### 16102 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(e) Required Actions

Within 20 hours time-in-service: (1) Inspect the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) and the component history card or equivalent record for TT strap P/N 2604067 and P/N 117–14110. Determine whether those records specify a life limit of 25,000 flights or 10 years since the date of manufacture, whichever occurs first.

(2) If the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or ICA or the component history card or equivalent record do not specify a life limit for the TT strap, or if they specify a different life limit than in paragraph (e)(1), do the following:

(i) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or ICA by establishing a life limit of 25,000 flights or 10 years since date of manufacture, whichever occurs first, for each TT strap P/N 2604067 and P/N 117–14110 by making pen-and-ink changes or by inserting a copy of this AD into the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual or the ICA. For purposes of this AD, a flight would be counted anytime the helicopter lifts off into the air and then lands again regardless of the duration of the landing and regardless of whether the engine
is shut down.

(ii) Create a component history card or equivalent record for each TT strap P/N 2604067 and P/N 117–14110, if one does not exist, and record a life limit of 25,000 flights or 10 years since date of manufacture,
whichever occurs first.

(3) Remove from service each TT strap that
has reached or exceeded its life limit.

(f) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222–5110;
email 9-ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB BO105LS–10A–013, Revision 0, dated March 9, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of
this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http:// www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth,

TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015–0042, dated March 9, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200 Main Rotor System.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 16,

2016.
Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2016–06530 Filed 3–24–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers** 

**33 CFR Part 334**

**Disestablishment of Danger Zone for Meteorological Rocket Launching**  **Facility, Shemya Island Area, AK**

**AGENCY :**  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The U.S. Air Force has requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) disestablish the existing danger zone located in the Bering Sea near Shemya Island, Alaska. The danger zone was established on September 28, 1971. The purpose of the danger zone was to protect persons and property from dangers encountered in the area associated with the launching of weather rockets. The facility has not been used for this activity since the mid-1980s. As a result of the discontinued use of this area, the Air Force has requested the danger zone be disestablished. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of Federal Register , we are publishing the restricted area disestablishment as a direct final rule without prior proposalbecause we view this as a noncontroversial adjustment to our restricted area regulations and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this rule and it will go into effect. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received by April 25, 2016.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

This document concerns the ‘‘Disestablishment of Danger Zone for Meteorological Rocket Launching Facility, Shemya Island Area, AK.’’ For further information, including instructions on how to submit comments, please see the information provided in the direct final rule that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication.

Dated: March 18, 2016. Edward E. Belk, Jr., Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 2016–06861 Filed 3–24–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3720–58–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0059; FRL–9944–21–Region]** 

**Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey, Carbon Monoxide** 
**Maintenance Plan**

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

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. This revision will establish an updated ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NYNNJLI) CO area which includes the following areas: Hudson, Essex, Bergen, and Union Counties, and the municipalities of Clifton, Passaic and Paterson in Passaic County. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007 Attainment/Base Year CO emissions inventory. In addition, EPA proposes to approve the shutdown of 5 CO maintenance monitors in New Jersey. The New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI CO area was redesignated to attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on August 23, 2002 and the maintenance plan was also approved at that time. By


### 16103 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

this action, EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance plan for this area because it provides for continued attainment for an additional ten years of the CO NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R02–OAR–2016–0059, at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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 :**  Henry Feingersh feingersh.henry@

epa.gov for general questions, Raymond Forde forde.raymond@epa.gov for emissions inventory questions, or Matthew Laurita laurita.matthew@

epa.gov for mobile source related questions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866, telephone number (212) 637–4249, fax number (212) 637–3901.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the nature of the EPA’s action? II. What is the Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon Monoxide
area? III. What is included in a maintenance plan?

A. Attainment Inventory
B. Maintenance Demonstration C. Monitoring Network
D. Verification of Continued Attainment E. Contingency Plan 1. Control Measures 2. Contingency Measures F. Conformity IV. What is the New Jersey Attainment/Base Year CO Inventory? V. Why is New Jersey shutting down 5 CO
Maintenance Monitors? VI. What action is the EPA proposing to take? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the nature of the EPA’s
action?

The EPA is proposing to approve an updated ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island (NYNNJLI) CO area. On August 23, 2002, the EPA approved a request from New Jersey to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI CO area to attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (67 FR 54574). In addition, the EPA also approved at that time a ten-year CO maintenance plan for the area. The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that an area redesignated to attainment of the CO NAAQS must submit a second ten-year CO maintenance plan to show how the area will continue to attain the CO standard for an additional ten years. On June 11, 2015, New Jersey submitted a second ten-year CO maintenance plan for the New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI CO area and requested that EPA approve the plan. This plan also included a request and the justification for shutting down
4 CO maintenance monitors. On February 8, 2016, New Jersey submitted an addendum to the plan which provides additional information to justify the shutdown of one additional CO maintenance monitor. The following sections describe how the EPA made its determination proposing to approve the second ten-year maintenance plan. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 Attainment/Base Year CO emissions inventory. Finally, the EPA proposes to approve the shutdown of 5 CO maintenance monitors in New Jersey. A more detailed discussion of the EPA’s review and proposed action is found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) available in the Docket for this action, and by contacting the individuals in the For Further Information Section.

II. What is the Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York– Northern New Jersey–Long Island Carbon Monoxide area?

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS in the maintenance area for at least ten years. The Act requires that a second ten-year plan be submitted in order to assure that the area will continue to stay in compliance with the relevant NAAQS. For the NYNNJLI CO area, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is proposing to utilize EPA’s limited maintenance plan approach, as detailed in the EPA guidance memorandum, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, dated October 6, 1995. Pursuant to this approach, the EPA will consider the maintenance demonstration satisfied for areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65 parts per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The design value must be based on eight consecutive quarters of data. For such areas, there is no requirement to project emissions of CO over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the CO 8 hour NAAQS, the applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10- year maintenance period.

III. What is included in a maintenance plan?

Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The initial and subsequent ten-year plans must each demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after approval. EPA is proposing action on the second ten-year maintenance plan which covers the period from 2015 through 2024. The specific elements of a maintenance plan

are:
A. Attainment Inventory

EPA’s October 6, 1995 Limited Maintenance Plan guidance states that for inventory purposes the state is only required to submit an attainment inventory to EPA that is based on monitoring data which shows attainment. There is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. The calendar year inventory selected for the attainment inventory is 2007. This means if 2007 is a calendar year which has monitoring data which demonstrates attainment of the standard, the 2007 base year inventory can be used as the attainment year


### 16104 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1 New Jersey has submitted subsequent 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Monitoring Network Plans. The EPA is only discussing the 2011 Plan because

of its relevance to the CO Limited Maintenance

Plan. inventory and no projection inventories are required over the years of the maintenance period. Only calendar year 2007 summary emissions data (based on a winter season day) are required. In addition, the inventory should be consistent with EPA’s most recent guidance on emission inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should include emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing
attainment.

New Jersey submitted a limited maintenance plan which included a 2007 base year emissions inventory. The 2007 inventory is also classified as the attainment year inventory for the limited maintenance plan. New Jersey has elected 2007 because it is the attainment base year that will be used for the limited maintenance plan and 2007 represents one of the years of violation free monitored data in the area. The inventory included peak winter season daily emissions fromstationary point, stationary area, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile sources of CO. These emission estimates were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance.

The EPA is proposing to approve the CO inventory for Hudson, Essex, Bergen, and Union Counties, and the municipalities of Clifton, Passaic and Paterson in Passaic County. Details of the inventory review are located in
section IV of this action. A more
detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was reviewed and the results of EPA’s review are presented in the

TSD.

Table 1 presents a summary of the 2007 CO peak winter season daily emissions estimates in tons per day for the NYNNJLI CO area. Again, under the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, there is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period.



### TABLE 

### 1—2007 B ASE 

### Y EAR

### /ATTAINMENT 

### E MISSIONS 

### I NVENTORY 

### NYNNJLI CO A REA
[Tons/Peak Winter Season Day]

County Point sources Area sources Onroad mobile

sources Nonroad mobile

sources Total

Bergen .................................................................................. 1.82 14.75 346.29 139.60 502.47
Essex ................................................................................... 5.52 12.93 198.99 75.20 292.64
Hudson ................................................................................. 2.46 10.05 111.77 35.70 159.97
Passaic ................................................................................. 0.32 6.52 144.70 42.30 193.84
Union .................................................................................... 4.18 8.31 169.18 53.60 23.27

Total .............................................................................. 14.30 52.56 970.93 346.50 1,384.19

B. Maintenance Demonstration

New Jersey has met the Limited Maintenance Plan air quality criteria requirement by demonstrating that its highest monitored design value is less than 85 percent (7.65 parts per million) of the CO standard of 9.0 parts per million. The highest monitored design value in the NYNNJLI CO area for the 2013–2014 design year was 2.5 parts per million at two monitoring sites in New Jersey. In addition, New Jersey commits to continued implementation of all
other Federal and State measures already implemented as part of its CO SIP. Thus, according to the Limited Maintenance Plan Guidance, emission projections are not required.

C. Monitoring Network

New Jersey continues to operate its CO monitoring network and will continue to work with the EPA through the air monitoring network review process as required by 40 CFR part 58 to determine the adequacy of its
network.

On August 8, 2011, New Jersey submitted their ‘‘New Jersey Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 2011’’ to
the EPA. This document described New Jersey’s ambient air monitoring network and also detailed proposed changes and the rationale for them. 1 The reasoning behind the requested CO maintenance
monitor shutdowns are included in that submittal. In a letter dated October 27, 2011, the EPA told New Jersey that it
will make a determination on New Jersey’s analysis in a revision to a CO SIP. Based on the EPA’s review, the EPA is proposing approval of these CO
maintenance monitor shutdowns. The EPA’s review of the New Jersey analysis is included in the accompanying TSD
and in Section V of this notice.

New Jersey will continue annual reviews of its data in order to verify continued attainment of the NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, all of New Jersey’s 8- hour design values are well below the 9.0 ppm 8-hour NAAQS for CO with the highest monitors in the New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI reading 2.5 ppm, as shown in Table 2. 

### TABLE 

### 2—D ESIGN 

### VALUES FOR 

### CO IN 

### N EW 

### J ERSEY

[8-hour standard—9 parts per million]

Monitoring location 2013–2014 Design value

(parts per

million)

East Orange ......................... 2.5 Camden Spruce Street ......... 1.2
Elizabeth ............................... 2.2
Elizabeth lab ......................... 1.8 Jersey City ............................ 1.8
Newark Firehouse ................ 2.5

In its SIP revision, New Jersey submitted design values from 2006– 2007 through 2012–2013. The EPA reviewed more recent data in addition to the submitted data and found the maximum 2013–2014 design value for New Jersey to be 2.5 ppm, which continues to show attainment of the NAAQS.
D. Verification of Continued Attainment

New Jersey will verify that the New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI CO area continues to attain the CO NAAQS through an annual review of its monitoring data. If any design value exceeds 7.65 ppm, New Jersey will coordinate with EPA Region 2 to verify and evaluate the data and then, if warranted, develop a full maintenance plan for the affected maintenance area.


### 16105 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

E. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include a contingency plan which includes contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. Contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specified event. In addition, the contingency plan includes a requirement that the State continue to implement all control measures used to bring the area into attainment.

The triggers specified in New Jersey’s previous maintenance plan are included in this Limited Maintenance Plan. If design values in any maintenance area in New Jersey exceeds 7.65 parts per million (ppm), New Jersey will coordinate with the EPA to verify the validity of the data, evaluate the data, and analyze available air quality and meteorological data and related activities in the area. If design values show noncompliance with the 9 ppm standard, New Jersey will implement the appropriate contingency measures.

1. Control Measures

New Jersey has implemented a number of measures to control motor vehicle CO emissions. Emission reductions achieved through the implementation of these control measures are enforceable. These measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, Federalreformulated gasoline, New Jersey’s pre1990 modifications to its inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and local control measures relied on in the SIP.

The State of New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and that the CO emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to local economic downturn. The EPA finds that thecombination of existing EPA approvedSIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reductions in ambient CO levels that have allowed the New Jersey portion of the NYNNJLI CO area to attain the NAAQS since 1995.

New Jersey commits to continue implementation of all control measures used to bring the area into attainment.

2. Contingency Measures

The State plans to continue to use the contingency measure from the original maintenance plan. The plan included implementation of an enhanced I/M program. This program is fully operational and the State commits to meet the performance standard for an enhanced I/M program in an effort to maintain the CO NAAQS. Although the plan is currently in place, EPA guidance allows for it to act as a contingency measure. We approved this measure in the previous maintenance plan and are proposing to approve it in this action. If, in the future, it becomes necessary to reduce CO levels further, New Jersey will work with the local Transportation Planning Organizations or Metropolitan Planning Organizations to identify and implement transportation control measures such as Transportation Demand Management measures, signal improvement projects, bicycle projects, and various transit related projects as

necessary. F. Conformity

Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The Act further defines conformity to mean that no Federal activity will: (1) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

The Federal transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 53). The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the Rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with motor vehicle emissions budgets, the expected emissions from planned transportation activities must be consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) such established budgets for that area.

In the case of the NYNNJLI, CO limited maintenance plan area, however, the emissions budgets may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of this second maintenance period as long as the area continues to meet the limited maintenance criteria, because there is no reason to expect that these areas will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, emissions from on-road transportation sources need not be capped for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to believe that emissions from such sources would increase to a level that would threaten the air quality in this area for the duration of this maintenance period. Therefore, for the limited maintenance plan CO maintenance area, all Federal actions that require conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are not required to satisfy the regional emissions analysis requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 or 93.119 of the rule (40 CFR 93.109(e)).

Since limited maintenance plan areas are still maintenance areas, however, transportation conformity determinations are still required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such determinations, transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects must still demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR part 108) and must meet the criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects in limited maintenance areas will still be required to meet the criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy ‘‘project-level’’ conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models that are available. All aspects of transportation conformity (with the exception of satisfying the emission budget test) will still be required. Approval of the limited maintenance plan does not supersede the current 2014 motor vehicle emissions budget. However, conformity determinations conducted now and in the future would not need to conduct an emission budget

test.

If the area should monitor CO concentrations at or above the limited maintenance eligibility criteria or 7.65 parts per million then that maintenance area would no longer qualify for a limited maintenance plan and would revert to a full maintenance plan. In this event, the limited maintenance plan would remain applicable for conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is submitted and the EPA has found its motor vehicle emissions budget adequate for conformity purposes or the EPA approves the full maintenance plan SIP revision. At that time regional emissions


### 16106 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

analyses would resume as a transportation conformity criteria.

On July 27, 2015, the EPA posted New Jersey’s CO limited maintenance plan on its Adequacy Review Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. We did not receive any comments by the August 26, 2015, deadline. The EPA may now elect to proceed with finding the CO limited maintenance plan adequate for transportation conformity purposes either as part of the SIP’s final approval or in a separate notice of adequacy. The EPA’s adequacy review process is described in 40 CFR part 93.118(f).

In addition to transportation conformity, approval of the CO limited maintenance plan would have implications for general conformity (40 CFR part 93 Subpart B). Federal actions subject to general conformity would be presumed to conform under a limited maintenance plan as actions in this area will automatically satisfy the budget test of 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), as described in the October 1995 EPA memo ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards.

IV. What is the New Jersey Attainment/ Base Year CO Inventory?

Section 182(a)(3) and 172(c)(3) of the Act requires the periodic submission of a base inventory for SIP planning processes to address the pollutants for the eight hour-ozone, PM 2.5 and CO national ambient air quality standard. Identifying the base year gives certainty to states that requires submission of the ozone, PM 2.5 and CO emission inventories periodically. These requirements allow the EPA, based on the states’ progress in reducing emissions, to periodically reassess its policies and air quality standards and revise them as necessary. Most important, the ozone, PM 2.5 and CO inventories will be used to develop and assess new control strategies that the states will need to submit in their attainment demonstration SIPs for the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM 2.5 and for CO. The base year inventory may also serve as part of statewide inventories for purposes of regional modeling in transport areas. The base year inventory plays an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas classified as nonattainment and outside transport regions. For the reasons stated above, ideally the EPA would therefore emphasize the importance and benefits of developing a comprehensive, current, and accurate emission inventory (similar to the 1990 base year inventory effort). In this case, the 2007 base year has been selected as the inventory that will be used for planning purposes for the NYNNJLI CO area.

There are specific components of an acceptable emission inventory. The emission inventory must meet certain minimum requirements for reporting each source category. Specifically, the source requirements are detailed below.

The review process, which is described in the accompanying TSD, is used to determine that all components of the base year inventory are present. This review also evaluates the level of supporting documentation provided by the state, assesses whether the emissions were developed according to current EPA guidance, and evaluates the quality of the data.

The review process is outlined here and consists of 8 points that the inventory must include. For a base year emission inventory to be acceptable, it must pass all of the following acceptance criteria:

1. Evidence that the inventory was quality assured by the state and its implementation documented.

2. The point source inventory was complete.

3. Point source emissions were prepared or calculated according to the current EPA guidance.

4. The area source inventory was complete.

5. The area source emissions were prepared or calculated according to the current EPA guidance.

6. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to the current EPA guidance for all of the source categories.

7. The method ( e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a network transportation planning model) used to develop VMT estimates followed the EPA guidance.

8. On-road mobile emissions were prepared according to the current EPA guidance.

Based on the EPA’s review, New Jersey satisfied all of the EPA’s requirements for purposes of providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for CO areas. Where applicable, CO peak winter season daily emissions are provided for the CO nonattainment area. The inventory was developed in accordance with Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation, dated August 2005. Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a and 2010b, April 2012, and Example Documentation Report for 1990 Base Year for Ozone and CO SIP Emissions Inventories, March 1992.

A summary of the EPA’s review is given below:

1. The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was implemented for all portions of the inventory. The QA plan included a QA/ Quality control (QC) program for assessing data completeness and standard range checking. Critical data elements relative to the inventory sources were assessed for completeness. QA checks were performed relative to data collection and analysis, and double counting of emissions from point, area and mobile sources. QA/QC checks were conducted to ensure accuracy of units, unit conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations. The inventory is well documented. New Jersey provided documentation detailing the methods used to develop emissions estimates for each category. In addition, New Jersey identified the sources of data used in developing the inventory.

2. The point source emissions are complete and in accordance with the EPA guidance.

3. The point source emissions were prepared/calculated in accordance with the EPA guidance.

4. The area source emissions are complete and in accordance with the EPA guidance.

5. Area source emissions were prepared/calculated in accordance with the EPA guidance.

6. Emission estimates for the non-road mobile source categories are correctly based on the latest non-road mobile model or other appropriate guidance and prepared in accordance with the EPA guidance.

7. The method used to develop VMT estimates is in accordance with the EPA guidance and was adequately described and documented in the inventory report.

8. The latest MOVES model was used in accordance with the EPA’s guidance.

The 2007 base year inventory has been developed in accordance with EPA guidance. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 base year CO emission inventory. A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was reviewed and the results of the review are presented in the TSD. Detailed emission inventory development procedures can be found in the following document: Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation, dated August 2005; Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State


### 16107 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a and 2010b, April 2012; and Example Documentation Report for 1990 Base Year for Ozone and CO SIP Emissions Inventories, March 1992. See Table 1 for a summary of 2007 CO peak winter season daily emission estimates by source sector and by county for the NYNNJLI CO area.
V. Why is New Jersey shutting down 5
CO Maintenance Monitors?

In order to conserve resources, the State is seeking to discontinue monitoring in Burlington, Freehold, Morristown, Perth Amboy, and East Orange since current air quality levels do not warrant the additional expense of running CO monitors in those areas. The State has committed to continue CO monitoring in Camden and Elizabeth, and will reestablish CO monitoring in Burlington, Freehold, Morristown, Perth Amboy, and East Orange if air quality in Camden and Elizabeth degrade significantly. The Camden and Elizabeth sites have been judged to be representative of these 5 CO maintenance monitor sites and are thus acting as their surrogate sites. Starting in the early 1970’s, EPA has set national standards that have considerably reduced emissions of CO and other pollutants from motor vehicles, including tailpipe emissions, new vehicle technologies, and clean fuels programs. Because of this, the EPA believes that it is unlikely that the maintenance area will exceed the CO NAAQS again. Thus, we believe that the revisions that New Jersey has made to its maintenance plan will continue to protect the citizens of New Jersey from high CO concentrations, and also conserve resources. Additional detail can be seen in the accompanying TSD to this notice.

VI. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

The EPA has evaluated New Jersey’s submittals for consistency with the Act and Agency regulations and policy. The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey’s CO limited maintenance plan because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175A of the Act and continues to demonstrate that the NAAQS for CO will continue to be met for the next ten years. The EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007 Attainment/Base Year CO emissions inventory. Finally, the EPA also proposes to approve the shutdown of 5
CO maintenance monitors in New Jersey, since CO monitoring will continue at other representative locations across the State.

The EPA views the SIP revisions proposed in today’s proposal as separable actions. This means that if the EPA receives adverse comments on particular portions of this notice and not on other portions, the EPA may choose not to take final action at the same time in a single notice on all of these SIP revisions. Instead, the EPA may choose to take final action on these SIP revisions in separate notices.

Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Region 2 Office by the method discussed in the **ADDRESSES** section of this action.

VII. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 Clean Air Act; 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: March 14, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 2016–06704 Filed 3–24–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety**
**Administration**

**49 CFR Part 580**

**[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0037]**

**RIN 2127–AL39**

**Odometer Disclosure Requirements**

**AGENCY :**  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  This notice is being issued pursuant to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 requiring NHTSA to prescribe regulations permitting States to adopt schemes for electronic odometer disclosure statements. To permit States to allow electronic odometer disclosures, NHTSA is proposing to amend the existing requirements to clarify that most of those requirements apply regardless of the technology used for the disclosure. NHTSA is further