year average design value is below the critical design value of 98 mg/m 3 outlined in the limited maintenance plan option memo and therefore, meets the requirement for the limited maintenance plan option.

Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test described in the limited maintenance plan option memo. The State submittedan analysis showing that growth in onroad mobile PM 10 emissions sources was minimal and would not threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the limited maintenance plan policy. Using the EPA’s methodology,the State calculated total growth in onroad motor vehicle PM 10 emissions over the ten-year period for the Spokane area. This calculation is derived using Attachment B of the EPA’s limited maintenance plan memo, where the projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled over the next ten years (VMT pi ) is multiplied by the on-road mobile portion of the attainment year inventory (DV
mv ), including both primary and secondary PM 10 emissions and re-entrained road dust. The EPA reviewed the calculations in the State’s limited maintenance plan submittal and concurs with the determination that the area meets the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. This test is met when (VMT pi × DVmv ) plus the design value for the most recent five years of quality assured data is below the limited maintenance plan threshold of 98 mg/

m 3 . The result for Spokane is 82 mg/m 3

.

As described above, the Spokane maintenance area meets the qualification criteria set forth in the limited maintenance plan option memo. To ensure these requirements continue to be met, the State has committed to evaluate monitoring data annually to ensure the area continues to qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. The State will report this information to the EPA in the annual monitoring network report. B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?

Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State’s submission should include an emissions inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.

The limited maintenance plan submittal includes an emissions inventory based on the State’s 2011 Triennial Emissions Inventory. This inventory is prepared as part of the 2011 National Emissions Inventory under the EPA’s Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR 76539, December 17, 2008). The information was supplemented with annual 2011 industrial emissions reported to SRCAA and Ecology. The 2011 base years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available and is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the limited maintenance plan option ( i.e., having no violations of the PM 10 NAAQS). The most significant emission source categories for the Spokane area are residential wood combustion and dust from paved and unpaved roads. The 2011 emission inventory results compare favorably to the 2002 emission inventory submitted with the first 10- year limited maintenance plan. Particulate matter from residential wood combustion has declined by almost one half. These emission were 2,052 tons per year (tpy) in 2002 versus 1,062 tpy in 2011. Particulate matter from unpaved roads declined from 5,855 tpy in 2002 to 623 tpy in 2011. The only significant source category from the 2002 emission inventory to increase was particulate matter from paved roads, which increased from 325 tpy in 2002 to 623 tpy in 2011. Emissions from point sources remained relatively stable at 147 tpy in 2002 and 160 tpy in 2011. The EPA reviewed and is proposing to approve the emissions inventory and methodology. The emissions inventory data supports the State’s conclusion that the existing control measures in place will continue to protect and maintain the PM 10 NAAQS.
C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continuedoperation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?

The limited maintenance plan memo states, ‘‘[t]o verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain a provision to assure continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.’’ SRCAA currently operates a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM 10 monitor. SRCAA commits to maintaining a PM 10 NAAQS compliance monitor through the limited maintenance plan period to verify the attainment status of the area, confirm continued qualification for the limited maintenance plan option, and to provide a means for triggering contingency measures if needed. The EPA last approved the State’s monitoring network in a letter dated October 28, 2015, included in the docket for this action. Table 1 shows 98th percentile PM 10 monitored values at the site to provide a sense of trends since the area came into attainment in

2005.



### TABLE 

### 1—98 TH 

### P ERCENTILE 

### PM 10 

### T RENDS IN 

### M ICROGRAMS PER 

### C UBIC 

### M ETER 

### [ μ G

### / M 3 

### ]

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

89 72 61 65 48 43 43 67 49 60


### 9796 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency provisions?

Clean Air Act section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. SRCAA Regulation 1 Section 6.15.G contains additional requirements for road paving should the EPA find that the Spokane area has violated the PM 10 NAAQS. The EPA approved this provisions into the SIP on April 12, 1999 (64 FR 17545). Similarly, Regulation 1 Sections 8.07.A.5 and 8.09 provide for prohibition of the use of uncertified woodstoves for the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air Act requirements for contingency measures, which the EPA approved into the SIP on January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3800). These contingency provisions remain in effect today. IV. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of Washington, on January 4, 2016, for the Spokane PM 10 area. If finalized, the EPA’s approval of this limited maintenance plan will satisfy the section 175A Clean Air Act requirements for the second 10-year period in the Spokane PM 10 area. Additionally, Ecology and SRCAA requested that the EPA update the Washington SIP to include minor regulatory changes associated with the limited maintenance plan adopted in 2004 and 2007, since the EPA’s last approval (64 FR 17545, April 12, 1999). These regulatory changes update and clarify the general PM 10 control measures, including minor revisions to the emission reduction strategies for both paved and unpaved roads. In a prior approval on January 27, 1997, the EPA inadvertently approved SRCAA section 6.05(A) which is a nuisance provision addressing the deposition of particulate and not related to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (62 FR 3800). Ecology and SRCAA requested, and the EPA proposes to approve, correcting the SIP to remove this nuisance provision. A full copy of the regulatory changes, in redline/strikeout format, is included in Appendix D of the State submittal. The EPA reviewed these changes and is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the updated versions of SRCAA Regulation I, sections 6.05, 6.14, and 6.15, shown in the table below.



### S POKANE 

### R EGIONAL 

### C LEAN 

### A IR 

### A GENCY 

### (SRCAA) R EGULATIONS FOR 

### P ROPOSED 

### A PPROVAL AND 

### I NCORPORATION BY 

### R EFERENCE

State/Local citation Title/Subject State/Local effective date Explanation

**Regulation I**

6.05 .......................................... Particulate Matter and Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne. 04/10/04 Except 6.05(A).

6.14 .......................................... Standards for Control of Particulate Matter on Paved Surfaces. 06/03/07

6.15 .......................................... Standards for Control of Particulate Matter on Unpaved Roads. 06/03/07

V. Incorporation by Reference

In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 9 ‘‘Additional Regulations Approved for the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) Jurisdiction’’ to reflect the regulations shown in the Proposed Action section. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section of this preamble for more information). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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);

• 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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This SIP revision is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has


### 9797 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

jurisdiction. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Spokane Tribe in a letter dated May 21, 2015. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 12, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016–04081 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 98**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0764; FRL–9942–96– OAR]** 

**RIN 2060–AS73**

**Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and**  **Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule titled ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.’’ The public comment period for this proposal began on January 29, 2016. This document announces the extension of the deadline for public comment from February 29, 2016 to March 15, 2016.

**DATES :**  The public comment period for the proposed rule published January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4987) is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0764 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 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. The 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, 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 :**  Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: (202) 343–2342; email address: GHGReporting@epa.gov. For technical information, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ index.html. To submit a question, select Help Center, followed by ‘‘Contact Us.’’

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Worldwide Web (WWW)

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA’s GHGRP Web site at http:// www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html. Additional Information on Submitting Comments

To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207A, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343–9263, email address: GHGReporting@epa.gov. Background

In this action, the EPA is providing notice that it is extending the comment period on the proposed rule titled ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems,’’ which was published on January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4987). The previous deadline for submitting public comment on that rule was February 29, 2016. The EPA is extending that deadline to March 15, 2016. This extension will provide the general public additional time for participation and comments. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 22, 2016. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016–04196 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 98**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526; FRL–9942–95– OAR]** 

**RIN 2060–AS60**

**2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements**  **Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.

**SUMMARY :**  The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule titled ‘‘2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’. The public comment period for this proposal began on January 29, 2016. This document announces the extension of the deadline for public comments from February 29, 2016 to March 30,
2016.

**DATES :**  Comment Due Date: The comment due date of February 29, 2016, for the proposed rule published on January 15, 2016, at 81 FR 2536, is extended to March 30, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 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,