### 9790 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

processes; avoid disclosure of insider threat techniques; protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; ensure DHS’ ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; protect the privacy of third parties; and safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

A notice of system of records DHS/ ALL–038 Insider Threat Program System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register

. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

Freedom of information, Privacy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

**PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. ); 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

■ 2. In appendix C to part 5, add paragraph 74 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

* * * * *

74. The DHS/ALL–038 Insider Threat Program System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL– 038 Insider Threat Program System of Records System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with various missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ ALL–038 Insider Threat Program System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12), (f), (g)(1), and (h). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).

Where a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.

Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified on a case-by-case basis and determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS and the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities. (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.

(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.

(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS’s ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.

(i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

Dated: February 18, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2016–03923 Filed 2–25–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2016–3705; Directorate Identifier 2015–NM–168–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate**  **Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).


### 9791 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Model 680 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by Cessna’s report of a manufacturing defect which affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the aft canted bulkhead, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require a modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent disbonding of the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead. Loss of bond integrity could result in a structural failure that could lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Fax: 202–493–2251.

• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 3705; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is in the

**ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Paul Kalowski, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316–946–4186; fax: 316–946– 4107; email: paul.kalowski@faa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the **ADDRESSES** section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 2016–3705; Directorate Identifier 2015– NM–168–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those
comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

This proposed AD was prompted by Cessna’s report of a manufacturing defect that affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. This disbonding is caused by a loss of durability in the metal-to-metal bondline, which resulted from a reduced autoclave cure cycle dwell time and temperature during manufacturing. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a structural failure that could lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following Cessna service information.

• Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead.

• Cessna Service Bulletin SB680–53– 08, dated September 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane by installing additional stiffeners to the aft canted bulkhead.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the **ADDRESSES** section.

FAA’s Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under ‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.’’ Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

Although Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015, specifies reporting the inspection results to Cessna, this proposed AD would not require those actions.

Although Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

Although Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015; and Service Bulletin SB680–53–08, dated September 28, 2015; use the term ‘‘debond’’ to describe full or partial separation of a stiffener from the aft canted bulkhead structure, this proposed AD instead uses the term ‘‘disbond.’’ Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:


### 9792 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules

E STIMATED 

### C OSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators

Inspection ...................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle. $0 $85 per inspection cycle. $10,455 per inspection cycle. Modification ................... 180 work-hours × $85 per hour = $15,300 ........ 3,190 $18,490 ........................ $2,274,270.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate. Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

**PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

**§ 39.13 [Amended]**

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company): Docket No. FAA–2016–3705; Directorate Identifier 2015–NM–168– AD.––
(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by April 11,
2016.
(b) Affected ADs

None. (c) Applicability

This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company), Model 680 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign airplanes), having serial numbers: 680–0001, –0002, –0006, –0025, –0030, –0031, –0032, –0046, –0051, –0057, –0064, –0066, –0067, –0082, –0104, –0108, –0112, –0118, –0120, –0125, –0132, –0139, –0140, –0141, –0144, –0147, –0148, –0149, –0153, –0157, –0160, –0162, –0163, –0164, –0166, –0167, –0169, –0170, –0171, –0173, –0174, –0175, –0176, –0177, –0178, –0179, –0180, –0182, –0183, –0185, –0186, –0192, –0193, –0196, –0200, –0202, –0204, –0205, –0206, –0208, –0211, –0216, –0220, –0221, –0222, –0227, –0229, –0230, –0231, –0234, –0235, –0236, –0238, –0241, –0242, –0243, –0245, –0246, –0249, –0252, –0253, –0255, –0256, –0257, –0258, –0260, –0262, –0268, –0270, –0271, –0280, –0282, –0283, –0284, –0285, –0289, –0291, –0292, –0296, –0297, –0300, –0301, –0302, –0303, –0304, –0306, –0307, –0313, –0315, –0317, –0318, –0322, –0323, –0324, –0327, –0328, –0329, –0333, –0334, –0336, –0337, –0339, –0340, –0342, –0344, –0346, –0347, –0348, and –0349.

(2) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign+ airplanes) having serial numbers: 680–0501, –0504, –0505, –0509, –0510, –0511, –0512, –0513, –0514, –0515, –0516, –0517, –0519, –0520, –0522, –0524, –0525, –0526, –0527, and –0531.
(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by Cessna’s report of a manufacturing defect which affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent disbonding of the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead. Loss of bond integrity could result in a structural failure that may lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.
(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Repetitive Inspections

Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight hours, or within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Letter SL680–53–05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. Repeat the general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours, until the modification required by paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.
(h) Repair

If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any disbonding or cracked paint is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ACE–118W, FAA.

(i) Modification

At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, ACE– 118W, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office.

(n) Related Information

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

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

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

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

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

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

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

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

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

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

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

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2016–0003 at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Jeff Hunt at (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@
epa.gov.

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

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

Maintenance Plan Option B. Conformity Under the Limited

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

A. Has the State demonstrated that the

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

attainment emissions inventory? C. Does the limited maintenance plan

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

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

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