33632 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Certification of international 

application based on more than one 

application or registration. 

(i) For certifying an international 

application based on more than one 

basic application or registration filed on 

paper, per class—$250.00 

(ii) For certifying an international 

application based on more than one 

basic application or registration filed 

through TEAS, per class—$150.00 

(3) Transmission of subsequent 

designation. 

(i) For transmitting a subsequent 

designation under § 7.21, filed on 

paper—$200.00 

(ii) For transmitting a subsequent 

designation under § 7.21, filed through 

TEAS—$100.00 

(4) Transmission of request to record 

an assignment or restriction. 

(i) For transmitting a request to record 

an assignment or restriction, or release 

of a restriction, under § 7.23 or § 7.24 

filed on paper—$200.00 

(ii) For transmitting a request to 

record an assignment or restriction, or 

release of a restriction, under § 7.23 or 

§ 7.24 filed through TEAS—$100.00 

(5) Notice of replacement. 

(i) For filing a notice of replacement 

under § 7.28 on paper, per class— 

$200.00 

(ii) For filing a notice of replacement 

under § 7.28 through TEAS, per class— 

$100.00 

(6) Affidavit under section 71 of the 

Act. 

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 

71 of the Act on paper, per class— 

$250.00 

(ii) For filing an affidavit under 

section 71 of the Act through TEAS, per 

class—$150.00 

(7) Filing affidavit under section 71 of 

the Act during grace period. 

(i) Surcharge for filing an affidavit 

under section 71 of the Act during the 

grace period on paper, per class— 

$200.00 

(ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit 

under section 71 of the Act during the 

grace period through TEAS, per class— 

$100.00 

(8) Correcting deficiency in section 71 

affidavit. 

(i) For correcting a deficiency in a 

section 71 affidavit filed on paper— 

$200.00 

(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a 

section 71 affidavit filed through 

TEAS—$100.00 

(b) The fees required in paragraph (a) 

of this section must be paid in U.S. 

dollars at the time of submission of the 

requested action. See § 2.207 of this 

chapter for acceptable forms of payment 

and § 2.208 of this chapter for payments 

using a deposit account established in 

the Office. 

Dated: May 23, 2016. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12571 Filed 5–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0290; FRL–9946–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Spokane Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide 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 May 11, 2016, by the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology), in 

cooperation with the Spokane Regional 

Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) for the 

Spokane carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance area (Spokane area or 

area). The Spokane area includes the 

cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, 

Millwood, and surrounding urban areas 

in Spokane County, Washington. This 

plan addresses the second 10-year 

maintenance period for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for CO, as 

revised in 1985. The Spokane area has 

had no exceedances of the CO NAAQS 

since 1997 and monitored CO levels in 

the area continue to decline steadily. 

The EPA is also proposing approval of 

an alternative CO monitoring strategy 

for the Spokane area which was 

submitted as part of the limited 

maintenance plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2016–0290 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information that is restricted by statute 

from disclosure. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at http://

www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 

10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. The EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

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. This Action 

II. Background 

III. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

CO Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

B. Conformity Under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

IV. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that the 

monitoring data meets the LMP Option 

criteria? 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

C. What are the control measures for this 

area? 

D. Does the limited maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 33633 

E. Does the plan meet the clean air act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

limited maintenance plan for CO 

submitted by the State of Washington 

(Washington or the State), on May 11, 

2016, for the Spokane area. A limited 

maintenance plan is a means of meeting 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for 

formerly designated nonattainment 

areas that meet certain qualification 

criteria. The EPA is proposing to 

determine that Washington’s submittal 

meets the limited maintenance plan 

criteria as described below. 

II. Background 

Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the 

CAA, the Spokane area was designated 

nonattainment by operation of law upon 

enactment of the 1990 Amendments (56 

FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On June 

29, 2005, the EPA redesignated the area 

to attainment for the CO NAAQS and 

approved Washington’s first 

maintenance plan designed to ensure 

compliance with the standard through 

the year 2015 (70 FR 37269). To meet 

section 175A(b) of the CAA, Washington 

submitted a second 10-year CO 

maintenance plan for the Spokane area 

that will apply until 2025. 

III. The Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for CO Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

The EPA’s requirements for a limited 

maintenance plan (LMP) are outlined in 

an October 6, 1995 memorandum from 

Joseph Paisie titled, ’’Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ (CO LMP Option). To qualify for 

the LMP Option, the design value for an 

area, based on the eight consecutive 

quarters (two years of data) used to 

demonstrate attainment, must be at or 

below 7.65 parts per million (ppm). The 

CO LMP Option memo states the ‘‘EPA 

believes that the continued applicability 

of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any 

control measures already in the SIP, and 

Federal measures (such as the Federal 

motor vehicle control program) should 

provide adequate assurance of 

maintenance for these areas.’’ The EPA 

has determined that the CO LMP Option 

is also available to all states for second 

10-year maintenance plans, regardless of 

the original nonattainment 

classification. 

B. Conformity Under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

The transportation conformity rule 

and the general conformity rule (40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 

areas and maintenance areas covered by 

an approved maintenance plan. Under 

either conformity rule, an acceptable 

method of demonstrating a Federal 

action conforms to the applicable SIP is 

to demonstrate that expected emissions 

from the planned action are consistent 

with the emissions budget for the area. 

While qualification for the CO LMP 

Option does not exempt an area from 

the need to affirm conformity, 

conformity may be demonstrated 

without submitting an emissions 

budget. Under the limited maintenance 

plan option, emissions budgets are 

treated as essentially not constraining 

for the length of the maintenance period 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

the qualifying areas would experience 

so much growth in that period that a 

violation of the CO NAAQS would 

result. For transportation conformity 

purposes, the EPA would conclude that 

emissions in these areas need not be 

capped for the maintenance period and 

therefore a regional emissions analysis 

would not be required. Similarly, 

Federal actions subject to the general 

conformity rule could be considered to 

satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 

CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same 

reasons that the budgets are essentially 

considered to be unlimited. 

Under the limited maintenance plan 

option, emissions budgets are treated as 

essentially not constraining for the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that qualifying 

areas would experience so much growth 

in that period that a NAAQS violation 

would result. While areas with 

maintenance plans approved under the 

limited maintenance plan option are not 

subject to the budget test, the areas 

remain subject to the other 

transportation conformity requirements 

of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) in the area or the State must 

document and ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 

(TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113; 

(b) transportation plans and projects 

comply with the fiscal constraint 

element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108; 

(c) the MPO’s interagency 

consultation procedures meet the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

93.105; 

(d) conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every four years, and conformity of plan 

amendments and transportation projects 

is demonstrated in accordance with the 

timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 

93.104; 

(e) the latest planning assumptions 

and emissions model are used as set 

forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 

93.111; 

(f) projects do not cause or contribute 

to any new localized carbon monoxide 

or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

40 CFR 93.123; and 

(g) project sponsors and/or operators 

provide written commitments as 

specified in 40 CFR 93.125. 

In approving the 2nd 10-year limited 

maintenance plan, the Spokane 

maintenance area will continue to be 

exempt from performing a regional 

emissions analysis, but must meet 

project-level conformity analyses as 

well as the transportation conformity 

criteria mentioned above. 

IV. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that the 

monitoring data meets the LMP Option 

criteria? 

The CO NAAQS is attained when the 

annual second highest 8-hour average 

CO concentration for an area does not 

exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The 

last monitored violation of the CO 

NAAQS in the Spokane area occurred in 

1996, and CO levels have steadily 

declined ever since. 

For areas using the CO LMP Option, 

the maintenance plan demonstration 

requirement is considered to be satisfied 

when the second highest 8-hour CO 

concentration (design value) is at or 

below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO 

NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The 

8-hour CO design value for the Spokane 

area is 2.3 ppm based on 2013–2014 

data, the most recent quality-assured 

and quality-controlled data available. 

Therefore, Washington has 

demonstrated that the monitoring data 

for the Spokane area meets the CO LMP 

Option criteria. 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

The maintenance plan must contain 

an attainment year emissions inventory 

to identify a level of CO emissions that 

is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. 

The May 11, 2016 SIP submittal 

contains a CO emissions inventory for 

the Spokane area using a base year of 

2011, matching the most recent data 

available in the EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), which was 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33634 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

then projected out to 2014 based on 

population growth. This inventory was 

then supplemented with more recent 

information for point sources and 

onroad motor vehicles. Onroad mobile 

emissions were calculated using the 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES2014) model. 

Historically, exceedances of the CO 

NAAQS in the Spokane area have 

occurred during the winter months, 

when cooler temperatures contribute to 

incomplete combustion from motor 

vehicles. Therefore, consistent with the 

EPA’s guidance, the emissions 

inventory is in a ‘‘typical winter day’’ 

format. Onroad mobile sources 

represent 69.4% of the typical winter 

day CO emissions, followed by 17.9% 

from area sources (primarily residential 

wood combustion), 12.3% from nonroad 

mobile sources, and 0.5% from point 

sources. With respect to calculating 

emissions inventories for the LMP, 

point sources were defined as any 

stationary source with CO emissions 

greater than or equal to 100 tons per 

year. 

EMISSIONS INVENTORY, MAIN SOURCE

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

Main source category 

CO emissions 

pounds per 

winter day 

Point Sources ....................... 1,418 

Onroad Mobile Sources ........ 213,760 

Non-road Mobile Sources ..... 37,221 

Area Sources ........................ 54,303 

Total .................................. 306,702 

C. What are the control measures for 

this area? 

The first 10-year maintenance plan 

approved by the EPA for the Spokane 

area relied on the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Emission Control Program establishing 

emission standards for new motor 

vehicles (40 CFR part 86), a motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ 

M) program, and an administrative 

order and amendment for the Kaiser 

Aluminum and Chemical Corporation 

Mead Works facility. The EPA’s 2005 

approval of the first 10-year 

maintenance plan anticipated that more 

stringent Federal automobile standards 

and the removal of older, less efficient 

cars over time would result in an overall 

decline in CO emissions despite 

expected increases in vehicle miles 

traveled in the area (70 FR 37269, June 

29, 2005, at page 37271). Consistent 

with the EPA’s CO LMP Option memo, 

Washington concluded that continued 

applicability of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration requirements, 

any control measures already in the SIP, 

and Federal measures (such as the 

Federal motor vehicle control program) 

will provide adequate assurance of 

maintenance for the Spokane area. 

Based on our review of the 2011 

attainment emissions inventory, 

showing dramatic emissions reductions 

as a result of the Federal motor vehicle 

control program, it is highly unlikely 

CO emissions in the Spokane area will 

violate the NAAQS. We also note that 

Washington’s most recent updates to the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permitting program were approved by 

the EPA on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 

23721). 

Lastly, Washington is requesting no 

changes to the control measures 

contained in the SIP, except for one 

minor revision. As discussed in 

Washington’s submittal, the first 10-year 

maintenance plan included 

administrative order number DE 01 

AQIS–3285, and amendment #1 of that 

order, for the former Kaiser Aluminum 

and Chemical Corporation’s aluminum 

reduction plant located in Mead, 

Washington, north of the City of 

Spokane. During the EPA’s action on the 

first 10-year plan it was not known at 

that time whether the then closed 

facility or some portion of it would 

reopen, so the EPA retained the existing 

administrative order and amendment in 

the SIP to ensure that the facility could 

not contribute to an exceedance of the 

CO NAAQS if it reopened at some point 

in the future. On April 11, 2013, NMC 

Mead, LLC, the new owners of the 

facility, notified the Spokane Regional 

Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) that the 

facility, ‘‘. . . has permanently shut 

down and is in the process of 

dismantling all equipment permitted 

under Air Operating Permit No. AOP– 

19-Renewal Permit #1. NMC Mead will 

not be renewing this Air Operating 

Permit, and is requesting that this 

permit be revoked effective March 31, 

2013.’’ On April 26, 2013, SRCAA 

voided the Air Operating Permit and all 

associated orders stating that, ‘‘[i]f NMC 

Mead, LLC ever wants to operate any of 

the emission units at the facility again 

in the future, a new Notice of 

Construction (NOC) permit must be 

approved by the SRCAA prior to the 

installation and/or operation of the 

equipment.’’ See Appendix D of 

Washington’s submission. Because any 

potential, future NOC permit will be 

subject to the New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting program to ensure 

compliance with all NAAQS, 

Washington requested that the EPA 

remove the voided administrative order 

No. DE 01 AQIS–3285 and amendment 

#1 from the SIP codified in 40 CFR 

52.2470(d) EPA-Approved State SourceSpecific Requirements. The EPA is 

proposing to grant this request because 

the EPA has confirmed the facility is 

shutdown and dismantled. 

C. Does the limited maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58? 

The EPA’s CO LMP Option memo 

states, ‘‘[t]o verify the attainment status 

of the area over the maintenance period, 

the maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of an 

appropriate, EPA approved air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58.’’ Washington’s most 

recent EPA-approved annual air quality 

monitoring network plan is included in 

the docket for this action. Under this 

plan, Washington currently operates a 

Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) CO 

monitor at 3rd and Washington in 

downtown Spokane. Due to the low and 

continually declining levels of CO 

monitored at this site over the past two 

decades since the last exceedance of the 

NAAQS, Washington requested the 

EPA’s approval of an alternative 

monitoring strategy for verifying 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS similar 

to other altenative approaches used in 

CO areas in the nation (see 80 FR 17331, 

April 1, 2015, Great Falls, Montana; 80 

FR 16571, March 30, 2015, Billings, 

Montana; and 73 FR 36439, June 27, 

2008, Vancouver, Washington, for a few 

recent examples). 

Washington’s proposed alternative 

monitoring strategy generally mirrors 

the approach recently approved for the 

Grants Pass CO area on July 28, 2015 (80 

FR 44864). Washington proposes that 

total CO emissions will be calculated, as 

detailed below, every three years in 

conjunction with the Statewide 

Emissions Inventory development 

process, which populates the EPA NEI. 

Under the proposed alternative 

monitoring strategy, SRCAA, in 

cooperation with Ecology, commits to 

reviewing future year 2017, 2020 and 

2023 CO estimates for the three primary 

source categories (onroad mobile, 

nonroad mobile, and residential wood 

combustion (area sources)) which 

comprise 97% of CO emissions in the 

Spokane area. The aggregate total of 

these three source categories would then 

be compared to the corresponding 2002 

level, which represents the emissions at 

the time EPA redesignated the area to 

attainment and approved the first 10- 

year maintenance plan. The 2002 

emission level corresponds to a design 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 33635 

1The EPA notes that emission inventory 

development for the NEI is done on a triennial 

basis, so reporting during off years between the 

2017, 2020, and 2023 inventory cycles will likely 

refer back to the most recent inventory data 

available. 

value of 5.2 ppm, well below the CO 

NAAQS of 9.0 ppm and the LMP 

qualification threshold of 7.65 ppm, 

giving adequate buffer to reestablish 

monitoring before any potential 

violation of the NAAQS and resulting 

contingency measures. 

Because the calculated amounts of 

both the onroad and nonroad mobile CO 

emissions can change depending on the 

version of the EPA model required for 

use at that time (currently MOVES2014), 

SRCAA and Ecology commit to 

recalculating 2002 emission estimates 

for these two source categories using 

national default settings at the countywide level with the most current EPAmandated model, in order to ensure 

consistency in comparing future year 

inventories to 2002 levels. For the 

remaining source category, residential 

wood combustion, SRCAA and Ecology 

will compare future year inventories, 

calculated using the most up to date 

activity level, emission factor, and 

population data available, in accordance 

with the EPA’s NEI guidance, to the 

annual 2002 county-wide inventories 

approved in the first 10-year 

maintenance plan (19,937 tons per 

year). If a future year aggregate total of 

the three source categories calculated 

for 2017, 2020, or 2023 exceeds the 

corresponding aggregate total of 2002 

emissions, Ecology must reestablish 

monitoring in the area. In order to verify 

continued attainment in the area, 

continued qualification for the CO LMP 

Option, and provisions for triggering 

contingency measures should the area 

violate the CO NAAQS in the future, 

this review will be submitted annually 

by Ecology to the EPA as part of the 

monitoring network report for 

compliance under 40 CFR part 58.1

Washington’s annual network 

monitoring reports are available to the 

public at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/

publications/UIPages/Home.aspx. 

The State’s request was made under 

40 CFR 58.14(c) which allows approval 

of requests to discontinue ambient 

monitors ‘‘on a case-by-case basis if 

discontinuance does not compromise 

data collection needed for 

implementation of a NAAQS and if the 

requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR 

part 58, if any, continue to be met.’’ The 

EPA proposes to find that the alternative 

monitoring strategy meets the criteria of 

40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Spokane area. 

Given the long history of low CO 

concentrations in the Spokane area, and 

the commitment to reestablish 

monitoring should NEI data show the 

potential for increasing CO emissions, 

the EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s request to discontinue the 

Spokane CO monitor and use the 

alternative monitoring strategy in its 

place. 

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

CAA section 175A states that a 

maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violation of the relevant NAAQS which 

may occur after redesignation of the area 

to attainment. Washington’s submittal 

makes no changes to the contingency 

provisions approved as part of the first 

10-year maintenance plan (70 FR 37269, 

June 29, 2005, at page 37271). The EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

existing contingency measure 

provisions from the first 10-year 

maintenance plan continue to satisfy the 

requirement under CAA section 175A. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

LMP submitted by the State of 

Washington, on May 11, 2016, for the 

Spokane CO area. We are proposing to 

approve the request to remove the 

associated order and amendment for the 

former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 

Corporation’s aluminum reduction plant 

located in Mead, Washington from 

incorporation by reference in the 

Washington SIP because the facility has 

been shut down, dismantled, and the 

operating permit has been revoked. We 

are also proposing to approve the State’s 

alternative CO monitoring strategy for 

the Spokane area. If finalized, the EPA’s 

approval of this LMP will satisfy the 

CAA section 175A requirements for the 

second 10-year period in the Spokane 

CO area. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In accordance with the requirements 

of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the incorporation by reference 

contained in 40 CFR 52.2470(d) EPAApproved State Source-Specific 

Requirements to remove the associated 

order and amendment for the former 

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 

Corporation’s aluminum reduction plant 

located in Mead, Washington, as 

described above in Section V. Proposed 

Action. The 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, the 

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 the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This SIP revision is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land in 

Washington or any other area where the 

EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 

that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those 

areas, the rule does not have tribal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33636 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The latest spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance 

allocations to existing units, updated in 2014 to 

reflect changes to CSAPR’s implementation 

schedule but with allocation amounts unchanged 

since June 2012, is available at http:// 

www3.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. See 

Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing 

Electricity Generating Units, 79 FR 71674 

(December 3, 2014). 

2The NUSA amounts range from two percent to 

eight percent of the respective state budgets. The 

variation in percentages reflects differences among 

states in the quantities of emission allowances 

projected to be required by known new units at the 

time the budgets were set or amended. 

3At this time, EPA is not aware of any unit 

eligible for a first-round allocation from any Indian 

country NUSA. 

4The quantities of allowances to be allocated 

through the NUSA allowance allocation process 

may differ slightly from the NUSA amounts set 

forth in §§ 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), and 

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). However, 

consistent with EPA policy, the EPA 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Spokane Tribe in a letter dated 

September 11, 2015. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 13, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12529 Filed 5–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[FRL–9947–02–OAR] 

Availability of Data on Allocations of 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides 

for the 2016 Compliance Year 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of data 

availability (NODA). 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the 

availability of preliminary calculations 

of emission allowance allocations to 

certain units under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the 

CSAPR federal implementation plans 

(FIPs), portions of each covered state’s 

annual emissions budgets for each of the 

four CSAPR emissions trading programs 

are reserved for allocation to electricity 

generating units that commenced 

commercial operation on or after 

January 1, 2010 (new units) and certain 

other units not otherwise obtaining 

allowance allocations under the FIPs. 

The quantities of allowances allocated 

to eligible units from each new unit setaside (NUSA) under the FIPs are 

calculated in an annual one- or tworound allocation process. EPA has 

completed preliminary calculations for 

the first round of NUSA allowance 

allocations for the 2016 compliance year 

and has posted spreadsheets containing 

the calculations on EPA’s Web site. EPA 

will consider timely objections to the 

preliminary calculations (including 

objections concerning the identification 

of units eligible for allocations) and will 

promulgate a notice responding to any 

such objections no later than August 1, 

2016, the deadline for recording the 

first-round allocations in sources’ 

Allowance Management System 

accounts. This notice may concern 

CSAPR-affected units in the following 

states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

DATES: Objections to the information 

referenced in this notice must be 

received on or before June 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections via 

email to CSAPR_NUSA@epa.gov. 

Include ‘‘2016 NUSA allocations’’ in the 

email subject line and include your 

name, title, affiliation, address, phone 

number, and email address in the body 

of the email. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this action should 

be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 

343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or 

Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or 

smith.kenon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

CSAPR FIPs, the mechanisms by which 

initial allocations of emission 

allowances are determined differ for 

‘‘existing’’ and ‘‘new’’ units. For 

‘‘existing’’ units—that is, units 

commencing commercial operation 

before January 1, 2010—the specific 

amounts of CSAPR FIP allowance 

allocations for all compliance years 

have been established through 

rulemaking. EPA has announced the 

availability of spreadsheets showing the 

CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to 

existing units in previous notices.1

‘‘New’’ units—that is, units 

commencing commercial operation on 

or after January 1, 2010—as well as 

certain older units that would not 

otherwise obtain FIP allowance 

allocations do not have pre-established 

allowance allocations. Instead, the 

CSAPR FIPs reserve a portion of each 

state’s total annual emissions budget for 

each CSAPR emissions trading program 

as a new unit set-aside (NUSA) 2 and 

establish an annual process for 

allocating NUSA allowances to eligible 

units. States with Indian country within 

their borders have separate Indian 

country NUSAs. The annual process for 

allocating allowances from the NUSAs 

and Indian country NUSAs to eligible 

units is set forth in the CSAPR 

regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 

97.412 (NOX Annual Trading Program), 

97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 

97.612 (SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), 

and 97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program). Each NUSA 

allowance allocation process involves 

up to two rounds of allocations to new 

units followed by the allocation to 

existing units of any allowances not 

allocated to new units. EPA provides 

public notice at certain points in the 

process. This notice concerns 

preliminary calculations for the first 

round of NUSA allowance allocations 

for the 2016 compliance year.3

The units eligible to receive firstround NUSA allocations are defined in 

§§ 97.412(a)(1), 97.512(a)(1), 

97.612(a)(1), and 97.712(a)(1). 

Generally, eligible units include any 

CSAPR-affected unit that has not been 

allocated allowances as an existing unit 

as well as certain units that have been 

allocated allowances as existing units 

but whose allocations have been 

deducted or not recorded because of 

corrections or multi-year breaks in 

operations. EPA notes that a valid 

allowance allocation may consist of zero 

allowances; thus, an existing unit 

specifically allocated zero allowances in 

the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP 

allowance allocations to existing units is 

generally ineligible to receive a NUSA 

allowance allocation. 

The quantity of allowances to be 

allocated through the 2016 NUSA 

allowance allocation process for each 

state and emissions trading program is 

generally the state’s 2016 emissions 

budget less the sum of (1) the total of the 

2016 CSAPR FIP allowance allocations 

to existing units and (2) the amount of 

the 2016 Indian country NUSA, if any.4


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS