86662 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

chapter, a database that does not consist 

predominantly of photographs 

registered under § 202.3(b)(5) of this 

chapter, or a renewal registration, an 

applicant must complete and submit a 

paper application using Form CA. 

(4) Before submitting the application, 

the applicant must sign a certification 

stating that the applicant reviewed a 

copy of the certificate of registration for 

the basic registration that will be 

corrected or amplified by the 

supplementary registration. To obtain a 

copy of the certificate, the applicant 

may submit a written request to the 

Records Research and Certification 

Section using the procedure set forth in 

Chapter 2400 of the Compendium of 

U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third 

Edition. 

(5) The appropriate filing fee, as 

required by § 201.3(c), must be included 

with the application or charged to an 

active deposit account. At the Office’s 

discretion, the applicant may be 

required to pay an additional fee to 

make a copy of the certificate of 

registration for the basic registration that 

will be corrected or amplified by the 

supplementary registration. 

(6) Copies, phonorecords, or 

supporting documents cannot be made 

part of the record for a supplementary 

registration and should not be submitted 

with the application. 

(f) Effect of supplementary 

registration. (1) When the Copyright 

Office completes a supplementary 

registration, it will issue a certificate of 

supplementary registration bearing a 

new registration number in the 

appropriate class. The Office will crossreference the records for the basic 

registration and the supplementary 

registration by placing a note in each 

record that identifies the registration 

number and effective date of registration 

for the related registration. 

(2) As provided in section 408(d) of 

title 17 of the United States Code, the 

information contained in a 

supplementary registration augments 

but does not supersede that contained in 

the basic registration. The basic 

registration will not be expunged or 

cancelled. 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. 

§ 202.3 Registration of copyright. 

■ 5. Amend § 202.3 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(11)(iii), remove the 

phrase ‘‘by that applicant; and’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘by that applicant.’’ 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(11)(iv). 

Dated: November 22, 2016. 

Sarang V. Damle, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2016–28701 Filed 11–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0245; FRL–9955–60– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and 

particulate matter (PM) from confined 

animal facilities (CAFs). We are 

proposing to approve a local rule to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0245 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 

Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be removed or edited 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, 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, 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: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resourced Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

YSAQMD ................................ 11.2 Confined Animal Facilities Permit Program ........................... 06/14/06 10/05/2006 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 86663 

1See YSAQMD Rule 11.2, section 206 ‘‘Confined 

Animal Facility (CAF).’’ 

2See YSAQMD Rule 11.2, sections 103 

‘‘Exemptions’’ and 211 ‘‘Large Confined Animal 

Facility.’’ All CAFs must comply with section 502 

‘‘Number of Animals—Exemption Demonstration,’’ 

which requires the owner or operator of any CAF 

that exceeds 50 percent of the large CAF (LCAF) 

threshold to maintain records demonstrating that 

the CAF meets the exemption criteria of the rule. 

Rule 11.2 also exempts a CAF if it is subject to 

YSAQMD Rule 3.8 ‘‘Federal Operating Permits.’’ 

See Rule 11.2 section 103. 

3 ‘‘Other Cattle’’ includes heifers and calves. 

4See YSAQMD Rule 11.2, section 211. This 

section also includes LCAF thresholds for sheep, 

lamb or goat CAFs (15,000 head), horse CAFs (2,500 

head), duck CAFs (650,000 head), and CAFs for any 

other type of livestock not listed (30,000 head). 

On October 24, 2006, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

YSAQMD Rule 11.2 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 11.2 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and PM, which harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

VOC emissions. PM, including PM 

equal to or less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less 

than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), 

contributes to effects that are harmful to 

human health and the environment, 

including premature mortality, 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

PM emissions. This rule prohibits any 

person from operating a CAF without 

first obtaining a ‘‘CAF Permit’’ from the 

YSAQMD Air Pollution Control Officer 

(APCO). The rule defines a CAF as a 

‘‘facility where animals are corralled, 

penned, or otherwise caused to remain 

in restricted areas for commercial 

purposes and primarily fed by means 

other than grazing.’’ 1 The rule exempts 

a CAF from permit requirements if it 

does not meet the definition of a large 

CAF (LCAF).2 The rule defines a LCAF 

as a CAF that meets or exceeds a 

threshold of 1,000 milking cows per 

dairy, 3,500 beef cattle per beef feedlot, 

7,500 ‘‘other cattle’’ 3 per facility, 

100,000 turkeys per facility, 650,000 

chickens per facility or 3,000 swine per 

facility.4 The permit application must 

contain an emissions mitigation plan 

that implements best available retrofit 

control technology (BARCT) for existing 

CAFs and best available control 

technology (BACT) for new facilities, as 

applicable. The rule does not include 

specific measures that the CAF may or 

must use to implement BARCT or 

BACT. The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

revision/relaxation requirements for the 

applicable criteria pollutants include 

the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

‘‘Bluebook,’’ revised January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the ‘‘Little Bluebook’’). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

CAA requirements and relevant 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP revisions. The submitted rule 

strengthens the SIP by establishing a 

permit program for CAFs and by 

prohibiting any person from operating a 

CAF without first obtaining a CAF 

permit from the APCO. The CAF permit 

application must include an emissions 

mitigation plan. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule because we 

believe it fulfills all relevant 

requirements. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

January 3, 2017. Unless we receive 

convincing new information during the 

comment period, we intend to publish 

a final approval action that will 

incorporate this rule into the federallyenforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the YSAQMD rule as described in Table 

1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
86664 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The Kentucky portion of the Area emits less 

than nine tons of total SO2 emissions per year, but 

it contains the SO2 monitor that violated the SO2

standard in 2011. The Ohio portion of the Area 

contains the Walter C. Beckjord power plant 

(Beckjord Facility) which shut down in 2014. 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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 the 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 14, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–28741 Filed 11–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0361; FRL–9955–80– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Designation of 

Areas; KY; Redesignation of the 

Campbell County, 2010 1-Hour Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

two separate but related submissions 

(one of which includes multiple 

components) provided by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through 

the Kentucky Division of Air Quality 

(KDAQ), in relation to attainment of the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for the Kentucky portion of the 

Campbell-Clermont, Kentucky-Ohio 

2010 1-hour SO2 nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘CampbellClermont, KY-OH Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). On 

March 31, 2015, KDAQ submitted a 

request for EPA to determine that the 

Campbell-Clermont, KY-OH Area 

attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

per EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy.’’ 

Subsequently, on February 22, 2016, 

KDAQ submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Campbell County 

portion of Kentucky that is within the 

Campbell-Clermont, KY-OH Area to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan, base 

year inventory, and reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) determination 

for the Kentucky portion of the Area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Commonwealth’s RACM determination 

and incorporate it into the SIP; to 

approve the base year emissions 

inventory for the Kentucky portion of 

the Area and incorporate it into the SIP; 

to approve the Commonwealth’s request 

for a clean data determination; to 

approve the Commonwealth’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS and incorporate it 

into the SIP; and to redesignate the 

Kentucky portion of the Area to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0361 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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, 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: 

Steven Scofield of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Scofield may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9034 or via electronic mail at 

scofield.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

redesignation request and SIP revisions? 

VI. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

VII. Proposed Actions 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

five separate but related actions 

regarding Kentucky’s aforementioned 

requests and SIP submission: (1) To 

approve Kentucky’s RACM 

determination for the Kentucky portion 

of the Campbell-Clermont, KY-OH Area 

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

section 172(c)(1) and incorporate it into 

the SIP; (2) to approve the base year 

emissions inventory for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS for the Kentucky portion of 

the Area pursuant to CAA section 

172(c)(3) and incorporate it into the SIP; 

(3) to approve the Commonwealth’s 

March 31, 2015, request for EPA to 

determine that the Area attained the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS per EPA’s 

‘‘Clean Data Policy;’’ (4) to approve 

Kentucky’s plan for maintaining the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (maintenance 

plan) in the Area and incorporate it into 

the SIP; and (5) to redesignate the 

Kentucky portion of the CampbellClermont, KY-OH Area to attainment for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 

Campbell-Clermont, KY-OH Area 

consists of a portion of Campbell 

County in Kentucky and a portion of 

Clermont County in Ohio.1 These 

proposed actions are summarized below 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS