95074 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

27Filers who choose to mail in their comments 

should be mindful of possible delays given the 

irradiation process for mail delivered to the 

Commission. 

Objective 9 could rely on a historical 

review of the allocation of institutional 

costs between market dominant and 

competitive products. The measurement 

of this objective could also include a 

review of any action the Commission 

takes to analyze the competitive 

products’ minimum contribution to 

institutional costs. 

V. Notice of Commission Action 

Using this framework of potential 

definitions and measurement methods, 

the Commission establishes Docket No. 

RM2017–3 to begin its review of the 

market dominant ratemaking system. 

The Commission invites comments from 

interested persons regarding the process 

and structure of the review, as well as 

whether the current system is achieving 

the objectives, taking into account the 

factors. In particular, the Commission 

invites comments in response to the 

following questions: 

1. Is the framework proposed by the 

Commission appropriate for the review? 

a. For each objective, is the 

preliminary definition reasonable? If 

not, please suggest alternative 

definitions. 

b. For each objective, are the potential 

metrics for measuring the achievement 

of the objective reasonable? If not, 

please suggest alternative metrics for 

measuring whether the objective is 

being achieved. 

2. If the proposed framework is not 

appropriate for the review, please 

identify the framework that should be 

used for the review and describe how to 

measure the achievement of the 

objectives in that alternative framework. 

3. Based on the Commission’s 

proposed framework or an alternative 

framework provided in response to 

question 2, is the current system 

achieving each objective, while taking 

into account the factors? Please note 

that review of the system shall be 

limited to section 3622 as discussed in 

section II above. 

4. If the system is not achieving the 

objectives, while taking into account the 

factors, what modifications to the 

system should be made, or what 

alternative system should be adopted, to 

achieve the objectives? 

Comments are due no later than 

March 20, 2017. No reply comments 

will be accepted. Commission 

regulations require that comments be 

filed online according to the process 

outlined at 39 CFR 3001.9(a). Additional 

information regarding how to submit 

comments online can be found at: 

http://www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. 

However, given the unique nature of 

this docket, the Commission will waive 

these requirements for filers who mail 

their comments.27 All information and 

comments provided, whether filed 

through the Commission’s filing system 

or sent by mail, will be made available 

on the Commission’s Web site (http://

www.prc.gov). 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Richard A. Oliver 

to represent the interests of the general 

public (Public Representative) in this 

proceeding. 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2017–3 to initiate the review of 

the market dominant ratemaking system 

as required by 39 U.S.C. 3622. 

2. Comments regarding the process 

and structure of the review, as well as 

whether the current system is achieving 

the objectives, while taking into account 

the factors, and if not, whether and what 

modifications to the system or an 

alternative system should be adopted as 

necessary to achieve the objectives, are 

due no later than March 20, 2017. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard 

A. Oliver is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31052 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0726; FRL–9957–12– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Limited Approval and 

Limited Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Mendocino County Air Quality 

Management District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

four permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the Mendocino County Air 

Quality Management District 

(‘‘MCAQMD’’ or ‘‘the District’’) portion 

of the applicable state implementation 

plan (SIP) for the State of California 

pursuant to requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of one rule and we 

are proposing to approve the remaining 

three permitting rules. The submitted 

revisions include amended rules 

governing the issuance of permits for 

stationary sources, including review and 

permitting of minor sources, and major 

sources and major modifications under 

part C of title I of the Act. The intended 

effect of these proposed actions is to 

update the applicable SIP with current 

MCAQMD permitting rules and to set 

the stage for remedying certain 

deficiencies in these rules. If finalized 

as proposed, the limited disapproval 

actions would trigger an obligation for 

EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the 

specific New Source Review (NSR) 

program deficiencies unless California 

submits and we approve SIP revisions 

that correct the deficiencies within two 

years of the final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2016–0726 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

r9airpermits@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 95075 

1CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be 

subject to reasonable notice and public hearing 

prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA 

and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972– 

3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

B. What are the existing MCAQMD rules 

governing stationary source permits in 

the California SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

1. Minor Source Permits 

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

3. Nonattainment New Source Review 

4. Section 110(l) of the Act 

5. Conclusion 

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

On November 15, 2016, California 

submitted amended regulations to EPA 

for approval as revisions to the 

MCAQMD portion of the California SIP 

under the Clean Air Act. Collectively, 

the submitted regulations comprise the 

District’s current program for 

preconstruction review and permitting 

of new or modified stationary sources. 

This SIP revision submittal, referred to 

herein as the ‘‘SIP submittal’’ or 

‘‘submitted rules,’’ represents a 

significant update to the District’s 

preconstruction review and permitting 

program and is intended to satisfy the 

requirements under part C (prevention 

of significant deterioration) (PSD) of 

title I of the Act as well as the general 

preconstruction review requirements for 

minor sources under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (minor NSR). 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the District and 

submitted to the EPA by the California 

Air Resources Board, which is the 

governor’s designee for California SIP 

submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES

Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

1–130 ........................................... Definitions .......................................................................................... 9/20/16 11/15/16 

1–200 ........................................... Permit Requirements ........................................................................ 9/20/16 11/15/16 

1–220 ........................................... New Source Review Standards (Including PSD Evaluations) .......... 9/20/16 11/15/16 

1–230 ........................................... Action on Applications ....................................................................... 9/20/16 11/15/16 

The rule submittals were determined 

to meet the completeness criteria 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V on December 

5, 2016. A completeness finding must be 

made before formal EPA review. Each of 

these submittals includes evidence of 

public notice and adoption of the 

regulation. Our technical support 

document (TSD) provides additional 

background information on each of the 

submitted rules. 

B. What are the existing MCAQMD rules 

governing stationary source permits in 

the California SIP? 

Table 2 lists the rules that make up 

the existing SIP-approved rules for new 

or modified stationary sources in 

MCAQMD. All of these rules would be 

replaced or deleted from the SIP if EPA 

takes final action on the proposed 

approval of the submitted set of rules 

listed in Table 1. 

TABLE 2—EXISTING SIP RULES

Rule No. Rule title SIP Approval date Federal Register 

citation 

130 ............................................... Definitions .......................................................................................... 5/6/11 76 FR 26192. 

200 ............................................... Permit Requirements ........................................................................ 4/12/89 54 FR 14650. 

220 ............................................... New Source Review Standards ........................................................ 7/31/85 50 FR 30942. 

230 ............................................... Action on Applications ....................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30942. 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to present our evaluation under the 

CAA and the EPA’s regulations of the 

submitted rules adopted by the District 

as identified in Table 1. We provide our 

reasoning in general terms below but 

provide more detailed analysis in our 

TSD, which is available in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

EPA has reviewed the rules submitted 

by MCAQMD governing PSD and minor 

NSR for stationary sources for 

compliance with the CAA’s general 

requirements for SIPs in CAA section 

110(a)(2), EPA’s regulations for 

stationary source permitting programs 

in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 

through 51.164 and 51.166, and the 

CAA requirements for SIP revisions in 

CAA section 110(l).1 As described 

below, EPA is proposing a combination 

of actions consisting of limited approval 

and limited disapproval of Rule 220 

(New Source Review); full approval of 

Rules 130 (Definitions), 200 (Permit 

Requirements), and 230 (Action on 

Applications). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedures, CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that 

revisions to a SIP be adopted by the 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. Based on our review of the 

public process documentation included 

in the various submittals, we find that 

MCAQMD has provided sufficient 

evidence of public notice and 

opportunity for comment and public 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

95076 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

hearings prior to adoption and submittal 

of these rules to EPA. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, we have evaluated each 

submitted rule in accordance with the 

CAA and regulatory requirements that 

apply to: (1) General preconstruction 

review programs for minor sources 

under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

and 40 CFR 51.160–164, and (2) PSD 

permit programs under part C of title I 

of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the 

most part, the submitted rules satisfy 

the applicable requirements for these 

permit programs and would strengthen 

the applicable SIP by updating the 

regulations and adding requirements to 

address new or revised PSD permitting 

requirements promulgated by EPA in 

the last several years; however, the 

submitted rules also contain specific 

deficiencies which prevent full approval 

of Rule 220. Below, we discuss 

generally our evaluation of MCAQMD’s 

submitted rules and the deficiencies 

that are the basis for our proposed 

action on these rules. Our TSD contains 

a more detailed evaluation and 

recommendations for program 

improvements. 

1. Minor Source Permits 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

requires that each SIP include a program 

to provide for ‘‘regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C 

and D’’ of title I of the Act. Thus, in 

addition to the permit programs 

required in parts C and D of title I of the 

Act, which apply to new or modified 

‘‘major’’ stationary sources of pollutants, 

each SIP must include a program to 

provide for the regulation of the 

construction and modification of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) are 

achieved. These general preconstruction requirements are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘minor’’ or 

‘‘general’’ NSR and are subject to EPA’s 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

51.160–51.164. 

Rules 130—Definitions, 200—Permit 

Requirements, 220—New Source Review 

Standards, and 230—Action on 

Applications, contain the requirements 

for review and permitting of individual 

minor stationary sources in MCAQMD. 

These rules satisfy the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for minor NSR 

programs. The changes the District 

made to the rules listed above as they 

pertain to the minor source program 

were largely administrative in nature 

and provide additional clarity to the 

rules. 

2. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

Part C of title I of the Act contains the 

provisions for the prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

areas designated ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the NAAQS, 

including preconstruction permit 

requirements for new major sources or 

major modifications proposing to 

construct in such areas. EPA’s 

regulations for PSD permit programs are 

found in 40 CFR 51.166. MCAQMD is 

currently designated as ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for all 

NAAQS pollutants. 

The submitted rules contain the 

requirements for review and permitting 

of minor and PSD sources in MCAQMD. 

The rules satisfy most of the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for PSD 

permit programs, but Rule 220 also 

contains some minor deficiencies that 

form the basis for our proposed limited 

disapproval, as discussed below. 

First, Rule 220 does not contain any 

provisions specifying that required air 

quality modeling shall be based on the 

applicable models, databases, and other 

requirements specified in Part 51 

Appendix W, as required by 40 CFR 

51.160(f) and 51.166(f). Provisions 

pertaining to modeling requirements 

must also specify the requirements for 

using any alternative models. To correct 

the deficiency, the District should add 

the required modeling provisions to 

Rule 220. 

Second, Rule 220 does not contain 

any provisions to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) that 

require permit programs to include 

specific language providing that if ‘‘. . . 

a particular source or modification 

becomes a major stationary source or 

major modification solely by virtue of a 

relaxation in any enforceable limitation 

which was established after August 7, 

1980, on the capacity of the source or 

modification otherwise to emit a 

pollutant, such as a restriction on hours 

of operation, then the requirements 

. . . ’’ of the PSD program shall apply 

to the source or modification as though 

construction had not yet commenced on 

the source or modification. This 

deficiency can be corrected by adding 

the language found in 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(2). 

Compared to the existing SIP 

approved PSD program in Rule 220 

(approved July 31, 1985), however, 

submitted Rule 220 represents an 

overall strengthening of the District’s 

PSD program, in large part because the 

rule includes updated PSD provisions to 

regulate new or modified major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, 

which are unregulated under the 

existing SIP PSD program. Because 

submitted Rule 220 strengthens the SIP, 

we are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval based on the 

deficiencies listed above. 

3. Nonattainment New Source Review 

The CAA defines ‘‘nonattainment 

areas’’ as air quality planning areas that 

exceed the primary or secondary 

NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. 

The MCAQMD is not designated 

nonattainment for any NAAQS. Because 

the MCAQMD is not currently classified 

nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are 

not evaluating the submitted rules for 

approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which 

contains the requirements for 

nonattainment NSR programs. 

4. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from 

approving a revision of a plan if the 

revision would ‘‘interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress . . . or any other applicable 

requirement of [the Act].’’ 

MCAQMD is currently designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

for all NAAQS pollutants. We are 

unaware of any reliance by the District 

on the continuation of any aspect of the 

permit-related rules in the MCAQMD 

portion of the California SIP for the 

purpose of continued attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Our 

approval of the MCAQMD SIP submittal 

would strengthen the applicable SIP. 

Therefore, we find that this SIP revision 

represents a strengthening of 

MCAQMD’s minor NSR and PSD 

programs compared to the existing SIP 

rules that we previously approved, and 

that our approval of the SIP submittal 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. 

Given all these considerations and in 

light of the air quality improvements in 

MCAQMD, we propose that our 

approval of these updated NSR 

regulations into the California SIP 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. 

5. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above and 

explained further in our TSD, we find 

that the submitted rules satisfy most of 

the applicable CAA and regulatory 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 95077 

2Final approval of the rules in Table 1 would 

supersede all of the rules in the existing California 

SIP as listed in Table 2. 

requirements for the District’s minor 

NSR and PSD permit programs under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of 

title I of the Act. However, Rule 220 

contains certain deficiencies that 

prevent us from proposing a full 

approval and we are proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of this 

rule. We do so based on our finding 

that, while these rules do not meet all 

of the applicable requirements, the rules 

represent an overall strengthening of the 

SIP by clarifying and enhancing the 

permitting requirements for major and 

minor stationary sources in MCAQMD. 

We are proposing a full approval of 

Rules 130, 200, and 230. 

Our TSD, which is available in the 

docket for today’s action, contains 

additional information on this 

rulemaking. 

III. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA 

and for the reasons provided above, EPA 

is proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 220, and 

approval of the remaining revisions to 

the MCAQMD portion of the California 

SIP that governs the issuance of permits 

for stationary sources under the 

jurisdiction of MCAQMD, including 

review and permitting of major sources 

and major modifications under part C of 

title I of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing an action on MCAQMD rules 

listed in Table 1, above, as a revision to 

the MCAQMD portion of the California 

SIP. 

EPA is proposing this action because, 

although we find that the new and 

amended rules meet most of the 

applicable requirements for such permit 

programs and that the SIP revisions 

improve the existing SIP, we have found 

certain deficiencies that prevent full 

approval of Rule 220, as explained 

further in this preamble and in the TSD 

for this rulemaking. The intended effect 

of the proposed approval and limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

portions of this action is to update the 

applicable SIP with current MCAQMD 

permitting regulations 2 and to set the 

stage for remedying deficiencies in these 

regulations. 

In addition, on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 

18766), EPA partially disapproved 

California’s 110(a)(2) ‘‘Infrastructure’’ 

SIP Submittal for multiple NAAQS, 

including the 2008 ozone, 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards with respect to 

Mendocino County AQMD because it 

did not include requirements for a 

baseline date for PSD increments for 

PM2.5. If we finalize our proposed 

action, this SIP deficiency pertaining to 

the PSD-related requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) will be 

remedied, resulting in fully approved 

infrastructure SIPs for those NAAQS 

with respect to Mendocino County 

AQMD. 

If finalized as proposed, the limited 

disapproval of Rule 220 would trigger 

an obligation for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan unless the 

State of California corrects the 

deficiencies, and EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on both the proposed full 

approval and the proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval for the 

next 30 days. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, 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 MCAQMD 

rules as described in Table 1 of this 

notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, this document 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX (Air–3), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

95078 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: December 9, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31028 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0562; FRL–9957–25– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; 2016 Nitrogen Oxides 

Averaging Plan Consent Agreement 

With Raven Power 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Maryland state 

implementation plan (SIP). Maryland 

has submitted for inclusion in the SIP 

a Consent Agreement between Maryland 

and Raven Power concerning an interfacility averaging plan for emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) at facilities 

located in Maryland and owned by 

Raven Power. The Consent Agreement 

allows Raven Power to use system-wide 

emissions averaging to comply with the 

applicable NOX emission limits for six 

units located at two electric generating 

facilities, Brandon Shores and H.A. 

Wagner, owned by Raven Power. EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0562 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

pino.maria@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Maryland’s COMAR 26.11.09.08— 

Control of NOX Emissions for Major 

Stationary Sources—was approved into 

Maryland’s SIP pursuant to section 182 

of the CAA. This regulation established 

NOX emission limits for the 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for specific types of 

boilers and other fuel-burning 

equipment. Specifically, COMAR 

26.11.09.08.C(2) established maximum 

NOX emission rates as pounds (lbs) of 

NOX per million British thermal units 

(MMBtu) per hour, ranging from 0.45 

lbs/MMBtu to 0.80 lbs/MMBtu, 

depending on the type of combustion 

unit. COMAR 26.11.09.08 also contains 

a provision that allows an owner or 

operator of more than one unit to 

demonstrate compliance with systemwide emissions standards through the 

use of an averaging plan. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 28, 2016, the State of 

Maryland through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

submitted to EPA a SIP revision 

submittal consisting of a Consent 

Agreement between MDE and Raven 

Power establishing an inter-facility 

averaging plan for NOX emissions at two 

electric generating facilities, Brandon 

Shores and H.A. Wagner, collectively 

called Fort Smallwood. Both facilities 

are owned by Raven Power. MDE 

requests that this new Consent 

Agreement and NOX averaging plan 

replace the Consent Order and NOX

averaging plan previously approved into 

the Maryland SIP on February 27, 2002 

(67 FR 8897). 

The Consent Agreement between 

MDE and Raven Power allows Raven 

Power to use system-wide emissions 

averaging to comply with the applicable 

NOX limits for six boiler units (Brandon 

Shores units 1 and 2 and H.A. Wagner 

units 1 through 4) subject to COMAR 

26.11.09.08. Pursuant to the new 

Consent Agreement, Raven Power is 

required to calculate mass emissions 

from the affected units on a daily basis, 

determine compliance with the 

averaging plan using continuous 

emissions monitors (CEMs), and to 

submit quarterly reports to both MDE 

and EPA. In the Consent Agreement, 

Raven Power agreed that if it fails to 

comply with the NOX averaging plan, all 

sources at Brandon Shores and Wagner 

remain subject to the unit-specific 

emission limits of COMAR 

26.11.09.08.C (shown in Table 1) and 

must demonstrate compliance through 

the requirements found in COMAR 

26.11.09.08.B(2). The aggregate mass 

emissions from all units at Brandon 

Shores and Wagner, under the NOX

averaging plan, must be less than the 

mass emissions that would otherwise 

occur if each unit were subject to the 

applicable NOX emissions limit of 

COMAR 26.11.09.08.C. 

TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION LIMITS FOR

FORT SMALLWOOD

[as per COMAR 26.11.09.08.C] 

Facility Unit Limit 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Brandon Shores .... 1 0.5 

2 0.5 

H.A. Wagner ......... 1 0.3 

2 0.5 

3 0.5 

4 0.3 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS