8650 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 37 CFR 351.1(b)(4); 70 FR 30901, 30903 (May 

31, 2005). 

filing fee unless the petitioner includes 

a statement with its petition to 

participate stating that the petitioner 

will not seek a distribution of more than 

$1000, in which case no filing fee is 

required. Prior to the Technical 

Corrections Act, the threshold for a fee 

waiver in a distribution proceeding was 

$10,000, an amount that was (and still 

is) codified in CRB Rule 351.1(b)(4).1

To conform the CRB regulation with 

the statutory provision under which it 

was adopted, the Judges hereby amend 

CRB Rule 351.1(b)(4) to state that the 

threshold requirement for a filing fee 

waiver is $1000, rather than $10,000. 

Because this is a technical amendment, 

the Judges find that prior publication for 

notice and comment is unnecessary. See 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). See also 61 FR 

63715 (Dec. 2, 1996) (adopting technical 

amendments to CARP rules). 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 351 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Copyright. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges 

amend 37 CFR part 351 as follows: 

PART 351—PROCEEDINGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 351 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 803. 

■ 2. Amend § 351.1 to revise paragraph 

(b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 351.1 Initiation of proceedings. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Filing fee. A petition to participate 

must be accompanied with a filing fee 

of $150 or the petition will be rejected. 

Payment shall be made to the Copyright 

Royalty Board. If a check is 

subsequently dishonored, the petition 

will be rejected. If the petitioner 

believes that the contested amount of 

that petitioner’s claim will be $1000 or 

less, petitioner shall so state in the 

petition to participate and should not 

include payment of the $150 filing fee. 

If it becomes apparent during the course 

of the proceedings that the contested 

amount of the claim is more than $1000, 

the Copyright Royalty Judges will 

require payment of the filing fee at such 

time. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 30, 2015. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

Approved by: 

David S. Mao, 

Acting Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03599 Filed 2–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0379; FRL–9942–54– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Particulate 

Matter Emissions Limits Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a June 1, 

2015, request by Indiana to revise the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

incorporate changes to the particulate 

matter (PM) rules contained in Title 326 

of the Indiana Administrative Code 

(IAC). This approval affects sources of 

PM in the state of Indiana. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 22, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

23, 2016. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0379 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@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: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP revision? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On June 1, 2015, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request for EPA to approve revisions to 

PM rules contained in 326 IAC 6.5 and 

6.8. The revisions to these rules were 

published in the May 28, 2015, edition 

of the Indiana Register. On January 14, 

2015, IDEM held the first of two public 

hearings on revisions to these rules. 

IDEM received comments during its 

January 14, 2015, public hearing, and 

IDEM revised its rules in response to 

those comments. IDEM’s second public 

hearing was held on March 11, 2015. 

IDEM did not receive any comments at 

its March 11, 2015, public hearing. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP 

revision? 

Below is a discussion of changes to 

326 IAC 6.5: 

• Sections 4–2, 4–17 and 4–24 

Revisions to 326 IAC 6.5–4–2 and 326 

IAC 6.5–4–17 consolidate the 

identification numbers of the Kimball 

Office facilities in Jasper Indiana from 

00046 and 00042 to 00100. The revision 

to 326 IAC 6.5–4–24 revises the 

business name of the regulated source 

from Styline Industries, Inc. Plant #8 to 

OFS Brands, Inc.—Plant #3. These 

administrative revisions provide clarity 

to the existing rule and are approvable 

into the Indiana SIP. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8651 

• Section 5–2 

Revisions to 326 IAC 6.5–5–2 update 

the business name of the regulated 

source from Chrysler Group to FCA US, 

and the source identification number for 

boiler 4 at the FCA US, LLC Kokomo 

Transmission Plant from 00065 to 

00078. Additionally, the revision 

removes the following units, due to shut 

down and removal, at the FCA US, LLC 

Kokomo Casting Plant: Reverberatory 

furnaces 1ARF, 1BRF, and 5RF (source 

identification numbers 2P, 3P, and 7P, 

respectively). Overall, the revisions to 

Section 5–2 are approvable into the 

Indiana SIP as they provide clarity to 

the existing rule, and the removal of 

these units will reduce emissions. 

• Section 5–5 

A revision to 326 IAC 6.5–5–5 

updates the business name of the 

regulated source from Delco Electronics 

Corporation to GM Components 

Holdings, LLC. 

• Section 6–2 

A revision to 326 IAC 6.5–6–2 

removes boilers 1, 2, and 3 from Allison 

Transmission due to shut down and 

removal. Further, a revision to this 

section updates the source identification 

number for this facility from 00017 to 

00310, and consolidates reporting 

requirements for this source. Overall, 

these revisions to Section 6–2 are 

approvable into the Indiana SIP as they 

provide clarity to the existing rule, and 

the removal of these units will help 

reduce emissions. 

• Section 6–25 and 6–26 

A revision to Section 6.5–6–25 

updates the business name of the 

regulated source from National Starch 

and Chemical Company to Ingredion 

Incorporated Indianapolis Plant. A 

revision to Section 6.6–6–26 updates the 

business name of the regulated source 

from International Truck and Engine 

Corporation & Indianapolis Casting 

Corporation to Navistar, Inc. 

• Section 6–33 

A revision to 326 IAC 6.5–6–33 

removes Boilers 0070 01 through 0070 

04 from the Rolls-Royce Corporation 

facility due to their shutdown and 

removal. In addition, a revision to 

Paragraph (3)(B) (post-revision, 

paragraph (2)(B)) removes coal and adds 

#4 fuel oil to a list of operating fuels for 

the facility. These revisions to Section 

6–33 are approvable into the Indiana 

SIP as the removal of these units will 

help to reduce emissions. 

326 IAC 6.8 

Below is a discussion of changes to 

326 IAC 6.8: 

• Section 2–18 

A revision to 326 IAC 6.8–2–18 

removes three units and increases the 

PM emission rates (in lbs/hour) for two 

units at the Jupiter Aluminum 

Corporation’s facility in Lake County. 

The aluminum reverberatory furnaces 3, 

4, and 5 were shut down and removed, 

and the PM emission rates for the 

aluminum reverberatory furnaces 2 and 

6 were increased. Specifically, the PM 

emission rate for the aluminum 

reverberatory furnace 2 was increased 

from 1.137 to 1.499 lbs/hour. The PM 

emission rate for the aluminum 

reverberatory furnace 6 was increased 

from 0.970 to 2.008 lbs/hour. The 

increase in PM emission rates are offset 

by the reduction in PM emission rates 

due to the shut down and removal of the 

aluminum reverberatory furnaces 3, 4, 

and 5. The revision to this section is 

approvable into the Indiana SIP. 

• Section 2–29 

Revisions to 326 IAC 6.8–2–29 update 

the business name of the regulated 

source from Reed Minerals to Harsco 

Minerals. The revision also removes the 

fluidized bed dryer and its associated 

PM emission due to shut down and 

removal. These revisions to Section 2– 

29 are approvable into the Indiana SIP 

as they provide clarity to the existing 

rule, and the shutdown of the fluidized 

bed dryer will help reduce emissions. 

• Section 2–34 

Revisions to 326 IAC 6.8–2–34 

remove one molded pulp dryer; revise 

the PM emissions limits for the 

remaining molded pulp dryers; and 

clarify the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the Huhtamaki 

Foodservice, Inc., in Lake County. 

Specifically, the PM emission rates for 

the molded pulp dryers were revised as 

follows: 

—Molded pulp dryer number 1: 0.290 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 2: 0.290 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 3: 0.342 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 4: 0.342 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 5: 0.290 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 6: 0.290 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 8: 0.615 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 9: 0.615 

lbs/hour 

—Molded pulp dryer number 10: 0.615 

lbs/hour 

The total facility PM emissions rate 

for molded pulp dryers remains capped 

at 2.41 lbs/hour. Additional 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements were included to ensure 

compliance with the capped PM 

emissions rate under any operating 

scenario. Because this rule revision 

retains the capped PM emission rate, 

and because this rule revision includes 

requirements to ensure the facility 

complies with the PM emission rates, 

these revisions are approvable into the 

Indiana SIP. The revisions to 326 IAC 6– 

5 and 6–8 contain wording changes and 

additions, improve and expand the 

applicability of the rule and its impact 

on air quality statewide. On balance, 

EPA finds that the revisions strengthen 

the existing SIP in Indiana and as such, 

deems the submittal approvable. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP 

revisions to the PM rules contained in 

Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative 

Code (IAC), Article 6, Rule 5 (326 IAC 

6.5) and Rule 8 (326 IAC 6.8). 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective April 22, 2016 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by March 23, 

2016. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

April 22, 2016. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

8652 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Indiana Regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 22, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 3, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.770, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended under the headings 

entitled ‘‘Article 6.5. Particulate Matter 

Limitations Except Lake County’’ and 

‘‘Article 6.8. Particulate Matter 

Limitations for Lake County’’ by: 

■ i. Removing the entries for Rules 6.5– 

3–7 and 6.5–3–8 under the subheading 

entitled ‘‘Rule 3. Dearborn County’’. 

■ ii. Revising the entries for Rules 6.5– 

4–2, 6.5–4–4, 6.5–4–17, and 6.5–4–24 

under the subheading entitled ‘‘Rule 4. 

Dubois County’’. 

■ iii. Revising the entries for Rules 6.5– 

5–2 and 6.5–5–5 under the subheading 

entitled ‘‘Rule 5. Howard County’’. 

■ iv. Revising the entries for Rules 6.5– 

6–2, 6.5–6–25, 6.5–6–26, and 6.5–6–33, 

and removing the entries for Rules 6.5– 

6–3 and 6.5–6–15 under the subheading 

entitled ‘‘Rule 6. Marion County’’. 

■ v. Removing the entry for Rule 6.5–9– 

8 under the subheading entitled ‘‘Rule 

9. Vigo County’’. 

■ vi. Removing the entry for Rule 6.5– 

10–6 under the subheading entitled 

‘‘Rule 10. Wayne County’’. 

■ vii. Revising the entries for Rules 6.8– 

2–18, 6.8–2–29 and 6.8–2–34 under the 

subheading entitled ‘‘Rule 2. Lake 

County: PM10 Emission Requirements’’. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8653 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject Indiana 

effective date EPA Approval date Notes 

*******

Article 6.5. Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County 

*******

Rule 4. Dubois County 

*******

6.5–4–2 ........................................ Kimball Office—Jasper 15th 

Street.

05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.5–4–4 ........................................ DMI Furniture Plant No. 5 ........... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.5–4–17 ...................................... Kimball Office—Jasper Cherry 

Street.

05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.5–4–24 ...................................... Styline Industries, Inc. Plant #8 ... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

Rule 5. Howard County 

*******

6.5–5–2 ........................................ Chrysler, LLC-Kokomo Casting 

Plant and Kokomo Transmission Plant.

05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

6.5–5–5 ........................................ Delco Electronics Corporation ..... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Rule 6. Marion County 

*******

6.5–6–2 ........................................ Allison Transmission .................... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.5–6–25 ...................................... National Starch and Chemical 

Company.

05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

6.5–6–26 ...................................... International Truck and Engine 

Corporation & Indianapolis 

Casting Corporation.

05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.5–6–33 ...................................... Rolls-Royce Corporation ............. 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Article 6.8. Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County 

*******

Rule 2. Lake County: PM10 Emission Requirements 

*******

6.8–2–18 ...................................... Jupiter Aluminum Corporation ..... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

8654 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued 

Indiana citation Subject Indiana 

effective date EPA Approval date Notes 

*******

6.8–2–29 ...................................... Reed Minerals–Plant #14 ............ 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

6.8–2–34 ...................................... Huhtamaki Foodservice, Inc. ....... 05/29/2015 02/22/2016, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–03490 Filed 2–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0848; FRL–9942–56– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Revision to the Milwaukee-RacineWaukesha 2006 24-Hour Particulate 

Matter Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving Wisconsin’s 

December 23, 2015, state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision to 

the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha 

(Milwaukee), Wisconsin 2006 24-Hour 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) maintenance 

plan. This SIP revision establishes new 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEB) for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) for the years 2020 

and 2025. The MVEBs for Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 

and PM2.5 will remain the same. EPA is 

approving the allocation of a portion of 

the safety margin for VOC in the PM2.5

maintenance plan to the 2020 and 2025 

MVEBs. The 2020 and 2025 total year 

emissions of VOC for the area will 

remain below the attainment level 

required by the transportation 

conformity regulations. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 22, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

23, 2016. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0848 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@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 on 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: 

Michael Leslie, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680, 

leslie.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is a ‘‘safety margin’’? 

III. How does this action change the 

Milwaukee area’s 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plan? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22415), EPA 

approved a request from the State of 

Wisconsin to redesignate the Milwaukee 

area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

In addition to approving the PM2.5

redesignation request, EPA approved 

the State’s plan for maintaining the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Milwaukee 

through 2025. The PM2.5 maintenance 

plan established MVEBs for PM2.5, SO2, 

VOC and NOX for 2020 and 2025 to 

account for new transportation planning 

assumptions. 

MVEBs are the projected levels of 

controlled emissions from the 

transportation sector (mobile sources) 

that are estimated in the SIP to provide 

for maintenance of the ozone standard. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows the MVEB to be changed as long 

as the total level of emissions from all 

sources remains below the attainment 

levels. 

II. What is a ‘‘safety margin’’? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’, as defined in the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A), is the amount by 

which the total projected emissions 

from all sources of a given pollutant are 

less than the total emissions that would 

satisfy the applicable requirement for 

reasonable further progress, attainment, 

or maintenance. The attainment level of 

emissions is the level of emissions 

during the year in which the area met 

the NAAQS. Table 1 gives detailed 

information on the safety margin for the 

VOC portion of the Milwaukee’s 2006 

24-Hour PM2.5 maintenance plan. Table 

1 includes a comparison of the VOC 

emissions in the 2010 (Wisconsin’s 

attainment year), to the projected 

emissions of VOC in 2020 and 2025. 

The difference between the projected 

emissions in years 2020 and 2025 and 

the actual emissions in 2010 is referred 

to as the safety margin or the amount of 

excess emission reductions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES