Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 232 December 3, 2015

Pages 75631–75784

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 18:23 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\03DEWS.LOC 03DEWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512- 1800 (toll free). E-mail, gpocusthelp.com. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Publishing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 80 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 18:23 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\03DEWS.LOC 03DEWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 232

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 75689–75690 NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Patient Safety Organization Delistings: Catalent CTS, LLC, 75692–75693 Voluntary Relinquishment from Piedmont Clinic, Inc., Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: 75679–75680 Noramco, Inc., 75692 Organix, Inc., 75691–75692 Air Force Department Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: NOTICES Navinta, LLC, 75690 Meetings: Scientific Advisory Board, 75665 Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance RULES Programs; Provider Enrollment Application Fee Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Amount for Calendar Year 2016, 75680–75681 Promulgations: New Mexico; Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Coast Guard Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2008 RULES Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Drawbridge Operations: 75636–75638 English Kills, New York City, NY, 75636 PROPOSED RULES Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone Commerce Department National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 75706–75778 See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration Farm Credit Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75677 Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 75701–75702 Daily Trade and Supporting Data Reports, 75663–75664 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: United Airlines, Inc., 75700–75701 Consumer Product Safety Commission Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Petition for Labeling Requirements Regarding Slip Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Clarification Resistance of Floor Coverings, 75639 NOTICES Procedures for Disbursing Reverse Auction Incentive Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Payments, 75677–75678 Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door NOTICES Operators, 75664 Applications: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75664–75665 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co., 75674 Defense Department Combined Filings, 75673, 75675–75677 See Air Force Department Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Buy American Waivers, 75702–75703 NOTICES Emergency Preparedness and Response at the Pantex Plant, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission 75665–75673 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75665 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75678 Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Reserve System NOTICES NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Meridian Medical Technologies, 75691 Holding Companies, 75678 Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 75691 Mylan Technologies, Inc., 75688–75689 Federal Transit Administration Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: PROPOSED RULES Akorn, Inc., 75690 Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 75689 Program, 75639–75656

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\03DECN.SGM 03DECN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER IV Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Contents

Fish and Wildlife Service Labor Department NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Submissions, and Approvals: Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Household Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Survey, 75685–75686 75693 Respirable Coal Mine Dust Sampling, 75694 Food and Drug Administration The 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard, 75694– NOTICES 75695 Guidance: Recommendations for Assessment of Blood Donor Land Management Bureau Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product NOTICES Management in Response to Ebola Virus, 75681– Meetings: 75683 California Desert District Advisory Council, 75686–75687 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration General Services Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, World War One Centennial Commission: Submissions, and Approvals, 75662–75663 Opportunity to View Design Submissions for National Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, World War I Memorial at Pershing Park, 75679 Submissions, and Approvals: Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fishery, Rationalization Health and Human Services Department Sociocultural Study, 75661–75662 See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Park Service See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Acquisition of Florida Power and Light Co. Land in the Homeland Security Department East Everglades Expansion Area, 75687–75688 See Coast Guard See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Indian Affairs Bureau Special Observances: NOTICES National Impaired Driving Prevention Month (Proc. Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 9373), 75779–75782 Submissions, and Approvals: World AIDS Day (Proc. 9374), 75783–75784 Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Securities and Exchange Commission Report Form; Correction, 75686 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Industry and Security Bureau Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc, 75695–75699 RULES Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Agreements State Department Implementation and Country Policy Amendments; NOTICES Correction, 75633–75636 Delegation of Certain Authorities and Functions Under the International Organizations Immunities Act, 75700 Meetings: Interior Department Overseas Schools Advisory Council, 75699–75700 See Fish and Wildlife Service Re-Delegation of Certain Authorities and Functions Under See Indian Affairs Bureau the International Organizations Immunities Act, 75700 See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration International Trade Administration See Federal Highway Administration NOTICES See Federal Transit Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: U.S. Customs and Border Protection October Anniversary Dates, 75657–75660 RULES Silicomanganese from India, 75660–75661 List of Field Offices: Expansion of San Ysidro, CA Port of Entry to include the International Trade Commission Cross Border Xpress User Fee facility; Technical Amendment, 75631–75632 NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75688 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Justice Department Protest, 75683–75684 See Drug Enforcement Administration User Fees, 75684–75685

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\03DECN.SGM 03DECN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Contents V

Veterans Affairs Department Part III NOTICES Presidential Documents, 75779–75784 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Income, Asset and Employment Statement and Reader Aids Application for Veterans Pension; Correction, 75703 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Separate Parts In This Issue To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Part II archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Environmental Protection Agency, 75706–75778 settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\03DECN.SGM 03DECN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER VI Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Contents

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Proclamations: 9373...... 75781 9374...... 75783 8 CFR 100...... 75631 15 CFR 738...... 75633 740...... 75633 743...... 75633 772...... 75633 774...... 75633 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 1408...... 75639 33 CFR 117...... 75636 40 CFR 52...... 75636 Proposed Rules: 52...... 75706 78...... 75706 97...... 75706 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 672...... 75639

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:59 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\03DELS.LOC 03DELS tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with LS 75631

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 232

Thursday, December 3, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Department of Homeland Security facility, CBP will provide a variety of contains regulatory documents having general where CBP officers or employees are inspection services, including applicability and legal effect, most of which assigned to accept entries of immigration services. are keyed to and codified in the Code of merchandise, clear passengers, collect The CBX facility was designed in Federal Regulations, which is published under duties, and enforce the various accordance with U.S. and international 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. provisions of the customs and security standards. It includes an The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by immigration laws, as well as other laws enclosed pedestrian walkway the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of applicable at the border. The term ‘‘port connecting the Tijuana Airport in new books are listed in the first FEDERAL of entry’’ is used in the Code of Federal Mexico to San Diego, California and a REGISTER issue of each week. Regulations (CFR) in title 19 for customs passenger terminal located in San Diego purposes and in title 8 for immigration that will be used exclusively to process purposes. Subject to certain exceptions, ticketed Tijuana Airport passengers DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND all individuals entering the United traveling to and from the United States SECURITY States must present themselves to an via the walkway. The pedestrian immigration officer for inspection at a walkway will be accessible only for U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. port of entry when the port is open ticketed Tijuana Airport passengers. for inspection. See 8 CFR 235.1. Travelers with departing flights from 8 CFR PART 100 Customs and immigration services may the Tijuana Airport will use the CBX facility’s north entrance in the United [CBP Dec. 15–17] also be provided by CBP officers at facilities that are designated as user fee States to cross the international border Technical Amendment to List of Field facilities pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b. User into Mexico. To use the facility, these Offices: Expansion of San Ysidro, fee facilities are approved by the travelers must present a valid airline California Port of Entry To Include the Commissioner of CBP to receive, for a ticket for a flight departing from the Cross Border Xpress User Fee Facility fee, the services of CBP officers, Tijuana Airport in the next twenty-four including the processing of travelers hours and purchase a CBX bridge pass. AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border entering the United States. Airline tickets and CBX passes may be Protection, Department of Homeland purchased the same day at ticket Security. The ports of entry for immigration windows at the north entrance. CBX purposes for aliens arriving by vessel passes may also be purchased online in ACTION: Final rule; technical and land transportation are listed in 8 amendment. advance. After being subject to CFR 100.4(a). These ports are listed inspection by CBP officers, travelers SUMMARY: This document amends the according to location by districts and will use the pedestrian walkway to cross Department of Homeland Security are designated as Class A, B, or C, which the international border. At the Tijuana (DHS) regulations by revising the list of designates which aliens may use the Airport, travelers will be processed by field offices to expand the limits of the port. Class A ports are those designated Mexican immigration and customs San Ysidro, California Class A port of for all aliens. Class B and C ports are authorities. After processing, the entry to include the Cross Border Xpress restricted to certain aliens. If the facility travelers will enter the Tijuana Airport (CBX) user fee facility. Class A ports of processes aliens for immigration for their departing flight. entry are designated ports that process purposes, the facility may be considered Travelers landing at the Tijuana all aliens applying for admission into a port of entry for purposes of title 8 Airport may use the CBX facility to the United States. The CBX facility CFR. In such case, an amendment to 8 apply for admission or entry to the 1 includes a pedestrian walkway CFR 100.4(a) is necessary. United States. These travelers must connecting the Tijuana A.L. Rodriguez The Cross Border Express (CBX) User purchase a CBX pass and use the CBX International Airport (Tijuana Airport) Fee Facility facility within four hours of their flight’s in Mexico to San Diego, California and arrival at the airport to apply for a passenger terminal located in San On March 21, 2014, the Commissioner admission or entry to the United States. Diego that will be used exclusively to of CBP approved a request from Otay- Passes may be purchased online in process Tijuana Airport passengers Tijuana Venture, LLC for CBP to provide advance or at ticket counters at the traveling to and from the United States reimbursable inspection services, Tijuana Airport. Travelers will be via the pedestrian walkway. pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, at a new processed by Mexican immigration and cross-border user fee facility named customs authorities at the Tijuana DATES: This rule is effective on ‘‘Cross Border Xpress’’ or CBX.2 At this December 9, 2015, the date the CBX Airport before entering the CBX facility. facility will open. Travelers will use the CBX pedestrian 1 For customs purposes, CBP regulations list walkway to cross the international FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara designated CBP ports of entry and the limits of each border into the United States and then Ross, Office of Field Operations, port in section 101.3(b)(1) of title 19 (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)). User fee facilities are not considered apply for admission or entry into the [email protected], 202–344–1031. ports of entry for purposes of 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1). United States at the processing terminal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Therefore, the designation of a user fee facility does where they will be subject to not require an amendment to this provision. immigration, customs and agriculture I. Background 2 On July 22, 2015, CBP issued a press release announcing the establishment of CBX as a user fee inspection by CBP officers. CBP will Ports of entry are places (seaports, facility pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b. It also indicated airports, or land border ports) that CBX would operate as a Class A port of entry. media-release/2015-07-22-000000/cbp-partners- designated by the Secretary of the See: http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national- new-cross-border-terminal-cross.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 75632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

process only pedestrians at the CBX services at the new CBX facility Significant Impact’’ concluding that the facility. CBP will not process cargo, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b. The CBX facility would not result in a commercial entries, or vehicles. designation of the CBX as a user fee significant impact on the human and facility means that CBP will be Expansion of San Ysidro, California natural environment. On August 10, providing agency personnel at the 2010, DOS published a notice in the Class A Port of Entry To Include the facility, pursuant to the approved CBX User Fee Facility Federal Register (75 FR 48408) request, to process travelers for announcing the issuance of a The port of San Ysidro, California is application for admission or entry into Presidential permit, effective August 3, included within the San Diego district and departure from the United States. 2010, to Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC for and is listed in 8 CFR 100.4(a) as a Class This rule, which updates the list of the construction, operation, and A port of entry. This rule amends 8 CFR. Class A ports of entry in 8 CFR 100.4(a) maintenance of the CBX facility. 100.4(a) to expand the San Ysidro Class to include the CBX facility within the A port of entry to include the CBX San Ysidro port of entry, simply makes D. Signing Authority facility. the necessary amendments to section 100.4(a) to implement the CBP The signing authority for this II. Statutory and Regulatory Commissioner’s decision to designate document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) Requirements the CBX facility as a user fee facility. It because the establishment of this title 8 A. Inapplicability of Public Notice and is a procedural or organizational rule Class A Port of Entry is not within the Delayed Effective Date Requirements that does not have a substantial impact bounds of those regulations for which on the user fee facility or on the public. Under section 553 of the the Secretary of the Treasury has For this reason, CBP finds that this is a Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 retained sole authority. Accordingly, rule of agency organization, procedure, U.S.C. 553), rulemaking generally this rule may be signed by the Secretary or practice, which is not subject to requires prior notice and comment, and of Homeland Security (or his delegate). notice and comment rulemaking a 30-day delayed effective date, subject pursuant to § 553(b)(3)(A). List Of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 100 to specified exceptions. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), matters relating to B. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Organization and functions agency management or personnel are Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (Government agencies). excepted from the requirements of Because no notice of proposed Amendments to Regulations section 553. rulemaking is required, the provisions This rule expands the San Ysidro of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 For the reasons set forth above, part Class A port of entry to include the CBX U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This 100 of title 8 of the Code of Federal facility. CBP has already designated the amendment does not meet the criteria Regulations (8 CFR part 100) is CBX facility as a user fee facility for a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as amended as set forth below. pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b and has specified in Executive Order 12866, as approved the request for CBP officers to supplemented by Executive Order PART 100—STATEMENT OF provide reimbursable inspection 13563. ORGANIZATION services at the CBX facility to Tijuana airport travelers entering and departing C. The National Environmental Policy ■ the United States at the CBX facility. Act of 1969 1. The authority citation for part 100 Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC, the operator In 2009, the Otay-Tijuana Venture, continues to read as follows: of the facility, will reimburse CBP for LLC applied to the Department of State Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1185 the expenses CBP incurs, including the (DOS) for a Presidential Permit pursuant note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108–458); 8 CFR salary and expenses of CBP officers that to Executive Order 11423, as amended, part 2. will provide the CBP services, in which authorizes the Secretary of State accordance with the approved request. to issue Presidential permits for the § 100.4 [Amended] The approved request to provide such construction, connection, operation, and ■ 2. Amend § 100.4 in paragraph (a), services, and the update to the list of the maintenance of facilities at the borders under the heading ‘‘District No. 39-San Class A ports of entry to reflect this of the United States if he or she finds Diego, California’’, subheading, ‘‘Class approved request directly relates to them to be in the national interest. In A’’, add ‘‘(including the Cross Border CBP’s operations and agency support of its application for a Xpress (CBX) facility)’’ after ‘‘San management and personnel. As such, Presidential permit, Otay-Tijuana Ysidro, CA’’. CBP finds that this rule pertains to a Venture, LLC submitted a draft matter relating to agency management or environmental assessment (EA) Dated: November 30, 2015. personnel within 5 U.S.C 553(a)(2) prepared under the guidance and Jeh Charles Johnson, which is excepted from the prior notice supervision of DOS, consistent with the Secretary. and comment and delayed effective date National Environmental Policy Act [FR Doc. 2015–30616 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] requirements of section 553. (NEPA). This EA examined the effects Additionally, as provided in 5 U.S.C. on the natural and human environment BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 553(b)(3)(A), the prior notice and associated with the construction and comment requirements do not apply establishment of the facility. On when agencies promulgate rules December 29, 2009, DOS provided concerning agency organization, public notice of the draft EA in the procedure, or practice. This rule falls Federal Register (74 FR 68906) and within that category. invited public comment for 45 days. As discussed above, on March 21, On July 23, 2010, DOS published a 2014, the CBP Commissioner approved notice in the Federal Register (75 FR the request from Otay-Tijuana Venture, 43225) announcing that it adopted the LLC for CBP to provide inspection EA and issued a ‘‘Finding of No

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 75633

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DATES: This rule is effective December 3, services destined for or originating in 2015. Fiji. The reasoning behind the change Bureau of Industry and Security FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For stated in the State Department rule was, general questions contact Sharron Cook, ‘‘On September 17, 2014, Fiji’s acting 15 CFR Parts 738, 740, 743, 772 and Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of government followed through on its 774 Industry and Security, U.S. Department longstanding commitment to hold [Docket No. 150304217–5727–02] of Commerce at 202–482 2440 or by democratic elections.’’ There are email: [email protected]. RIN 0694–AG44 specific license exception restrictions For technical questions contact: that pertain to Country Group D:5 that Categories 7 & 9: Daniel Squire 202– Wassenaar Arrangement 2014 Plenary will no longer apply to Fiji. See Part 740 Agreements Implementation and 482–3710 or Reynaldo Garcia 202–482– of the EAR. This revision also affects the Country Policy Amendments; 3462 national security (§ 742.4) and regional Category 8: Michael Tu 202–482–6462 Correction stability (§ 742.6) license review policy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for 9x515 or ‘‘600 series’’ ECCNs when AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. Background destined to Fiji, as well as the application of the de minimis rules ACTION: Correcting amendments. Supplement No. 1 to Part 738— Commerce Country Chart (§ 734.4) for foreign products SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and incorporating controlled U.S. content Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its In the May 21 rule, Argentina and destined to Fiji. Export Administration Regulations South Africa were added to Country (EAR), the Commerce Control List Group A:1. The intent of that rule was Section 743.3 Thermal Imaging (CCL), which identifies certain of the also to harmonize Country Group A:1 Camera Reporting items subject to Department of with national security column 2 and regional stability column 2 of the BIS inadvertently removed a thermal Commerce jurisdiction. This correction imaging camera reporting requirement rule revises the Commerce Country Commerce Country Chart. However, BIS exemption for Canada in the May 21 Chart by implementing revisions that inadvertently did not remove the rule. The reporting requirements for BIS inadvertently omitted from the corresponding Xs for South Africa and ‘‘Wassenaar Arrangement 2014 Plenary Argentina. Therefore, the Commerce thermal imaging cameras are corrected Agreements Implementation and Country Chart is corrected by revising by exempting Canada from the reporting Country Policy Amendments’’ rule the second columns for national requirements, as was the policy prior to published on May 21, 2015 (80 FR security (NS:2), and regional stability the publication of the May 21, 2015, 29442) (‘‘May 21 rule’’), for Argentina (RS:2) in order to harmonize these Wassenaar rule. The exception is added and South Africa. This rule also columns with the newly revised to paragraph (b) of § 743.3 of the EAR. Country Group A:1, making the license implements the Wassenaar Arrangement Part 772—Definitions (WA) agreement to make a clarification requirement consistent with the risk of to the control text for rebreathing diversion to unauthorized end users, This rule removes a reference for equipment that BIS inadvertently did end uses and destinations. Specifically, ‘‘signal analyzer (dynamic) . . .’’ that not make in the May 21 rule. A license this rule would remove the X, i.e., was inadvertently not removed when requirement note indicating jurisdiction license requirement, in the NS:2 the definition for ‘‘dynamic signal is corrected and a related control note Column for South Africa, as well as analyzer’’ was removed from this part. is clarified in an entry on the CCL remove the X in the RS:2 Column for controlling space launch vehicles and Argentina and South Africa, because the Supplement No. 1 to Part 774— ‘‘spacecraft,’’ ‘‘space buses,’’ ‘‘spacecraft risk of diversion to unauthorized Commerce Control List destinations, parties or uses is low for payloads,’’ etc., as the range of the ECCN 8A620—Submersible Vessels, these countries. Both Argentina and reference was incorrectly stated in the Oceanographic and Associated South Africa are WA Participating May 21 rule. The reference concerning Commodities jurisdiction for ‘‘specially designed’’ States, but are not NATO member parts, components, systems and countries. The May 21 rule inadvertently did not structures, for launch vehicles, launch Part 740—Country Groups make a regulatory amendment that vehicle propulsion systems or should have been made to implement a This rule removes Fiji from Country ‘‘spacecraft’’ is corrected in the CCL 2014 Wassenaar Arrangement agreement Group D:5 ‘‘U.S. Arms Embargoed entry controlling such items in this rule. pertaining to diving and underwater In addition, this rule makes one minor Countries,’’ and from Country Group D swimming apparatus specially designed correction to remove Fiji from Column in Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the and modified for military use. The EAR D:5 ‘‘U.S. Arms Embargoed Countries,’’ EAR. This minor correction is not the amendment, which this rule makes, as well as from Country Group D, result of a Wassenaar Arrangement because Fiji is not listed under any agreement, but rather of a final rule replaces paragraph .f with a new other column within Country Group D published by the Department of State on paragraph containing two and because the Department of State May 29, 2015, 80 FR 30614 titled subparagraphs: Subparagraph f.1 for published a final rule that revised the ‘‘Amendment to the International self-contained diving rebreathers, closed International Traffic in Arms Traffic in Arms Regulations: Policy on or semi-closed circuit; and Regulations (ITAR) to rescind the Exports to the Republic of Fiji.’’ The subparagraph f.2 for underwater previous policy of denying the export of State Department’s rule revised ITAR swimming apparatus ‘‘specially defense articles and defense services to § 126.1 to remove Fiji from paragraph designed’’ for use with equipment Fiji. (p), establishing that it is the policy of specified in paragraph f.1. Paragraph f.1 Lastly, this rule removes an outdated the United States to no longer deny narrows the scope by adding the ‘‘self- reference in the Definitions part of the licenses or other approval for exports or contained’’ parameter, while f.2 is an EAR. imports of defense articles and defense expansion of controls.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 75634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

ECCN 9A004 Space Launch Vehicles to Executive Order 13222 as amended aspect of these collections of and ‘‘Spacecraft’’ by Executive Order 13637. information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB Desk Saving Clause The May 21 rule added paragraphs a. Officer, New Executive Office Building, through f. to ECCN 9A004 in order to Shipments of items removed from Washington, DC 20503; and to Jasmeet harmonize that ECCN with the license exception eligibility or eligibility Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, by email at Wassenaar dual-use list entry 9.A.4., for export, reexport, or transfer (in- [email protected] or by even though the controls for these goods country) without a license as a result of fax to (202) 395–7285; and to the Office would be under ECCN 9A515. Because this regulatory action that were on dock of Administration, Bureau of Industry the EAR is used globally for export for loading, on lighter, laden aboard a and Security, Department of Commerce, compliance, BIS decided that it would carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room be easier for people to find these goods a port, on December 3, 2015, pursuant 6622, Washington, DC 20230. on the list where they would expect to to actual orders to a destination, may 3. This rule does not contain policies find them on the European Union List proceed to that destination under the with Federalism implications as that or on the CCL prior to Export Control previous license exception eligibility or term is defined under Executive Order Reform (ECR) (in ECCN 9A004) and without a license so long as they have 13132. then follow the references in ECCN been exported, reexported, or 4. The provisions of the 9A004 to USML Category IV or ECCN transferred (in-country) before February Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 9A515. However, the range of reference 1, 2016. Any such items not actually 553) requiring notice of proposed for the paragraphs impacted by ECCN exported, reexported, or transferred (in- rulemaking, the opportunity for public 9A515 in the License Requirement Note country) before midnight, on February participation, and a 30-day delay in for 9A004.a was incorrect. The range of 1, 2016, require a license in accordance effective date, are inapplicable because reference in the License Requirement with this regulation. this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United Note is corrected to read ‘‘9A004.b Rulemaking Requirements through .f.’’ Also, Note 3 in the Related States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate Controls is revised for clarity. 1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 implementation of these amendments direct agencies to assess all costs and fulfills the United States’ international 9A010 ‘‘Specially Designed’’ ‘‘Parts,’’ benefits of available regulatory obligation to the Wassenaar ‘‘Components,’’ Systems and Structures, alternatives and, if regulation is Arrangement on Export Controls for for Launch Vehicles, Launch Vehicle necessary, to select regulatory Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods Propulsion Systems or ‘‘Spacecraft’’ approaches that maximize net benefits and Technologies. The Wassenaar (including potential economic, Arrangement contributes to The Heading to ECCN 9A010 is environmental, public health and safety corrected by removing the reference to international security and regional effects, distributive impacts, and stability by promoting greater the ITAR for jurisdiction over these equity). Executive Order 13563 items and instead referring to the newly responsibility in transfers of emphasizes the importance of conventional arms and dual use goods added Related Controls paragraph. The quantifying both costs and benefits, of and technologies, thus preventing added Related Controls paragraph refers reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, destabilizing accumulations of such to USML Category IV of the ITAR and and of promoting flexibility. This rule items. The Wassenaar Arrangement ECCN 9A604 for paragraphs 9A010.a, .b has been determined to be not consists of 41 member countries that act and .d, as well as USML Category XV of significant for purposes of Executive on a consensus basis. The corrections the ITAR and ECCN 9A515 for Order 12866. set forth in this rule ensure the correct paragraph 9A010.c. The Related 2. Notwithstanding any other implementation of agreements reached Controls paragraph also refers to provision of law, no person is required at the December 2014 plenary session of Supplement No. 4 to part 774, Order of to respond to, nor shall any person be the WA. Because the United States is a Review, because one is supposed to subject to a penalty for failure to comply significant exporter of the items covered review the referenced ITAR category with a collection of information subject by this rule, implementation of this rule first and if the item is not found there, to the requirements of the Paperwork is necessary for the WA to achieve its then the referenced CCL ECCN should Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 purpose. Any delay in implementation be reviewed to determine classification et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of will create a disruption in the of items specified in ECCN 9A010. information displays a currently valid movement of affected items globally Export Administration Act Office of Management and Budget because of disharmony between export (OMB) Control Number. This rule control measures implemented by WA Although the Export Administration involves two collections of information members. Export controls work best Act expired on August 20, 2001, the subject to the PRA. One of the when all countries implement the same President, through Executive Order collections has been approved by OMB export controls in a timely manner. If 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 under control number 0694–0088, this rulemaking were delayed to allow Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by ‘‘Multi-Purpose Application,’’ and for notice and comment and a 30-day Executive Order 13637 of March 8, carries a burden hour estimate of 58 delay in effectiveness, it would prevent 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and minutes for a manual or electronic the United States from fulfilling its as extended by the Notice of August 7, submission. The other of the collections commitment to the WA in a timely 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015) has been approved by OMB under manner and would injure the credibility has continued the Export control number 0694–0106, ‘‘Reporting of the United States in this and other Administration Regulations in effect and Recordkeeping Requirements under multilateral regimes. under the International Emergency the Wassenaar Arrangement,’’ and The removal of Fiji from Country Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carries a burden hour estimate of 21 Group D:5 also involves a military and carry out the provisions of the Export minutes for a manual or electronic foreign affairs function of the United Administration Act, as appropriate and submission. Send comments regarding States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Country to the extent permitted by law, pursuant these burden estimates or any other Group D:5 identifies countries that are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 75635

subject to a United States arms embargo Accordingly, Parts 738, 740, 743, 772 PART 772 [AMENDED] for purposes of some license and 774 of the Export Administration requirements and license exception Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through ■ 7. The authority citation for part 772 availability. Designating a country as 774) are amended as follows: continues to read as follows: subject to a United States arms embargo is a function of the Department of State. PART 738 [AMENDED] Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 The Department of State has determined U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, ■ that is in the best interests of U.S. 1. The authority citation for part 738 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August foreign policy, national security, and continues to read as follows: 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015). human rights concerns to rescind the Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 § 772.1 [Amended] previous policy of denying the export of U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. defense articles and defense services to 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et ■ 8. In § 772.1, remove the entry ‘‘Signal Fiji. In this rule, BIS is merely recording seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); analyzers. (dynamic) (Cat 3)—(See the removal of the arms embargo in Fiji 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 ‘‘Dynamic signal analyzers’’.)’’ in its regulations to be consistent with U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. the overall U.S. government policy 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. PART 774 [AMENDED] regarding sales of military items that is 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 set by the State Department. Even if BIS Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 ■ 9. The authority citation for part 774 received public comments FR 48233 (August 11, 2015). continues to read as follows: recommending that the arms embargo Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 on Fiji be restored, BIS has no authority Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. to take that action. Incurring the [AMENDED] 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et expense and delay of the notice and ■ 2. Supplement No. 1 is amended by: seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); comment process in a situation where ■ a. Removing the X from the RS:2 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. BIS has no authority to take action in column for Argentina; and 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 response to those comments would be ■ b. Removing the X from the NS:2 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. contrary to the public interest. column and the RS:2 column for South 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. Further, no other law requires that a Africa. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 notice of proposed rulemaking and an Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 opportunity for public comment be PART 740 [AMENDED] FR 48233 (August 11, 2015). given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an ■ 3. The authority citation for part 740 ■ 10. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, opportunity for public comment are not continues to read as follows: Category 8, ECCN 8A620 is amended by required to be given for this rule under Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 revising Items paragraph f., to read as the Administrative Procedure Act or by U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; follows: E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., any other law, the analytical Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—The p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 requirements of the Regulatory Commerce Control List Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 not applicable. Therefore, this FR 48233 (August 11, 2015). * * * * * regulation is issued in final form. ■ 4. Supplement No. 1 to part 740, 8A620 Submersible vessels, oceanographic Although there is no formal comment Country Group D is amended by and associated commodities (see List of period, public comments on this removing the entry for Fiji from the Items Controlled). regulation are welcome on a continuing table. * * * * * basis. Comments should be submitted to Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter PART 743 [AMENDED] List of Items Controlled Services, Bureau of Industry and * * * * * ■ Security, Department of Commerce, 5. The authority citation for part 743 Items: continues to read as follows: 14th and Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room * * * * * 2099, Washington, DC 20230. Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 f. Diving and underwater swimming U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, List of Subjects apparatus specially designed or modified for 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13637 of military use, as follows: March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 15 CFR Parts 738 and 772 f.1. Self-contained diving rebreathers, 2013); 78 FR 16129; Notice of August 7, 2015, Exports. 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015). closed or semi-closed circuit; f.2. Underwater swimming apparatus 15 CFR Part 740 ■ 6. Section 743.3 is amended by specially designed for use with the diving revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: apparatus specified in subparagraph f.1; Administrative practice and N.B.: See also 8A002.q. procedure, Exports, Reporting and § 743.3 Thermal imaging camera reporting. recordkeeping requirements. * * * * * * * * * * (b) Transactions to be reported. 15 CFR Part 743 ■ 11. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Exports that are not authorized by an Category 9, ECCN 9A004 is amended by: Administrative practice and individually validated license of ■ procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping thermal imaging cameras controlled by a. Revising the License Requirement requirements. ECCN 6A003.b.4.b to a destination in Note in the License Requirements Country Group A:1 (see Supplement No. section; and 15 CFR Part 774 1 to part 740 of the EAR), except ■ b. Revising Note 3 in the Related Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping Canada, must be reported to BIS. Controls paragraph of the List of Items requirements. * * * * * Controlled section, to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 75636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

9A004 Space Launch Vehicles and Avenue Bridge across the English Kills, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ‘‘Spacecraft,’’ ‘‘Spacecraft Buses,’’ mile 3.4, at New York City, New York. AGENCY ‘‘Spacecraft Payloads,’’ ‘‘Spacecraft’’ On- This deviation is necessary to perform board Systems or Equipment, and Terrestrial operating machinery installation. This 40 CFR Part 52 Equipment, as Follows (see List of Items Controlled). deviation allows the bridge to remain in [EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0400; FRL–9939–47– the closed position for approximately 3 Region 6] License Requirements days. * * * * * Approval and Promulgation of DATES: This deviation is effective from License Requirements Note: 9A004.b Implementation Plans; New Mexico; through .f are controlled under ECCN 9A515. 6 a.m. on December 7, 2015 to 5 p.m. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; on December 10, 2015. * * * * * Infrastructure and Interstate Transport ADDRESSES: The docket for this State Implementation Plan for the 2008 List of Items Controlled deviation, [USCG–2015–1019] is Lead National Ambient Air Quality Related Controls*** (3) See USML available at http://www.regulations.gov. Standards Categories IV for the space launch vehicles and XV for other spacecraft that are ‘‘subject FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If AGENCY: Environmental Protection to the ITAR’’ (see 22 CFR parts 120 through you have questions on this temporary Agency (EPA). 130). deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. ACTION: Final rule. * * * * * Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State ■ 12. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774, Guard District, telephone (212) 514– 4330, email [email protected]. Implementation Plan (SIP) submission Category 9, ECCN 9A010 is amended by: from the Governor of New Mexico for ■ a. Revising the Heading; and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New York the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo ■ b. Adding a Related Controls Note to City DOT requested this temporary County for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National the List of Items Controlled Section, to deviation from the normal operating Ambient Air Quality Standards read as follows: schedule to perform operating (NAAQS). The submittal addresses how 9A010 ‘‘Specially Designed’’ ‘‘Parts,’’ machinery installation. the existing SIP provides for ‘‘Components,’’ Systems and Structures, for The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, implementation, maintenance, and Launch Vehicles, Launch Vehicle Propulsion mile 3.4, across the English Kills has a enforcement of the 2008 Pb NAAQS Systems or ‘‘Spacecraft’’. (See Related vertical clearance in the closed position (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP Controls paragraph.) of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet ensures that the State’s SIP for List of Items Controlled at mean low water. The existing bridge Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is Related Controls: (1) See USML Category operating regulations are found at 33 adequate to meet the state’s IV of the International Traffic in Arms CFR 117.801(e). responsibilities under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including the four Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 The waterway has one commercial CAA requirements for interstate through 130) and ECCN 9A604 for facility located upstream of the bridge. paragraphs 9A010.a, .b and .d. (2) See USML transport of Pb emissions. Category XV of the ITAR and ECCN 9A515 Under this temporary deviation, the DATES: This final rule is effective on for paragraph 9A010.c. (3) See Supplement Metropolitan Avenue Bridge may January 4, 2016. No. 4 to part 774, Order of Review for remain in the closed position from 6 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a guidance on the process for determining a.m. on December 7, 2015 through 5 docket for this action under Docket ID classification of items. p.m. on December 10, 2015. No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0400. All * * * * * Vessels able to pass through the documents in the docket are listed on Dated: November 23, 2015. bridge in the closed positions may do so the http://www.regulations.gov Web Kevin J. Wolf, at any time. The bridge will not be able site. Although listed in the index, some Assistant Secretary for Export to open for emergencies and there is no information is not publicly available, Administration. immediate alternate route for vessel to e.g., Confidential Business Information [FR Doc. 2015–30253 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] pass. or other information whose disclosure is BILLING CODE 3510–33–P The Coast Guard will also inform the restricted by statute. Certain other users of the waterways through our material, such as copyrighted material, Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners is not placed on the Internet and will be DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND of the change in operating schedule for publicly available only in hard copy SECURITY the bridge so that vessels can arrange form. Publicly available docket their transits to minimize any impact materials are available either Coast Guard caused by the temporary deviation. electronically through http:// In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 33 CFR Part 117 the drawbridge must return to its regular EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. [Docket No. USCG–2015–1019] operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drawbridge Operation Regulation; temporary deviation. This deviation Tracie Donaldson, 214–665–6633, English Kills, New York City, NY from the operating regulations is [email protected]. authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Throughout this document wherever Dated: November 18, 2015. ACTION: Notice of deviation from ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean drawbridge regulation. C.J. Bisignano, the EPA. Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a First Coast Guard District. I. Background temporary deviation from the operating [FR Doc. 2015–30587 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] The background for this action is schedule that governs the Metropolitan BILLING CODE 9110–04–P discussed in detail in our September 11,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 75637

2015, proposal (80 FR 54739). In that under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 the Comptroller General of the United document, we proposed that the U.S.C. 601 et seq.); States prior to publication of the rule in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New • Does not contain any unfunded the Federal Register. A major rule Mexico i-SIP submittal for the 2008 Pb mandate or significantly or uniquely cannot take effect until 60 days after it NAAQS met the requirements for an i- affect small governments, as described is published in the Federal Register. SIP, including the requirements for in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as interstate transport of Pb emissions. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action is being taken under section • Does not have Federalism Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 110 of the Act. We did not receive any implications as specified in Executive petitions for judicial review of this comments regarding our proposed Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, action must be filed in the United States approval. 1999); Court of Appeals for the appropriate • II. Final Action Is not an economically significant circuit by February 1, 2016. Filing a regulatory action based on health or petition for reconsideration by the We are approving the May 2, 2012, i- safety risks subject to Executive Order Administrator of this final rule does not SIP submission from Albuquerque- 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); affect the finality of this action for the Bernalillo County New Mexico, which • Is not a significant regulatory action purposed of judicial review nor does it addresses the requirements of CAA subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR extend the time within which a petition sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable 28355, May 22, 2001); for judicial review may be filed, and to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, we • Is not subject to requirements of shall not postpone the effectiveness of are approving the following section 12(d) of the National such rule or action. This action may not infrastructure elements: 110(a)(2)(A), Technology Transfer and Advancement be challenged later in proceedings to (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because enforce its requirements. (See section and (M). We are also approving the application of those requirements would 307(b)(2)). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; demonstration that it meets the four and List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 statutory requirements for interstate • Does not provide EPA with the Environmental protection, Air transport of Pb emissions. discretionary authority to address, as pollution control, Incorporation by III. Statutory and Executive Order appropriate, disproportionate human reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reviews health or environmental effects, using Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping Under the CAA, the Administrator is practicable and legally permissible requirements. methods, under Executive Order 12898 required to approve a SIP submission Dated: November 17, 2015. that complies with the provisions of the (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved Ron Curry, Act and applicable Federal regulations. Regional Administrator, Region 6. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). to apply on any Indian reservation land Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, or in any other area where EPA or an 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Indian tribe has demonstrated that a provided that they meet the criteria of tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of PART 52—APPROVAL AND the CAA. Accordingly, this action Indian country, the rule does not have PROMULGATION OF merely approves state law as meeting tribal implications and will not impose IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Federal requirements and does not substantial direct costs on tribal ■ impose additional requirements beyond governments or preempt tribal law as 1. The authority citation for part 52 those imposed by state law. For that specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 continues to read as follows: reason, this action: FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory The Congressional Review Act, 5 action’’ subject to review by the Office U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Subpart GG—New Mexico of Management and Budget under Business Regulatory Enforcement Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides ■ 2. In § 52.1620(e), the second table October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, that before a rule may take effect, the entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory January 21, 2011); agency promulgating the rule must Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory • Does not impose an information submit a rule report, which includes a Measures in the New Mexico SIP’’ is collection burden under the provisions copy of the rule, to each House of the amended by adding an entry at the end of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the table to read as follows: U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); of the United States. EPA will submit a • Is certified as not having a report containing this action and other § 52.1620 Identification of plan. significant economic impact on a required information to the U.S. Senate, * * * * * substantial number of small entities the U.S. House of Representatives, and (e) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 75638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP

State Applicable geographic or submittal/ Name of SIP provision nonattainment area effective EPA approval date Explanation date

******* Infrastructure and Interstate Albuquerque-Bernalillo Coun- 5/2/2012 12/3/2015, [insert Federal Transport for the 2008 Pb ty. Register citation]. NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2015–30541 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:09 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 75639

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 232

Thursday, December 3, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Instructions: All submissions received types of floor coverings have contains notices to the public of the proposed must include the agency name and pronounced differences in slip issuance of rules and regulations. The docket number for this proposed resistance, many flooring materials will purpose of these notices is to give interested rulemaking. All comments received may be inappropriate for specific uses. persons an opportunity to participate in the be posted without change, including Petitioner states that the primary focus rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. any personal identifiers, contact of the petition is to protect the elderly, information, or other personal a population petitioner believes to be information provided, to: http:// most vulnerable to the risk of slip and CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY www.regulations.gov. Do not submit fall events. As an example, petitioner COMMISSION confidential business information, trade cites that in 2014, more than 23,000 secret information, or other sensitive or elderly Americans died as a result of 16 CFR Part 1408 protected information that you do not accidental falls. Furthermore, petitioner want to be available to the public. If [Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033] notes that the CDC stated that in 2013, furnished at all, such information the direct medical costs of older adult Petition for Labeling Requirements should be submitted in writing. falls was approximately $34 billion. Regarding Slip Resistance of Floor Docket: For access to the docket to Petitioner states that slip resistance Coverings; Request for Comments read background documents or labeling would be analogous to the comments received, go to: http:// requirements for labeling nutritional AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety www.regulations.gov, and insert the content in food, noting that labeling Commission. docket number, CPSC–2015–0033, into regarding flooring slip resistance would ACTION: Notice of petition for the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the allow consumers to make more rulemaking. prompts. A copy of the petition is informed decisions when selecting a available at http://www.regulations.gov flooring product, enabling elderly SUMMARY: The United States Consumer under Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033, consumers to select flooring that offers Product Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or Supporting and Related Materials. higher slip resistance, potentially ‘‘Commission’’) received a petition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reducing the risk of accidental slip and requesting that the Commission initiate Todd Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, fall events. rulemaking under the Consumer U.S. Consumer Product Safety By this notice, the Commission seeks Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) to require Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West comments concerning this petition. that manufacturers of floor coverings, Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; Interested parties may obtain a copy of floor coverings with coatings, and telephone (301) 504–6833. the petition by writing or calling the treated floor coverings label their SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer products’ slip resistance in accordance Commission received a petition Product Safety Commission, Room 820, with the applicable American National requesting that manufacturers of floor 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) standard. coverings, floor coverings with coatings, 20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. A The Commission invites written and treated floor coverings (herein copy of the petition is also available for comments concerning the petition. abbreviated as ‘‘floor coverings’’) be viewing under ‘‘Supporting and Related DATES: The Office of the Secretary must required to label their products to Materials’’ in www.regulations.gov, receive comments on the petition by provide point-of-sale information under Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033. February 1, 2016. regarding such products’ degree of slip Dated: November 25, 2015. resistance, in accordance with the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Todd A. Stevenson, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2015– labeling requirements of ANSI B101.5– 2014.1 Specifically, petitioner requests a Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 0033, by any of the following methods: Commission. Electronic Submissions: Submit rule that would require a label [FR Doc. 2015–30440 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] electronic comments to the Federal indicating the slip resistance (also eRulemaking Portal at: http:// known as ‘‘coefficient of friction’’ or BILLING CODE 6355–01–P www.regulations.gov. Follow the ‘‘COF’’) for floor coverings based on instructions for submitting comments. tests described in ANSI B101.1 and The Commission does not accept B101.3. The required label would DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comments submitted by electronic mail provide a graphic of a traction scale and (email), except through indicate the COF value for the product. Federal Transit Administration www.regulations.gov. The Commission The petition was filed by the National encourages you to submit electronic Floor Safety Institute. Petitioner notes 49 CFR Part 672 comments by using the Federal that manufacturers of floor coverings eRulemaking Portal, as described above. currently are not required to provide [Docket No. FTA–2015–0014] Written Submissions: Submit written consumers with information relating to submissions by mail/hand delivery/ slip resistance of their products. RIN 2132–AB25 Petitioner asserts that because different courier to: Office of the Secretary, Public Transportation Safety Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1 The petition does not apply to floor coatings, Certification Training Program Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, such as waxes, that are sold separately or to Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) coverings such as carpets, rugs, mats, runners or AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 504–7923. artificial turf. (FTA), DOT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12– evaluation of non-FTA sponsored safety request for comments. 140, Washington, DC 20590 between training for credit towards applicable 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday PTSCTP requirements; (2) require SUMMARY: The Federal Transit through Friday except Federal holidays. designated personnel to complete a Administration (FTA) seeks public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For minimum of one hour of refresher safety comment on a notice of proposed program issues, contact Ruth Lyons, training every two years as determined rulemaking (NPRM) for safety FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight, by his or her employer; (3) require certification training. FTA proposes to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., recipients to maintain administrative adopt the current interim safety Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202– records and ensure a participant’s certification training provisions as the 366–2233 or email: Ruth.Lyons@ curriculum completion status is initial regulatory training requirements dot.gov). For legal issues, contact Bruce updated periodically; and (4) require for public transportation industry Walker, FTA, Office of Chief Counsel, SSOAs and recipients that operate rail personnel responsible for safety same address, (telephone: 202–366– fixed guideway systems not regulated by oversight of public transportation 9109 or email: [email protected]). the Federal Railroad Administration systems. The NPRM defines to whom Office hours are Monday through Friday (FRA) to annually certify compliance the training requirements apply, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST), except with the rule as a condition of receiving describes recordkeeping requirements, Federal holidays. Chapter 53 funding. provides administrative provisions, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: compliance requirements. Legal Authority I. Executive Summary DATES: Comments must be received by This rulemaking is issued under the II. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) which February 1, 2016. FTA will accept late- III. Overview of the Proposed Rule filed comments to the extent IV. Interim Program Curriculum and requires the Secretary of Transportation practicable. Technical Training Requirements to prescribe a public transportation V. Section-by-Section Analysis safety certification training program for ADDRESSES: Please submit your VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis Federal and State employees, or other comments by only one of the following VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices designated personnel, who conduct methods: safety audits and examinations of public • I. Executive Summary Online: Use the Federal transportation systems, as well as eRulemaking portal at http:// In the Moving Ahead for Progress in employees of public transportation www.regulations.gov and follow the the 21st Century Act (MAP–21; Pub. L. agencies directly responsible for safety instructions for submitting comments. 112–141, July 6, 2012), Congress oversight. The Secretary is authorized to • U.S. Mail: Send your comments to directed FTA to establish a issue regulations to carry out the general the Docket Management Facility, U.S. comprehensive Public Transportation provisions of this statutory requirement Department of Transportation, 1200 Safety Program (codified at 49 U.S.C. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7). New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, 5329), one element of which is the Washington, DC 20590–0001. Public Transportation Safety Summary of Key Provisions • Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to Certification Training Program Similar to the interim program, the Room W12–140 on the ground floor of (PTSCTP). The purpose of today’s focus of the proposed rule would be on the West Building, U.S. Department of NPRM is to carry out the statutory enhancing the technical proficiency of Transportation headquarters, 1200 New mandate to provide a framework to safety oversight professionals in the rail Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and enhance the technical proficiency of transit industry. To that end, this 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through those directly responsible for safety proposed rule would incorporate the Friday except Federal holidays. oversight of public transportation curriculum set forth in Section V of the • Telefax: Send your comments to systems. Federal Register notice promulgating 202–493–2251. This proposed rulemaking would the interim program. FTA may Instructions: All comments must incorporate the curriculum promulgated periodically update the curriculum include the docket number for this recently for the interim provisions for following a period for public notice and rulemaking: FTA–2015–0014. Submit safety certification training (interim comment. This approach is similar to two copies of your comments if you program) as the training requirements that of the National Transit Database submit them by mail. For confirmation for the PTSCTP. The interim program (NTD) rule at 49 CFR part 630 in which that FTA received your comments, curriculum and training requirements the Reporting Manuals set forth include a self-addressed, stamped may be found in Section V of the reporting requirements. FTA postcard. All comments received will be Federal Register notice promulgating periodically updates the manuals with posted without change to http:// the interim program at: https:// public notice and an opportunity for www.regulations.gov, including any www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/ stakeholders to comment. FTA believes personal information provided. Please 02/27/2015-03842/interim-safety- this proposal would provide for a see the Privacy Act heading under certification-training-program- consistent and stable curriculum as the ‘‘Supplementary Information,’’ below, provisions. public transportation industry for Privacy Act information pertinent to The NPRM provides a regulatory acclimates to the requirement for safety any submitted comments or materials, framework for safety certification oversight training. and you may review DOT’s complete training for personnel who are directly The proposed rule would reflect the Privacy Act Statement published in the responsible for safety oversight of public interim program in that mandatory Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at transportation systems and the State participants would continue to be State 65 FR 19477. personnel who conduct safety audits Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) Docket Access: For access to and examinations of rail transportation personnel and contractors, and background documents and comments systems. Besides incorporating the designated personnel of rail transit received in the rulemaking docket, go to interim program curriculum and agencies not otherwise regulated by http://www.regulations.gov or to the training requirements, this proposal another Federal agency. Employees or U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 would: (1) Permit participants to request contractors of entities providing safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75641

oversight of bus operations would be training to the transit industry, albeit on would garner a 2 percent reduction in permitted to participate on a voluntary a voluntary basis. Using this data and costs associated with fatalities and basis. Participants would continue to our familiarity with how SSOAs are ‘‘serious’’ injuries. Based on the analysis have three years to complete the initial organized, we developed a maximum for the, SSO NPRM, for the benefits to requirements for the PTSCTP. and minimum number of personnel, to break even with the costs to both SSOs Participation in the interim program include employees and contractors that and rail transit agencies, the rule only would be credited towards meeting the would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next, would require a 1.23 percent reduction initial three-year PTSCTP completion using the same data from TSI, we of the accident costs per year, which did requirements. The three-year timeframe determined the number of rail transit not include potentially significant for new participants would commence personnel that would be affected by the unquantified costs related to property upon their enrollment in the PTSCTP. PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number damage and disruption. The SSO Another key proposal is the of FTA personnel who participate in program is reliant on the PTSCTP for requirement for SSOAs and recipients safety audits and examinations and part of its safety improvements. While that operate rail fixed guideway systems determined the number of FTA the SSO NPRM proposed to improve not regulated by the Federal Railroad personnel that would be required to SSO and rail transit agency processes, Administration (FRA) to ensure its undergo some level of training and the PTSCTP improves the requisite designated personnel are enrolled in the certification. In developing annual costs human capital within the SSO program PTSCTP electronic database maintained for personnel that would attend the by improving the training and by by FTA and to monitor their PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and making mandatory training for those participation towards completing maximum case scenario. designated personnel charged with applicable training requirements. In For the minimum case, we assumed safety oversight at SSO and rail transit addition, SSOAs would be required to that all designated personnel under this agencies. maintain administrative records of the program already had completed the participation of its designated personnel Transit Safety and Security Program II. Advance Notice of Proposed in applicable technical training as (TSSP) Certificate and would require Rulemaking outlined in the SSOA’s FTA-approved only the safety management system On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an technical training plan. (SMS) portion of the coursework Advance Notice of Proposed Unlike the interim program, FTA is described in Section IV of this notice. Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal proposing a process for participants to For the maximum case, we assumed that Register on all aspects of FTA’s safety request review of documented training no one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP authority, including the training obtained from sources other than FTA Certificate. In this case, all designated program. (See 78 FR 61251, http:// for credit towards the equivalent personnel would have to take and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/ PTSCTP training. In addition, FTA is complete both the TSSP and SMS pdf/2013-23921.pdf). proposing that mandatory participants coursework over the allotted 3-year In the ANPRM, FTA noted that there be required to undertake at least one period. Using these assumptions, we are discrete and different skill-sets hour of refresher training every two estimate an approximate maximum cost required for those who perform safety years on a safety subject determined by of $2.6 million per year, of which up to audit and examination functions his or her employer. The timeframe for 80 percent may be funded with FTA compared to those who are directly determining the two-year refresher funds. responsible for safety oversight. For training period would commence To assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, example, at the Federal level, FTA’s following completion of the initial we considered how other transportation responsibilities include ensuring that PTSCTP. modes that are in the process of SSOA personnel are properly trained Lastly, each SSOA and recipient that implementing SMS or similar and adequately resourced to regulate operates a rail fixed guideway system systematic approaches to safety have rail transit systems within their not regulated by the FRA would be estimated the benefits of their programs respective jurisdictions. At the State required to certify compliance with the in reducing incidents, adverse level, SSOA personnel are responsible PTSCTP requirements as part of FTA’s outcomes, and improving the industry’s for direct safety oversight of those rail procedures for annual grant certification safety culture. It is difficult to quantify transit systems under their jurisdiction. and assurances. Should FTA determine the effects of a positive safety culture as And on the local level, public an SSOA or recipient is not in a safety culture will develop over time. transportation agency personnel are compliance with the PTSCTP, the Characteristics of a positive safety directly responsible for developing and Administrator would have discretion to culture include: Actively seeking out implementing safety oversight within withhold Chapter 53 funds following information on hazards; employee their respective agencies. Recognizing notice and an opportunity for the training; information exchanges; and this distinction, FTA outlined its vision recipient to respond. understanding that responsibility for for the PTSCTP which included a With this NPRM, FTA is seeking safety is shared. While the returns on wholly new FTA-sponsored training comment on its proposal to incorporate investment in training should be fairly curriculum to enhance the technical the interim program curriculum and quick, establishing, promoting, and proficiency of safety oversight technical training requirements as the increasing safety, even in an industry professionals in the public initial training requirements for the that is very safe, is difficult to predict transportation industry. PTSCTP. Additionally, FTA seeks with any certainty. Consistent with In the ANPRM, FTA noted that comments of its proposed regulatory other recent rulemakings issued by the pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2), it framework for the PTSCTP. Department on SMS, we conducted a would promulgate an interim program breakeven analysis. As explained for safety certification training prior to Costs and Benefits further in Section VI, for the State Safety developing a proposed rule for the As discussed in greater detail below, Oversight (SSO) NPRM published in the PTSCTP. On April 30, 2014, FTA FTA reviewed data from the Federal Register on February 27, 2015 published a Federal Register notice Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), the at 80 FR 11002, FTA estimated that the requesting comment on its proposed entity that provides substantial safety SSO program revisions realistically requirements for the interim program. A

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

number of the proposed requirements Some commenters suggested that FTA is a requirement for the interim program for the interim program were based in focus on developing a safety program and a proposed requirement for the part, on recommendations provided by that recognizes the six key functions of PTSCTP. However, FTA does not commenters on the ANPRM (see 79 FR bus safety identified in the 2003 believe the initial requirements for the 24363). Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) PTSCTP should include NIMS or OSHA FTA evaluated comments received in signed by FTA and the Federal Motor training standards because a primary response to the proposed interim Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). objective of the initial requirements is to program notice and promulgated the Those functions include management, promote a common framework for final interim program requirements in a operations and maintenance, human developing SMS principles across the Federal Register notice dated February resources, safety activities, security industry. 27, 2015, with an effective date of May activities, and emergency/all hazards The curriculum proposed for the 28, 2015 (see 80 FR 10619). Since the management. A few commenters stated PTSCTP would include a risk-based interim program was implemented only that FTA should develop clear and approach for analyzing and mitigating recently, FTA has not had sufficient workable guidelines for safety safety risks. It also would leverage opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness certification training and accommodate existing FTA-sponsored training for all of the program, nor assess lessons the differing needs of small, medium recipients including State DOTs, and learned. However, to implement the and large agencies in those both rural and urban bus transit requirement of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) via requirements. providers. Accordingly, FTA concurs a regulatory framework, FTA is Three commenters indicated that the with the commenters who indicated that proposing with this rule that the PTSCTP called for in MAP–21 only bus safety training should include the curriculum for the PTSCTP remain the applies to the SSO program and does six key functions of bus safety as same as that of the interim program. not require specific training identified in the FTA/FMCSA MOU Some comments on the ANPRM were requirements for State Department of signed in 2003. FTA proposes to outside the scope of the questions posed Transportation (State DOT) staff continue offering the Bus Safety and, therefore, are not addressed in this involved in managing federal funds. program and other bus safety-related notice. However, many of the comments Two commenters stated that defining course offerings as a voluntary and recommendations were instructive training outcomes and competency component of the PTSCTP. for developing both the interim program areas is not an appropriate role for FTA FTA also concurs with the and this NPRM. What follows is a and should be left up to the commenters who indicated that discussion of relevant ANPRM determination of a transit agency and personnel who may be subject to both comments, development of the interim based on the scope, scale and FRA and FTA training requirements program requirements, and the complexity of fixed facilities, systems should not be subject to redundant regulatory framework proposed for the and operating environment. training. Accordingly, the PTSCTP PTSCTP. Commenters also suggested the would not apply to personnel of rail Question 48. In the ANPRM, FTA following: proposed organizing the training around • Since a culture of safety already transit agencies subject to the a series of competencies and basic skills exists in rural transit, FTA should jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad that Federal, State, and public transit consider flexible, scalable approaches Administration (e.g., commuter agency safety oversight personnel need that use training programs that have a railroads). to perform their respective proven track record for driver training, FTA agrees that State DOT personnel responsibilities. To that end, FTA vehicle maintenance, and drug and involved in managing federal funds that proposed a wholly new FTA-sponsored alcohol compliance; are passed on to subrecipients are not safety training curriculum, provided a • there needs to be a concerted effort likely to be charged with safety list of competencies and technical to drill down on safety concerns that oversight responsibilities. But the State capabilities supported by the cause the greatest risk in cost and life DOT is responsible for ensuring that curriculum, and sought comment and focus on improving those areas; subrecipients adhere to all applicable regarding what other safety-related • the FTA Safety Certification Federal requirements. We emphasize competency areas or training outcomes Program requirement should allow FRA- that this rule does not propose should be identified for the PTSCTP. regulated properties the flexibility to mandatory training requirements for Thirty commenters responded comply with FRA safety training State DOT personnel who perform directly to the question or provided regulations without requiring safety oversight roles for non-rail public comments relative to the issue. A few additional, redundant training and transportation systems. commenters indicated that the FTA list certification requirements. Question 49. FTA next asked whether sufficiently covered all safety-related FTA response: As discussed further in all of the competencies listed in the competency areas. Several commenters Section IV of this notice, FTA is ANPRM are necessary for personnel identified safety-related competency undertaking this proposed rulemaking with safety oversight responsibilities. areas for inclusion in the PTSCTP, such in accordance with the authority Twenty-nine commenters responded as: Incident investigation, emergency granted under 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). FTA directly to the question or provided response, fundamental safety recognizes that one size will not fit all; comments related to the issue. Several management concepts and processes, therefore, the curriculum proposed for commenters agreed that the methods for the identification, the PTSCTP is designed to be scalable competencies identified in the ANPRM assessment and evaluation of hazards, and flexible, especially for State DOTs are necessary to craft a comprehensive safety assurance methods, measurement and the bus transit industry. safety training program that addresses and evaluation of safety management In response to the commenters who the various hazards and threats faced by processes and mitigation strategies, provided a list of safety-related public transportation systems. A couple National Incident Management System competency areas for consideration, of these commenters added that the (NIMS) training, and Occupational FTA notes that many of those current FTA-sponsored training is not Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) competency areas are included in the sufficient and transit agencies will need standards. current curriculum for the TSSP, which more than the current training programs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75643

in order to successfully comply with TSSP curriculum is being updated and One commenter indicated that it new safety requirements. FTA is proposing additional courses for would be costly to require a person to Two commenters indicated that the the PTSCTP that focus on SMS complete the training before a recipient competencies identified were principles. This approach aligns with could hire that person. Another unnecessary. One of the commenters FTA’s adoption of the SMS framework commenter stated that both approaches stated the current program is overly to enhance safety while effectively have problems. The commenter noted broad and beyond the capacity of many leveraging a curriculum and training that if an agency hires inexperienced small operators. The other commenter model familiar to the industry. FTA people with no training and provides recommended that FTA utilize safety believes its approach to the interim the training once aboard, the agency training offered through the American program and the proposed will have trained but inexperienced Public Transportation Association implementation of the PTSCTP people. On the other hand, an employee (APTA). Another commenter indicated adequately addresses commenter’s needs to learn the details of the transit that training should cover the four SMS concerns regarding costs, scalability and business which cannot be taught principles and strategies for controlling flexibility for the transit industry. entirely in the classroom. The risk. Several commenters indicated that Question 50. In the ANPRM, FTA did commenter noted that if a state agency the competencies required for a small, not propose a timeframe for safety hires only those that have the requisite rural, bus-only agency are far different oversight personnel to complete the training, the agency will have people than those required in a large, urban, safety certification training with the minimum qualifications to do multi-modal agency. They noted that requirements. However, the following the job but may still require agencies with fewer risk factors should question was posed to obtain the considerable on-the-job training in order be allowed to work within standards industry’s perspective on the issue: to prepare them to actually perform the appropriate to their risk profile. A few Should personnel be required to obtain requirements of a regulator. commenters stated they do not see a certification prior to starting a position, Lastly, a commenter stated that since need for the rules to prescribe specific or should they be given a specific there are no current certification training requirements for State DOT timeframe to obtain safety certification requirements for bus transit, time to staff involved in managing federal funds after starting a position? obtain the certification would be that are passed on to subrecipients. Forty-seven commenters responded appropriate. The commenter also stated Other commenters suggested the directly to the question or provided that personnel performing any specific following: function or task in a rail system should • Advanced SMS Principles for Rail comments relative to the question. Forty be certified before being allowed to Transit can probably be combined with commenters indicated they do not independently perform in that capacity. Level 100 SMS Principles for Rail believe personnel should be required to Transit, and Level 300 SMS Risk obtain certification prior to starting a FTA response. The objective of safety Control Strategies can probably be position, and a new hire should be certification training is to enhance the combined with Level 201 Advanced given a period of time to obtain technical proficiency of those SMS Risk Management; necessary certifications. Many of the responsible for safety oversight of public • public transportation agencies commenters noted that it would be more transportation systems. FTA recognizes should determine which competencies effective to attend required safety that in order for any proposed are necessary for the scope, scale and certification training concurrently with regulatory requirements to be complexity of their fixed facilities, on-the-job training. Otherwise, it would implemented practically, issues of systems and operating environments; limit the pool of qualified candidates for resource allocation and availability • many transit safety professionals safety positions if personnel were must be considered. To that end, FTA already have the majority of the specific required to obtain certification prior to concurs with those commenters who competencies listed. Emphasis may be starting a position. Commenters also indicated that it could be overly placed on specific SMS areas where noted that agencies should have the burdensome to limit the pool of gaps exist based on the transit agency’s flexibility to customize training to available applicants to only those that safety risk analysis. address their unique safety concerns, have completed the proposed training FTA response. A similar question was size, and management structure. requirements. For this reason, the posed in the Federal Register notice for Further, commenters noted that interim program provides designated the interim program dated April 30, currently it is difficult to recruit and personnel three years from the date of 2014. Commenters to both notices hire safety professionals; therefore, the recipient’s initial designation to indicated that the existing FTA- requiring certification prior to starting a complete the interim program sponsored training already includes position would only increase the requirements. FTA is proposing the many of the competencies FTA difficulty. same three-year timeframe to complete identified as necessary to implement a A few commenters stated that the initial PTSCTP requirements. FTA safety certification training program. personnel should be required to obtain believes this approach adequately Consequently, FTA reviewed the TSI all safety certification prior to starting a balances concerns with personnel curriculum and concurs that the courses position because lack of appropriate training requirements and the for the TSSP Certificate sufficiently training could potentially put the public recipient’s resource management cover many of the competency areas at risk. One commenter stated that both requirements. that FTA identified; therefore, FTA will options should be available depending Question 51. In the ANPRM, FTA did leverage the curriculum for the TSSP on the position occupied. For instance, not propose a specific timeframe for program instead of developing a wholly at the director level and higher, an how often safety oversight personnel new curriculum for the PTSCTP. individual should have experience with should be required to undergo refresher As suggested by commenters the principles of SMS and program training requirements. However, we did however, FTA agrees that the existing development. At lower levels, a certain ask the following question to obtain the TSSP curriculum should be revised to amount of on-the-job training could be public’s perspective on the needed better reflect SMS principles. incorporated in an individual’s frequency: How often should personnel Accordingly, as noted in Section IV, the development plan. be required to receive refresher training?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Forty-seven commenters responded framework adopted by FTA. To that oversight including: The entire System directly to the question or provided end, proposed training requirements Safety Department and the divisions comments relative to the issue. Several will be driven by safety data in under it; agency leadership, operations commenters indicated that personnel conjunction with safety trend analysis. managers, supervisors, and safety staff; should be required to receive refresher FTA will periodically review safety data the Director of Safety, the Risk training either every two or three years. and trends which may indicate a need Management Department and various Some commenters recommended for FTA to revise refresher training safety departments and trainers that are refresher training every three to five requirements. However, any revisions contractor specific; Safety Managers; years. A few commenters thought will be subject to notice and comment Bus and Rail Managers; the responsible refresher training should be conducted prior to becoming effective. Executive; Safety Operations Manager; annually. Two commenters stated that FTA agrees with the commenters who and Safety Administrators (Bus, Rail). depending on the number of courses indicated that refresher training should Some commenters noted that in their required and the length of the training occur every two years following the organizations every employee has a curriculum, refresher training should initial three-year timeframe for responsibility for safety. A number of occur somewhere between every one to completing safety certification training the commenters also noted that overall five years. requirements. Since any refresher authority and responsibility was vested A few commenters indicated that training should be relevant to a in a number of individuals, including personnel should receive refresher recipient’s specific circumstances, the the General Manager/Transit Director, training on an as-needed basis to keep recipient will be in the best position to Chief Operating Officer/Operations them up-to-date on new safety standards determine the subject matter and Manager, Facilities Managers, and changes to existing safety standards. timeframe that should be allotted for Maintenance Manager, and the Chief Some commenters suggested that the refresher training. However, FTA Safety Officer and staff. A few primary concern should be the quality, believes that at minimum, one hour of commenters stated that FTA already has not the quantity or frequency of refresher training every two years a process for identifying safety-sensitive refresher training. In addition, should be required. The minimum personnel subject to its Drug and commenters suggested the following: requirement of one hour of biannual Alcohol Testing program requirements • Frequency of training should be left refresher training strikes an appropriate and recommended that FTA adopt a to the discretion of the recipient; balance that reinforces safety oversight similar process to identify those subject • FTA should regularly convene training while recognizing that each to the safety rules. Two commenters those responsible for public recipient can best determine refresher noted that this decision should be at the transportation safety oversight at the training that is appropriate for its safety discretion of the transit agency as some Federal, State, and agency level to oversight personnel. agencies, because of size, may have a discuss safety critical risks. These Questions 52 and 53. In the ANPRM, person serving as the safety person in discussions should focus on trends in FTA posed a series of questions to assist addition to other duties. Two other public transportation safety risks, safety with identifying the universe of commenters stated that it varies risk management practices and risk potential personnel that may be subject depending on the size of the agency and control strategies; to the PTSCPT requirements. Question the position should be identified by the • the frequency of refresher training 52 sought to identify which transit transit agency General Manager. should be based on several factors, agency positions are directly With regard to the series of questions including, but not limited to the scope responsible for safety oversight. about operations personnel, thirty-one of job functions, frequency of Question 53 sought to identify specific commenters responded. Many of the application of the functions, and operations personnel who are directly comments were similar to responses to experience with the specific function for responsible for safety, their duties, and the question above; however, a number which the individual is responsible; the training they receive. The questions, of commenters specifically addressed • frequency of refresher training is as phrased in the ANPRM, did not operations personnel. These dependent on the employee’s position clearly reflect this functional commenters identified widely varied and safety responsibilities; distinction; however, responses from and diverse operations positions that are • the question is premature and many of the commenters indicated an directly responsible for safety oversight cannot be addressed until the final awareness of the distinction. The point to include: Operations Supervisors, requirements are adopted and the is noted here because both the interim Department Managers/Supervisors, number of professionals requiring program and this NPRM would apply Safety Department personnel/Safety training can be assessed; only to transit personnel with direct Managers/Director of Safety, Safety/ • training standards and timing safety oversight responsibilities Training Officer, all supervisory and should evolve as the requirements are (emphasis added) as distinguished from management personnel, Chief Operating adopted and implemented. Overlaying operations personnel who are Officer, Operations Managers, refresher training requirements on an responsible for safety (oversight Maintenance Directors, and already strained training system would omitted). FTA’s proposed approach to Transportation Safety Specialist. further slow training of new safety the training requirements for operations Comments regarding the duties of professionals. personnel who are responsible for safety operations positions were just as varied FTA response. FTA is taking a will be included in the NPRM for the and diverse. Duty descriptions comprehensive approach as it considers Public Transportation Agency Safety included, but were not limited to, the safety training requirements Plan to be issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. contract management, research, proposed here, as well as those that will 5329(d). development, implementation and be proposed in other rules to implement Twenty-eight commenters responded maintenance of programs and the Public Transportation Safety to the question of which transit agency procedures, policy development, Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329. positions are directly responsible for observations, inspections, audits, FTA recognizes that proposed training safety oversight. Several commenters investigations and liaison. One and refresher requirements should align listed various transit agency positions as commenter stated that Bus and Rail and support the objectives of the SMS being directly responsible for safety Transit Operations Supervisors are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75645

directly responsible for overseeing the One commenter stated that the Seminar. One commenter noted that operational safety of the agency by Board’s involvement with safety/risk Colorado has a robust program offering conducting efficiency tests, rules issues is at a policy level while two two full-day safety-related training compliance line rides, post-accident other commenters indicated that the sessions at their spring and fall transit line rides, accident investigations, General Manager is responsible for conferences. Two commenters verifying compliance with Roadway ensuring that board members, or their mentioned classes conducted by local Worker Protection (RWP) requirements, equivalents, understand the safety safety personnel such as police, fire, and investigating reported hazards. culture of the agency. Two commenters sheriffs, emergency management Commenters noted that the Operations stated that the Board receives informal organizations, and the risk manager. Supervisors are trained in all of the safety training. One of these Commenters noted that the above either by internal staff or by commenters noted that this training is a effectiveness of the training is evaluated attending courses offered by TSI. part of their service on a Subcommittee using the following methods: Internal One commenter stated that all for Safety and another responded that safety audits; facility safety inspections; operations managers and supervisors are the Board is instructed on the on the job evaluations by departmental directly responsible for safety oversight definitions related to safety reporting managers, the General Manager, and their duties vary, but include and how to interpret safety data to insurance pool staff, or State DOT staff; development, implementation, training improve their understanding of the ride checks; efficiency tests; and SSO and enforcement of policies/procedures; monthly safety data presented to them. triennial audits. In addition, one inspection and observation; hazard One commenter responded that when commenter noted that regulatory audits management; tool box safety meetings; members first come onto the Board they and written tests are used to measure and assuring compliance with all local, are provided familiarization training on training effectiveness. state and federal regulations governing FTA safety requirements under 49 CFR Comments on the types of training the safe operation of vehicles. part 659. Another commenter noted that that oversight personnel need but is not Responses to the question of training board members might receive this readily available included SMS training, received by operations personnel also training through an agency’s insurance risk assessment training, reactive varied but TSI and OSHA training were company. Another noted that their training programs that address changes mentioned most frequently. A number agency is currently writing a new safety to strategic safety philosophy, and of commenters indicated that they have plan that incorporates SMS principles; tactical issue-specific initiatives. A few received training such as university since the Board of Directors will be commenters recommended that FTA level safety training courses, required to review and approve the plan develop this training specifically for the fundamentals of bus collision they will receive a presentation that will public transportation industry. investigation, fatigue and sleep apnea explain SMS principles and processes, FTA response. The comments indicate awareness for transit employees, transit including risk management. the availability of an array of relevant industrial safety management, and FTA response. The information safety training for safety oversight transit rail incident investigation. provided by the commenters to this professionals. As noted in Section V of FTA response. The responses to both question will be reviewed as FTA this notice, the comments support questions clearly indicate the universe considers appropriate methods to FTA’s proposal to develop a process to of transit agency personnel responsible increase SMS awareness for the Board of evaluate safety training obtained from for safety oversight, and operations Directors or those with equivalent other competent organizations for credit personnel responsible for safety vary executive oversight functions. towards PTSCTP requirements. among transit agencies. As discussed Question 55. FTA asked questions further in Section V of this notice, FTA about the availability of industry III. Overview of the Proposed Rule believes that each recipient, with training specifically for personnel with FTA considered the recommendations guidance from FTA, is better situated to transit safety oversight responsibility; submitted by commenters on the determine which of its personnel are the effectiveness and accessibility of ANPRM while developing both the directly responsible for safety oversight. such training; and what other types of interim program and this proposed rule. As noted earlier, training requirements training oversight personnel need but Many of those recommendations are for operations personnel will be that may not be readily available to reflected in the requirements proposed addressed in the rulemaking for the them. for this rule. Public Transportation Agency Safety Twenty-nine commenters responded To implement this rule, FTA proposes Plan. to this question. Several commenters to leverage the interim program training Question 54. FTA asked whether listed the various training that safety requirements as the foundation for the members of a transit agency board of oversight personnel currently receive, PTSCTP. FTA recognizes that the directors or other equivalent entity with the common thread being interim program was implemented only currently receive any type of safety or federally-sponsored training programs recently; therefore, a reasonable period risk management training; if so, what offered by the National Transit Institute of time should pass to allow FTA to does the training cover? (NTI), the National Transportation assess its effectiveness before proposing Thirty commenters responded, with Safety Board, the National Safety new or additional requirements. The twenty-three stating that their Boards or Council, TSI, and OSHA. Some interim program curriculum and the equivalent do not receive safety/risk commenters responded that most of technical training requirements are management training. In general, several their training was developed and/or republished in Section IV of this notice commenters noted that Boards should provided in-house or through on-the-job for clarity. FTA invites public comment not be required to receive this type of training. A few commenters noted the on its proposed implementation of the training. A few commenters indicated availability of the following training for PTSCTP as noted herein. that Boards receive some type of bus small urban and rural operators: As with the interim program, FTA training, ranging from informal or Community Transportation Association proposes the initial focus of the PTSCTP familiarization training to training of America’s Certified Safety and will be on enhancing the technical provided by insurance companies or Security Officer Training Program and proficiency of safety oversight executive staff. FTA’s Bus Safety Program Orientation professionals in the rail transit industry.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

In addition, public transportation safety the terms ‘‘directly responsible for safety agency, but would likely align with the is a priority for all public transit oversight,’’ ‘‘safety audits,’’ and ‘‘safety training requirements to be proposed for providers; therefore, safety oversight examinations’’ in order to assist public the Public Transportation Agency Safety professionals of other modes of public transit agencies with identifying Plan. Refresher training would likely transportation are encouraged to personnel who will need to complete place greater emphasis on advanced participate voluntarily. The initial the training. areas or topics that often lead to mandatory PTSCTP requirements FTA is proposing flexibility with accidents, injuries, or non-compliance. would provide SMS training for Federal developing the curriculum for the This process would allow both FTA and and SSOA personnel and their PTSCTP. Specifically, FTA would use a the public transportation industry to contractor support, as well as rail transit process similar to that used to identify analyze safety data and identify risks agency personnel who are directly National Transit Database (NTD) before recommending risk mitigation responsible for safety oversight of rail reporting requirements under 49 CFR strategies. FTA believes a two-year transit systems. Safety oversight part 630. To illustrate, FTA periodically refresher cycle following the initial personnel of recipients such as State publishes revisions to the NTD three-year training period reasonably DOTs and bus transit providers would Reporting Manuals (defined in part 630 permits designated personnel to train on continue as voluntary participants. FTA as reference documents) following relevant safety issues while not believes this initial approach of notice and comment. For the PTSCTP, significantly impacting operations. mandatory training for SSOAs and rail FTA would issue and update the Although each SSOA and rail transit transit agencies, and voluntary training training requirements for the PTSCTP in agency would have discretion with for bus only systems, allows for a similar manner. After FTA issues a regard to the subject matter for refresher optimum utilization of Federal and local final PTSCTP rule, FTA would training, the proposed rule would resources while providing flexibility to periodically review the training require designated personnel to revise the training requirements as requirements to determine if any participate in at least one hour of appropriate. However, FTA notes that modifications should be made to refresher training. FTA emphasizes that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), it has improve the effectiveness of the this proposal would provide the SSOAs discretion to promulgate mandatory program. If warranted, revised and rail transit agencies with discretion training requirements for all public requirements would be published in the to require more than one hour of transportation systems—not just rail. Federal Register for notice and refresher training based on the specific In response to commenters who comment before taking effect. The safety oversight training needs of the recommended that the PTSCTP program requirements then would be made SSOA or rail transit agency. requirements be flexible and scalable available via the FTA Web site as the FTA also agrees with those ANPRM and take into consideration the varying reference document noted in sections commenters who indicated that FTA needs and sizes of different public 672.5, 672.11 and 672.13 of the should recognize relevant safety training transit agencies, FTA notes that the proposed regulatory text. The flexibility and certification that designated PTSCTP’s mandatory training would of this process would align with FTA’s personnel already have obtained. To apply only to SSOAs and rail transit periodic review of safety data and that end, FTA is proposing to allow agencies with minimum training trends to determine if the reference designated personnel to have their requirements necessary to enhance document warrants revisions. FTA previous training evaluated by FTA to technical proficiency. State DOT and believes this proposed approach determine if the training competencies bus transit personnel would be provides the public transportation are equivalent to the competencies of voluntary participants. Further, FTA industry with predictable training the curriculum proposed for the recognizes the value of leveraging its requirements yet allows flexibility to PTSCTP. FTA would have the published safety toolkits, best practices respond to emerging safety trends discretion to determine whether specific guides, and providing technical within a reasonable timeframe. PTSCTP training requirements should assistance as the PTSCTP is The proposed PTSCTP is also flexible be waived for the designated personnel. implemented. Therefore, before FTA with regard to its application. FTA is FTA believes the regulatory construct would propose new training not proposing that a recipient only can described above balances flexibility and requirements, existing FTA-sponsored hire personnel that have completed the scalability for recipients while training would be reviewed for initial training requirements. As achieving the objective of enhancing the applicability and scalability relative to suggested by a number of commenters, technical proficiency of public the diverse universe of public transit FTA proposes that personnel would transportation personnel. FTA invites providers. have three years from the date the public comment on the flexible and FTA also proposes flexibility with recipient identifies him or her as scalable approach proposed to regard to how personnel would be designated personnel to complete the implement the PTSCTP. identified as participants for the initial requirements. FTA believes this PTSCTP. FTA agrees with commenters measured approach promotes the IV. Interim Program Curriculum and who indicated the recipient should have legislative intent of enhancing the Technical Training Requirements discretion to identify which of its technical proficiency of safety oversight FTA is providing the following personnel perform safety oversight personnel while recognizing the requirements of the interim program functions. Comments to the ANPRM recipient’s need to prudently manage its here to assist stakeholders with indicated that position titles and human capital and resources. understanding the curriculum and functions in the public transportation Additionally, FTA agrees with requirements proposed for this rule. As industry are not universal. In general, it commenters who indicated that stated previously, FTA adopted these would be impractical for FTA to refresher training should occur every requirements through a notice and identify the specific positions or titles of two years following the initial three- comment process and is not seeking those directly responsible for safety year timeframe for completing safety comments on the requirements oversight or those who conduct audits certification training requirements. themselves. FTA believes the and examinations. Therefore, the Topics for refresher training would be at curriculum and technical training proposed rule includes definitions for the discretion of the SSOA or rail transit requirements developed for the interim

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75647

program provide a sufficient baseline for Recognizing that each rail fixed D Complete training that covers the enhancing the technical competency of guideway public transportation system skills and knowledge the designated those directly responsible for safety has unique characteristics, each SSOA personnel will need to effectively oversight. However, since these will identify the tasks related to perform his or her tasks. requirements only became effective in inspections, examinations, and audits, D Pass a written and/or oral May of this year, FTA is interested in and all activities requiring sign-off, examination covering the skills and receiving comments on the effectiveness which must be performed by the SSOA knowledge required for the designated of the curriculum and technical training to carry out its safety oversight personnel to effectively perform his or requirements noted herein. requirements, and identify the skills and her tasks. For purposes of consistency, FTA has knowledge necessary to perform each D Demonstrate hands-on capability to changed ‘‘covered personnel’’ to task at that system. At a minimum, the perform his or her tasks to the ‘‘designated personnel’’ as that is the technical training plan will describe the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA term proposed for use in the rule. All process for receiving technical training supervisor or designated instructor. other text is the same as that published from the rail transit agencies in the Æ Establish equivalencies or written in the February 27, 2015, Federal following competency areas appropriate and oral examinations to allow Register notice (80 FR 10619), available to the specific rail fixed guideway designated personnel to demonstrate at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- system(s) for which safety audits and that they possess the skill and 2015-02-27/pdf/2015-03842.pdf. examinations are conducted: qualification required to perform their • Agency organizational structure tasks. A. Required Curriculum Over a Three- Æ Require biennial refresher training Year Period • System Safety Program Plan and Security Program Plan to maintain technical skills and abilities • FTA/SSOA personnel and • Knowledge of agency: which includes classroom and hands-on contractor support, and rail transit Æ Territory and revenue service training, as well as testing. Observation agency personnel with direct schedules and evaluation of actual performance of responsibility for safety oversight of rail Æ Current bulletins, general orders, duties may be used to meet the hands- transit systems not subject to FRA and other associated directives that on portion of this requirement, provided regulation: that such testing is documented. Æ ensure safe operations Æ One (1) hour course on SMS Æ Operations and maintenance rule Require that training records be Awareness—e-learning delivery (all books maintained to demonstrate the current required participants) Æ qualification status of designated Æ Safety rules Two (2) hour course on Safety Æ Standard Operating Procedures personnel assigned to carry out the Assurance—e-learning delivery (all Æ Roadway Worker Protection oversight program. Records may be required participants) Æ Employee Hours of Service and maintained either electronically or in Æ Two (2) hour SMS Gap course (e- Fatigue Management program writing and must be provided to FTA learning for existing TSSP Certificate Æ Employee Observation and Testing upon request. holders) Æ Program (Efficiency Testing) Records must include the following Æ SMS Principles for Rail Transit (2 Æ Employee training and certification information concerning each designated days—all required participants) requirements personnel: Æ SMS Principles for SSO Programs (2 D Name; Æ Vehicle inspection and days—FTA/SSOA/contractor support D The title and date each training maintenance programs, schedules personnel only) course was completed and the and records Æ Revised TSSP with SMS Principles proficiency test score(s) where Æ Track inspection and maintenance Integration (not required of current applicable; programs, schedules and records TSSP Certificate holders—17.5 days Æ D The content of each training course for all other designated personnel) Tunnels, bridges, and other successfully completed; Æ Rail System Safety structures inspection and D A description of the designated Æ Effectively Managing Transit maintenance programs, schedules personnel’s hands-on performance Emergencies and records applying the skills and knowledge Æ Transit System Security Æ Traction power (substation, Æ required to perform the tasks that the Rail Incident Investigation overhead catenary system, and third employee will be responsible for • FTA/SSOA/contractor support rail), load dispatching, inspection performing and the factual basis personnel (technical training and maintenance programs, supporting the determination; component): schedules and records D The tasks the designated personnel Æ Each SSOA shall develop a technical Signal and train control inspection is deemed qualified to perform; and training plan for designated personnel and maintenance programs, D Provide the date that the designated and contractor support personnel who schedules and records personnel’s status as qualified to perform safety audits and examinations. The SSOA will determine the length perform the tasks expires, and the date The SSOA will submit its proposed of time for the technical training based in which biennial refresher training is technical training plan to FTA for on the skill level of the designated due. review and evaluation as part of the personnel relative to the applicable rail Æ Ensure the qualification of SSOA certification program in transit agency(s). FTA will provide a contractors performing oversight accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7). template on its Web site to assist the activities. SSOAs may use This review and approval process will SSOA with preparing and monitoring its demonstrations, previous training and support the consultation required technical training plan and will provide education, and written and oral between FTA and SSOAs regarding the technical assistance as requested. Each examinations to determine if contractors staffing and qualification of the SSOAs’ SSOA technical training plan that is possess the skill and qualification employees and other designated submitted to FTA for review will: required to perform their tasks. personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Æ Require designated personnel to Æ Periodically assess the effectiveness 5329(e)(3)(D). successfully: of the technical training. One method of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

validation and assessment could be ‘‘Contractor,’’ ‘‘FTA,’’ ‘‘Recipient,’’ that the unique organizational through the use of efficiency tests or ‘‘Public Transportation Agency,’’ ‘‘Rail framework of public transit systems periodic review of employee Fixed Guideway System,’’ ‘‘State,’’ and does not reasonably allow for uniform performance. ‘‘State Safety Oversight Agency.’’ designation of the same position or In addition, there are some new terms function as being ‘‘directly responsible B. Voluntary Curriculum proposed for this rulemaking with for safety oversight.’’ FTA believes each • Bus transit system personnel with definitions that are consistent with the transit agency is better situated to direct safety oversight responsibility common sense use as they appear in the determine which of its personnel should and State DOTs overseeing safety proposed rule text. They are: be designated for participation in the programs for subrecipients ‘‘Designated Personnel,’’ ‘‘Directly PTSCTP, whether mandatory or Æ FTA-sponsored Bus Safety Responsible for Safety Oversight,’’ voluntary. Programs ‘‘Reference Documents,’’ ‘‘Safety Paragraph (a) would require each Æ One (1) hour course on SMS Audits,’’ and ‘‘Safety Examinations.’’ recipient that operates a rail transit Awareness—e-learning delivery system not subject to FRA requirements Section 672.11 Designated Personnel Æ SMS for Bus Operations to identify its designated personnel for Who Conduct Safety Audits and Æ TSSP Certificate (Bus) mandatory participation in the PTSCTP. Examinations Paragraph (b) would allow recipients of V. Section-by-Section Analysis With paragraph (a) of this section, other modes of public transportation This section explains the FTA is proposing that the State entity with personnel who are directly requirements proposed to implement authorized by the Governor to perform responsible for safety oversight to the Public Transportation Safety public transportation safety oversight participate voluntarily. In general, these Certification Training Program in functions should identify its personnel recipients would be State DOTs, transit accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). who conduct safety audits and agencies with both bus and rail transit examinations of the public Section 672.1 Purpose systems, as well as bus only systems. transportation systems for mandatory These recipients would have discretion This part proposes to implement 49 participation in training requirements of to scale their training requirements U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) by establishing a this part. In general, those identified based on their safety risks, as well as uniform curriculum of safety would be SSOA personnel and the guidance issued by FTA. FTA would certification training to enhance the contractor support whose functions continue to provide technical assistance technical proficiency of individuals include on-site safety audits and for training through its Safety Training who are directly responsible for safety examinations of rail public and Resource Web site which can be oversight of public transportation transportation systems. This section also located at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/. systems not subject to the safety would apply to the managers and Paragraph (c) would provide oversight requirements of another supervisors who have direct authority mandatory participants up to three years Federal agency. This part would not over such personnel. FTA is proposing from the time of his or her initial preempt a State from implementing its this approach because each SSOA is designation to complete the initial own safety certification training better situated to determine which of its training requirements. The recipient requirements for public transportation personnel and contractors perform would then ensure that each mandatory systems subject to its jurisdiction. safety audit and examination functions participant completes at least one-hour as those terms are proposed in the of refresher training every two years Section 672.3 Scope and Applicability Definitions section for this rule. thereafter. However, the recipient may In general, the proposed rule would Paragraph (b) proposes that personnel require additional time for such apply to all recipients of Federal public designated by the SSOA would have training. As noted in paragraph (d), the transportation funding under Chapter 53 three years to complete the applicable FTA web address for locating the of Title 49 of the United States Code. training noted in the Reference current version of the safety certification However, the mandatory requirements Document as the term is defined in training requirements is identified. would apply specifically to SSOA proposed section 672.5. To implement personnel and their contractor support this rule, the interim program training 627.15 Evaluation of Prior who conduct safety audits and requirements listed in Section IV of this Certification and Training examinations. In addition, the notice would be listed in the Reference FTA recognizes the existence of other mandatory requirements would apply to Document. Paragraph (b) also would competent organizations that provide rail transit agency personnel who are require the SSOA to ensure that relevant safety training and certification directly responsible for safety oversight designated personnel complete at least for public transportation safety of rail transit systems that are not one-hour of refresher training every two professionals. Therefore, paragraph (a) subject to the requirements of FRA. All years after the initial three-year period of this section would allow a participant other recipients of Chapter 53 funding above. The SSOA would have discretion to request that FTA review other non- would have discretion to participate to determine the subject area and time FTA sponsored safety training the voluntarily in the training requirements for such training. Paragraph (c) would participant has completed for the proposed for the PTSCTP. identify the FTA web address for purpose of receiving credit toward equivalent elements of PTSCTP training Section 672.5 Definitions locating the current version of the safety certification training requirements. requirements. This section would set forth the Paragraph (b) would require the definitions of some key terms for the Section 672.13 Designated Personnel participant to provide official proposed rule. Although this would be of Public Transportation Agencies documentation from the organization a new rule, many of the terms used for This section would require a recipient that conducted the training for which this section will carry the same or to identify its employees whose job credit is being requested. The similar meaning as the terms are used in function is ‘‘directly responsible for documentation should indicate the other documents issued by FTA. safety oversight’’ of the public date(s) and subject matter of the Specifically, they are ‘‘Administrator,’’ transportation system. FTA understands completed training. In addition, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75649

participant would be required to With regard to contractors that Section 672.33 Compliance as a provide a narrative summary of the provide audit and examination services Condition of Financial Assistance training objectives and the to SSOAs, the SSOA would be This section would define actions competencies obtained through that responsible for ensuring that any available to the Administrator if a training. contractor it engages to perform a safety recipient for whom the training In accordance with paragraph (c), oversight function is qualified to requirements are mandatory does not FTA would evaluate the submission to perform the service as contracted. comply with the requirements of this determine if the previously completed Therefore, it is reasonable for the SSOA, part. Paragraph (a) would indicate that safety training conforms to the training working with its contractor, to maintain the Administrator has discretion to objectives and competencies of the FTA training records of those providing withhold Federal public transportation curriculum. If approved, FTA would contract services. funds should the Administrator find provide the participant credit for the that a recipient is not complying with previous training and waive completion Section 672.23 Availability of Records the requirements of this part. Paragraph of the equivalent element of the PTSCTP (b) would provide the recipient with requirement. However, the waiver With this section, FTA is proposing requirements for the safekeeping and written notice of the Administrator’s would not exempt a participant from decision and the factual basis for the having to comply with any applicable limited release of information maintained in accordance with the Administrator’s finding of refresher training or technical training noncompliance. Paragraph (c) would proposed requirements of this part. requirements. provide the recipient an opportunity to Paragraph (a) would require that Section 672.21 Records respond to the Administrator within 30 information maintained in applicable days of receiving written notice of the An essential requirement of any training records not be released without finding of noncompliance. Paragraph (d) training program is the maintenance of the consent of the participant for whom provides actions the Administrator may adequate records to document that the the record is maintained, except in undertake at his or her discretion. training was completed. To that end, as those limited instances as prescribed by noted in paragraph (a), FTA proposes to law or as indicated in paragraphs (b), (c) VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis maintain an electronic record of each and (d). Section 5329(h) of title 49, United PTSCTP participant. The electronic Paragraph (b) would allow a States Code requires FTA to ‘‘take into record would be created when the participant to receive a copy of his or consideration the costs and benefits of participant registers online for the her training records without cost to the each action the Secretary proposes to program at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/. participant. To assist with safety take’’ under section 5329. To assess the FTA would maintain and administer oversight activities, paragraph (c) would costs for the PTSCTP, we first reviewed the online database; however, paragraph data from the Transportation Safety require a recipient to provide (b) would require that each recipient be Institute (TSI). Using this data and our appropriate Federal and SSOA responsible for ensuring that its familiarity with how SSOAs are personnel access to all of the recipient’s designated personnel are properly organized, we developed a maximum registered and completing the facilities where required training is and minimum number of personnel, to curriculum for their position (e.g., safety conducted. In addition, the recipient include employees and contractors that oversight function, or conducting safety would be required to grant access to all would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next, audits and examinations). The database training records required to be using the same data from TSI, we would allow participants to update his maintained by this part to appropriate determined the number of rail transit or her status as training requirements Department of Transportation personnel personnel that would be affected by the are completed. and appropriate State officials who are PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number Paragraph (c) would require each responsible for safety oversight of public of FTA personnel who participate in SSOA develop a technical training plan transportation systems. Paragraph (d) safety audits and examinations and based on applicable requirements would require a recipient to provide determined the number of FTA identified in the technical training information regarding a participant’s personnel that would be required to component of Section IV of this notice. training when requested by the National undergo the some level of training and Each SSOA would maintain training Transportation Safety Board when such certification. In developing annual costs records that document the technical request is made as part of an accident for personnel that would attend the training undertaken by its designated investigation. PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and personnel and contractors who conduct maximum case scenario. audits and examinations of rail transit Section 672.31 Requirement To Certify For the minimum case, we assumed systems under its jurisdiction. This Compliance that all designated personnel under this documentation would be retained by the program had already completed the Recipients are required to annually SSOA for at least five years from the TSSP Certificate Program and would date the record is created. This certify their compliance with Federal require only the SMS portion of the documentation process would assist the grant requirements as a condition for coursework described in Section IV of SSOA in complying with the receiving funding. Paragraph (a) would this notice. This assumption is requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(E), require recipients for whom the training supported given the popularity of the as it would provide supporting requirements are mandatory to self- TSSP Certificate Program within the documents that show designated SSOA certify compliance with this part industry. This assumption is supported personnel and contractor support are through the annual FTA certification further by the level of voluntary have received training to perform and assurances. Paragraph (b) would participation by transit industry requisite safety oversight functions. As require the recipient to identify the personnel obtained from current with the interim program, FTA would person(s) within its organization graduation/attendance data at TSI. For provide templates and guidance to assist authorized to certify the status of the the maximum case, we assume that no the SSOA with this process. recipient’s compliance. one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Certificate. In this case, all designated under this NPRM would undertake one- over four consecutive weeks. As noted personnel would have to take and third of the total coursework each year. in the comments received on the complete both the TSSP and SMS While affected employees will have ANPRM, many commenters suggested coursework over the allotted 3-year three years to complete the that we harness the existing voluntary period. The table below shows the coursework—it would be unreasonable training offered by TSI and build upon estimated counts used in our analysis. to expect an employee to be away from that base. To simplify the analysis, we assumed a duty station for training purposes for that the total designated personnel

ESTIMATED UNIVERSE OF POTENTIAL SSOA, RAIL TRANSIT AGENCY, AND FTA PERSONNEL

Minimum Maximum

SSOA Personnel ...... 70 120 Rail Transit Agency Personnel ...... 200 340 FTA Personnel ...... 40 40

Total ...... 310 500

Next, we determined the training, by sessions. While SSO personnel will be SMS COURSEWORK—IN-CLASS AND course, that would be required of each required to take 5.125 days of total ONLINE REQUIRED—Continued person within the scope of the PTSCTP. training, rail transit agency personnel [Completed within a 3-year period] The TSSP Certificate Program consists will not be required to take the two-day 1 of four courses. The Table below lists SMS Principles Course. However, we SMS courses Days the courses and duration. assume here that all rail transit agency personnel will take all 5.125 days. This Safety Assurance ...... 0.25 TSSP COURSEWORK REQUIRED approach is conservative and potentially SMS Gap ...... 0.25 [Completed within a 3-year period] over counts the total costs by about $65– SMS Principles Rail Transit .. 2.5 110,000.00 per year but does not SMS Principles SSO Pro- grams ...... 2 TSSP courses Days complicate this analysis. The Table below lists the courses and duration. Total ...... 5.125 Rail Safety ...... 4.5 Rail Incident Investigation .... 4.5 Rail Security ...... 4.5 SMS COURSEWORK—IN-CLASS AND Using the 2013 Bureau of Labor Managing Emergencies ...... 4 ONLINE REQUIRED Statistics (BLS) average wage rate of [Completed within a 3-year period] $40.84 for those taking training under Total ...... 17.5 this program, we developed the SMS courses Days following Lower Bound and Upper The SMS Coursework consists of two Bound costs for attendance as depicted courses and three online training SMS Awareness ...... 0.125 in the table below.

COSTS FOR ATTENDANCE OF SSOA, RAIL TRANSIT AGENCY, AND FTA PERSONNEL WITHIN A 3-YEAR PERIOD

Number of Training time Attendance personnel Hourly rate (days) costs

Lower Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr ...... 310 $40.84 5.125 $172,467.32 Upper Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr ...... 500 40.84 22.625 1,234,470.68

Next, we developed costs associated we used 30 percent for weighting for parameters. Lastly, there is no cost with developing, managing, and unattributable costs and allocated full associated with taking the coursework administering the coursework for the costs where we were able to identify for public agency employees. Using this PTSCTP. First, we reviewed the course cost resulting from the TSSP and/or information, we developed the costs catalog for TSI and determined the SMS training components. Using data presented in the following table. percentage of courses required by the from FTA’s budget for TSI, the cost for PTSCTP of the total courses offered—a the administration of courses, contract TSI PROGRAM COSTS ASSOCIATED little more than one-fourth (six courses costs, and costs for the development of WITH TSSP AND SMS COURSEWORK plus three online courses out of 21 total new coursework we developed the courses or about 28 percent) of the total program costs. We factored no facility Federal Salaries and Bene- course offerings would be required of costs as regional transit agencies or FTA fits * ...... $210,212 Contract Services ...... 368,000 the combined TSSP/SMS training under Regional Offices host courses. Hence, Equipment, Supplies, Space, this NPRM. Furthermore, of the total we also do not account for travel costs Other * ...... 58,260 days of coursework offered by TSI, 30 because courses are hosted locally— Travel (Other than Course percent were attributable to the TSSP/ travel for those attending would be Delivery) * ...... 13,800 SMS coursework. To be conservative, included within normal commuting Course Delivery ...... 462,866

1 The TSSP Certificate Program has two tracks, the PTSCTP is optional for bus-based transit we do not address those costs or benefits in the instant one for rail and one for bus-based transport. Since analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75651

TSI PROGRAM COSTS ASSOCIATED costs for the PTSCTP. We note here coursework, which is a weak WITH TSSP AND SMS again that we have been very assumption given the level of voluntary COURSEWORK—Continued conservative in aggregating costs, so in participation and popularity of the fact the aggregate cost estimates are program. Moreover, we have used a Indirect at 19% ...... 211,496 greater than we expect to be the case. weighting that over estimates Est. Materials Fee Recov- We have not removed costs for rail unattributable costs given the level of ery * ...... 97,570 transit agency personnel that do not presence in the TSI course load. While Total Program ...... 1,422,204 have to take the SMS SSO Principles we present data for both a Maximum course. We have assumed in the Cost and Minimum Cost scenarios, the * Weighted Cost Allocation. Maximum scenario, in an actual experience for costs should be Using the costs presented above, the overabundance of caution, that everyone closer to the Minimum scenario than to table below presents the total annual has not taken the TSSP Certificate the Maximum scenario.

TOTAL COSTS FOR THE PTSCTP OVER A 3-YEAR CERTIFICATION PERIOD

Attendance costs TSI costs Total costs

Aggregate Costs MIN ...... $172,467 $1,422,204 $1,594,671 Aggregate Costs MAX ...... 1,234,471 1,422,204 2,656,674

As the interim provisions only have potential safety benefits that rule would observations, investigations, safety been in effect for a short time, we were need to achieve in order to achieve a studies, data analysis activities, and unable to generate any estimate of their ‘‘break even’’ point with the costs based hazard management. The SSO NPRM benefits. Thus, to assess the benefits for on two different estimates of the focuses its efforts on process the PTSCTP, we considered how other potential benefit pool. (FTA noted, improvements to achieve its benefits. transportation modes that are in the therein, that the analysis was not The SSO program is reliant on the process of implementing SMS or similar intended to be a full analysis of the PTSCTP for part of its safety systematic approaches to safety have potential benefits of SMS for transit improvements. While the SSO NPRM estimated the benefits of their programs safety—rather it was intended to proposed to improve SSO and rail in reducing incidents, adverse provide some quantified estimate of the transit agencies processes, the PTSCTP outcomes, and improving training potential benefits of the changes to the improves the requisite human capital programs. For example, although no two SSO program proposed in that rule). within the SSO program by improving programs are identical, the Federal FTA also noted that the analysis may the training and by making mandatory Railroad Administration (FRA) in its understate the potential benefits training for those designated personnel final rule implementing its Training because of the lack of data on some non- charged with safety oversight at SSO Standards issued November 7, 2014 at injury related costs associated with and rail transit agencies. 79 FR 66460, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ many incidents, particularly regarding We were very confident that a 2 pkg/FR-2012-02-07/html/2012- property damage and travel delays. For percent reduction, which is in line with 2148.htm, provided evidence that the SSO NPRM, FTA estimated that the FRA estimates, could be achieved with training programs for the railroad SSO program revisions would the SSO NPRM—in fact, our industry would yield a breakeven point realistically garner a 2 percent reduction calculations showed the breakeven with a 7 percent reduction in human in costs associated with fatalities and point to be a reduction of 1.23 percent. factor-caused accidents. Moreover, FRA ‘‘serious’’ injuries. FTA performed This leaves about .77 percent or nearly in its proposed rules to implement its analyzed the potential safety benefits of $14.3 million in benefits that have been System Safety Program (SSP) (see 80 FR the SSO NPRM by reviewing the rail unallocated. FTA believes that training 10950) and its Risk Reduction Program transit incidents specifically identified for those charged with safety oversight (RRP) (see 77 FR 55372) provided by the NTSB as related to inadequate at SSO and rail transit agencies is an anecdotal evidence that both programs safety oversight programs. Of the 19 imperative to achieve estimated could lead to meaningful reductions in major rail transit accidents the NTSB reductions in incidents and accidents. serious crashes, and conducted has investigated (or preliminarily To this end, we calculated the breakeven analyses that found that a investigated) since 2004, five had breakeven point for the PTSCTP. The less than 1 percent reduction in the probable causes that included breakeven point for the maximum case incidents and accidents under inadequate safety oversight on the part of $2.6 million in annual costs is 0.14 consideration would lead to a cost- of the rail transit agency or FTA. Based percent and .09 percent for the neutral SSP rule and an approximately on the analysis for the SSO NPRM, for minimum case of $1.6 million in annual 2 percent reduction for the RRP rule. the benefits to breakeven with the costs costs. This level of reduction in Additionally, the Federal Aviation to both SSOs and rail transit agencies, fatalities and serious injuries is likely to Administration estimated that its SMS the rule would only require a 1.23 be extremely conservative and we are program could yield a 20 percent percent reduction of the accidents costs highly confident that it is easily reduction in crashes. per year, which did not include attainable when complemented with the Enhancements brought about by SMS potentially significant unquantified changes proposed in the SSO NPRM. have also supported transportation and costs related to property damage and As an alternative and to cross-check oversight agencies in mitigating the disruption. the benefits of training, we reviewed impacts of those events that do occur. At base, the SSO NPRM increases the literature on returns derived from For the SSO program NPRM issued frequency and/or comprehensiveness of investments in training and training February 27, 2015, at 80 FR 11002–30, activities that are already performed, programs. Bartel conducts a panel study FTA considered what percentage of such as reviews, inspections, field that analyzed large firms, studies that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

focused on one or two firms, and investments in training may well be We partially reproduce the table below company sponsored studies.2 Bartel greater than was previously believed. from Bartel. finds that employer’s return on

ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF LARGE SAMPLES OF FIRMS

Author Response rate Sample size Performance measure Findings

Bishop ...... 75% ...... 2594 Productivity ...... ROI on 100 hours of new hire training ranged from 11% to 38%. Bartel ...... 6.5% ...... 155 Value-Added ...... Implementation of formal training raised produc- tivity by 6% per year. Holzer et al...... 32% ...... 157 Scrap Rate ...... Doubling of worker training reduced scrap rate by 7%, using fixed-effects model. Black and Lynch ...... 72% ...... 617 Net Sales ...... Percentage of formal training that occurs off the job has significant effect in cross section but no effect on the establishment-specific resid- ual. Tan and Batra ...... Random Sample ...... 300–56000 Value-Added ...... Predicted training has positive effect on value- added; effects range from 2.8% to 71% per year. Huselid ...... 28% ...... 968 Tobin’s q and Rate of High-performance practices had significant ef- Return on Capital. fect in cross section that disappeared in fixed-effects model. Source: Bartel PP. 506.

While these results from Bartel’s hopes to unify and harmonize the considered to the extent practicable. In study are not transportation or even provision of safety-related activities addition, FTA may continue to file transit related, it still gives a clear across SSOAs and rail transit agencies. relevant information in the docket as it picture of the benefits that firms across In this way, this pool of employees will becomes available after the comment industries have experienced when they gain knowledge to identify and control period closing date, and interested have invested in training. We also hazards with the ultimate goal of persons should continue to examine the reviewed a study by Almedia and decreasing incidents. Additionally, FTA docket for new material. A final rule Carneiro on firm-provided training, in expects that the codification of the may be published at any time after close which they estimate the rate of return PTSCTP will help promote a safety of the comment period. for firms that invest in human capital culture within the transit industry. This Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory (training).3 Conducting a panel study of safety culture should help instill a Planning and Review), Executive Order firms with detailed data on training, transit agency-wide appreciation for 13563 (Improving Regulation and they estimate that firms that do not shared goals, shared beliefs, best Regulatory Review), and DOT provide training yield a negative 7 practices, and positive and vigilant Regulatory Policies and Procedures percent return while those that provide attitudes towards safety. training accomplish a 24 percent return. We are unsure how to quantify the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 They conclude that training is ‘‘a good effects of a positive safety culture as a direct Federal agencies to assess all investment for many firms and the safety culture will develop over time. costs and benefits of available regulatory economy, possibly yielding higher Characteristics of a positive safety alternatives and, if regulation is returns than either investments in culture include: Actively seeking out necessary, to select regulatory physical capital or investments in information on hazards; employee approaches that maximize net benefits— schooling.’’ 4 training; information exchanges; and including potential economic, The literature generally shows that understanding that responsibility for environmental, public health and safety returns on investment for training are safety is shared. While the returns on effects, distributive impacts, and equity. positive and usually greater than is investment in training should be fairly Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the typically thought. This comports with quick, establishing, promoting, and importance of quantifying both costs the conservative assumptions that we increasing safety in an industry that is and benefits, reducing costs, have made and use to assess the already very safe, is difficult to predict harmonizing rules, and promoting PTSCTP program. with any certainty. flexibility. FTA has determined this rulemaking Qualitative Factors VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices is not a significant regulatory action While the TSSP Certificate Program All comments received on or before within the meaning of Executive Order has been available for some time, it had the close of business on the comment 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the been an optional certification that some closing date will be considered and will U.S. Department of Transportation’s SSOA, rail, and bus safety oversight be available for examination in the regulatory policies and procedures personnel sought out of self-initiative. docket at the above address. Comments (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, With the delineation of a mandatory received after the comment closing date 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). FTA has pool of safety oversight employees, FTA will be filed in the docket and will be determined that this rulemaking is not

2 Bartel, Ann P. ‘‘Measuring the Employer’s 3 Almeida, Rita and Pedro Carneiro. ‘‘Costs, 4 Ibid. Return on Investments in Training: Evidence from Benefits and the Intenal Rate of Return to Firm the Literature’’ Online: https:// Provided Training’’ Online: http:// www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/abartel/papers/ siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/ measuring_employer.pdf. AlmeidaCarneiroUpdatedWP3851.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75653

economically significant. The proposals of $143.1 million or more in any one affect the number of personnel set forth in this NPRM will not result in year (2 U.S.C. 1532). designated for participation. FTA an effect on the economy of $100 proposes to bear the cost associated Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) million or more. The proposals set forth with the development and maintenance in the NPRM will not adversely affect This proposed rulemaking has been of the Web site. FTA is seeking the economy, interfere with actions analyzed in accordance with the comment on whether the information taken or planned by other agencies, or principles and criteria established by collected will have practical utility; generally alter the budgetary impact of Executive Order 13132, and FTA has whether its estimation of the burden of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or determined that the proposed action the proposed information collection is loan programs. would not have sufficient Federalism accurate; whether the burden can be implications to warrant the preparation minimized through the use of Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive of a Federalism assessment. FTA has automated collection techniques or Order 13272 also concluded that this proposed action other forms of information technology; This proposed rule was developed in would not preempt any State law or and for ways in which the quality, accordance with Executive Order 13272 State regulation or affect the States’ utility, and clarity of the information (Proper Consideration of Small Entities abilities to discharge traditional State can be enhanced. in Agency rulemaking) and DOT’s governmental functions. Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New policies and procedures to promote Executive Order 12372 information collection request. Respondents: Currently there are 30 compliance with the Regulatory (Intergovernmental Review) States with 60 rail fixed guideway Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The regulations effectuating Executive which requires an agency to review public transportation systems in Order 12372 regarding engineering, construction, and regulations to assess the impact on intergovernmental consultation on small entities. In compliance with the operations. The PRA estimate is based Federal programs and activities apply to on participation in the PTSCTP by a Regulatory Flexibility Act, FTA has this proposed rulemaking. evaluated the likely effects of the total of 30 States and 60 rail transit proposals set forth in this NPRM on Paperwork Reduction Act agencies. In addition, we estimate small entities. participation by 35–45 SSOA In compliance with the Paperwork contractors and approximately 30 As noted in the cost benefit analysis Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Federal personnel and contractors. for this rule, FTA developed a et seq.; ‘‘PRA’’) and the OMB regulation Frequency: Information will be maximum and minimum number of at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is seeking collected through the Web site on an employees of recipients that would be approval from OMB for the Information ongoing basis throughout the year. affected by the PTSCTP. FTA believes Collection Request abstracted below. In Participants must complete training that approximately 70 to 120 SSOA order to comply with the requirements requirements within 3 years and personnel and contractors would be proposed to implement the PTSCTP in refresher training every 2 years. subject to the mandatory PTSCTP accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), Certification of compliance will be training requirements while this NPRM would require recipients to required annually. approximately 340 personnel of rail provide information to FTA regarding Estimated Total Annual Burden transit agencies would be mandatory the participation of their respective Hours: In the first year of the program, participants. Further, FTA believes that designated personnel as abstracted we estimate a total burden of between approximately 2,000 personnel may be below. Designated personnel would 5,209 (minimum) and 5,909 (maximum) voluntary participants. Section provide enrollment information, hours, depending on how many 5329(e)(6) permits recipients of rural periodically update compliance with individuals are required to participate. and urbanized area formula funds to use PTSCTP training requirements, and Annually, each SSOA would devote Federal funds to cover up to 80 percent where applicable, submit supporting between 88–91 hours to information of the PTSCTP costs. Additionally, FTA documentation of prior training for collection activities including the believes many of the PTSCPT credit towards PTSCTP training development and submission of training participants will be eligible to receive requirements. All recipients of plans to FTA. SSOA contractors would credit for prior safety training which mandatory PTSCTP requirements would devote approximately 140–180 hours to will further reduce the cost and impact annually certify compliance with the information collection activities. These associated with this proposed PTSCTP requirements. Additionally, activities would have a combined total rulemaking. For these reasons, FTA SSOAs would be required to develop of 2,780–2,920 hours, depending on certifies that this action will not have a annual technical training plans for FTA how many individuals are required to significant economic effect on a approval. The plans would support the participate. The mandatory participants substantial number of small entities. SSOA requirement to demonstrate that affected by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) and today’s rulemaking include 60 rail fixed Unfunded Mandates applicable SSOA personnel are qualified to perform safety audits and guideway public transportation systems This proposed rulemaking would not examinations. which would spend an estimated impose unfunded mandates as defined The information collection would be annual total of between 2,060 by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act different for each type of recipient (minimum) and 2,620 (maximum) hours of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, (Federal government personnel, Federal on information collection activities in 109 Stat. 48). The cost of training to contractors, SSOAs and their the first year, or approximately 34–44 comply with this NPRM would be an contractors, and rail transit agencies). hours each. Finally, FTA is expected to eligible expenditure of Federal financial Therefore, the paperwork burden would expend approximately 249 hours in assistance provided to recipients under vary. For example, the burden on furtherance of the PTSCTP in the first 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. This proposed SSOAs would be proportionate to the year, and Federal contractors will spend rule will not result in the expenditure number of rail transit agencies within an estimated four (4) hours each, for a by State, local, and tribal governments, that State, and the size and complexity combined total of approximately 369 in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of those rail transit systems. This would hours in the first year.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Additional documentation detailing environmental justice into their transit business, labor union, or any other FTA’s Paperwork Reduction Act decision-making processes. The Circular entity. You may review USDOT’s Information Collection Request, includes recommendations for State complete Privacy Act Statement including FTA’s Justification Statement, Departments of Transportation, published in the Federal Register on will be posted in the docket for this Metropolitan Planning Organizations, April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477–8. rulemaking. OMB is required to make a and public transportation systems on (1) Statutory/Legal Authority for This decision concerning the collection of How to fully engage environmental Rulemaking information requirements contained in justice populations in the transportation this proposed rule within 60 days after decision-making process; (2) How to This rulemaking is issued under the receiving the information collection determine whether environmental authority of the Moving Ahead for request submission from FTA. FTA will justice populations would be subjected Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– summarize and respond to any to disproportionately high and adverse 21; Pub. L. 112–141), and the statutory comments on the proposed information human health or environmental effects provision codified at 49 U.S.C. collection request from OMB and the of a public transportation project, 5329(c)(1), which requires the Secretary public in the preamble to the final rule. policy, or activity; and (3) How to avoid, of Transportation to prescribe a public minimize, or mitigate these effects. transportation safety certification National Environmental Policy Act training program for Federal and State The National Environmental Policy Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice employees, or other designated Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) Reform) personnel, who conduct safety audits requires Federal agencies to analyze the This action meets the applicable and examinations of public potential environmental effects of their standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of transportation systems and employees proposed actions in the form of a Executive Order 12988 to minimize of public transportation agencies categorical exclusion, environmental litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and directly responsible for safety oversight. assessment, or environmental impact reduce burden. The Secretary is authorized to issue statement. This proposed rulemaking is regulations to carry out the general categorically excluded under FTA’s Executive Order 13045 (Protection of provisions of this statutory requirement environmental impact procedure at 23 Children) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7). CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to FTA has analyzed this proposed Regulation Identification Number planning and administrative activities rulemaking under Executive Order that do not involve or lead directly to 13045. FTA certifies that this proposed A regulation identification number construction, such as the promulgation rule will not cause an environmental (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory of rules, regulations, and directives. risk to health or safety that may action listed in the Unified Agenda of FTA has determined that no unusual disproportionately affect children. Federal Regulations. The Regulatory circumstances exist in this instance, and Information Service Center publishes that a categorical exclusion is Executive Order 13175 (Tribal the Unified Agenda in April and appropriate for this rulemaking. Consultation) October of each year. The RIN set forth FTA has analyzed this proposed in the heading of this document can be Executive Order 12630 (Taking of rulemaking under Executive Order used to cross-reference this action with Private Property) 13175 and finds that the action will not the Unified Agenda. This rulemaking will not affect a have substantial direct effects on one or List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 672 taking of private property or otherwise more Indian tribes; will not impose have taking implications under substantial direct compliance costs on Transportation, Mass transportation, Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping Executive Order 12630. Indian tribal governments; will not requirements. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions preempt tribal laws; and will not Issued in Washington, DC, under the To Address Environmental Justice in impose any new consultation requirements on Indian tribal authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.91. Minority Populations and Low-Income Therese McMillan, Populations) governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not Acting Administrator. Executive Order 12898 directs every required. For the reasons stated in the Federal agency to make environmental Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) preamble, and under the authority of 49 justice part of its mission by identifying U.S.C. 5329(c), 5329(f), and the and addressing the effects of all FTA has analyzed this proposed delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, programs, policies, and activities on rulemaking under Executive Order the Federal Transit Administration minority populations and low-income 13211 and has determined that this proposes to amend chapter VI of Title populations. The USDOT environmental action is not a significant energy action 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by justice initiatives accomplish this goal under the Executive Order, given that adding part 672 to read as follows: by involving the potentially affected the action is not likely to have a public in developing transportation significant adverse effect on the supply, PART 672—PUBLIC projects that fit harmoniously within distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, TRANSPORTATION SAFETY their communities without a Statement of Energy Effects is not CERTIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM compromising safety or mobility. required. Additionally, FTA has issued a program Subpart A—General Provisions circular addressing environmental Privacy Act Sec. justice in public transportation, Anyone is able to search the 672.1 Purpose. C 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy electronic form of all comments 672.3 Scope and applicability. Guidance for Federal Transit received into any of FTA’s dockets by 672.5 Definitions. Administration Recipients. This circular the name of the individual submitting Subpart B—Training Requirements provides a framework for FTA grantees the comment or signing the comment if 672.11 Designated personnel who conduct as they integrate principles of submitted on behalf of an association, safety audits and examinations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75655

672.13 Designated personnel of public public transportation systems subject to Subpart B—Training Requirements transportation agencies. the jurisdiction of the agency. 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and § 672.11 Designated personnel who training. Directly responsible for safety conduct safety audits and examinations. oversight means a public transportation Subpart C—Administrative Requirements agency designated personnel whose job (a) Each State Safety Oversight 672.21 Records. function includes the development, Agency (SSOA) shall designate its 672.23 Availability of records. implementation and review of the personnel and contractors who conduct Subpart D—Compliance and Certification recipient’s safety plan. safety audits and examinations of public Requirements FTA means the Federal Transit transportation systems, including the 672.31 Requirement to certify compliance. Administration, an agency within the managers and supervisors of such 672.33 Compliance as a condition of United States Department of personnel, and ensure such designated financial assistance. Transportation. personnel comply with the applicable Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 49 U.S.C. training requirements in the current Public transportation agency means Reference Document. 5329(f), 49 CFR 1.91. an entity that provides public (b) Designated personnel and Subpart A—General Provisions transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5302 and that has one or more modes contractors shall complete applicable § 672.1 Purpose. of service not subject to the safety training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their initial (a) This part implements a uniform oversight requirements of another Federal agency. designation. Thereafter, refresher safety certification training curriculum training shall be completed every two and requirements that will enhance the Rail fixed guideway public (2) years. The SSOA will determine technical proficiency of individuals transportation system means any fixed refresher training requirements which who are directly responsible for safety guideway system that uses rail, is shall include at a minimum, one (1) oversight of public transportation operated for public transportation, is hour of safety oversight training. agencies not subject to the safety within the jurisdiction of a State, and is oversight requirements of another not subject to the jurisdiction of the (c) Copies. Copies of the current Federal agency. Federal Railroad Administration, or any Reference Document are available from (b) This part does not preempt any such system in engineering or the FTA Web site located at https:// safety certification training construction. Rail fixed guideway safety.fta.dot.gov. public transportation systems include requirements required by a State for § 672.13 Designated personnel of public public transportation agencies within its but are not limited to rapid rail, heavy transportation agencies. jurisdiction. rail, light rail, monorail, trolley, inclined plane, funicular, and (a) Each recipient that operates a rail § 672.3 Scope and applicability. automated guideway. fixed guideway public transportation (a) In general, this part applies to all Recipient means an entity, including system not subject to the safety recipients of Federal financial assistance a State or local governmental authority oversight of another Federal agency under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. that receives Federal funds pursuant to shall designate its personnel who are (b) The mandatory requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. directly responsible for safety oversight this part will apply only to State Safety and ensure that they comply with the Oversight Agency personnel and Reference Document means the applicable training requirements as set contractor support, and designated current edition of the Public forth in the current Reference personnel of recipients that operate rail Transportation Safety Certification Document. Training Program training requirements fixed guideway systems that are not (b) Each recipient that operates a bus subject to the requirements of the and curriculum. The curriculum and training requirements are subject to or other public transportation system Federal Railroad Administration. not subject to the safety oversight of (c) Other FTA recipients may periodic revision through a notice-and- comment process. Recipients are another Federal agency may designate participate voluntarily in accordance its personnel who are directly with this part. responsible for using the current edition of the Reference Document. responsible for safety oversight. Such § 672.5 Definitions. personnel may participate in the Safety audit means an examination of applicable training requirements as set As used in this part: a recipient’s safety records and related forth in the current Reference Administrator means the Federal materials. Document. Transit Administrator or the Safety examination means a process Administrator’s designee. (c) Personnel designated under for gathering facts or information, or an Contractor means an entity that paragraph (a) of this section shall analysis of facts or information complete applicable training performs tasks on behalf of FTA or a previously collected. State Safety Oversight Agency through requirements of this part within three contract or other agreement. State means a State of the United (3) years of their initial designation. Designated personnel means: States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Thereafter, refresher training shall be (1) Employees identified by a Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, completed every two (2) years. The recipient whose job function requires Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin recipient will determine refresher them to be directly responsible for Islands. training requirements which will safety oversight of public transportation State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) include at a minimum, one (1) hour of provided by the agency; or means an agency established by a State safety oversight training. (2) Employees and contractors of a that meets the requirements and (d) Copies. Copies of the current State Safety Oversight Agency whose performs the functions specified by 49 Reference Document are available from job function requires them to conduct U.S.C. 5329(e) and the regulations set the FTA Web site located at https:// safety audits and examinations of the forth in 49 CFR part 659. safety.fta.dot.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

§ 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification the participant passed or failed any § 672.33 Compliance as a condition of and training. associated tests; financial assistance. (a) Designated personnel subject to (4) The tasks the participant is (a) General requirement. A recipient this part may request that FTA evaluate deemed qualified to perform; and may not be eligible for Federal financial safety training or certification (5) The date the designated assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, previously obtained from another entity personnel’s status as qualified to in whole or in part, if the Administrator to determine if the training satisfies an perform the task(s) expires, and the date determines the recipient has failed to applicable training requirement of this in which biennial refresher training is comply with the requirements of this part. due. part. (b) Designated personnel must (b) Notice. If the Administrator provide FTA with an official transcript § 672.23 Availability of records. determines that Federal financial or certificate of the training, a (a) Except as required by law, or assistance should be withheld, the description of the curriculum and expressly authorized or required by this Administrator will issue a notice of competencies obtained, and a brief part, a recipient may not release violation and the amount proposed to be statement detailing how the training or information pertaining to designated withheld at least ninety (90) days prior certification satisfies the applicable personnel that is required to be to the date from when the funds will be requirement of this part. maintained by this part without the withheld. The notice must contain— (c) FTA will evaluate the submission written consent of the designated (1) A statement of the legal authority and determine if any of the applicable personnel. for issuance; training requirements of this part will be (b) Designated personnel are entitled, (2) A statement of the regulatory credited for waiver. If a waiver is upon written request, to obtain copies of granted, designated personnel are provision(s) the recipient is believed to any records pertaining to his or her have violated; responsible for completing all other training that is required to be applicable requirements of this part. (3) A statement of the factual maintained by this part. The recipient allegations upon which the notice of Subpart C—Administrative shall promptly provide the records violation is based; and Requirements requested by designated personnel and (4) A statement of the remedial action access shall not be contingent upon the sought to correct the violation. § 672.21 Records. recipient’s receipt of payment for the (c) Reply. Within thirty (30) days of (a) General requirement. FTA will production of such records. service of a notice of violation, a maintain an electronic database for (c) A recipient shall permit access to recipient may file a written reply with designated personnel to register and all facilities utilized and records the Administrator. Upon written enroll in the Public Transportation compiled in accordance with the request, the Administrator may extend Safety Certification Training Program at requirements of this part to the the time for filing for good cause shown. https://safety.fta.dot.gov. Secretary of Transportation, the Federal The reply must be in writing, and (b) General requirement. Each Transit Administration, or any State signed by the Accountable Executive or recipient shall ensure that its designated agency with jurisdiction for public equivalent entity. A written response personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP transportation safety oversight authority may include an explanation for the via the electronic database. Designated over the recipient. alleged violation, provide relevant personnel shall update their training (d) When requested by the National information or materials in response to profile as the applicable training Transportation Safety Board as part of the alleged violation or in mitigation requirements of this part are completed. an accident investigation, a recipient thereof, or recommend alternative (c) SSOA Requirement. Each SSOA shall disclose information related to the means of compliance for consideration will maintain a record of the technical training of designated personnel. by the Administrator. training completed by its designated (d) Decision. Within thirty (30) days personnel and contractors in accordance Subpart D—Compliance and of receipt of a reply from a recipient, the with the technical training requirements Certification Requirements Administrator will issue a written reply of this part. Such records shall be to the recipient. The Administrator may maintained by the SSOA for at least five § 672.31 Requirement to certify compliance. consider the recipient’s response, (5) years from the date the record is pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, created. Each record shall include the (a) A recipient of FTA financial in determining whether to dismiss the following information at minimum: assistance described in § 672.3(b) of this notice of violation in whole or in part. (1) The name of the designated part shall annually certify compliance If the notice of violation is not personnel or contractor; with this part in accordance with FTA’s (2) The title of the training, the date procedures for annual grant certification dismissed, the Administrator may the training was completed and the and assurances. undertake any other enforcement action proficiency test score(s), where (b) A certification must be authorized he or she deems appropriate, including applicable; by the recipient’s governing board or withholding funds as stated in the (3) The content of each training other authorizing official, and must be notice of violation. course or curriculum successfully signed by a party specifically authorized [FR Doc. 2015–30466 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] completed and an indication of whether to do so. BILLING CODE P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:10 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 75657

Notices Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 232

Thursday, December 3, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER publication of this notice in the Federal proceeding (i.e., investigation, contains documents other than rules or Register. All submissions must be filed administrative review, new shipper proposed rules that are applicable to the electronically at http://access.trade.gov review or changed circumstances public. Notices of hearings and investigations, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 review). For any company subject to this committee meetings, agency decisions and Such submissions are subject to review, if the Department determined, rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency verification in accordance with section or continued to treat, that company as statements of organization and functions are 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as collapsed with others, the Department examples of documents appearing in this amended (‘‘the Act’’). Further, in will assume that such companies section. accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), continue to operate in the same manner a copy must be served on every party on and will collapse them for respondent the Department’s service list. selection purposes. Otherwise, the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Department will not collapse companies Respondent Selection for purposes of respondent selection. International Trade Administration In the event the Department limits the Parties are requested to (a) identify number of respondents for individual which companies subject to review Initiation of Antidumping and examination for administrative reviews previously were collapsed, and (b) Countervailing Duty Administrative initiated pursuant to requests made for provide a citation to the proceeding in Reviews the orders identified below, the which they were collapsed. Further, if AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Department intends to select companies are requested to complete International Trade Administration, respondents based on U.S. Customs and the Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’) Department of Commerce. Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. Questionnaire for purposes of SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce imports during the period of review. We respondent selection, in general each (‘‘the Department’’) has received intend to place the CBP data on the company must report volume and value requests to conduct administrative record within five days of publication of data separately for itself. Parties should reviews of various antidumping and the initiation notice and to make our not include data for any other party, countervailing duty orders and findings decision regarding respondent selection even if they believe they should be with October anniversary dates. In within 30 days of publication of the treated as a single entity with that other accordance with the Department’s initiation Federal Register notice. party. If a company was collapsed with regulations, we are initiating those Comments regarding the CBP data and another company or companies in the administrative reviews. respondent selection should be most recently completed segment of this submitted seven days after the DATES: Effective Date: December 3, 2015. proceeding where the Department placement of the CBP data on the record FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: considered collapsing that entity, of this review. Parties wishing to submit Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD complete Q&V data for that collapsed rebuttal comments should submit those entity must be submitted. Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, comments five days after the deadline Enforcement and Compliance, for the initial comments. Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for International Trade Administration, In the event the Department decides Administrative Review U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th it is necessary to limit individual Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a examination of respondents and party that has requested a review may Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) conduct respondent selection under 482–4735. withdraw that request within 90 days of section 777A(c)(2) of the Act: the date of publication of the notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, the Department has found initiation of the requested review. The Background that determinations concerning whether regulation provides that the Department particular companies should be may extend this time if it is reasonable The Department has received timely ‘‘collapsed’’ (i.e., treated as a single requests, in accordance with 19 CFR to do so. In order to provide parties entity for purposes of calculating additional certainty with respect to 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of antidumping duty rates) require a various antidumping and countervailing when the Department will exercise its substantial amount of detailed discretion to extend this 90-day duty orders and findings with October information and analysis, which often anniversary dates. deadline, interested parties are advised require follow-up questions and that the Department does not intend to All deadlines for the submission of analysis. Accordingly, the Department various types of information, extend the 90-day deadline unless the will not conduct collapsing analyses at requestor demonstrates that an certifications, or comments or actions by the respondent selection phase of this the Department discussed below refer to extraordinary circumstance has review and will not collapse companies prevented it from submitting a timely the number of calendar days from the at the respondent selection phase unless applicable starting time. withdrawal request. Determinations by there has been a determination to the Department to extend the 90-day Notice of No Sales collapse certain companies in a deadline will be made on a case-by-case If a producer or exporter named in previous segment of this antidumping basis. this notice of initiation had no exports, 1 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Separate Rates sales, or entries during the period of Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; review (‘‘POR’’), it must notify the Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR In proceedings involving non-market Department within 30 days of 39263 (July 6, 2011). economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Department begins with a rebuttable eligibility, the Department requires to demonstrate eligibility for a separate presumption that all companies within entities for whom a review was rate in this proceeding. The Separate the country are subject to government requested, that were assigned a separate Rate Status Application will be control and, thus, should be assigned a rate in the most recent segment of this available on the Department’s Web site single antidumping duty deposit rate. It proceeding in which they participated, at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/ is the Department’s policy to assign all to certify that they continue to meet the nme-sep-rate.html on the date of exporters of merchandise subject to an criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The publication of this Federal Register administrative review in an NME Separate Rate Certification form will be notice. In responding to the Separate country this single rate unless an available on the Department’s Web site Rate Status Application, refer to the exporter can demonstrate that it is at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/ instructions contained in the sufficiently independent so as to be nme-sep-rate.html on the date of application. Separate Rate Status entitled to a separate rate. publication of this Federal Register Applications are due to the Department To establish whether a firm is notice. In responding to the no later than 30 calendar days of sufficiently independent from certification, please follow the publication of this Federal Register government control of its export ‘‘Instructions for Filing the activities to be entitled to a separate Certification’’ in the Separate Rate notice. The deadline and requirement rate, the Department analyzes each Certification. Separate Rate for submitting a Separate Rate Status entity exporting the subject Certifications are due to the Department Application applies equally to NME- merchandise under a test arising from no later than 30 calendar days after owned firms, wholly foreign-owned the Final Determination of Sales at Less publication of this Federal Register firms, and foreign sellers that purchase Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the notice. The deadline and requirement and export subject merchandise to the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 for submitting a Certification applies United States. (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final equally to NME-owned firms, wholly For exporters and producers who Determination of Sales at Less Than foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers submit a separate-rate status application Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the who purchase and export subject or certification and subsequently are People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 merchandise to the United States. selected as mandatory respondents, (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the Entities that currently do not have a these exporters and producers will no separate rates criteria, the Department separate rate from a completed segment longer be eligible for separate rate status 2 assigns separate rates to companies in of the proceeding should timely file a unless they respond to all parts of the NME cases only if respondents can Separate Rate Application to questionnaire as mandatory demonstrate the absence of both de jure demonstrate eligibility for a separate respondents. and de facto government control over rate in this proceeding. In addition, export activities. companies that received a separate rate Initiation of Reviews All firms listed below that wish to in a completed segment of the qualify for separate rate status in the proceeding that have subsequently In accordance with 19 CFR administrative reviews involving NME made changes, including, but not 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating countries must complete, as limited to, changes to corporate administrative reviews of the following appropriate, either a separate rate structure, acquisitions of new antidumping and countervailing duty application or certification, as described companies or facilities, or changes to orders and findings. We intend to issue below. For these administrative reviews, their official company name,3 should the final results of these reviews not in order to demonstrate separate rate timely file a Separate Rate Application later than October 31, 2016.

Period to be reviewed

Antidumping Duty Proceedings

Mexico: Carbon and Certain Alloy Wire Rod, A–201–830 ...... 10/1/14–9/30/15 Deacero S.A.P. I. de C.V. (AKA Deacero S.A. de C.V.). ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (‘‘AMLT’’). The People’s Republic of China: Steel Wire Garment Hangers, A–570–918 ...... 10/1/14–9/30/15 Da Sheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. Feirongda Weaving Material Co. Ltd. Hangzhou Qingqing Mechanical Co. Ltd. Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd. Hangzhou Yinte. Hong Kong Wells Ltd. Hongye (HK) Group Development Co. Ltd. Liaoning Metals & Mineral Imp/Exp Corp. Nantong Eason Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Ningbo Bingcheng Import & Export Co. Ltd. Ningbo Dasheng Daily Products Co., Ltd. Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co. Ltd. Ningbo Peacebird Import & Export Co. Ltd. Shang Zhou Leather Shoes Plant. Shanghai Bao Heng Relay Making Co., Ltd.

2 Such entities include entities that have not shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their 3 Only changes to the official company name, participated in the proceeding, entities that were separate rate in the most recently completed rather than trade names, need to be addressed via preliminarily granted a separate rate in any segment of the proceeding in which they a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding currently incomplete segment of the proceeding participated. new trade names may be submitted via a Separate (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new Rate Certification.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75659

Period to be reviewed

Shanghai Ding Ying Printing & Dyeing Co. Ltd. Shanghai Ganghun Beddiry Clothing Factory. Shanghai Guangwei Shoes Co., Ltd. Shanghai Guoxing Metal Products Co. Ltd. Shanghai Jianhai International Trade Co. Ltd. Shanghai Lian Development Co. Ltd. Shanghai Shuang Qiang Embroidery Factory Co. Ltd. Shanghai Tonghui. Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. Shangyu Baoli Electro Chemical Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shangyu Tongfang Labour Protective Articles Co., Ltd. Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Meideli Hanger Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. Shaoxing Shuren Tie Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd. Shaoxing Zhongdi Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. Tianjin Innovation International. Tianjin Tailai Import and Export Co. Ltd. Wahfay Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. Wesken International (Kunshan) Co. Ltd. Xia Fang Hanger (Cambodia) Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Hongfei Plastic Industry Co. Ltd. Zhejiang Jaguar Import & Export Co. Ltd. Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co. Ltd.

Countervailing Duty Proceedings Gap Period Liquidation Revised Factual Information Requirements None. For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment On April 10, 2013, the Department Suspension Agreements of antidumping or countervailing duties published Definition of Factual None. on entries of subject merchandise Information and Time Limits for entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Submission of Factual Information: Duty Absorption Reviews for consumption during the relevant Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations During any administrative review provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of related to antidumping and covering all or part of a period falling the order, if such a gap period is countervailing duty proceedings: The between the first and second or third applicable to the POR. definition of factual information (19 and fourth anniversary of the Administrative Protective Orders and CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits publication of an antidumping duty Letters of Appearance for the submission of factual order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a Interested parties must submit information (19 CFR 351.301). The final determination under 19 CFR rule identifies five categories of factual applications for disclosure under 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), administrative protective orders in suspended investigation (after sunset which are summarized as follows: (i) accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On review), the Secretary, if requested by a Evidence submitted in response to January 22, 2008, the Department domestic interested party within 30 questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted days of the date of publication of the published Antidumping and in support of allegations; (iii) publicly notice of initiation of the review, will Countervailing Duty Proceedings: available information to value factors determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. Documents Submission Procedures; under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January the adequacy of remuneration under 19 2002), as appropriate, whether 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed antidumping duties have been absorbed administrative reviews included in this on the record by the Department; and (v) by an exporter or producer subject to the notice of initiation. Parties wishing to evidence other than factual information review if the subject merchandise is participate in any of these described in (i)–(iv). The final rule sold in the United States through an administrative reviews should ensure requires any party, when submitting importer that is affiliated with such that they meet the requirements of these factual information, to specify under exporter or producer. The request must procedures (e.g., the filing of separate which subsection of 19 CFR include the name(s) of the exporter or letters of appearance as discussed at 19 351.102(b)(21) the information is being producer for which the inquiry is CFR 351.103(d)). submitted and, if the information is requested. submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

record, to provide an explanation the adequacy of remuneration under 19 through April 30, 2014.1 This review identifying the information already on CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 covers one producer/exporter of subject the record that the factual information CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, merchandise, Nava Bharat Ventures seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The clarification and correction filed Limited (Nava). For the final results, we final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) continue to determine that Nava did not so that, rather than providing general comments concerning the selection of a sell subject merchandise to the United time limits, there are specific time limits surrogate country and surrogate values States at below normal value (NV) based on the type of factual information and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning during the POR. The final results are being submitted. These modifications U.S. Customs and Border Protection listed in the section entitled ‘‘Final are effective for all segments initiated on data; and (5) quantity and value Results of Review’’ below. or after May 10, 2013. Please review the questionnaires. Under certain DATES: Effective date: December 3, 2015. final rule, available at http:// circumstances, the Department may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ elect to specify a different time limit by David Lindgren at (202) 482–3870; AD/ 1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to which extension requests will be CVD Operations, Office VII, submitting factual information in this considered untimely for submissions Enforcement and Compliance, segment. which are due from multiple parties International Trade Administration, Any party submitting factual simultaneously. In such a case, the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th information in an antidumping duty or Department will inform parties in the Street and Constitution Avenue NW., countervailing duty proceeding must letter or memorandum setting forth the Washington, DC 20230. certify to the accuracy and completeness deadline (including a specified time) by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of that information.4 Parties are hereby which extension requests must be filed reminded that revised certification to be considered timely. This Background requirements are in effect for company/ modification also requires that an On June 4, 2015, the Department government officials as well as their extension request must be made in a representatives. All segments of any published the Preliminary Results of separate, stand-alone submission, and this administrative review and, on antidumping duty or countervailing clarifies the circumstances under which duty proceedings initiated on or after August 24, 2015, we invited parties to the Department will grant untimely- comment on the Preliminary Results. August 16, 2013, should use the formats filed requests for the extension of time for the revised certifications provided at The administrative review covers one limits. These modifications are effective producer and exporter of the subject the end of the Final Rule.5 The for all segments initiated on or after merchandise to the United States, Nava. Department intends to reject factual October 21, 2013. Please review the Petitioners timely filed their case brief submissions in any proceeding final rule, available at http:// on September 4, 2015, and Nava timely segments if the submitting party does www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/ filed its rebuttal brief on September 8, not comply with applicable revised html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 2015. The Department conducted this certification requirements. submitting factual information in these administrative review in accordance Revised Extension of Time Limits segments. with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of Regulation These initiations and this notice are 1930, as amended (the Act). in accordance with section 751(a) of the On September 20, 2013, the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR Scope of the Order Department modified its regulation 351.221(c)(1)(i). concerning the extension of time limits The products subject to the order are for submissions in antidumping and Dated: November 25, 2015. all forms, sizes and compositions of countervailing duty proceedings: Final Christian Marsh, silicomanganese, except low-carbon Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping silicomanganese, including The modification clarifies that parties and Countervailing Duty Operations. silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. The silicomanganese subject to the may request an extension of time limits [FR Doc. 2015–30604 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] order is currently classifiable under before a time limit established under BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Part 351 expires, or as otherwise subheading 7202.30.0000 of the specified by the Secretary. In general, an Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the extension request will be considered DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS untimely if it is filed after the time limit subheading is provided for convenience established under Part 351 expires. For International Trade Administration and customs purposes. The written submissions which are due from description is dispositive. A full multiple parties simultaneously, an [A–533–823] description of the scope of the order is extension request will be considered contained in the Issues and Decision Silicomanganese From India: Final Memorandum, which is hereby adopted untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on 2 the due date. Examples include, but are Results of Antidumping Duty by this notice. The Issues and Decision not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal Administrative Review; 2013–2014 Memorandum is a public document and briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; is on file electronically via Enforcement AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, (2) factual information to value factors International Trade Administration, 1 under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure See Silicomanganese From India: Preliminary U.S. Department of Commerce. Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative SUMMARY: On June 4, 2015, the Review; 2013–2014, 80 FR 31891 (June 4, 2015) 4 See section 782(b) of the Act. (Preliminary Results). 5 See Certification of Factual Information To Department of Commerce (Department) 2 See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Import Administration During Antidumping and published its preliminary results of the Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July administrative review of the and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of the 17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also the frequently antidumping duty order on 2013–2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available Review of Silicomanganese from India,’’ dated at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ silicomanganese from India covering the concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. period of review (POR) May 1, 2013, Memorandum).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75661

and Compliance’s Antidumping and the weighted-average dumping margin regulations and the terms of an APO is Countervailing Duty Centralized listed above; (2) for previously reviewed a sanctionable violation. Electronic Service System (ACCESS). or investigated companies not listed Notification to Interested Parties Access to ACCESS is available to above, the cash deposit rate will registered users at http:// continue to be the company-specific rate These final results of administrative access.trade.gov and is available to all published for the most recent period; (3) review and notice are published in parties in the Central Records Unit, if the exporter is not a firm covered in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and room B8024 of the main Department of this review, a prior review, or the less- 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR Commerce building. In addition, a than-fair-value investigation, but the 351.213(h). complete version of the Issues and manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate Dated: November 24, 2015. Decision Memorandum can be accessed will be the rate established for the most Paul Piquado, directly on the Internet at http:// recent period for the manufacturer of enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the Compliance. The signed Issues and Decision exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm Memorandum and the electronic covered in this or any previous review, Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in versions of the Issues and Decision the cash deposit rate will be the all the Issues and Decision Memorandum Memorandum are identical in content. others rate for this proceeding, 17.74 I. Summary Analysis of Comments Received percent, as established in the less-than- II. Background fair-value investigation.3 These deposit III. Scope of the Order All issues raised in the case and requirements, when imposed, shall IV. Margin Calculations rebuttal briefs by parties in this review remain in effect until further notice. V. Discussion of the Issue are addressed in the Issues and Decision Issue 1: Bona Fides of Nava’s U.S. Sale Memorandum. The issues that parties Disclosure VI. Recommendation raised, and to which we responded in We will disclose the calculations [FR Doc. 2015–30546 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] the Issues and Decision Memorandum, performed within five days of the date BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P follow as an appendix to this notice. of publication of this notice to parties in Changes Since the Preliminary Results this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no Notification to Importers National Oceanic and Atmospheric adjustments to the margin calculations This notice also serves as a final Administration for Nava. reminder to importers of their Proposed Information Collection; Final Results of Review responsibility under 19 CFR Comment Request; Gulf of Alaska The final weighted-average dumping 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate Trawl Fishery, Rationalization margin for the period May 1, 2013, regarding the reimbursement of Sociocultural Study through April 30, 2014, is as follows: antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this AGENCY: National Oceanic and Weighted- review period. Failure to comply with Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Manufacturer/Exporter Average this requirement could result in the Commerce. margin Secretary’s presumption that ACTION: Notice. (percent) reimbursement of antidumping duties Nava Bharat Ventures Limited ... 0.00 occurred and the subsequent assessment SUMMARY: The Department of of double antidumping duties. Commerce, as part of its continuing Assessment Rates Notification Regarding Administrative effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general The Department will instruct U.S. Protective Orders public and other Federal agencies to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to This notice is the only reminder to take this opportunity to comment on assess antidumping duties in parties subject to the administrative proposed and/or continuing information accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). protective order (APO) of their Nava’s weighted-average dumping collections, as required by the responsibility concerning the return or Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. margin in these final results is zero destruction of proprietary information DATES: percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP disclosed under the APO in accordance Written comments must be to liquidate all appropriate entries with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which submitted on or before February 1, 2016. without regard to antidumping duties. continues to govern business ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments The Department intends to issue the proprietary information in this segment to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental appropriate assessment instructions for of the proceeding. Timely written Paperwork Clearance Officer, Nava to CBP 15 days after the date of notification of the return or destruction Department of Commerce, Room 66165, publication of these final results. of APO materials or conversion to 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Cash Deposit Requirements judicial protective order is hereby Washington, DC 20230 (or via the requested. Failure to comply with the Internet at [email protected]). The following deposit requirements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: will be effective for all shipments of silicomanganese from India entered, or 3 See Silicomanganese from India: Notice of Final Requests for additional information or Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and withdrawn from warehouse, for copies of the information collection Final Negative Critical Circumstances instrument and instructions should be consumption on or after the date of Determination, 67 FR 15531 (April 2, 2002), as publication of the final results of this corrected in Notice of Amended Final directed to Stephen Kasperski, (206) administrative review, as provided for Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 526–4727 or Stephen.kasperski@ Antidumping Duty Orders: Silicomanganese from noaa.gov. by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 67 FR 36149 The cash deposit rate for Nava will be (May 23, 2002). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

I. Abstract impacts the program may have on the they also will become a matter of public This request is for a revision to an individuals and communities affected record. existing information collection using a by fisheries regulations. To achieve Dated: November 30, 2015. slightly modified survey instrument by these goals, it is critical to collect the Sarah Brabson, necessary data after program design and removing questions that were unclear or NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. not consistently interpreted by prior to the implementation of the rationalization program to understand [FR Doc. 2015–30622 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] respondents, or are irrelevant after more BILLING CODE 3510–22–P information about the program design what changes in the industry were made have been developed by the North prior to implementation in expectation of future changes in management. This Pacific Fishery Management Council, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and clarifying the wording of remaining second baseline will also allow for the questions. comparison of data collected after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Historically, changes in fisheries management program has been Administration management regulations have been implemented to understand how shown to result in impacts to rationalization programs impact Submission for OMB Review; individuals within the fishery. An individuals and communities Comment Request understanding of social impacts in throughout the design and implementation of the program. The Department of Commerce will fisheries—achieved through the submit to the Office of Management and collection of data on fishing II. Method of Collection Budget (OMB) for clearance the communities, as well as on individuals Literature reviews, secondary sources following proposal for collection of who fish—is a requirement under including Internet sources, United information under the provisions of the several federal laws. Laws such as the States Census data, key informants, Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. National Environmental Policy Act and focus groups, paper surveys, electronic Chapter 35). the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery surveys, and in-person interviews will Agency: National Oceanic and Conservation and Management Act (as be utilized in combination to obtain the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). amended 2007) describe such greatest breadth of information as Title: Economic Expenditure Survey requirements. The collection of this data possible. of Golden Crab Fishermen in the U.S. not only helps to inform legal South Atlantic Region. requirements for the existing III. Data OMB Control Number: 0648–0631. management actions, but will inform OMB Control Number: 0648–0685. Form Number(s): None. future management actions requiring Form Number: None. Type of Request: Regular equivalent information. Type of Review: Revision of an (reinstatement without change of a Fisheries rationalization programs existing information collection. previously approved information have an impact on those individuals Affected Public: Individuals or collection). participating in the affected fishery, as households; business or other for-profit Number of Respondents: 6. well as their communities and may also organizations; not-for-profit institutions. Average Hours per Response: have indirect effects on other fishery Estimated Number of Respondents: Burden Hours: 3. participants. The North Pacific Fishery 2,500. Needs and Uses: This request is for a Management Council is considering the Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour reinstatement without change. The implementation of a new rationalization and 30 minutes. National Marine Fisheries Service program for the Gulf of Alaska trawl Estimated Total Annual Burden (NMFS) proposes to collect economic fishery. This research aims to study the Hours: 3,750 hours. information from golden-crab landing affected individuals both prior to and Estimated Total Annual Cost to commercial fishermen in the United after the design and implementation of Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting States (U.S.) South Atlantic region. The the rationalization program. One year of costs. data gathered will be used to evaluate pre-program design data from this the likely economic impacts of IV. Request for Comments survey was collected in 2014. The management proposals. In addition, the current proposal is to collect a second Comments are invited on: (a) Whether information will be used to satisfy legal round of baseline data collection post- the proposed collection of information mandates under Executive Order 12898, program design using a slightly is necessary for the proper performance the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery modified survey instrument (e.g., of the functions of the agency, including Conservation and Management Act dropping questions that were unclear, whether the information shall have (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory removing elements not under practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species consideration by the North Pacific agency’s estimate of the burden Act, and the National Environmental Fishery Management Council, and (including hours and cost) of the Policy Act, and other pertinent statues. clarifying the wording of the remaining proposed collection of information; (c) Affected Public: Business or other for- questions). ways to enhance the quality, utility, and profit organizations. The data collected will be used in clarity of the information to be Frequency: Every five years. conjunction with the 2014 survey data collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. to provide a description of the changes burden of the collection of information This information collection request that have occurred in the industry as the on respondents, including through the may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow program has been developed as well as use of automated collection techniques the instructions to view Department of allow for an analysis of the changes or other forms of information Commerce collections currently under experienced by individuals and technology. review by OMB. communities after the rationalization Comments submitted in response to Written comments and program has been implemented. The this notice will be summarized and/or recommendations for the proposed measurement of these changes will lead included in the request for OMB information collection should be sent to a greater understanding of the social approval of this information collection; within 30 days of publication of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75663

notice to OIRA_Submission@ submitted in English, or if not, analyzes the daily trade and supporting omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. accompanied by an English translation. data reports that are submitted pursuant Dated: November 30, 2015. Comments will be posted as received to to 17 CFR 16.02 to conduct financial, Sarah Brabson, http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit market and trade practice surveillance. only information that you wish to make The Commission uses the collection of NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. available publicly. If you wish the CFTC information to discharge its regulatory [FR Doc. 2015–30583 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] to consider information that you believe responsibilities, including the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P is exempt from disclosure under the responsibilities to prevent market Freedom of Information Act, a petition manipulations and commodity price for confidential treatment of the exempt distortions and ensure the financial COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING information may be submitted according integrity of its jurisdictional markets. COMMISSION to the procedures established in § 145.9 1 With respect to the collection of of the CFTC’s regulations. information, the CFTC invites Agency Information Collection The CFTC reserves the right, but shall comments on: Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew have no obligation, to review, pre- Collection 3038–0061, Daily Trade and screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove • Whether the proposed collection of Supporting Data Reports any or all of your submission from information is necessary for the proper AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to performance of the functions of the Commission. be inappropriate for publication, such as CFTC, including whether the information will have a practical use; ACTION: Notice. obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that • The accuracy of the CFTC’s SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures contain comments on the merits of the estimate of the burden of the proposed Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or Information Collection Request will be collection of information, including the ‘‘Commission’’) is announcing an retained in the public comment file and validity of the methodology and opportunity for public comment on the will be considered as required under assumptions used; proposed collection of certain applicable law, and may be accessible • Ways to enhance the quality, information by the agency. Under the under the Freedom of Information Act. usefulness, and clarity of the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information to be collected; and Federal agencies are required to publish Thomas Guerin, Division of Market • notice in the Federal Register Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Ways to minimize the burden of concerning each proposed collection of Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., collection of information on those who information, including each proposed Washington, DC 20581; (202) 734–4194, are to respond, including through the extension of an existing collection of email: [email protected], and refer to use of appropriate automated electronic, information, and to allow 60 days for OMB Control No. 3038–0061. mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of public comment. This notice solicits SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the comments on the daily trade and PRA, Federal agencies must obtain information technology; e.g., permitting supporting data reports that are approval from the Office of Management electronic submission of responses. submitted to CFTC pursuant to and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for each collection Burden Statement: CFTC Regulation Commission Rule 16.02. This part of information they conduct or sponsor. 16.02 results in information collection imposes reporting requirements on ‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined requirements within the meaning of the Reporting Markets, including in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 PRA. This regulation previously Designated Contract Markets. and includes agency requests or required Reporting Markets to incur DATES: Comments must be submitted on requirements that members of the public one-time costs to establish systems and or before February 1, 2016. submit reports, keep records, or provide processes associated with providing the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information to a third party. Section required reports to the CFTC on a daily identified by ‘‘Renewal of Collection 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. basis. With respect to the ongoing Pertaining to Regulation 16.02 Daily 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies reporting burden associated with Trade and Supporting Data Reports to provide a 60-day notice in the submitting the required 16.02 reports, 3038–0061’’, by any of the following Federal Register concerning each the CFTC believes that Reporting methods: proposed collection of information Markets incur an average burden of two • Agency Web site: http:// before submitting the collection to OMB hours to compile and submit each report comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the for approval. To comply with this made pursuant to 16.02. Reporting instructions for submitting comments requirement, the CFTC is publishing Markets submit an average of 250 through the Web site. notice of the proposed collection of reports annually. The estimated total • Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, information listed below. annual time-burden for all Reporting Secretary of the Commission, Title: Regulation 16.02 Daily Trade Markets is 15,000 hours. Commodity Futures Trading and Supporting Data Reports (OMB Respondents/Affected Entities: Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, Control No. 3038–0061). This is a Reporting Markets. 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC request for extension of a currently 20581. approved information collection. Estimated number of respondents: 30. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Abstract: The collection of Estimated total annual burden on Mail, above. information is needed to ensure that the respondents: 15,000 hours. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// CFTC has access to transaction-level Frequency of collection: Ongoing. www.regulations.gov/. Follow the trade data and related order information instructions for submitting comments for each transaction executed on a There are no capital costs or operating through the Portal. Reporting Market. The Commission and maintenance costs associated with Please submit your comments using this collection. only one method. All comments must be 1 17 CFR 145.9. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Dated: November 27, 2015. personal information provided, to: information. The Commission Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, http://www.regulations.gov. Do not specifically solicits information relevant Secretary of the Commission. submit confidential business to the following topics: [FR Doc. 2015–30561 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] information, trade secret information, or —Whether the collection of information BILLING CODE 6351–01–P other sensitive or protected information described above is necessary for the that you do not want to be available to proper performance of the the public. If furnished at all, such Commission’s functions, including CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY information should be submitted in whether the information would have COMMISSION writing. practical utility; Docket: For access to the docket to [Docket No. CPSC–2012–0054] —Whether the estimated burden of the read background documents or proposed collection of information is comments received, go to: http:// accurate; Agency Information Collection www.regulations.gov, and insert the —Whether the quality, utility, and Activities; Proposed Collection; docket number CPSC–2012–0054, into clarity of the information to be Comment Request; Safety Standard for the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the collected could be enhanced; and Automatic Residential Garage Door prompts. Operators —Whether the burden imposed by the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: collection of information could be AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product minimized by use of automated, Commission. Safety Commission, 4330 East West electronic or other technological ACTION: Notice. Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) collection techniques, or other forms 504–7815, or by email to: rsquibb@ of information technology. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork cpsc.gov. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Dated: November 30, 2015. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CPSC Todd A. Stevenson, Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or seeks to renew the following currently Secretary, Consumer Product Safety ‘‘Commission’’) requests comments on a approved collection of information: Commission. Title: Safety Standard for Automatic proposed extension of approval of a [FR Doc. 2015–30571 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Residential Garage Door Operators. collection of information under the BILLING CODE 6355–01–P safety standard for automatic residential OMB Number: 3041–0125. Type of Review: Renewal of garage door operators, approved collection. previously under OMB Control No. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Frequency of Response: On occasion. COMMISSION 3041–0125. The Commission will Affected Public: Manufacturers and consider all comments received in importers of automatic residential Sunshine Act Meeting Notice response to this notice before requesting garage door operators. an extension of this collection of Estimated Number of Respondents: information from the Office of TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December An estimated 19 firms that conduct 9, 2015, 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’). performance tests and maintain records PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda DATES: Submit written or electronic based on the test results to maintain UL Towers, 4330 East West Highway, comments on the collection of certification and verify compliance with Bethesda, Maryland. information by February 1, 2016. the rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Estimated Time per Response: Based STATUS: Commission Meeting—Open to identified by Docket No. CPSC–2012– on staff’s review of industry sources, the Public. 0054, by any of the following methods: each respondent will spend an Matters To Be Considered Electronic Submissions: Submit estimated 40 hours annually on the electronic comments to the Federal collection of information related to the Hearing: Petition Requesting eRulemaking Portal at: http:// rule. Rulemaking on Products Containing www.regulations.gov. Follow the Total Estimated Annual Burden: 760 Organohalogen Flame Retardants. instructions for submitting comments. hours (19 firms × 40 hours). All of the requirements and The Commission does not accept General Description of Collection: On conditions set forth in Federal Register/ comments submitted by electronic mail December 22, 1992, the Commission Vol. 80, No. 206/Monday, October 26, (email), except through issued rules prescribing requirements 2015 (Page 65174) apply equally to www.regulations.gov. The Commission for a reasonable testing program to participants who wish to make encourages you to submit electronic support certificates of compliance with presentations remotely via comments by using the Federal the Safety Standard for Automatic teleconference. Call-in participants eRulemaking Portal, as described above. Residential Garage Door Operators (57 should be prepared to provide their first Written Submissions: Submit written FR 60449). These regulations also name, last name and affiliation. submissions by mail/hand delivery/ require manufacturers, importers, and Conference call information below: courier to: Office of the Secretary, private labelers of residential garage Conference Call Number: 866–623–8636 Consumer Product Safety Commission, door operators to establish and maintain Participant Passcode: 4816474# Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, records to demonstrate compliance with Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) the requirements for testing to support A live webcast of the Meeting can be 504–7923. certification of compliance. 16 CFR part viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live. Instructions: All submissions received 1211, subparts B and C. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: must include the agency name and Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the docket number for this notice. All Request for Comments Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product comments received may be posted The Commission solicits written Safety Commission, 4330 East West without change, including any personal comments from all interested persons Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) identifiers, contact information, or other about the proposed collection of 504–7923.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75665

Dated: December 1, 2015. received by the USAF SAB meeting recommendation to the Secretary of Todd A. Stevenson, organizer at the address listed below at Energy concerning the need to address Secretariat. least five calendar days prior to the specific deficiencies with, and [FR Doc. 2015–30695 Filed 12–1–15; 4:15 pm] meeting commencement date. The strengthen regulatory compliance of, the BILLING CODE 6355–01–P USAF SAB meeting organizer will emergency preparedness and response review all timely submissions and capability at the National Nuclear respond to them prior to the start of the Security Administration’s Pantex Plant DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE meeting identified in this noice. Written that require timely resolution. statements received after this date may DATES: Comments, data, views, or Department of the Air Force not be considered by the USAF SAB arguments concerning the until the next scheduled meeting. recommendation are due on or before U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The January 4, 2016. Board; Notice of Meeting USAF SAB meeting organizer, Major ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Mike Rigoni at, michael.j.rigoni.mil@ this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, mail.mil or 240–612–5504, United Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., DOD. States Air Force Scientific Advisory Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001. Board, 1500 West Perimeter Road, Ste. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Meeting notice. #3300, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762. Mark Welch at the address above or SUMMARY telephone number (202) 694–7000. To : Under the provisions of the Henry Williams, Federal Advisory Committee Act of review the figures referred to in Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Recommendation 2015–1, please visit 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), Officer, DAF. the Government in the Sunshine Act of www.dnfsb.gov. [FR Doc. 2015–30590 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and BILLING CODE 5001–10–P Dated: November 27, 2015. 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Joyce L. Connery, Defense announces that the United Chairman. States Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Winter Board DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES Recommendation 2015–1 to the meeting will take place on 19 January SAFETY BOARD Secretary of Energy 2016 at the Arnold & Mabel Beckman Sunshine Act Meetings Emergency Preparedness and Response Center, located at 100 Academy Drive in at the Pantex Plant, Pursuant to 42 Irvine, CA 92617. The meeting will FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS U.S.C. 2286a(b)(5) Atomic Energy Act of occur from 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. on ANNOUNCMENT: 80 FR 72052, (November 1954, as Amended Tuesday, 19 January 2016. The session 18, 2015). Dated: November 23, 2015 open to the general public will be held PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on 19 The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety MEETING: 1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m., December Board (Board) recommends that January 2016. The purpose of this Air 1, 2015. Force Scientific Advisory Board deficiencies identified with the CHANGES IN MEETING: quarterly meeting is to officially On page 72052, in implementation of existing commence FY16 SAB studies, which the third column, on lines 5 and 6, requirements in Department of Energy consist of: (1) Directed Energy Maturity change the DATES caption to read: ‘‘1:00 (DOE) Order 151.1C, Comprehensive for Airborne Self-Defense Applications, p.m.–4:00 p.m., December 1, 2015.’’ Emergency Management System, be (2) Data Analytics to Support CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: corrected at the Pantex Plant to ensure Operational Decision Making, (3) Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense adequate protection of workers and the Responding to Uncertain or Adaptive Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 public. During a series of interactions,1 Threats in Electronic Warfare, and (4) Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, we identified three areas of concern Airspace Surveillance to Support A2/ Washington, DC 20004–2901, (800) 788– regarding the site’s emergency AD Operations. In accordance with 5 4016. This is a toll-free number. preparedness and response capability. U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR Dated: November 30, 2015. Pantex Plant personnel took action in 102–3.155, a number of sessions of the Joyce L. Connery, response to some of the concerns identified, but significant concerns still USAF SAB Winter Board meeting will Chairman. exist. We conclude that each area of be closed to the public because they will [FR Doc. 2015–30624 Filed 12–1–15; 11:15 am] discuss classified information and concern by itself has the potential to BILLING CODE 3670–01–P matters covered by Section 552b of Title threaten the adequate protection of the 5, United States Code, subsection (c), public health and safety in the event of subparagraph (1). DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES an operational emergency. Those areas Any member of the public that wishes SAFETY BOARD of concern are (1) inadequate drill and to attend this meeting or provide input exercise programs, (2) no demonstrated to the USAF SAB must contact the [Recommendation 2015–1] capability to provide timely, accurate USAF SAB meeting organizer at the information to the public regarding off- Emergency Preparedness and phone number or email address listed site radiological consequences, and (3) Response at the Pantex Plant below at least five working days prior to inadequate technical planning bases and the meeting date. Please ensure that you AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities decision-making tools. We believe that submit your written statement in Safety Board. DOE and the National Nuclear Security accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(c) ACTION: Notice, recommendation. and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal 1 Interactions included the Board’s March 2013 SUMMARY: public meeting and hearing in Amarillo, TX, two Advisory Committee Act. Statements Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Board technical staff reviews in October 2012 and being submitted in response to the 2286a(b)(5), the Defense Nuclear December 2014, and exercise observations in agenda mentioned in this notice must be Facilities Safety Board has made a January and August 2014 and February 2015.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Administration (NNSA) must address believes this limits the effectiveness of details and include built-in delays that these concerns in order to ensure the the existing programs. A robust drill and hinder effective execution. While the adequate protection of the public and exercise program would be varied existing decision-making tools, such as the workers at the Pantex Plant. enough to address all response elements emergency action levels (EALs), may The Board communicated its concerns across the spectrum of hazards and minimize the risk of false alarms, their with emergency preparedness and facilities over time. design precludes providing timely, response across the DOE complex in its Board Finding: Timely, Accurate accurate, and conservative Recommendation 2014–1, Emergency Information to the Public Regarding Off- recommendations to the public. Preparedness and Response. The issues Site Radiological Consequences. Our Conclusion. The mission of the identified in this report are specific to review found no demonstrated Pantex Plant is vital to our nation’s the Pantex Plant and concern the NNSA capability to provide timely, accurate defense, and the consequences of a Production Office (NPO) and information to the public regarding off- significant accident would be difficult contractor’s 2 inadequate site radiological consequences. State to overcome. A robust, comprehensive, implementation of existing DOE radiological monitoring response teams tested, and sustainable emergency requirements. are located in Austin, TX, and must preparedness and response capability is Background: Emergency Preparedness travel nearly 500 miles before they are vital to ensure the adequate protection and Response Capability. Personnel at available to monitor affected areas.3 The of the public health and safety during the Pantex Plant conduct work vital to Pantex Plant emergency response operational emergencies. Specifically, our national defense. Due to the nature organization develops and provides deficiencies must be addressed in the of the operations and the spectrum of models of radioactive material releases drill and exercise programs, in materials in use at the site, the range of to state and county officials, but no demonstrating the capability to provide possible accidents varies widely. verification of these models with real- timely, accurate information to the Working with high explosives, world measurements is performed until public regarding off-site radiological hazardous chemicals, and radioactive state radiological monitoring response consequences, and in the technical materials results in the potential for teams arrive.4 Pantex Plant contractor planning bases and decision-making operational emergencies ranging from assets may be released at the plant’s tools. industrial process-related accidents to discretion in accordance with existing Recommendations. To address the significant material releases due to memoranda of understanding and deficiencies summarized above, the energetic events. The site is also subject agreement between the site and the Board recommends that DOE and NNSA to a range of natural phenomena counties/state. However, we found no take the following actions at the Pantex hazards; tornados, high winds, lightning instance in the last five years where the Plant: strikes, rain-induced flooding, and contractor exercised off-site monitoring. 1. Ensure the Pantex Plant drill and earthquakes are all possible in the Finally, we note that while existing DOE exercise programs comprehensively region. Of particular concern to us are requirements establish a thirty minute demonstrate proficiency in responding those accident scenarios that may cause threshold for off-site notification, the to emergencies for all hazards, all facilities, and all responders, consistent radioactive material to be dispersed and proximity of some Pantex Plant facilities with the technical planning bases and deposited off site. Given the short to the plant boundary is such that any updates to them, over a five-year distance from some facilities to the site material could contaminate off-site period in accordance with DOE Order perimeter and the average wind speeds locations in a shorter time period. 151.1C (or subsequent revisions). As at the site, these materials may affect Board Finding: Technical Planning part of this demonstration of public lands in the emergency planning Basis and Decision-Making Tools. The proficiency: zone within a short period of time. Board reviewed the technical planning bases and decision-making tools for the a. Develop and institute a basis for Board Finding: Drill and Exercise conducting the drill program in support Programs. Based on our observations, Pantex Plant’s emergency management program and found that they are of emergency operations. we conclude that the Pantex Plant b. Strengthen the exercise program to contractor has not demonstrated inadequate to demonstrate protection from time-sensitive events and do not provide an adequate number of adequate capabilities through its drill challenging scenarios per year, and exercise programs. The Pantex Plant consider all hazards at the site. Decision-making tools 5 lack significant including at least one full-scale, site- contractor’s execution of emergency wide exercise, in order to maintain drills and exercises is insufficient to 3 The DOE Radiological Assistance Program qualifications and ensure proficiency of provide opportunities for all personnel (RAP) is a national emergency response asset that the emergency response organization to develop and demonstrate proficiency provides around-the-clock first-response capability and first responders. at emergency response. No site-wide to assess radiological emergencies, and has a team c. Conduct a comprehensive exercises conducted since 2011 have stationed in Amarillo, TX. This team may not be consistently available due to competing priorities assessment of the drill and exercise simulated any significant radiological and may not have sufficient local resources to programs bases, schedule, and consequences. No site-wide exercise support a response outside the Pantex Plant. DOE execution against a risk-ranked set of: was conducted in 2013 (although a has not incorporated the RAP into the Pantex i. All hazards; hurriedly executed, unchallenging Plant’s existing exercise program, leaving to ii. All facilities; and question the capability of the RAP resources to small-scale scenario in January 2014 provide off-site support. Additionally, there is iii. All response elements. purportedly fulfilled the 2013 site-wide potential that the RAP team could be deployed d. Evaluate and improve the exercise requirement). The Board also elsewhere at the time of an incident, precluding the effectiveness of the NPO and contractor observed that both NPO and contractor use of that resource. processes used to critique drills and capabilities to assess site performance in 4 The dispatch of state radiological monitoring exercises. response assets may also be delayed due to the 2. Develop and implement processes drills and exercises are inadequate, and issues identified with the Pantex Plan decision- making tools. and demonstrate the capabilities to: 2 Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, became the 5 Decision-making tools currently available exist management and operating contractor in July 2014. to aide operators and first responders with a quick workers, and ensure protective action The previous contractor was Babcock & Wilcox determination of the likely magnitude of accident recommendations are delivered to public decision- Technical Services Pantex. consequences, communicate protective actions to makers in a timely manner.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75667

a. Ensure the timeliness and accuracy Office (NPO) and the contractor 1 to during the last few years has mainly of notifications to state and local address supplemental questions and supported preparation for the site’s authorities is commensurate with the clarify statements made during the annual exercises. initiation of off-site release of hearing. In 2014, members of the Department of Energy (DOE) Order radioactive material at the Pantex Plant. Board’s staff observed two site-wide 151.1C Comprehensive Emergency b. Provide consistent radiological emergency response exercises. In Management Program [1] outlines monitoring support if an accident December 2014, the Board’s staff team several requirements for drill and releases radiological material off-site, conducted another program review to exercise programs. Specifically, Section until state resources arrive and can examine specific aspects of the Pantex 4.b (Exercises) states: assume responsibility for off-site Plant emergency management program. • A formal exercise program must be monitoring. The Board’s staff team observed the established to validate all elements of 3. Evaluate, incorporate, and validate execution of certain emergency the emergency management program (correctness, completeness, and management program elements during a over a five-year period. effectiveness), the following changes to site-wide emergency response exercise • Each exercise must have specific the Pantex Plant decision-making tools conducted in February 2015. In objectives and must be fully and notification processes: addition, the Board’s Site documented (e.g., by scenario packages a. Evaluate the emergency action level Representative at Pantex, who is that include objectives, scope, timelines, (EAL) process for those accident stationed there on a full-time basis, injects, controller instructions, and scenarios identifiable solely via made observations regarding the evaluation criteria). instrumented systems to reduce delays emergency preparedness and response • Exercises must be evaluated. capability of the Pantex Plant as part of in determining and implementing • A critique process, which includes his routine oversight of the Pantex Plant protective actions. gathering and documenting observations facilities and operations. b. For those accident scenarios that of the participants, must be established. are not identifiable solely via During each of these activities, the • Corrective action items identified as instrumented systems, evaluate the Board’s staff team provided on-site a result of the critique process must be range of emergency conditions and feedback to NPO and the contractor, and incorporated into the emergency potential indicators, and identify where culminated this exchange with a formal management program. new monitoring systems can be added teleconference close-out brief on March or existing administrative controls can 17, 2015. Pantex Plant personnel took Additionally, specified facility-level be modified to improve timeliness of action in response to some of the requirements include: • response. concerns identified during the activities Each DOE/NNSA facility subject to c. For all scenarios, evaluate if some noted above, but significant concerns this chapter must exercise its emergency protective actions should be initiated still exist. The following section response capability annually and based solely on initial indicators (i.e., a expands on observations provided to the include at least facility-level evaluation precautionary evacuation) while Pantex Plant during the March 2015 and critique. • confirmatory indicators are sought. teleconference and provides the DOE evaluations of annual facility d. Upon completion of these technical basis for further Board action. exercises (e.g., by Cognizant Field evaluations, incorporate new guidance Observations. The Board’s staff team’s Element, Program Secretarial Officer, or and training for any changes made to observations are organized into three Headquarters Office of Security and the EAL decision-making tools and main sections: the drill and exercise Safety Performance Assurance) must be notification processes into the drill and programs, notification and support to performed periodically so that each exercise program. off-site agencies, and technical planning facility has an external DOE evaluation bases and decision-making tools.2 at least every three years. lllllllllllllllllllll • Joyce L. Connery, Drill and Exercise Programs—Based Site-level emergency response Chairman. on its observations, the Board’s staff organization elements and resources team concludes that the Pantex Plant must participate in a minimum of one Recommendation 2015–1 to the contractor has not demonstrated exercise annually. This site exercise Secretary of Energy adequate capabilities through its drill must be designed to test and Emergency Preparedness and Response and exercise programs. The Board’s staff demonstrate the site’s integrated at the Pantex Plant team found that the Pantex Plant emergency response capability. For emergency drill and exercise programs multiple facility sites, the basis for the Findings, Supporting Data, and do not provide sufficient opportunities exercise must be rotated among Analysis for personnel to develop and facilities. Introduction. During the past three demonstrate proficiency at emergency Scope of Exercise Scenarios: Based on years, members of the Defense Nuclear response with respect to all response observing implementation across DOE’s Facilities Safety Board’s (Board) staff elements across the spectrum of hazards sites, the Board’s staff team summarized conducted several activities to gain and and facilities. The drill program does these requirements as the need to maintain awareness of the state of not act as part of a comprehensive exercise all facilities, all hazards, and emergency preparedness and response training and qualification program, but all response elements. The following at the Pantex Plant. In October 2012, the sections describe the Board’s staff staff team conducted a wide-scope 1 Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, became the team’s observations of the Pantex Plant’s program review supporting preparations management and operating contractor in July 2014. The previous contractor was Babcock & Wilcox implementation of drill and exercise for the Board’s March 2013 public Technical Services Pantex. requirements. meeting and hearing in Amarillo, TX. 2 The focus of the Board’s staff reviews was not For the five-year period (2011–2015) After the public meeting and hearing, comprehensive in all elements of the emergency reviewed by the Board’s staff team, the members of the Board’s staff interacted management program. Additional problems may exist in other elements of the program, such as following scenarios represent the with the National Nuclear Security federal oversight and the quality of the site’s totality of Pantex Plant’s site-wide Administration (NNSA) Production agreements with off-site stakeholders. exercises:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

• 2011: Explosion in a nuclear activities involving hazardous and 2014) and the February 2015 exercise explosive facility with no contamination radiological materials. The Board’s staff also did not involve significant field outside the facility. team observed, directly and by participation other than fire and rescue • 2012: Seismic event leading to document review, the range of exercise services. Within the last five years, building damage (no radiological or scenarios being conducted and found Pantex has not completed a full hazardous material release). them to be too limited compared to the participation exercise (i.e., all on-site • 2014a: Liquid nitrogen release from range of hazards at the plant. Often employees participating through a truck accident (make-up for no these scenarios were simplistic and not protective actions and response); site- exercise in 2013). sufficiently challenging to truly wide exercises have only included • 2014b: Severe event (tornado) table- demonstrate response capability for the participation from a small subset of the top. hazard being exercised. DOE Guide • plant population. 2015a: Severe event (seismic) with 151.1–3, Programmatic Elements, Training and Qualification of a transportation accident, wildfire, and Section 3.0 ‘‘Exercises’’ [2] provides a Emergency Responders: The limited mass casualty (no radiological or method of scheduling exercises to number and scope of exercises hazardous material release). • ensure coverage of all hazards at a site conducted each year also affects the 2015b: Security event with over a five-year period. However, it is training, qualification, and proficiency hazardous material release. the opinion of the Board’s staff team of emergency responders. The Pantex The Board’s staff team reviewed that hazards with a higher frequency of Plant’s emergency response organization documentation that showed some occurrence, significance of facilities at the Pantex Plant did not is made up of three shifts of responders consequences, or complexity of on a rotating watch bill. It is unclear to hold an evaluated activity to emergency response may need to be demonstrate response capability, the Board’s staff team how the site can exercised more frequently than other demonstrate proficiency and support regardless of whether the activity was a hazards. Exercise scenarios from the site-wide exercise, limited scope training and qualification across all 3 past three years included a nitrogen responders when an insufficient number exercise, or other form of evaluation. spill, a primarily table-top tornado The plant’s analysis of the hazards for of facility and site-wide exercises are event, and a simulated earthquake with being scheduled to support a three-shift emergency preparedness and response no radiological material impact. is organized into a single emergency emergency response organization. The The potential for more significant Pantex Plant training, drill, and exercise planning hazards analysis (EPHA), consequences and complicated effectively identifying the plant as one program plan authorizes participation in responses exists at the Pantex Plant’s a limited-scope evaluated activity (e.g., facility when in reality there are facilities. For example, a high explosive numerous facilities with diverse functional exercises or limited scope violent reaction has the potential to performance demonstrations) to hazards. This organizational structure release radioactive material both on site, contributes to the limited number of maintain qualification within the outside of the nuclear explosive facility emergency response organization [4]. evaluated exercises at the Pantex Plant. (i.e., a bay), as well as off site. Fires in Pantex is currently undertaking an effort Pantex Plant exercise after action areas containing radioactive material reports document repeated emergency to reevaluate the organization of the have the potential to drive more EPHA (i.e., dividing the single EPHA response organization shortcomings significant radiological response actions during site-wide exercises,4 and into multiple EPHAs). The Board’s staff by plant personnel. It is the opinion of team received conceptual information demonstrate that these limited-scope the Board’s staff team that the Pantex opportunities are not sufficiently about this effort and will continue to Plant should more frequently exercise review any proposed changes to the rigorous to qualify and maintain challenging radiological responses. proficiency of personnel at emergency organization of the Pantex EPHA, since The Pantex Plant has not consistently operations. such a change may provide a formal exercised all response elements between Exercise Assessment: The Board’s basis for additional facility exercises. 2011 and 2015, which is insufficient to staff team believes that the Pantex The Pantex Plant has a range of meet DOE requirements. There does not Plant’s development and assessment of hazards that may challenge emergency appear to be a deliberate approach to exercise objectives contributes to the responders and decision-makers. demonstrating integrated emergency continuing limited effectiveness of the Natural phenomena such as tornados, response capability. For example, the emergency exercise program. The staff fires, lightning strikes, and rain-induced August 2014 exercise [3] relied on to team assessed the exercise objectives flooding exist alongside operational meet the annually required site-wide demonstration of proficiency, and does not consider them to be 3 The Pantex Plant is a collection of buildings of postulated a tornado affecting the site. effective tools for identifying problems various designs that house a variety of activities and This was the plant’s first significant that can be analyzed and corrected. operations that occur at the plant. There are bays First, the objectives reviewed by the effort at exercising a severe event, but and cells, which come in several variations and can staff team were not always adequate to was also credited as the annual site- be standalone or collocated, in which assembly and evaluate the effectiveness of actions disassembly of nuclear explosive assemblies is wide exercise. The Board’s staff team conducted. There are buildings in which non- observed that few field participants taken by responders. For example, nuclear operations, such as explosive operations, objectives do not always differentiate are conducted. There is a variety of storage areas demonstrated their response capabilities. While this was a valuable between taking an action and taking the including storage of nuclear materials, nuclear right action in a timely fashion. The explosive assemblies, explosives, and other training and planning activity for a hazardous materials. There are also various severe event, this exercise was the sole February 2015 exercise evaluation guide transportation activities within operational areas site-wide event for that time period. The for the Plant Shift Superintendents and across the site. For the purposes of exercises, (PSS) [5] included four criteria to various areas or types of operations could be Board’s staff team believes that it is grouped as representing different types of facilities. appropriate to exercise a more complete evaluate the PSS’s objective of In the context of the layout of facilities at the Pantex array of site response elements, not just Plant, the Board’s staff team believes that it would 4 The Board’s staff team observed the past three be appropriate to conduct some type of exercise or fire and rescue responders, site-wide exercises and also noted poor other form of evaluation for each representative demonstrating their proficiency. The performance by the emergency response type of activity and operation. 2013 exercise (conducted in January organization.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75669

implementing protective actions (see challenged to prioritize and apply exercise controller/evaluator for this Figure 1); the criteria do not address resources to those response elements role. Most response elements at the whether protective actions are that require additional attention and to Pantex Plant do not incorporate this implemented in time to be effective and address corrective actions. practice. whether the corrective protective Last, the Pantex Plant could meet all For each exercise, controllers and actions are correct for the event. of its exercise objectives but still evaluators conducted after action Another example of an objective from fundamentally fail to protect the critiques to collect data and the February 2015 exercise that the staff workers and public. The February 2015 observations about the performance of team believes was not adequate exercise is an example. During the exercise response participants, as well involved processing information (see participant hot wash and controller/ as concerns with exercise control. While Figure 2). This objective evaluates the evaluator after-action critique, most these were preliminary data gathering collection of information by the PSS, objectives were determined to be ‘‘Met.’’ activities, the Board’s staff team noted but does not evaluate communication of Yet, on-site first responders were the same lack of critical assessment this information to responders. The PSS potentially exposed to an off-site among the exercise evaluators. received information about trapped chemical hazard. This was not Evaluators did not explicitly compare victims involved in an on-site considered an objective and, therefore, the actions taken by participants to the transportation accident event involving did not influence the positive expected or most desirable responses as a passenger vehicle and a material perception of the exercise results by the they related to the fundamental purpose transporter, but did not verify that the participants, controllers, and evaluators. of emergency response. For example, Incident Commander took the correct Developing meaningful objectives while data on when a particular response. In fact, the Incident requires a balance between criteria that communication was faxed may have Commander was not notified that the are reasonably observable versus the been collected, the quality and on-site transportation accident had need to confirm a subjective quality usefulness of the communication to occurred, and no action was taken for (e.g., effectiveness). The ability to inform its addressee were not evaluated. almost an hour, at which point the Fire measure the quality of action taken, Discussions focused on specific Department responded. During the sometimes by independent oversight, is functional area performance, as assessed controller/evaluator after action a necessary part of objective against binary objectives such as a critique, the objective was evaluated as evaluations. checklist, but did not address the ‘‘Met’’ based on the fact that the PSS The Board’s staff team believes that effectiveness of interfaces between received the information; although the deficiencies in assessing performance in functional areas. controller/evaluator did note in the exercises also contribute to the For example, during the February After Action Report that ‘‘No continuing limited effectiveness of the 2015 exercise, the EOC received communication with the Incident emergency management program. information concerning an off-site Commander was observed’’ [6]. This Exercise participants conduct hot release of a hazardous chemical from a objective did not require the controller/ washes at the end of each exercise. The train accident. The consequence evaluator to adequately consider the hot washes are intended to be a vehicle assessment team performed modeling to quality of the action taken upon receipt for participants to self-critique their inform decision-makers of the effect on of the information. response performance, including both plant personnel, including first Second, if all objectives are weighted positive and negative aspects, and to responders. Fire Department personnel equally, the importance of certain identify potential areas for who responded to the on-site actions over others cannot be improvement. The hot washes that the transportation accident were within the distinguished. The Pantex Plant is Board’s staff team observed at the projected plume while performing undertaking an effort to change the Pantex Plant tended to focus on faults rescue operations. Neither the PSS nor grading scheme for emergency exercises with the exercise scenario rather than the EOC informed the Fire Department to focus only on objective-by-objective issues with emergency response personnel of the potential exposure performance and not incorporate any performance. The participants raised (e.g., type of material, quantity, timing, objective and criterion weighting or issues such as the perception that a or recommended personal protective overall grade scheme. In the objective scenario was unrealistic or that equipment). This information was shown in Figure 1, selecting the correct controllers did not have adequate eventually provided to the incident protective action is a single criterion,5 simulations for what the participants command late in the scenario. Exercise which could be missed. Yet if all other would observe in real-life. Many objectives were evaluated as ‘‘Met’’ for criteria are completed, the objective may participant observations focused on these individual functional areas during still be met. The overall objective—to deficiencies in administrative the evaluator after action critique. The implement time-urgent protective equipment and tools, such as printer or effectiveness of organizational interfaces actions—seems to be more valuable to fax machine problems. While the can be masked by such stove-piped an effective response than objectives readiness of these resources is important evaluations. that simply measure adherence to to an adequate response, the purpose of Emergency Management Drill and administrative procedures. It is the the exercise program is to demonstrate Exercise Program Oversight: The opinion of the Board’s staff team that, proficiency. Many participant Board’s staff team considers it a without some indication of an observations also focused on the significant deficiency that NPO and objective’s overall importance, the plant positive results of their actions, but contractor oversight did not identify the is likely to have difficulty interpreting failed to identify whether the actions issues discussed in this section. Other the exercise results and will be taken would have been effective during than the emergency management the given emergency scenario. As a best program manager, the Board’s staff team 5 Note that the criterion actually asks, ‘‘What practice, mature organizations tend to observed limited evidence of interaction protective action(s) was implemented.’’ This have an experienced functional team with NPO functional area subject matter discussion addresses the intent of that criterion (i.e., the Board’s staff team believes that the intent of the leader (e.g., the Emergency Operations experts in the evaluation of exercise criterion was to determine ‘‘Was the correct Center (EOC) Emergency Director) lead reports. NPO review of exercise protective action implemented?’’). the hot wash, rather than rely on the assessments appears weak in that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

exercises with observed deficiencies do The response teams, located in Austin, recommended protective actions to the not result in reports with commensurate TX, must travel nearly 500 miles before public. findings. Where issues are identified, they are available to monitor the To meet DOE Order 151.1C the contractor’s causal analyses are affected area. Notification delays would emergency planning element often weak or superficial, leading to also impede instituting access control to requirements, a site must conduct an development of ineffective corrective public use areas around the site. While all-hazard analysis. From this survey, actions and recurrence of the same the Pantex Plant emergency response certain accident sequences are selected issues in subsequent exercises. The organization develops and provides for additional consideration in the concern with ineffective corrective models of radioactive material releases EPHA. The EPHA provides the basis for actions is also evident when DOE’s to state and county officials, actual developing the site’s EALs. EALs, which independent oversight organizations monitoring to verify material deposition are also required by DOE Order 151.1C, observe exercises and provide reports to off site may not be proactively are used during an emergency event to the plant. DOE’s Office of Emergency performed by the site’s radiological determine the categorization and level Management Oversight (formerly HS–63 response assets; these assets may be of classification of the emergency event. and also OA–30) provided reports released at the plant’s discretion in When using an EAL, emergency highlighting concerns with the Pantex accordance with existing memoranda of response decision-makers attempt to Plant’s emergency management understanding between the site and the answer two questions. First, is the event program; these reports also identify counties/state. Pantex Plant radiological an operational emergency? Second, if recurring issues that the contractor has support personnel do not exercise this so, what is the potential area of impact not effectively addressed [7, 8, 9, 10]. monitoring function during drills and and the degree of emergency response? Timely, Accurate Information to the exercises, and do not have processes in The safety basis development process Public Regarding Off-site Radiological place to describe how off-site field uses a similar hazard analysis process. Consequences—The Board’s staff team monitoring would be executed. When developing a safety basis, some found no demonstrated capability to There are limited requirements in infrequent accidents may be screened provide timely, accurate information to DOE Order 151.1C that specify how the out of further analysis if they have a low the public regarding off-site radiological site will plan for these events and probability of occurrence. However, for consequences. Accident scenarios handle off-site radiological monitoring. the purposes of EPHAs, low-probability, postulated at the Pantex Plant may The Board’s staff team notes that the high-consequence events should be result in the release of radioactive Pantex Plant has made agreements, via further analyzed to determine the material or other hazardous materials memoranda of understanding, with state magnitude of potential consequences from facilities. The released material and local authorities to create and the expected level of response. may then be carried across the site communication channels for much of Guidance is provided in DOE’s boundary and contaminate public roads this information. However, these Emergency Management Guide 151.1– 1a, Emergency Management and land. The proximity of some existing mechanisms do not provide the Fundamentals and the Operational facilities at the plant to the site proactive support from the plant to the Emergency Base Program. ‘‘The DOE boundary is such that in certain local community that is necessary to approach requires some planning even scenarios, material could contaminate ensure any release of contamination is for events whose severity exceeds the off-site locations within a short period accurately tracked in a timely manner to design basis for safety controls; the of time. ensure the protection of the public. facility/site or activity must be prepared Notification to off-site organizations Given that the Pantex Plant is close to to take actions to limit or prevent provides two important functions: first, public roads and land, and has the adverse health and safety impacts to it warns members of the public to take potential to release radiological material workers and the public’’ [11]. While protective action in response to an off site within minutes of an initiating accident; second, it initiates off-site these analyses of low-probability events event, stronger requirements in the may be less quantitative, they still need response assets that can control access Order are needed to ensure the plant and conduct radiological monitoring. to be performed to ensure DOE and its performs effective off-site monitoring contractors are cognizant of potential The notification processes used at the until the necessary State of Texas Pantex Plant may not provide enough consequences and conduct an resources arrive. appropriate level of planning. time for protective action Technical Planning Bases and For events that Pantex Plant recommendations to be issued and Decision-making Tools—The Board’s emergency management personnel have executed before radioactive material is staff team found that the technical analyzed, the site uses EALs as a tool to dispersed off-site. Any delay in planning bases and decision-making determine if an operational emergency notification adds to the time necessary tools for the Pantex Plant’s emergency is occurring and the classification of the for state response assets to deploy. management program are inadequate to event, to notify site workers of the need Notification may be delayed due to the demonstrate protection from time- for protective actions, and to notify the emergency action level (EAL) decision- sensitive events and do not consider all public of recommended protective making processes. Additionally, state hazards at the site. For the set of hazards actions. As currently developed, these radiological monitoring assets may be analyzed, the technical planning tools EALs include a confirmatory step that delayed in reaching the vicinity of developed to respond to emergencies may delay decision-makers providing 6 Amarillo due to geographic constraints. are inadequate to ensure timely these notifications and notification of the need for protective recommendations for protective actions 6 The DOE Radiological Assistance Program actions to the workers and (RAP) is a national emergency response asset that for several minutes, possibly up to 30 provides around-the-clock first-response capability minutes. The ability to provide to assess radiological emergencies, and has a team Plant’s existing exercise program, leaving to notifications and recommendations for stationed in Amarillo, TX. This team may not be question the capability of the RAP resources to protective actions to workers and the consistently available due to competing priorities provide off-site support. Additionally, there is and may not have sufficient local resources to potential that the RAP team could be deployed public in a timely manner significantly support a response outside the Pantex Plant. DOE elsewhere at the time of an incident, precluding the increases the safety of these groups has not incorporated the RAP into the Pantex use of that resource. during operational emergencies. DOE

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75671

Order 151.1C specifies a 15-minute These classification decisions allow realized. Focused effort at addressing window to notify DOE Headquarters the PSS to determine what, if any, the concerns will substantially ensure and the public of events in progress [1]. protective actions are necessary for protection of the workers and public at Pantex Plant emergency management personnel on site and recommended the Pantex Plant. Some specific actions personnel chose to use a decision tree protective actions for the public off site. to address these concerns include: • model in their EALs, visually guiding an Waiting for confirmation from first Ensure the Pantex Plant drill and operator through decisions being made responders, if not provided by some exercise programs comprehensively in response to an event on site. The other source, may cause a delay in the demonstrate proficiency in responding example in Figure 3 below, taken from PSS issuing notifications and to emergencies for all hazards, all the Pantex EALs [12], shows the flow- recommendations for protective actions facilities, and all responders, consistent path through decision making to action. to the workforce and the public. For with the technical planning bases and example, in the following EAL, if no An operator—in the case of the Pantex any updates to them, over a five-year confirmatory information is provided, Plant, the PSS—enters the EAL with period in accordance with DOE Order someone must be dispatched to confirm relevant information concerning an 151.1C (or subsequent revisions). As if an explosion truly occurred [12]. part of this demonstration of emergency event. This leads the PSS to Similarly, note the reliance on a conservative emergency categorization proficiency: personnel observations and inferences Æ Develop and institute a basis for and classification. These classifications to assist the decision maker through conducting the drill program in support (Alert, Site Area Emergency, and appropriate classification of a fire in a of emergency operations. General Emergency) ensure appropriate nuclear explosive or special nuclear Æ Strengthen the exercise program to responses are taken given the material facility [12]. provide an adequate number of anticipated magnitude of the accident In the following example, radiological challenging scenarios per year, consequences. In most radiological support personnel must be dispatched, including at least one full-scale site- EALs at the Pantex Plant, the PSS if not immediately available at the wide exercise, in order to maintain receives initial information of scene, to confirm the validity of a qualifications and ensure proficiency of emergency conditions from an tritium release alarm before the the emergency response organization instrumented signal. For example, appropriate emergency classification and first responders. coincident fire and radiation monitor and protective actions are determined Æ Conduct a comprehensive alarms would indicate the presence of a [12]. assessment of the drill and exercise possible fire with radioactive material In the following example, it is not programs bases, schedule, and release. clear what a ‘‘Convincing Report’’ or execution against a risk-ranked set of: The Pantex Plant EALs also include combination of fire indicators is without D All hazards; confirmatory indicators as an explicit further training or guidance on D All facilities; and step in the decision-making process expectations for those who may report D All response elements. before classification can be performed. such events [12]. Æ Evaluate and improve the These are typically in the form of The specific examples provided, effectiveness of the NPO and contractor personnel providing eyewitness which are not intended to be all processes used to critique drills and confirmatory statements about the encompassing, demonstrate that the exercises. nature of an event. From the EAL front Pantex Plant emergency management • Develop and implement processes matter [12], page 8: strategy is reliant on confirmatory and demonstrate the capabilities to: indicators and does not always provide Æ Ensure the timeliness and accuracy The PSS or Emergency Manager must rely on information resulting from communication sufficient guidance on how to of notifications to state and local with whoever is in command at the accomplish the required confirmation. authorities is commensurate with the emergency scene, emergency responders, and Immediate (or precautionary) protective initiation of off-site release of plant personnel to supply confirmatory actions, which protect the site workers radioactive material at the Pantex Plant. information necessary to make emergency in the short-term, would be delayed Æ Provide consistent radiological classification decisions. while additional assessment is monitoring support if an accident performed. Such additional assessment releases radiological material off-site, From page 11: would also delay notifying the off-site until state resources arrive and can Using the appropriate EAL, the PSS or public of protective action assume responsibility for off-site Emergency Manager follows the decision tree recommendations. The Board’s staff monitoring. and attempts to identify initial and team believes changes to these • Evaluate, incorporate, and validate confirmatory indicators of an actual emergency event while simultaneously procedures, or incorporation of (correctness, completeness, and continuing to gather information on the additional instrumentation of adequate effectiveness), the following changes to situation from Incident Command, reliability, would provide the level of the Pantex Plant decision-making tools emergency responders, and plant personnel. protection necessary to ensure a time- and notification processes: [If these resources are not already there, they sensitive response to radiological Æ Evaluate the emergency action level are dispatched.] During this time, initial accidents while minimizing false (EAL) process for those accident protective actions may be implemented alarms. scenarios identifiable solely via [emphasis added] to protect plant personnel. Conclusions. The Board’s staff team instrumented systems to reduce delays If EAL confirmatory indicators are present considers the concerns described above in determining and implementing and detected, the PSS or Emergency Manager to be significant and concludes that the protective actions. follows the decision-tree to the classification Pantex Plant’s emergency management Æ For those accident scenarios that area. This section may require retrieval of program will require Board action to are not identifiable solely via information on the quantity and type of material involved in the incident from the influence DOE to address these instrumented systems, evaluate the Move Right System or use of inserted tables. deficiencies. The plant has made range of emergency conditions and Once determined, the PSS or Emergency changes to specific programmatic potential indicators, and identify where Manager classifies the emergency based on elements; however, significant new monitoring systems can be added the EAL information. improvements have not yet been or existing administrative controls can

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

be modified to improve timeliness of Initiating events in these assessments Elements: Emergency Management response. include operational and natural Guide, DOE Guide 151.1–3, July 11, Æ For all scenarios, evaluate if some phenomena events. Preventive and 2007. protective actions should be initiated mitigative controls are design basis [3] Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Emergency Services, Full Participation based solely on initial indicators (i.e., a controls identified in safety analysis Exercise 2014–1 (FPE 14–1) Exercise precautionary evacuation) while documents. Consequences cover a wide Plan (Twister-14), August 6, 2014. confirmatory indicators are sought. spectrum, ranging from insignificant to [4] Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Æ Upon completion of these catastrophic effects. Emergency Services, Emergency evaluations, incorporate new guidance The emergency management program Management Training, Drill, and and training for any changes made to exists at the Pantex Plant because the Exercise Program Plan, Issue 011, EM– the EAL decision-making tools and risk associated with its facilities is PLN–0023, (undated). notification processes into the drill and acknowledged by DOE and is required [5] Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Emergency Services, Full Scale Exercise exercise program. by law. Emergency response provides 2015–1 (FSE 15–1) Exercise Evaluation The Board’s staff team believes these the ‘‘last line of defense in the event of Guides (Shaker-15), February 4, 2015. problems will not be adequately . . . [an] accident’’ [15]. Therefore, the [6] Pantex Plant, February 4, 2015 Shaker-15 addressed by Board’s Recommendation emergency management program needs Exercise After Action Report, (undated). 2014–1, Emergency Preparedness and to function effectively to protect the [7] Department of Energy, Office of Response [13]. Recommendation 2014– workers and the public. Independent Oversight and Performance 1 identifies specific concerns with DOE This recommendation is focused on Assurance, Volume II, Inspection of as a regulator, including a failure to improving the effectiveness of the Emergency Management at the Pantex Pantex Plant’s emergency management Plant, November 2002. maintain an adequate requirement set, [8] Department of Energy, Office of Security which led to inconsistent program. A quantitative risk assessment and Safety Performance Assurance: implementation across DOE, as well as on the effectiveness of this program Office of Independent Oversight and a lack of rigor in federal and contractor requires data on probability and Performance Assurance, Inspection of oversight that let problems persist. consequences. Detailed data on the Emergency Management at the Pantex While some of DOE’s actions to address probability of failure in emergency Site Office and the Pantex Plant, August Recommendation 2014–1 may provide a management program elements are not 2005. framework for the Pantex Plant to available for the Pantex Plant, nor do [9] Department of Energy, Office of Health, effective comparisons exist. Therefore, it Safety and Security: Office of improve its emergency preparedness Independent Oversight: Office of and response, the staff team believes the is not possible to do a quantitative Emergency Management Oversight, concerns noted above exist due to assessment of the risk of these elements Independent Oversight Inspection of inadequate implementation of the to provide adequate protection of the Emergency Management at the Pantex current requirements. As a result, the workers and the public.1 Site Office and the Pantex Plant, June staff team believes that timely resolution The Board believes that more robust 2008. of these concerns requires separate implementation of existing [10] Department of Energy, Office of Health, Board action. requirements would reduce the risk Safety and Security: Office of associated with the spectrum of Independent Oversight, Independent Risk Assessment for Recommendation accidents postulated at the plant, Oversight Review of Emergency 2015–1 Management at the Pantex Site Office regardless of the cause, including and Pantex Plant, November 2010. Emergency Preparedness and Response process upsets, the effects of natural [11] Department of Energy, Emergency at the Pantex Plant phenomena, and man-made initiating Management Fundamentals and the events, as well as provide additional Operational Emergency Base Program: The recommendation addresses margin to respond to those events Emergency Management Guide, DOE vulnerabilities in the Pantex Plant’s considered beyond the design basis. Guide 151.1–1a, July 11, 2007. implementation of Department of [12] Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Energy (DOE) requirements for Cited References Pantex, Emergency Action Levels, MNL– emergency preparedness and response. [1] Department of Energy, Comprehensive 190884, Issue No. 007, (undated). In accordance with the Defense Nuclear Emergency Management System, DOE [13] Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Facilities Safety Board’s (Board) Order 151.1C, November 2, 2005. Emergency Preparedness and Response, enabling statue and Policy Statement 5 [2] Department of Energy, Programmatic Recommendation 2014–1, September 3, (PS–5), Policy Statement on Assessing 2014. [14] Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 1 Risk [14], this risk assessment was Members of the Board’s staff conducted research PS–5 Policy Statement on Assessing conducted to support the Board’s on other sources of risk information related to emergency management programs and noted the Risk, August 15, 2013. Recommendation 2015–1, Emergency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) [15] Department of Energy, Office of Preparedness and Response at the evaluates commercial nuclear production and Emergency Management Mission, Pantex Plant. As stated in PS–5, utilization facilities against a set of sixteen accessed at: http://nnsa.energy.gov/ ‘‘standards,’’ similar to DOE’s concept of fifteen ourmission/emergencyresponse, The Board’s assessment of risk may involve program elements found in DOE Order 151.1C, accessed April 24, 2015. quantitative information showing that the Comprehensive Emergency Management System. Of [16] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, order of magnitude of the risk is inconsistent the sixteen NRC standards, four are considered Emergency Plans, Title 10, Code of with adequate protection of the health and ‘‘risk significant’’ and are weighted differently in Federal Regulations, Subsection 50.47. safety of the workers and the public . . . the the application of the NRC’s reactor oversight [17] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Board will explicitly document its process, a regulatory scheme applied to certain Emergency Planning and Preparedness assessment of risk when drafting licensees to characterize the severity of findings [16, 17]. Under this scheme, findings identified within for Production and Utilization Facilities, recommendations to the Secretary of Energy these standards are considered more significant. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, in those cases where sufficient data exists to Three of the four standards, ‘‘Classification,’’ Part 50, Appendix E. perform a quantitative risk assessment. ‘‘Notification,’’ and ‘‘Protective Action Recommendations,’’ parallel the nature of the General References DOE’s hazards assessments address concerns with elements of the Pantex Plant’s initiating events, preventive and emergency management program stated by the Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Pantex, mitigative controls, and consequences. Board in this recommendation. NNSA Emergency Readiness Assurance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75673

Plans—FY 2012 Submission: Completed Accession Number: 20151124–5258. Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, Activities For FY 2012 and Projected Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/15. LLC. Activities For FY 2013, Pantex ERAP, Docket Numbers: ER10–3297–008. Description: Compliance filing: (undated). Compliance Filing—Removal of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Applicants: Powerex Corp. Public Meeting and Hearing for Safety Description: Notice of Non-Material Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/ Culture, Emergency Preparedness, and Change in Status of Powerex Corp. 2015. Nuclear Explosive Operations at Pantex, Filed Date: 11/25/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Amarillo, TX, March 14, 2013. Accession Number: 20151125–5247. Accession Number: 20151125–5186. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Status of Emergency Management at Docket Numbers: ER16–388–000. Docket Numbers: ER16–395–000. Defense Nuclear Facilities of the Applicants: Selmer Farm, LLC. Department of Energy, Technical Report- Applicants: Southern California Edison Company. Description: Compliance filing: 21, March 1999. Compliance Filing—Removal of Erhart, S.C., Pantex Emergency Management Description: Tariff Cancellation: Exercise (EMEX 13–1) January 2014, Notice of Cancellation LGIA Alta Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/ memorandum to J. Maisonet, December Windpower Development to be effective 2015. 19, 2013. 9/11/2015. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Erhart, S. C., Public Hearing and Meeting Filed Date: 11/25/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5190. Regarding Safety Culture, Emergency Accession Number: 20151125–5022. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Preparedness, and Nuclear Explosive Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: ER16–396–000. Operations at Pantex, communication to Docket Numbers: ER16–389–000. Applicants: CID Solar, LLC. Peter S. Winokur, June 12, 2013. Description: Compliance filing: Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Emergency Services, Operational Company. Compliance Filing—Removal of Emergency Manual, Issue No. 003, MNL– Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Affiliate Tariff to be effective 11/1/2015. 352187, (undated). Amendment to DWR Midway-Wheeler Filed Date: 11/25/15. Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Ridge Agreement (RS245) to be effective Accession Number: 20151125–5246. Emergency Services, Pantex Plant 1/25/2016. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Comprehensive Emergency Management Filed Date: 11/25/15. Take notice that the Commission Plan, Issue No. 007, EM–PLN–0019, Accession Number: 20151125–5033. received the following electric securities (undated). filings: Pantex Plant Safeguards, Security, and Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Emergency Services, Pantex Plant Docket Numbers: ER16–390–000. Docket Numbers: ES16–6–000. Emergency Planning Hazards Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Assessment, Issue No. 009, MNL– Company. Company. 190881, (undated). Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Description: Amendment to October [FR Doc. 2015–30562 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Lathrop Irrigation District IA and TFA 30, 2015 Application of Commonwealth BILLING CODE 3670–01–P (SA 298) to be effective 11/30/2015. Edison Company Under Section 204 of Filed Date: 11/25/15. the Federal Power Act for Authorization Accession Number: 20151125–5038. of the Issuance Securities. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Filed Date: 11/24/15. Docket Numbers: ER16–391–000. Accession Number: 20151125–5093. Federal Energy Regulatory Applicants: Public Service Company Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/15. Commission of New Hampshire. The filings are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by Combined Notice of Filings #1 Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Schiller Generating Station LGIA— clicking on the links or querying the Take notice that the Commission Service Agreement No. IA–ES–31 to be docket number. received the following exempt effective 1/1/2016. Any person desiring to intervene or wholesale generator filings: Filed Date: 11/25/15. protest in any of the above proceedings Docket Numbers: EG16–24–000. Accession Number: 20151125–5090. must file in accordance with Rules 211 Applicants: Blythe Solar 110, LLC. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. and 214 of the Commission’s Description: Notice of Self- Docket Numbers: ER16–392–000. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Certification of Exempt Wholesale Applicants: Midcontinent § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Generator Status of Blythe Solar 110, Independent System Operator, Inc. time on the specified comment date. LLC. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Protests may be considered, but Filed Date: 11/24/15. 2015–11–25_Attachment MM AFUDC intervention is necessary to become a Accession Number: 20151124–5263. Filing to be effective 1/1/2016. party to the proceeding. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing Take notice that the Commission Accession Number: 20151125–5102. requirements, interventions, protests, received the following electric rate Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. service, and qualifying facilities filings filings: Docket Numbers: ER16–393–000. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm Docket Numbers: ER10–2074–006; docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For LLC. ER10–2097–008. other information, call (866) 208–3676 Description: Compliance filing: Applicants: Kansas City Power & (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Light Company, KCP&L Greater Compliance Filing—Removal of Tariff Missouri Operations Company. Waiver to be effective 11/1/2015. Dated: November 25, 2015. Description: Notice of Change in Filed Date: 11/25/15. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Status of Kansas City Power & Light Accession Number: 20151125–5124. Deputy Secretary. Company, et al. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. [FR Doc. 2015–30566 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Filed Date: 11/24/15. Docket Numbers: ER16–394–000. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Basin. Eastern Shore requests that the to the proceeding. The Commission’s Commission issue the requested rules require that persons filing Federal Energy Regulatory authorizations during the first quarter of comments in opposition to the project Commission 2016, in order to allow Eastern Shore provide copies of their protests only to [Docket No. CP15–18–001] complete and place the project in the party or parties directly involved in service no later than September 1, 2016. the protest. Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Persons who wish to comment only Notice of Amendment to Application Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, on the environmental review of this for Certificate of Public Convenience within 90 days of this Notice the and Necessity Commission staff will either: complete project should submit an original and its environmental assessment (EA) and two copies of their comments to the Take notice that on November 18, place it into the Commission’s public Secretary of the Commission. 2015, Eastern Shore Natural Gas record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or Environmental commentors will be Company (Eastern Shore), 1110 Forrest issue a Notice of Schedule for placed on the Commission’s Avenue, Dover, Delaware 19904, filed in Environmental Review. If a Notice of environmental mailing list, will receive the above referenced docket an Schedule for Environmental Review is copies of the environmental documents, amendment to the certificate application issued, it will indicate, among other and will be notified of meetings in Docket No. CP15–18–000, pursuant to milestones, the anticipated date for the associated with the Commission’s section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act Commission staff’s issuance of the final environmental review process. (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s environmental impact statement (FEIS) Environmental commentors will not be regulations. Eastern Shore proposes to or EA for this proposal. The filing of the required to serve copies of filed construct Kemblesville Loop portion of EA in the Commission’s public record documents on all other parties. the White Oak Mainline Expansion for this proceeding or the issuance of a However, the non-party commentors Project (Project) along existing right-of- Notice of Schedule for Environmental will not receive copies of all documents way rather than along a new right-of- Review will serve to notify federal and filed by other parties or issued by the way, as was originally proposed all in state agencies of the timing for the Chester County, Pennsylvania, all as completion of all necessary reviews, and Commission (except for the mailing of more fully set forth in the application the subsequent need to complete all environmental documents issued by the which is on file with the Commission federal authorizations within 90 days of Commission) and will not have the right and open to public inspection. the date of issuance of the Commission to seek court review of the The filing may also be viewed on the staff’s FEIS or EA. Commission’s final order. Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the There are two ways to become The Commission strongly encourages ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket involved in the Commission’s review of electronic filings of comments, protests number excluding the last three digits in this project. First, any person wishing to and interventions in lieu of paper using the docket number field to access the obtain legal status by becoming a party the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http:// document. For assistance, please contact to the proceedings for this project www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file FERC Online Support at should, on or before the comment date electronically should submit an original [email protected] or toll stated below, file with the Federal and 14 copies of the protest or free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 intervention to the Federal Energy (202) 502–8659. First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Any questions concerning this a motion to intervene in accordance regulatory Commission, 888 First Street application may be directed to William with the requirements of the NE., Washington, DC 20426. Rice, King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Commission’s Rules of Practice and This filing is accessible on-line at Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200, Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) http://www.ferc.gov, using the Washington, DC 20006, by phone 202– and the Regulations under the NGA (18 ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 626–9602, by fax 202–626–3737, or by CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party review in the Commission’s Public email [email protected]. status will be placed on the service list Reference Room in Washington, DC Specifically, Eastern Shore originally maintained by the Secretary of the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the proposed to construct a 3.9 mile long Commission and will receive copies of Web site that enables subscribers to 16-inch diameter pipeline loop near all documents filed by the applicant and receive email notification when a Kemblesville, Pennsylvania by all other parties. A party must submit document is added to a subscribed (Kemblesville Loop) along new right-of- 7 copies of filings made with the docket(s). For assistance with any FERC way away from the existing structures. Commission and must mail a copy to Online service, please email However, upon closer review of the the applicant and to every other party in [email protected], or call environmental impacts, Eastern Shore the proceeding. Only parties to the became aware that Alternative 2 route in proceeding can ask for court review of (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call the original filing would be more Commission orders in the proceeding. (202) 502–8659. preferable. Alternative 2 route will (1) However, a person does not have to Comment Date: December 16, 2015. reduce the total length of the intervene in order to have comments Dated: November 25, 2015. Kemblesville loop by 1.8 miles; (2) considered. The second way to reduce the acreage of mature tree participate is by filing with the Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., clearance from approximately 12 to Secretary of the Commission, as soon as Deputy Secretary. approximately 6; (3) open up less possible, an original and two copies of [FR Doc. 2015–30570 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] forested acreage to the potential spread comments in support of or in opposition BILLING CODE 6717–01–P of noxious weeds and vines that over to this project. The Commission will time could kill mature trees; and (4) consider these comments in minimize the removal of other determining the appropriate action to be vegetation thus reducing potential taken, but the filing of a comment alone adverse impacts to Delaware River will not serve to make the filer a party

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75675

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Accession Number: 20151125–5262. Docket Numbers: ER16–136–001. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Federal Energy Regulatory Take notice that the Commission L.L.C. Commission received the following electric rate Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata filings: to Filing in ER16–136–000 to Correct Combined Notice of Filings #1 Docket Numbers: ER10–2126–002. Proposed Effective Date to be effective Take notice that the Commission Applicants: Idaho Power Company. 10/21/2015. received the following electric corporate Description: Notice of Change in Filed Date: 11/25/15. filings: Status of Idaho Power Company. Accession Number: 20151125–5358. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: EC16–39–000. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 2, Accession Number: 20151125–5430. Docket Numbers: ER16–397–000. LLC. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Applicants: Cottonwood Solar, LLC. Description: Application for Docket Numbers: ER10–2331–046; Description: Compliance filing: authorization of transaction under FPA ER14–630–022; ER10–2319–037; ER10– Compliance Filing—Removal of section 203 and request for expedited 2317–037; ER13–1351–019; ER10–2330– Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/ action of Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC. 044. 2015. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Filed Date: 11/25/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5408. Energy Corporation, AlphaGen Power Accession Number: 20151125–5261. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: EC16–40–000. Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Docket Numbers: ER16–398–000. Applicants: Marina Energy, LLC. Contract Funding, L.L.C. Applicants: New York Independent Description: Application for Description: Notice of Non-Material System Operator, Inc. Authorization Under Section 203 of the Change in Status of JPMorgan Sellers. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Federal Power Act and Request for Filed Date: 11/25/15. Section 205 filing tariff amendments to Expedited Action of Marina Energy, Accession Number: 20151125–5432. OATT Attachment F to be effective 1/1/ LLC. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. 2016. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Docket Numbers: ER10–2331–047; Filed Date: 11/25/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5410. ER14–630–023; ER10–2319–038; ER10– Accession Number: 20151125–5289. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. 2317–038; ER13–1351–020; ER10–2330– Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: EC16–41–000. 045. Docket Numbers: ER16–400–000. Applicants: 8point3 Energy Partners Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric LP, Kingbird Solar A, LLC, Kingbird Energy Corporation, AlphaGen Power Company. Solar B, LLC. LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Description: Application for Florida Power Development LLC, Utility November 2015 Western WDT Service Authorization Under FPA Section 203 Contract Funding, L.L.C. Agreement Biannual Filing to be and Request for Expedited Action of Description: Notice of Non-Material effective 2/1/2016. 8point3 Energy Partners LP, et al. Change in Status of JPMorgan Sellers. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5324. Accession Number: 20151125–5411. Accession Number: 20151125–5436. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: ER16–401–000. Docket Numbers: EC16–43–000. Docket Numbers: ER10–3168–014; Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind ER10–2531–005. Company. Farm LLC, Arlington Wind Power Applicants: ArcLight Energy Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Project LLC, Cloud County Wind Farm, Marketing, LLC, Cedar Creek Wind November 2015 Western LLC, Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I, LLC, Energy, LLC. Interconnection Agreement Biannual Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC, Waverly Description: Notice of Non-Material Filing to be effective 2/1/2016. Wind Farm LLC, Axium US Wind Change in Status of ArcLight Energy Filed Date: 11/25/15. AcquisitionCo LLC. Marketing, LLC, et al. Accession Number: 20151125–5332. Description: Application for Filed Date: 11/25/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Authorization for Disposition of Accession Number: 20151125–5437. Docket Numbers: ER16–402–000. Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar Expedited Action of Arbuckle Mountain Docket Numbers: ER13–342–009. Company (IVSC) 2, LLC. Wind Farm LLC, et al. Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC. Description: Compliance filing: Filed Date: 11/25/15. Description: Notice of Change in Compliance Filing—Removal of Accession Number: 20151125–5427. Status of CPV Shore, LLC. Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/ Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. 2015. Take notice that the Commission Accession Number: 20151125–5431. Filed Date: 11/25/15. received the following exempt Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5334. wholesale generator filings: Docket Numbers: ER15–1919–004. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Docket Numbers: EG16–25–000. Applicants: California Independent Docket Numbers: ER16–403–000. Applicants: NextEra Blythe Solar System Operator Corporation. Applicants: Pavant Solar LLC. Energy Center, LLC. Description: Compliance filing: Description: Compliance filing: Description: Notice of Self- Compliance filing—EIM Year 1 Compliance Filing—Pavant Removal of Certification of Exempt Wholesale Enhancements to be effective 11/4/2015. Affiliate Waiver 112515 to be effective Generator Status of NextEra Blythe Solar Filed Date: 11/25/15. 11/1/2015. Energy Center, LLC. Accession Number: 20151125–5361. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5354.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. The filings are accessible in the Accession Number: 20151125–5385. Accession Number: 20151125–5399. Commission’s eLibrary system by Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. clicking on the links or querying the Docket Numbers: ER16–405–000. Docket Numbers: ER16–413–000. docket number. Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Applicants: NRG Wholesale Any person desiring to intervene or Farm, LLC. Generation LP, Seward Generation, LLC. protest in any of the above proceedings Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Description: NRG Wholesale must file in accordance with Rules 211 Category 2 Seller Notice re NE to be Generation LP and Seward Generation, and 214 of the Commission’s effective 11/26/2015. LLC Joint Request for Waiver and Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Filed Date: 11/25/15. Request for Expedited Consideration. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Accession Number: 20151125–5392. Filed Date: 11/25/15. time on the specified comment date. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Protests may be considered, but Accession Number: 20151125–5424. Docket Numbers: ER16–406–000. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. intervention is necessary to become a Applicants: Aragonne Wind LLC. party to the proceeding. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: The filings are accessible in the eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Category 2 Seller re SW to be effective Commission’s eLibrary system by information relating to filing 11/26/2015. clicking on the links or querying the requirements, interventions, protests, Filed Date: 11/25/15. docket number. service, and qualifying facilities filings Accession Number: 20151125–5393. Any person desiring to intervene or can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. protest in any of the above proceedings docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Docket Numbers: ER16–407–000. must file in accordance with Rules 211 other information, call (866) 208–3676 Applicants: Dominion Bridgeport and 214 of the Commission’s (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Fuel Cell, LLC. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Dated: November 27, 2015. Description: Compliance filing: 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Compliance Filing—DBFC Removal of time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but Deputy Secretary. Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/ 2015. intervention is necessary to become a [FR Doc. 2015–30567 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] party to the proceeding. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Filed Date: 11/25/15. Accession Number: 20151125–5394. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket Numbers: ER16–408–000. service, and qualifying facilities filings Applicants: Crescent Ridge LLC. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Federal Energy Regulatory Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Commission Category 2 Seller Notice re NE to be other information, call (866) 208–3676 effective 11/26/2015. Combined Notice of Filings #2 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Take notice that the Commission Accession Number: 20151125–5395. Dated: November 27, 2015. received the following electric rate Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., filings: Docket Numbers: ER16–409–000. Deputy Secretary. Docket Numbers: ER10–3168–015; Applicants: Buena Vista Energy, LLC. [FR Doc. 2015–30568 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] ER10–2400–005. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Applicants: ArcLight Energy Category 2 Seller Notice re SW to be Marketing, LLC, Blue Canyon effective 11/26/2015. Windpower LLC. Filed Date: 11/25/15. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Description: Notice of Non-Material Accession Number: 20151125–5396. Change in Status of ArcLight Energy Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Marketing, LLC, et al. Docket Numbers: ER16–410–000. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Applicants: GSG, LLC. Combined Notice of Filings #3 Accession Number: 20151125–5438. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Category 2 Seller Notice re NE to be Take notice that the Commission Docket Numbers: ER10–3168–016; effective 11/26/2015. received the following electric rate ER10–2532–005; ER10–2722–005. Filed Date: 11/25/15. filings: Applicants: ArcLight Energy Accession Number: 20151125–5397. Docket Numbers: ER10–2527–001; Marketing, LLC, Crescent Ridge LLC, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Eurus Combine Hills I LLC. ER10–2528–001; ER10–3168–017; Description: Notice of Non-Material Docket Numbers: ER16–411–000. ER10–2529–001; ER10–2530–002; Change in Status of ArcLight Energy Applicants: Kumeyaay Wind LLC. ER15–356–004; ER15–357–004; ER10– Marketing, LLC, et al. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2533–001; ER10–2534–001; ER10–2535– Filed Date: 11/25/15. Category 2 Seller Notice re SW to be 001; ER12–2570–010; ER13–618–009. Accession Number: 20151125–5439. effective 11/26/2015. Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Filed Date: 11/25/15. Farm, LLC, Aragonne Wind LLC, Docket Numbers: ER16–404–000. Accession Number: 20151125–5398. ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, Buena Applicants: Southern California Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Vista Energy, LLC, Caprock Wind LLC, Edison Company. Docket Numbers: ER16–412–000. Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC, Chief Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Applicants: Mendota Hills, LLC. Keystone Power, LLC, GSG, LLC, Letter Agreement Silver State Solar Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Kumeyaay Wind LLC, Mendota Hills, Power South, LLC & NEER to be Category 2 Seller Notice re NE to be LLC, Panther Creek Power Operating, effective 11/26/2015. effective 11/26/2015. LLC, Westwood Generation, LLC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75677

Description: Notice of Non-Material Dated: November 27, 2015. Closed Session * Change in Status of Allegheny Ridge Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., • Office of Examination Quarterly Wind Farm, LLC, et al. Deputy Secretary. Report [FR Doc. 2015–30569 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Filed Date: 11/25/15. Dated: November 30, 2015. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Accession Number: 20151125–5441. Mary Alice Donner, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. Docket Numbers: ER10–3246–007; [FR Doc. 2015–30663 Filed 12–1–15; 4:15 pm] ER11–2044–018; ER10–2475–012; FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION ER10–2474–012; ER12–162–015; ER15– BILLING CODE 6705–01–P Farm Credit Administration Board; 2211–005; ER11–3876–018; ER13–520– Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting 005; ER13–521–005; ER13–1441–005; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ER13–1442–005; ER12–1626–006; AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ER13–1266–006; ER13–1267–005; COMMISSION SUMMARY: ER13–1268–005; ER13–1269–005; Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the [AU Docket No. 14–252, GN Docket No. 12– ER13–1270–005; ER13–1271–005; 268, WT Docket No. 12–269; DA 15–1365] ER13–1272–005; ER13–1273–005; Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of ER10–2601–005; ER10–2611–016; the Farm Credit Administration Board Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ER10–2605–009; ER12–922–003. (Board). Clarifies Procedure for Disbursing DATE AND TIME: Reverse Auction Incentive Payments Applicants: PacifiCorp, MidAmerican The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of Energy Company, Nevada Power AGENCY: Federal Communications the Farm Credit Administration in Company, Sierra Pacific Power Commission. McLean, Virginia, on December 10, Company, Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, ACTION: Notice. MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. Cordova Energy Company LLC, Pinyon SUMMARY: This document clarifies Pines Wind I, LLC, Pinyon Pines Wind FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale procedure for reverse incentive auction II, LLC, Solar Star California XIX, LLC, L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm payments for Auction 1001. Solar Star California XX, LLC, Topaz Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solar Farms LLC, CalEnergy, LLC, CE 4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Leathers Company, Del Ranch ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: Company, Elmore Company, Fish Lake Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, For general forward auction questions: Power LLC, Salton Sea Power McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. Submit Mary Margaret Jackson at (202) 418– Generation Company, Salton Sea Power attendance requests via email to 3641. L.L.C., Vulcan/BN Geothermal Power [email protected]. See Company, Power Resources, Ltd, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further summary of the Clarification on Reverse Saranac Power Partners, L.P., Yuma information about attendance requests. Cogeneration Associates, Phillips 66 Auction Payment Public Notice, AU SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Company. Parts of Docket No. 14–252, GN Docket No. 12– this meeting of the Board will be open 268, WT Docket No. 12–269, DA 15– Description: Notification of Change in to the public (limited space available), 1365, released on November 25, 2015. Status PacifiCorp, et al. and parts will be closed to the public. The complete text of the Clarification on Filed Date: 11/25/15. Please send an email to VisitorRequest@ Reverse Auction Payment Public Notice Accession Number: 20151125–5440. FCA.gov at least 24 hours before the is available for public inspection and meeting. In your email include: Name, copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/15. postal address, entity you are Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 The filings are accessible in the representing (if applicable), and a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the Commission’s eLibrary system by telephone number. You will receive an FCC Reference Information Center, 445 clicking on the links or querying the email confirmation from us. Please be 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, docket number. prepared to show a photo identification Washington, DC 20554. The complete when you arrive. If you need assistance Any person desiring to intervene or text is also available on the for accessibility reasons, or if you have protest in any of the above proceedings Commission’s Web site at http:// any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, must file in accordance with Rules 211 wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search Secretary to the Farm Credit and 214 of the Commission’s function on the ECFS Web page at Administration Board, at (703) 883– Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 4009. The matters to be considered at 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Alternative formats are available to the meeting are: time on the specified comment date. persons with disabilities by sending an Protests may be considered, but Open Session email to [email protected] or by calling intervention is necessary to become a the Consumer & Governmental Affairs A. Approval of Minutes party to the proceeding. Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) • November 12, 2015 418–0432 (TTY). eFiling is encouraged. More detailed B. Reports 1. The Wireless Telecommunications information relating to filing • Report on Farm Credit System’s Bureau (Bureau) in response to a requirements, interventions, protests, number of comments and inquiries service, and qualifying facilities filings Funding Conditions • Quarterly Report on Economic clarified the circumstances under which can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ the Commission will accept payment docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Conditions and FCS Conditions • other information, call (866) 208–3676 Semi-Annual Report on Office of * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Examination Operations Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

instructions to make incentive payments Federal Communications Commission. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM to an entity other than a winning reverse William Huber, auction bidder. The Commission has Associate Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Formations of, Acquisitions by, and stated that incentive payments will be Access Division, WTB. Mergers of Bank Holding Companies disbursed ‘‘to the licensee that is the [FR Doc. 2015–30606 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] reverse auction applicant’’ and that, in BILLING CODE 6712–01–P The companies listed in this notice making such disbursements, it will have applied to the Board for approval, ‘‘follow winning reverse auction pursuant to the Bank Holding Company bidders’ payment instructions as set Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) forth on their respective standardized FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part incentive payment forms to the extent REVIEW COMMISSION 225), and all other applicable statutes permitted by law.’’ The Bureau clarified and regulations to become a bank Sunshine Act Notice that the winning reverse auction bidder holding company and/or to acquire the need not be the owner of the account to December 1, 2015. assets or the ownership of, control of, or which disbursement is made. Winning the power to vote shares of a bank or bidders may instruct that their TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, bank holding company and all of the payments be disbursed to a third party, December 10, 2015. banks and nonbanking companies such as a ‘‘qualified intermediary,’’ a PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing owned by the bank holding company, ‘‘qualified trust,’’ an escrow account, or Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania including the companies listed below. an account jointly owned by parties to Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 The applications listed below, as well a channel sharing agreement (CSA) who (enter from F Street entrance). as other related filings required by the are named as owners of that account. STATUS: Open. Board, are available for immediate The flexibility to instruct that payments inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank be disbursed to a third party will MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The indicated. The applications will also be facilitate channel sharing and thereby Commission will consider and act upon available for inspection at the offices of promote voluntary broadcaster the following in open session: the Board of Governors. Interested participation in the reverse auction. Secretary of Labor v. AK Coal persons may express their views in 2. In addition, the Bureau clarified Resources, Inc., Docket No. PENN writing on the standards enumerated in that incentive payments will be 2014–159 the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the disbursed only to a single payee and Secretary of Labor v. Pinnacle Mining proposal also involves the acquisition of into a single account. Any division of Co., LLC, Docket No. WEVA 2014–963 a nonbanking company, the review also payments (e.g., among the parties to a Secretary of Labor v. James L. Deck, includes whether the acquisition of the CSA or to different accounts) will be the Docket No. SE 2014–322–M nonbanking company complies with the responsibility of the winning reverse standards in section 4 of the BHC Act auction bidder or the party to which the Secretary of Labor v. BCJ Sand & Rock, (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Inc., Docket No. WEST 2015–7–M winning bidder’s payment is disbursed, noted, nonbanking activities will be not the Commission. Disbursement will Secretary of Labor v. E & G Masonry conducted throughout the United States. be made to a third party only if the Stone #2, Docket No. CENT 2015–21– Unless otherwise noted, comments winning bidder has so instructed on its M regarding each of these applications incentive payment form. Finally, Secretary of Labor v. U.S. Silver—Idaho, must be received at the Reserve Bank winning bidders and third parties to Inc., Docket No. WEST 2015–717–M indicated or the offices of the Board of which winning bidders instruct that Secretary of Labor v. Apogee Coal Co., Governors not later than December 28, payments be disbursed will be required: LLC, Docket No. WEVA 2014–632 2015. (1) To agree to indemnify and to hold harmless the United States from any and Secretary of Labor v. Campbell Redi- A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago all liability arising from the Mix, Inc., Docket Nos. WEST 2014– (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice disbursement of incentive payments; (2) 917–M and WEST 2014–918–M President) 230 South LaSalle Street, to acknowledge and agree that the (Issues include whether motions to Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: payments are subject to offset pursuant reopen the cases should be granted by 1. First Midwest Bancorp, Itasca, to applicable law for debts (owed to the the Commission.) Illinois; to merge with NI Bancshares, Commission or the United States) by Any person attending this meeting and thereby indirectly acquire National either the winning bidder or the third who requires special accessibility Bank & Trust Corporation, both in party payee designated by the winning features and/or auxiliary aids, such as Sycamore, Illinois. bidder; and (3) to acknowledge and sign language interpreters, must inform agree that payments will not be made to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve the Commission in advance of those System, November 30, 2015. (or for the benefit of) any winning needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) bidder or other payee appearing on the and § 2706.160(d). Margaret McCloskey Shanks, U.S. Treasury’s ‘‘Do Not Pay’’ portal. Deputy Secretary of the Board. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: [FR Doc. 2015–30579 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] 3. The Bureau is not providing Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) BILLING CODE 6210–01–P guidance on how the federal tax laws 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877– may apply to incentive payments. 8339 for toll free. Specific procedures for disbursing payments, including the forms for Sarah L. Stewart, submitting instructions and the Deputy General Counsel. necessary financial information, will be [FR Doc. 2015–30639 Filed 12–1–15; 11:15 am] set forth by future public notice. BILLING CODE 6735–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75679

GENERAL SERVICES Under this authority, the Committee PSO, and has delisted the PSO ADMINISTRATION will plan, develop, and execute accordingly. programs, projects, and activities to DATES: The directories for both listed [Notice–WWI–2015–04; Docket No. 2015– commemorate the centennial of World 0006; Sequence 4] and delisted PSOs are ongoing and War I, encourage private organizations reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The World War One Centennial and State and local governments to delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight Commission; Notification of organize and participate in activities ET (2400) on October 15, 2015. commemorating the centennial of World Opportunity To View Design ADDRESSES: Both directories can be War I, facilitate and coordinate activities Submissions for National World War I accessed electronically at the following throughout the United States relating to Memorial at Pershing Park HHS Web site: http:// the centennial of World War I, serve as www.pso.AHRQ.gov/listed. AGENCY: World War One Centennial a clearinghouse for the collection and Commission, GSA. dissemination of information about FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality ACTION: Public Exhibition of Stage II events and plans for the centennial of Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, Design Submittals. World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, SUMMARY: Notice of this opportunity is President for commemorating the Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll being provided according to the centennial of World War I. free): (866) 403–3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427–1111; TTY (toll free): (866) requirements of the Federal Advisory Dated: November 30, 2015. Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). 438–7231; TTY (local): (301) 427–1130; Daniel S. Dayton, This notice provides information about Email: [email protected]. Designated Federal Official, World War I SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a public display of design submissions Centennial Commission. for the National World War I Memorial Background at Pershing Park. [FR Doc. 2015–30600 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9820–95–P The Patient Safety Act authorizes the DATES: Effective: December 3, 2015. listing of PSOs, which are entities or Dates for public viewing component organizations whose opportunities: December 14–22, 2015. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND mission and primary activity are to Dates and Location for Public Viewing HUMAN SERVICES conduct activities to improve patient Opportunities: The Stage II design safety and the quality of health care submittals will be available for viewing Agency for Healthcare Research and delivery. in the John A. Wilson Building Atrium, Quality HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to at the Council of the District of implement the Patient Safety Act. Columbia, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue Patient Safety Organizations: AHRQ administers the provisions of the Voluntary Relinquishment From NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Piedmont Clinic, Inc. Wilson Building is open from 9:00 a.m. Rule relating to the listing and operation to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule (EST). The Atrium is accessible through and Quality (AHRQ), Department of authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an security screening on the ground floor Health and Human Services (HHS). entity that attests that it meets the from the D Street entrance (across from ACTION: Notice of delisting. statutory and regulatory requirements the Ronald Reagan Building), or (on for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ if weekdays only) via the Pennsylvania SUMMARY: The Patient Safety and it is found to no longer meet the Avenue entrance, accessible down the Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 requirements of the Patient Safety Act stairs or elevators to the ground floor. U.S.C. 299b–21 to b–26, (Patient Safety and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO This location has handicapped access. Act) and the related Patient Safety and chooses to voluntarily relinquish its Visitors must show a government-issued Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 status as a PSO for any reason, or when ID to enter the building. CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), the PSO’s listing expires. Section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: published in the Federal Register on 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal November 21, 2008, (73 FR 70732– requires AHRQ to provide public notice Officer, c/o The Foundation for the 70814), provide for the formation of when it removes an organization from Commemoration of the World Wars, 701 Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), the list of federally approved PSOs. Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 123, which collect, aggregate, and analyze AHRQ has accepted a notification Washington, DC 20004–2608, telephone confidential information regarding the from Piedmont Clinic, Inc., a number 202–380–0725 (note: this is not quality and safety of health care component entity of Piedmont a toll-free number). delivery. The Patient Safety Rule Healthcare Inc., PSO number P0084, to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the voluntarily relinquish its status as a Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an PSO. Accordingly, Piedmont Clinic, Inc. Background entity that attests that it meets the was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight The World War One Centennial statutory and regulatory requirements ET (2400) on October 15, 2015. Commission was established by Public for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ by Piedmont Clinic, Inc. has patient Law 112–272, as a commission to the Secretary if it is found to no longer safety work product (PSWP) in its ensure a suitable observance of the meet the requirements of the Patient possession. The PSO will meet the centennial of World War I, to provide Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of for the designation of memorials to the when a PSO chooses to voluntarily the Patient Safety Rule regarding service of members of the United States relinquish its status as a PSO for any notification to providers that have Armed Forces in World War I, and for reason, or when a PSO’s listing expires. reported to the PSO. In addition, other purposes including the AHRQ has accepted a notification of according to sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and enhancement of Pershing Park site of voluntary relinquishment from 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule the National World War I Memorial. Piedmont Clinic, Inc. of its status as a regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

has 90 days from the effective date of the Medicare or Medicaid programs or (BLS). This resulted in an application delisting and revocation to complete the CHIP, revalidating their enrollment, or fee amount for CY 2011 of $505 (or $500 disposition of PSWP that is currently in adding a new Medicare practice location × 1.01). the PSO’s possession. are required to submit a fee with their • The CPI–U increase for the period More information on PSOs can be enrollment application. An of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 obtained through AHRQ’s PSO Web site ‘‘institutional provider’’ for purposes of was 3.54 percent, based on BLS data. at http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/. Medicare is defined at § 424.502 as This resulted in an application fee ‘‘(a)ny provider or supplier that submits amount for CY 2012 of $522.87 (or $505 Sharon B. Arnold, a paper Medicare enrollment × 1.0354). In the aforementioned AHRQ Deputy Director. application using the CMS–855A, CMS– February 2, 2011 final rule, we stated [FR Doc. 2015–30586 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] 855B (not including physician and non- that if the adjustment sets the fee at an BILLING CODE 4160–90–P physician practitioner organizations), uneven dollar amount, we would round CMS–855S, or associated Internet-based the fee to the nearest whole dollar PECOS enrollment application.’’ As we amount. Accordingly, the application DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND explained in the February 2, 2011 final fee amount for CY 2012 was rounded to HUMAN SERVICES rule (76 FR 5914), in addition to the the nearest whole dollar amount, or providers and suppliers subject to the $523.00. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid • The CPI–U increase for the period Services application fee under Medicare, Medicaid-only, and CHIP-only of July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 [CMS–6066–N] institutional providers would include was 1.664 percent, based on BLS data. nursing facilities, intermediate care This resulted in an application fee × Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s facilities for persons with intellectual amount for CY 2013 of $531.70 ($523 Health Insurance Programs; Provider disabilities (ICF/IID), psychiatric 1.01664). Rounding this figure to the Enrollment Application Fee Amount for residential treatment facilities, and may nearest whole dollar amount resulted in Calendar Year 2016 include other institutional provider a CY 2013 application fee amount of AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & types designated by a state in $532.00. • The CPI–U increase for the period Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. accordance with their approved state of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 ACTION: Notice. plan. As indicated in §§ 424.514 and was 1.8 percent, based on BLS data. SUMMARY: This notice announces a § 455.460, the application fee is not This resulted in an application fee $554.00 calendar year (CY) 2016 required for either of the following: amount for CY 2014 of $541.576 ($532 × application fee for institutional • A Medicare physician or non- 1.018). Rounding this figure to the providers that are initially enrolling in physician practitioner submitting a nearest whole dollar amount resulted in the Medicare or Medicaid program or CMS–855I. a CY 2014 application fee amount of • $542.00. the Children’s Health Insurance A prospective or revalidating • Program (CHIP); revalidating their Medicaid or CHIP provider— The CPI–U increase for the period Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP ++ Who is an individual physician or of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 enrollment; or adding a new Medicare non-physician practitioner; or was 2.1 percent, based on BLS data. practice location. This fee is required ++ That is enrolled in Title XVIII of This resulted in an application fee the Act or another state’s Title XIX or amount for CY 2015 of $553.382 ($542 with any enrollment application × submitted on or after January 1, 2016 XXI plan and has paid the application 1.021). Rounding this figure to the and on or before December 31, 2016. fee to a Medicare contractor or another nearest whole dollar amount resulted in a CY 2015 application fee amount of DATES: This notice is effective on state. $553.00. January 1, 2016. II. Provisions of the Notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. CY 2016 Fee Amount A. CY 2015 Fee Amount Frank Whelan, (410) 786–1302. Using BLS data, the CPI–U increase SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the December 5, 2014 Federal for the period of July 1, 2014 through Register (79 FR 72183), we published a June 30, 2015 was 0.2 percent. This I. Background notice announcing a fee amount for the results in a CY 2016 application fee In the February 2, 2011 Federal period of January 1, 2015 through amount of $554.106 ($553 × 1.002). As Register (76 FR 5862), we published a December 31, 2015 of $553.00. This we must round this to the nearest whole final rule with comment period titled figure was calculated as follows: dollar amount, the resultant application ‘‘Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s • Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act fee amount for CY 2016 is $554.00. Health Insurance Programs; Additional established a $500 application fee for Screening Requirements, Application institutional providers in CY 2010. III. Collection of Information Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria, • Consistent with section Requirements Payment Suspensions and Compliance 1866(j)(2)(C)(i)(II) of the Act, This document does not impose Plans for Providers and Suppliers.’’ This § 424.514(d)(2) states that for CY 2011 information collection requirements, rule finalized, among other things, and subsequent years, the preceding that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or provisions related to the submission of year’s fee will be adjusted by the third-party disclosure requirements. application fees as part of the Medicare, percentage change in the consumer Consequently, there is no need for Medicaid, and CHIP provider price index (CPI) for all urban review by the Office of Management and enrollment processes. As provided in consumers (all items; United States city Budget under the authority of the section 1866(j)(2)(C)(i) of the Social average, CPI–U) for the 12-month period Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Security Act (the Act) (as amended by ending on June 30 of the previous year. However, it does reference previously section 6401 of the Affordable Care Act) • The CPI–U increase for CY 2011 approved information collections. The and in 42 CFR 424.514, ‘‘institutional was 1.0 percent, based on data obtained forms CMS–855A, CMS–855B, and providers’’ that are initially enrolling in from the Bureau of Labor Statistics CMS–855I are approved under OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75681

control number 0938–0685; the CMS– 2. CY 2016 Estimates significant impact on the operations of 855S is approved under OMB control a. Medicare a substantial number of small rural number 0938–1056. hospitals. This analysis must conform to Based on CMS data, we estimate that the provisions of section 604 of the IV. Regulatory Impact Statement in CY 2016 approximately— RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of • A. Background 10,000 newly enrolling institutional the Act, we define a small rural hospital providers will be subject to and pay an We have examined the impact of this as a hospital that is located outside of application fee; and a Metropolitan Statistical Area for notice as required by Executive Order • 45,000 revalidating institutional 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Medicare payment regulations and has providers will be subject to and pay an fewer than 100 beds. We are not Review (September 30, 1993), Executive application fee. Order 13563 on Improving Regulation preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) Using a figure of 55,000 (10,000 newly of the Act because we have determined, and Regulatory Review (January 18, enrolling + 45,000 revalidating) 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Secretary certifies, that this institutional providers, we estimate an notice would not have a significant (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96– increase in the cost of the Medicare 354), section 1102(b) of the Social impact on the operations of a substantial application fee requirement in CY 2016 number of small rural hospitals. Security Act, section 202 of the of $5,585,000 (or (10,000 additional Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded newly enrolling or revalidating Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), institutional providers × $554) + (45,000 Executive Order 13132 on Federalism × also requires that agencies assess $1.00) from our CY 2015 projections anticipated costs and benefits before (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional and as previously described. Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). issuing any rule whose mandates Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 b. Medicaid and CHIP require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated direct agencies to assess all costs and Based on CMS and state statistics, we annually for inflation. In 2015, that benefits of available regulatory estimate that approximately 30,000 threshold is approximately $144 alternatives and, if regulation is (9,000 newly enrolling + 21,000 million. The Agency has determined necessary, to select regulatory revalidating) Medicaid and CHIP that there will be minimal impact from approaches that maximize net benefits, institutional providers will be subject to the costs of this notice, as the threshold including potential economic, an application fee in CY 2016. Using is not met under the UMRA. environmental, public health and safety this figure, we project an increase in the Executive Order 13132 establishes effects, distributive impacts, and equity. cost of the Medicaid and CHIP certain requirements that an agency A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must application fee requirement in CY 2016 must meet when it promulgates a be prepared for major rules with of $1,213,973 (or ((562 additional newly proposed rule (and subsequent final economically significant effects ($100 enrolling institutional providers + 1,579 rule) that imposes substantial direct million or more in any 1 year). As additional revalidating institutional requirement costs on state and local explained in this section of the notice, providers, or 2,141 total additional governments, preempts state law, or we estimate that the total cost of the institutional providers) × $554) + 27,859 otherwise has federalism implications. increase in the application fee will not × $1.00) from our CY 2015 projections Since this notice does not impose exceed $100 million. Therefore, this and as previously described. notice does not reach the $100 million substantial direct costs on state or local c. Total economic threshold and is not governments, the requirements of considered a major notice. Based on the foregoing, we estimate Executive Order 13132 are not the total increase in the cost of the applicable. B. Costs application fee requirement for In accordance with the provisions of The costs associated with this notice Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Executive Order 12866, this notice was involve the increase in the application providers and suppliers in CY 2016 to reviewed by the Office of Management fee amount that certain providers and be $6,798,973 ($5,585,000 + $1,213,973) and Budget. suppliers must pay in CY 2016. from our CY 2015 projections. Dated: November 14, 2015. The RFA requires agencies to analyze 1. Estimates of Number of Affected Andrew M. Slavitt, options for regulatory relief of small Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare Institutional Providers in December 5, businesses. For purposes of the RFA, 2014 Fee Notice & Medicaid Services. small entities include small businesses, [FR Doc. 2015–30686 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] In the December 5, 2014 application nonprofit organizations, and small BILLING CODE 4120–01–P fee notice, we estimated that based on governmental jurisdictions. Most CMS statistics— hospitals and most other providers and • 10,000 newly enrolling Medicare suppliers are small entities, either by DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND institutional providers would be subject nonprofit status or by having revenues HUMAN SERVICES to and pay an application fee in CY of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 2015. million in any 1 year. Individuals and Food and Drug Administration • 35,000 revalidating Medicare states are not included in the definition [Docket No. FDA–2014–D–2175] institutional providers would be subject of a small entity. As we stated in the to and pay an application fee in CY RIA for the February 2, 2011 final rule Recommendations for Assessment of 2015. with comment period (76 FR 5952), we • Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral 8,438 newly enrolling Medicaid and do not believe that the application fee and Blood Product Management in CHIP providers would be subject to and will have a significant impact on small Response to Ebola Virus; Draft pay an application fee in CY 2015. entities. Guidance for Industry; Availability • 19,421 revalidating Medicaid and In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act CHIP providers would be subject to and requires us to prepare a regulatory AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, pay an application fee in CY 2015. impact analysis if a rule may have a HHS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

ACTION: Notice. public, submit the comment as a 56469, September 18, 2015, or access written/paper submission and in the the information at: http://www.fda.gov/ SUMMARY: The Food and Drug manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper regulatoryinformation/dockets/ Administration (FDA or Agency) is Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). default.htm. announcing the availability of a draft document entitled ‘‘Recommendations Written/Paper Submissions Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the for Assessment of Blood Donor Submit written/paper submissions as Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood electronic and written/paper comments follows: received, go to http:// Product Management in Response to • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for www.regulations.gov and insert the Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance for written/paper submissions): Division of docket number, found in brackets in the Industry.’’ The draft guidance document Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food heading of this document, into the provides blood establishments that and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts collect blood and blood components for Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. transfusion or further manufacture, • For written/paper comments and/or go to the Division of Dockets including Source Plasma, with FDA submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. recommendations for assessing blood Management, FDA will post your 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. donor suitability, donor deferral, and comment, as well as any attachments, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul blood product management in the event except for information submitted, E. Levine, Jr., Center for Biologics that an outbreak of Ebola virus disease marked and identified, as confidential, Evaluation and Research, Food and (EVD) with widespread transmission is if submitted as detailed in Drug Administration, 10903 New declared in at least one country. The ‘‘Instructions.’’ Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, draft guidance document applies Instructions: All submissions received Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240– primarily to Ebola virus (species Zaire must include the Docket No. FDA 2014– 402–7911. ebolavirus), but recommendations are D–2175 for ‘‘Recommendations for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: expected to apply to other viruses of the Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Ebolavirus genus such as Sudan virus, Donor Deferral and Blood Product I. Background Bundibugyo virus, and Taı¨ Forest virus. Management in Response to Ebola The recommendations would apply to Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry.’’ FDA is announcing the availability of routine collection of blood and blood Received comments will be placed in a draft document entitled components for transfusion or further the docket and, except for those ‘‘Recommendations for Assessment of manufacture, including Source Plasma. submitted as ‘‘Confidential Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product Management in DATES: Although you can comment on Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR http://www.regulations.gov or at the Response to Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency Division of Dockets Management for Industry.’’ The draft guidance considers your comment on this draft between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday document provides blood guidance before it begins work on the through Friday. establishments that collect blood and • final version of the guidance, submit Confidential Submissions—To blood components for transfusion or either electronic or written comments submit a comment with confidential further manufacture, including Source on the draft guidance by March 2, 2016. information that you do not wish to be Plasma, with FDA recommendations for assessing blood donor suitability, donor ADDRESSES: You may submit comments made publicly available, submit your deferral, and blood product as follows: comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two management in the event that an Electronic Submissions copies total. One copy will include the outbreak of EVD with widespread Submit electronic comments in the information you claim to be confidential transmission is declared in at least one following way: with a heading or cover note that states country. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Ebola virus is a member of the family www.regulations.gov. Follow the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION’’. The Filoviridae that can cause severe instructions for submitting comments. Agency will review this copy, including hemorrhagic fever in humans and non- Comments submitted electronically, the claimed confidential information, in human primates with historically high including attachments, to http:// its consideration of comments. The morbidity and mortality rates of up to www.regulations.gov will be posted to second copy, which will have the 90 percent. However, in the 2014 the docket unchanged. Because your claimed confidential information outbreak in West Africa, the mortality comment will be made public, you are redacted/blacked out, will be available rate has been markedly lower. In solely responsible for ensuring that your for public viewing and posted on humans, EVD is typically characterized comment does not include any http://www.regulations.gov. Submit at onset by fever, severe headache, confidential information that you or a both copies to the Division of Dockets muscle pain and weakness, followed by third party may not wish to be posted, Management. If you do not wish your diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and such as medical information, your or name and contact information to be sometimes diffuse hemorrhage (bleeding anyone else’s Social Security number, or made publicly available, you can or bruising). In previous outbreaks of confidential business information, such provide this information on the cover EVD, symptoms generally appeared as a manufacturing process. Please note sheet and not in the body of your within 21 days and most often within 4– that if you include your name, contact comments and you must identify this 10 days following infection; however, information, or other information that information as ‘‘confidential.’’ Any based on mathematical models, identifies you in the body of your information marked as ‘‘confidential’’ symptom onset later than 21 days is comments, that information will be will not be disclosed except in estimated as possible in 0.1 to 12 posted on http://www.regulations.gov. accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other percent of cases. In addition, there have • If you want to submit a comment applicable disclosure law. For more been isolated reports of apparently with confidential information that you information about FDA’s posting of asymptomatic Ebola virus infection in do not wish to be made available to the comments to public dockets, see 80 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75683

individuals who had contact with Ebola a person known to have recovered from Dated: November 27, 2015. patients. Ebola virus disease. In addition, FDA Leslie Kux, Transmission of Ebola virus from recommends that establishments defer Associate Commissioner for Policy. human to human occurs by direct for a period of 8 weeks after exposure [FR Doc. 2015–30589 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] contact with body fluids (such as blood, a donor who has been notified by a BILLING CODE 4164–01–P urine, stool, saliva, semen, vaginal Federal, State, or local public health fluids, or vomit) of symptomatic authority that he or she may have been infected individuals. Therefore, blood exposed to a person with Ebola virus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and blood products from symptomatic disease. individuals, if they were to donate, SECURITY The draft guidance includes FDA would have the potential of transmitting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ebola virus to recipients. recommendations on retrieval and Current regulations 21 CFR 640.3(b) quarantine of blood and blood [1651–0017] and 21 CFR 640.63(b)(3) require that a components from a donor later donor be in good health with a normal determined to have Ebola virus Agency Information Collection temperature at the time of donation. infection or disease or risk factors for Activities: Protest Standard procedures that are in place to Ebola virus infection or disease, for AGENCY: assure that the donor feels healthy at the notification of consignees, and for U.S. Customs and Border time of donation serve as an effective reporting a biological product deviation Protection, Department of Homeland safeguard against collecting blood or to FDA. The draft guidance also Security. blood components from a donor who addresses convalescent plasma intended ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for seeks to donate after the onset of clinical for transfusion. comments; extension of an existing collection of information. symptoms. FDA is providing guidance The draft guidance is being issued to reduce the risks of collecting blood consistent with FDA’s good guidance SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border and blood components from potentially practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). Ebola virus-infected persons during the Protection (CBP) of the Department of The draft guidance, when finalized, will asymptomatic incubation period before Homeland Security will be submitting represent the current thinking of FDA the onset of clinical symptoms, as well the following information collection on ‘‘Recommendations for Assessment as from individuals with a history of request to the Office of Management and Ebola virus infection or disease. of Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Budget (OMB) for review and approval The draft guidance permits blood Deferral and Blood Product in accordance with the Paperwork establishments to update their donor Management in Response to Ebola Reduction Act: Protest. CBP is educational materials to instruct donors Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry.’’ It proposing that this information with a history of Ebola virus infection does not establish any rights for any collection be extended with no change or disease to not donate blood or blood person and is not binding on FDA or the to the burden hours or to the components. In the event that one or public. You can use an alternative information collected. This document is more countries is designated as having approach if it satisfies the requirements published to obtain comments from the widespread transmission of Ebola virus, of the applicable statutes and public and affected agencies. the draft guidance includes regulations. DATES: Written comments should be recommendations to blood received on or before February 1, 2016 II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 establishments to update their donor to be assured of consideration. history questionnaire (DHQ), including The draft guidance refers to ADDRESSES: Written comments may be the full-length and abbreviated DHQ previously approved collections of mailed to U.S. Customs and Border and accompanying materials, to assess information found in FDA regulations. Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, prospective donors for risk of Ebola These collections of information are Regulations and Rulings, Office of virus infection or disease. The draft subject to review by the Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., guidance also includes Management and Budget (OMB) under 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– recommendations to blood the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 1177. establishments to defer indefinitely a (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: blood donor with a history of Ebola of information in 21 CFR 601.12 have virus infection or disease, until more Requests for additional information been approved under OMB control data regarding the persistence of Ebola should be directed to Tracey Denning, number 0910–0338; the collections of virus in survivors becomes available. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, information in 21 CFR 606.160(b)(1)(i), For a donor who in the past 8 weeks has Regulations and Rulings, Office of 640.3(a) and 640.63(b)(3) have been been a resident of or has travelled to a International Trade, 90 K Street NE., approved under OMB control number country with widespread transmission 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– of Ebola virus disease, FDA 0910–0116; the collection of 1177, at 202–325–0265. recommends that establishments defer information in 21 CFR 606.171 has been SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP the donor for 8 weeks from the time of approved under OMB control number invites the general public and other the donor’s departure from that country. 0910–0458. Federal agencies to comment on For a donor who has had close contact III. Electronic Access proposed and/or continuing information with a person confirmed or under collections pursuant to the Paperwork investigation for Ebola virus infection or Persons with access to the Internet Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). disease in whom diagnosis is pending, may obtain the draft guidance at either The comments should address: (a) FDA recommends that establishments http://www.fda.gov/ Whether the collection of information is defer a donor for 8 weeks after the last BiologicsBloodVaccines/Guidance necessary for the proper performance of close contact that could have resulted in ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ the functions of the agency, including direct contact with body fluids, or 8 Guidances/default.htm or http:// whether the information shall have weeks after the last sexual contact with www.regulations.gov. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

agency’s estimates of the burden of the Current Action: CBP proposes to International Trade, 90 K Street NE., collection of information; (c) ways to extend the expiration date of this 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– enhance the quality, utility, and clarity information collection with no change 1177, at 202–325–0265. of the information to be collected; (d) to the burden hours or to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP ways to minimize the burden including information collected. invites the general public and other the use of automated collection Type of Review: Extension (with no Federal agencies to comment on techniques or the use of other forms of change). proposed and/or continuing information information technology; and (e) the Affected Public: Businesses. collections pursuant to the Paperwork annual cost burden to respondents or Estimated Number of Respondents: Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). record keepers from the collection of 3,750. The comments should address: (a) information (total capital/startup costs Estimated Number of Total Annual Whether the collection of information is and operations and maintenance costs). Responses: 45,000. necessary for the proper performance of Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. The comments that are submitted will the functions of the agency, including Estimated Total Annual Burden be summarized and included in the CBP whether the information shall have Hours: 45,000. request for OMB approval. All practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the comments will become a matter of Dated: November 30, 2015. agency’s estimates of the burden of the public record. In this document, CBP is Tracey Denning, collection of information; (c) ways to soliciting comments concerning the Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and enhance the quality, utility, and clarity following information collection: Border Protection. of the information to be collected; (d) Title: Protest. [FR Doc. 2015–30614 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] ways to minimize the burden including OMB Number: 1651–0017. BILLING CODE 9111–14–P the use of automated collection Form Number: Form 19. techniques or the use of other forms of Abstract: CBP Form 19, Protest, is information technology; and (e) the filed to seek the review of a CBP officer. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND annual cost burden to respondents or This review may be conducted by a CBP SECURITY record keepers from the collection of officer who participated directly in the information (total capital/startup costs underlying decision. This form is also U.S. Customs and Border Protection and operations and maintenance costs). used to request ‘‘Further Review’’ which [1651–0052] The comments that are submitted will means a request for review of the protest be summarized and included in the CBP to be performed by a CBP officer who Agency Information Collection request for OMB approval. All did not participate directly in the Activities: User Fees comments will become a matter of protested decision, or by the public record. In this document, CBP is AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Commissioner, or his designee as soliciting comments concerning the Protection, Department of Homeland provided in the CBP Regulations. following information collection: Security. The matters that may be protested Title: User Fees. include: The appraised value of ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for OMB Number: 1651–0052. merchandise; the classification and rate comments; extension of an existing Form Number: CBP Forms 339A, and amount of duties chargeable; all collection of information. 339C and 339V. charges within the jurisdiction of the SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Abstract: The Consolidated Omnibus U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Protection (CBP) of the Department of Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 exclusion of merchandise from entry or Homeland Security will be submitting (COBRA—Pub. L. 99–272; 19 U.S.C. delivery, or demand for redelivery; the the following information collection 58c) authorizes the collection of user liquidation or reliquidation of an entry; request to the Office of Management and fees by Customs and Border Protection and the refusal to pay a claim for Budget (OMB) for review and approval (CBP). The collection of these fees drawback. in accordance with the Paperwork requires submission of information from The parties who may file a protest or Reduction Act: User Fees. CBP is the party remitting the fees to CBP. This application for further review include: proposing that this information information is submitted on three forms the importer or consignee shown on the collection be extended with no change including the CBP Form 339A for entry papers, or their sureties; any to the burden hours or to the aircraft at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/ person paying any charge or exaction; information collected. This document is default/files/documents/ any person seeking entry or delivery, or published to obtain comments from the CBP%20Form%20339A.pdf, CBP Form upon whom a demand for redelivery has public and affected agencies. 339C for commercial vehicles at: been made; any person filing a claim for http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/ DATES: Written comments should be drawback; or any authorized agent of documents/CBP%20Form%20339C.pdf, received on or before February 1, 2016 any of the persons described above. and CBP Form 339V for vessels at: to be assured of consideration. CBP Form 19 collects information http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/ such as the name and address of the ADDRESSES: Written comments may be documents/CBP%20Form%20339V.pdf. protesting party, information about the mailed to U.S. Customs and Border The information on these forms may entry being protested, detailed reasons Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, also be filed electronically at: https:// for the protest, justification for applying Regulations and Rulings, Office of dtops.cbp.dhs.gov/. This collection of for further review. International Trade, 90 K Street NE., information is provided for by 19 CFR The information collected on CBP 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– 24.22. Form 19 is authorized by Sections 514 1177. In addition, CBP requires express and 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: consignment courier facilities (ECCFs) provided for by 19 CFR part 174. This Requests for additional information to file lists of couriers using the facility form is accessible at http:// should be directed to Tracey Denning, in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11. In www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, cases of overpayments, carriers using documents/CBP_Form_19.pdf. Regulations and Rulings, Office of the courier facilities may send a request

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75685

to CBP for a refund in accordance with DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR customary and traditional use of 19 CFR 24.23(b). This request must migratory birds and their eggs for specify the grounds for the refund. Fish and Wildlife Service subsistence use by indigenous ECCFs are also required to file a [FWS–R7–SM–2015–N225; FF09M21200– inhabitants of Alaska. The Amendment quarterly report in accordance with 19 156–FXMB1231099BPP0] states that its intent is not to cause CFR 24.23(b)(4). significant increases in the take of Current Actions: This submission is Proposed Information Collection; species of migratory birds relative to being made to extend the expiration Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence their continental population sizes. A date with no change to the burden hours Harvest Household Survey submittal letter from the Department of or to the information collected. State to the White House (May 20, 1996) Type of Review: Extension (without AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, accompanied the Amendment and change). Interior. specified the need for harvest Affected Public: Businesses. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. monitoring. The submittal letter stated that the Service, the Alaska Department CBP Form 339A—Aircraft SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Service) will ask the Office of Estimated Number of Respondents: Native organizations would collect Management and Budget (OMB) to 15,000. harvest information cooperatively approve the information collection (IC) Estimated Number of Annual within the subsistence eligible areas. described below. As required by the Responses: 15,000. Harvest survey data help to ensure that Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Estimated Time per Response: 16 customary and traditional subsistence as part of our continuing efforts to minutes. uses of migratory birds and their eggs by reduce paperwork and respondent Estimated Total Annual Burden indigenous inhabitants of Alaska do not burden, we invite the general public and Hours: 4,005. significantly increase the take of species other Federal agencies to take this of migratory birds relative to their CBP Form 339C—Vehicles opportunity to comment on this IC. This continental population sizes. Estimated Number of Respondents: IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, Between 1989 and 2004, we 50,000. 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor monitored subsistence harvest of Estimated Number of Annual and a person is not required to respond migratory birds using annual household Responses: 50,000. to a collection of information unless it surveys in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Estimated Time per Response: 20 displays a currently valid OMB control which is the region of highest minutes. number. subsistence bird harvest in the State of Estimated Total Annual Burden DATES: To ensure that we are able to Alaska. In 2004, we began monitoring Hours: 16,500. consider your comments on this IC, we subsistence harvest of migratory birds in must receive them by February 1, 2016. subsistence eligible areas Statewide. CBP Form 339V—Vessels ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the The Statewide harvest assessment Estimated Number of Respondents: IC to the Information Collection program helps to track trends and 10,000. Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and changes in levels of harvest. The harvest Estimated Number of Annual Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 assessment program relies on Responses: 10,000. Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– collaboration among the Service, the Estimated Time per Response: 16 3803 (mail); or [email protected] ADFG, and a number of Alaska Native minutes. (email). Please include ‘‘1018–0124’’ in organizations. Estimated Total Annual Burden the subject line of your comments. We gather information on the annual subsistence harvest of about 60 bird Hours: 2,670. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To species/species categories (ducks, geese, ECCF Quarterly Report request additional information about swans, cranes, upland game birds, this IC, contact Hope Grey at hope_ Estimated Number of Respondents: seabirds, shorebirds, and grebes and [email protected] (email) or 703–358–2482 loons) in the subsistence eligible areas 18. (telephone). Estimated Number of Annual of Alaska. The survey covers 11 regions Responses: 72. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of Alaska, which are further divided into 29 subregions. We survey the Estimated Time per Response: 2 I. Abstract hours. regions and villages in a rotation The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Estimated Total Annual Burden schedule to accommodate budget (16 U.S.C. 703–712) and the Fish and Hours: 144. constraints and to minimize respondent Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) burden. The survey covers spring, ECCF Application and List of Couriers designate the Department of the Interior summer, and fall harvest in most Estimated Number of Respondents: 3. as the key agency responsible for regions. Estimated Number of Annual managing migratory bird populations In collaboration with Alaska Native Responses: 12. that frequent the United States and for organizations, we hire local resident Estimated Time per Response: 30 setting harvest regulations that allow for surveyors to collect the harvest minutes. the conservation of those populations. information. The surveyors list all Estimated Total Annual Burden These responsibilities include gathering households in the villages to be Hours: 6. accurate geographical and temporal data surveyed and provide survey on various characteristics of migratory information and harvest report forms to Dated: November 30, 2015. bird harvest. We use harvest data to randomly selected households that have Tracey Denning, review regulation proposals and to issue agreed to participate in the survey. To Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and harvest regulations. ensure anonymity of harvest Border Protection. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act information, we identify households by [FR Doc. 2015–30612 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Protocol Amendment (1995) a numeric code. The surveyor visits BILLING CODE 9111–14–P (Amendment) provides for the households three times during the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

survey year. At the first household visit, The surveyor uses this form to record II. Data the surveyor explains the survey consent and track subsequent visits for purposes and invites household completion of harvest reports. OMB Control Number: 1018–0124. participation. The surveyor returns at • FWS Forms 3–2381–1, 3–2381–2, Title: Alaska Migratory Bird the end of the season of most harvest 3–2381–3, and 3–2381–4 (Harvest Subsistence Harvest Household Survey. and at the end of the two other seasons Report). The Harvest Report has Service Form Number(s): 3–2380, 3– combined to help the household drawings of bird species most 2381–1, 3–2381–2, 3–2381–3, and 3– complete the harvest report form. commonly available for harvest in the 2381–4. We have designed the survey methods different regions of Alaska, with fields Type of Request: Extension of a to streamline procedures and reduce for writing down the numbers of birds currently approved collection. respondent burden. We plan to use two and eggs taken. There are four versions Description of Respondents: forms for household participation: of this form: Interior Alaska, North • FWS Form 3–2380 (Tracking Sheet Slope, Southern Coastal Alaska, and Households within subsistence eligible and Household Consent). The surveyor Western Alaska. This form has a sheet areas of Alaska. visits each household selected to for each season surveyed, and each Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. participate in the survey to provide sheet has fields for the household code, Frequency of Collection: Annually for information on the objectives and to community name, harvest year, date of Tracking Sheet and Household Consent; obtain household consent to participate. completion, and comments. three times annually for Harvest Report.

Completion Number of Number of time per Total annual Activity respondents responses response burden hours (minutes)

3–2380, Tracking Sheet and Household Consent ...... 2,553 2,553 5 213 3–2381–1 thru 3–2381–4, Harvest Report (three seasonal sheets) ...... 2,300 6,900 5 575

Totals ...... 4,853 9,453 ...... 788

III. Comments Dated: November 27, 2015. Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Tina A. Campbell, Action, (202) 273–4680; We invite comments concerning this Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and [email protected]. information collection on: Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Correction • Whether or not the collection of Service. information is necessary, including [FR Doc. 2015–30557 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] In the Federal Register of November whether or not the information will BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 25, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015–29954 on have practical utility; page 73811, in the second column, • correct the ADDRESSES caption to read: The accuracy of our estimate of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR burden for this collection of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer information; Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Department of the Interior at the • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/ Office of Management and Budget, by and clarity of the information to be A0A501010.999900] facsimile to (202) 395–5806 or you may send _ collected; and an email to: OIRA [email protected]. Renewal of Agency Information Please send a copy of your comments to • Ways to minimize the burden of the Collection for Bureau of Indian Juanita Mendoza, Acting Chief of Staff, collection of information on Education Tribal Colleges and Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street respondents. NW., MIB—Mail Stop 4657, Washington, DC Universities; Application for Grants 20240; email [email protected]. Comments that you submit in and Annual Report Form; Correction response to this notice are a matter of Elizabeth K. Appel, AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, public record. We will include or Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Interior. summarize each comment in our request Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs. ACTION: to OMB to approve this IC. Before Notice; correction. [FR Doc. 2015–30581 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] including your address, phone number, SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs BILLING CODE 4337–15–P email address, or other personal published a document in the Federal identifying information in your Register of November 25, 2015, comment, you should be aware that concerning request for comments on the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR your entire comment, including your Renewal of Agency Information Bureau of Land Management personal identifying information, may Collection for Bureau of Indian be made publicly available at any time. Education Tribal Colleges and [LLCAD01000 L12100000.MD0000 While you can ask us in your comment Universities; Application for Grants and 16XL1109AF] to withhold your personal identifying Annual Report Form, OMB Control information from public review, we Numbers 1076–0018 and 1076–0105. Meeting of the California Desert cannot guarantee that we will be able to The document contained an incorrect District Advisory Council do so. email address for the submission of comments. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Notice of public meeting. Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75687

SUMMARY: In accordance with the renewable energy, Salton Sea, and The acquisition of the existing FPL Federal Land Policy and Management geothermal. Written comments may be parcel is needed to support the goals of Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal filed in advance of the meeting for the restoring the Northeast Shark River Advisory Committee Act of 1972 California Desert District Advisory Slough and to fulfill the purposes of the (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Council, c/o Bureau of Land Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Interior, Bureau of Land Management Management, External Affairs, 22835 Plan. Acquisition of land within the (BLM) California Desert District Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno EEEA through an exchange of lands Advisory Council (DAC) will meet as Valley, CA 92553. Written comments with FPL is legally authorized by Public indicated below. also are accepted at the time of the Law 111–11 (March 30, 2009). DATES: The DAC will participate in a meeting and, if copies are provided to The Final EIS describes five field tour of BLM-administered public the recorder, will be incorporated into alternatives. The Final EIS addresses the lands on Friday, December 4, 2015, from the minutes. potential impacts from the acquisition 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will meet in Dated: November 23, 2015. of FPL land in the park, as well as the indirect impacts that could result from formal session on Saturday, December 5, Teresa A. Raml, the subsequent construction and 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in El California Desert District Manager. Centro, California. Members of the operation of transmission lines, which public are welcome. They must provide [FR Doc. 2015–30617 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] could be built either inside or outside their own transportation, meals and BILLING CODE 4310–40–P the park as a result of the land beverages. Final agendas for the Friday acquisition alternative selected. The following describes each of the field trip and the Saturday public DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR meeting, along with the Saturday alternatives included in the Final EIS: Alternative 1a, No NPS Action—No meeting location, will be posted on the National Park Service DAC Web page at http://www.blm.gov/ FPL Construction (environmental ca/st/en/info/rac/dac.html when [NPS–SER–EVER–19669]; [PPSESEROC3, baseline): The NPS would not take finalized. PPMPSAS1Y.YP0000] action to acquire FPL property within the park. This alternative assumes that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Final Environmental Impact Statement FPL would not construct transmission Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert for the Acquisition of Florida Power & lines on its existing land in the park, in District External Affairs, 1–951–697– Light Company Land in the East the exchange corridor, or in any area 5217. Persons who use a Everglades Expansion Area outside the park. telecommunications device for the deaf AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Alternative 1b, No NPS Action—FPL (TDD) may call the Federal Information Construction in the Park: the NPS ACTION: Notice of availability. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 would not take action to acquire FPL to contact the above individual during SUMMARY: The National Park Service property within the park, the same as normal business hours. The FIRS is (NPS) announces the availability of the alternative 1a, but this alternative available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Final Environmental Impact Statement assumes that FPL would construct to leave a message or question with the (EIS) for the acquisition of Florida transmission lines on its existing land in above individuals. You will receive a Power & Light Company (FPL) land in the park. reply during normal hours. the East Everglades Expansion Area Alternative 2, NPS Acquisition of FPL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All DAC (EEEA), Everglades National Park, Land: the NPS would acquire the FPL meetings are open to the public. The 15- Florida. property by purchase or through the member council advises the Secretary of exercise of eminent domain authority by DATES: The NPS will execute the Record the Interior, through the BLM, on a the United States. This alternative variety of planning and management of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 would result in an increase of 320 acres issues associated with public land days following publication by the of NPS-owned land within the management on BLM-administered Environmental Protection Agency of its authorized boundary of the park and lands in the California desert. Public Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in would allow for flowage of water on this comment for items not on the agenda the Federal Register. property. This alternative assumes that will be scheduled at the beginning of ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the FPL would likely acquire a replacement the meeting Saturday morning. Time for Final EIS will be available online at corridor east of the existing park public comment is made available by http://parkplanning.nps/ever. A limited boundary within or adjacent to the FPL the council chairman during the number of compact disks and printed and Miami-Dade Limestone Products presentation of various agenda items, copies of the Final EIS will be made Association (MDLPA) West Consensus and is scheduled at the end of the available at Everglades National Park Corridor to meet its transmission needs, meeting for topics not on the agenda. Headquarters, Everglades National Park, and the transmission lines would be While the Saturday meeting is 40001 State Highway 9336, Homestead, built outside the park. Alternative 2 is tentatively scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to Florida 33034–6733. the environmentally preferable 5:00 p.m., the meeting could conclude FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: alternative. prior to 5:00 p.m. should the council Brien Culhane, Everglades National Alternative 3 (NPS Preferred conclude its presentations and Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Alternative), Fee for Fee Land Exchange: discussions. Therefore, members of the Homestead, FL 33034–6733 or by the NPS would acquire fee title to the public interested in a particular agenda telephone at (305) 242–7717. FPL property through an exchange for item or discussion should schedule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final park property, as authorized by the their arrival accordingly. Agenda for the EIS addresses alternatives for NPS exchange legislation. NPS land Saturday meeting will include updates acquisition of existing FPL land located conveyed to FPL (the ‘‘exchange by council members, the BLM California within the park, or of a sufficient corridor’’) would consist of 260 acres Desert District Manager, five Field interest in the property, to facilitate along 6.5 miles of the eastern boundary Managers, and council subgroups. Focus hydrologic and ecologic restoration of of the EEEA. The NPS would also topics for the meeting will include the park and the Everglades ecosystem. convey to FPL a 90-foot-wide perpetual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

nonnative vegetation management ownership of the corridor, but would no INTERNATIONAL TRADE easement adjacent to the entire length of longer have unencumbered use of it. COMMISSION the exchange corridor. The fee for fee The NPS would also convey a 90-foot- [USITC SE–15–041] land exchange would be subject to terms wide perpetual nonnative vegetation and conditions that are to be agreed management easement to FPL adjacent Government in the Sunshine Act upon between NPS and FPL and to the entire length of the exchange Meeting Notice incorporated into a binding exchange corridor. The easement for fee land agreement. FPL would be required to exchange would be subject to terms and AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United allow the United States the perpetual conditions that are to be agreed upon States International Trade Commission. right, power, and privilege to flood and between NPS and FPL and incorporated TIME AND DATE: December 11, 2015 at submerge the exchange corridor into a binding exchange agreement. 11:00 a.m. consistent with hydrologic restoration PLACE: requirements. The construction scenario Similar to alternative 3, the FPL Room 101, 500 E Street SW., associated with this alternative assumes easement corridor would be subject to a Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: that FPL would build the transmission perpetual flowage easement. (202) 205–2000. lines in the exchange corridor. Alternative 5, Perpetual Flowage STATUS: Open to the public. This alternative has been revised from Easement on FPL Property: the NPS MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: the Draft EIS to the Final EIS due to would acquire a perpetual flowage 1. Agendas for future meetings: None. updated transmission line siting easement on FPL’s property within the 2. Minutes. requirements included in the state site EEEA through purchase, condemnation, 3. Ratification List. certification process, which were not or donation by FPL. FPL would retain 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–549 and available in time for the Draft EIS. The ownership of its corridor in the park 731–TA–1299–1303 (Preliminary) final order directed FPL to avoid siting during the term of the easement and (Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel any transmission lines in the park and could seek to site transmission lines Pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the pursue the use of the West Consensus Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, there. The flowage allowed under this Corridor as the primary corridor for and Vietnam). The Commission is easement would allow sufficient water siting transmission lines. The FPL West currently scheduled to complete and file flow over this area to support ecosystem Preferred Corridor (which includes the its determinations on December 14, NPS exchange lands) would only be restoration projects. The construction 2015; views of the Commission are used for transmission lines if FPL scenario associated with this alternative currently scheduled to be completed cannot secure an adequate right-of-way would be the same as the one for and filed on December 21, 2015. within the FPL West Consensus alternative 1B (FPL construction of 5. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–550 and Corridor (outside of the park boundary) transmission lines on its existing land in 731–TA–1304–1305 (Preliminary) in a timely manner and at a reasonable the park). (Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive cost. FPL’s success in acquiring interests The Final EIS responds to, and Components from Canada and China). in the West Consensus Corridor would incorporates, agency and public The Commission is currently scheduled minimize or eliminate the amount of comments received on the Draft EIS. to be completed and filed on December property in the exchange corridor The Draft EIS was available for public 14, 2015; views of the Commission are required for these transmission lines. review and comment for 60 days from currently scheduled to be completed In the Final EIS, this alternative now and filed on December 21, 2015. includes a commitment that FPL shall January 17, 2014, through March 18, 2014. During the comment period, 275 6. Outstanding action jackets: None. reconvey to the NPS all acreage in the In accordance with Commission pieces of correspondence were received. exchange corridor that is determined to policy, subject matter listed above, not Two of these were petitions or letters be unneeded by FPL to build the disposed of at the scheduled meeting, containing 14,075 total signatures; a transmission lines. FPL would not may be carried over to the agenda of the develop land within the exchange third form letter contained 178 following meeting. corridor until completing the signatures and 70 individual pieces of requirements of the site certification correspondence, which are included in By order of the Commission. process and determining land the 275 total comments received. Issued: November 30, 2015. ownership needs. The park boundary Alternative 2 is the environmentally William R. Bishop, would be adjusted after the preferable alternative and alternative 3 Supervisory Hearings and Information reconveyance, so that it reflects the is the NPS preferred alternative. Officer. actual final land ownership between [FR Doc. 2015–30634 Filed 12–1–15; 11:15 am] The responsible official for this EIS is FPL and NPS. These commitments BILLING CODE 7020–02–P the Regional Director, NPS Southeast would be identified in a binding exchange agreement between the two Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. parties. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Alternative 4, Easement for Fee Land Dated: November 18, 2015. Exchange: the NPS would acquire fee Shawn Benge, Drug Enforcement Administration title to the FPL property through an Deputy Regional Director, Southeast Region. [Docket No. DEA–392] exchange for an easement on NPS [FR Doc. 2015–30580 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] property. This is similar to alternative 3, Importer of Controlled Substances BILLING CODE 4310–JD–P except that NPS would grant FPL an Application: Mylan Technologies, Inc. easement for potential transmission line construction (not fee title) over the ACTION: Notice of application. lands along the eastern boundary of the EEEA, in accordance with the terms and DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of conditions developed for this easement the affected basic classes, and for fee exchange. The NPS would retain applicants therefore, may file written

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75689

comments on or objections to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Enforcement Administration or before January 4, 2016. Such persons [Docket No. DEA–392] may also file a written request for a [Docket No. DEA–392] hearing on the application pursuant to Importer of Controlled Substances 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 4, Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: United States 2016. Registration: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC Pharmacopeial Convention ADDRESSES: Written comments should ACTION: Notice of registration. be sent to: Drug Enforcement ACTION: Notice of registration. Administration, Attention: DEA Federal SUMMARY: United States Pharmacopeial Register Representative/OD/D, 8701 SUMMARY: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC Convention applied to be registered as Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia applied to be registered as an importer an importer of certain basic classes of 22152. Request for hearings should be of a certain basic class of controlled controlled substances. The Drug sent to: Drug Enforcement substance. The Drug Enforcement Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administration, Attention: Hearing Administration (DEA) grants Fresenius grants United States Pharmacopeial Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Kabi USA, LLC registration as an Convention registration as an importer Springfield, Virginia 22152. importer of this controlled substance. of those controlled substances. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice Attorney General has delegated her dated September 16, 2015, and dated June 25, 2015, and published in authority under the Controlled published in the Federal Register on the Federal Register on July 6, 2015, 80 Substances Act to the Administrator of September 23, 2015, 80 FR 57389 FR 38466, United States Pharmacopeial the Drug Enforcement Administration Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 3159 Staley Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to Road, Grand Island, New York 14072 Rockville, Maryland 20852 applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic exercise all necessary functions with applied to be registered as an importer classes of controlled substances. No respect to the promulgation and of a certain basic class of controlled comments or objections were submitted implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, substance. No comments or objections incident to the registration of for this notice. were submitted for this notice. manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, The DEA has considered the factors in importers, and exporters of controlled The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and substances (other than final orders in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of connection with suspension, denial, or determined that the registration of United States Pharmacopeial revocation of registration) has been Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC to import the Convention to import the basic classes redelegated to the Deputy Assistant basic class of controlled substance is of controlled substances is consistent Administrator of the DEA Office of consistent with the public interest and with the public interest and with United Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant with United States obligations under States obligations under international Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of international treaties, conventions, or treaties, conventions, or protocols in 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA In accordance with 21 CFR DEA investigated the company’s investigated the company’s maintenance 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October maintenance of effective controls of effective controls against diversion by 29, 2015, Mylan Technologies, Inc., 110 against diversion by inspecting and inspecting and testing the company’s Lake Street, Saint Albans, Vermont testing the company’s physical security physical security systems, verifying the 05478 applied to be registered as an systems, verifying the company’s company’s compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company’s importer of the following basic classes compliance with state and local laws, background and history. of controlled substances: and reviewing the company’s Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. background and history. Controlled substance Schedule 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named Methylphenidate (1724) ...... II 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance company is granted registration as an Fentanyl (9801) ...... II with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named importer of the basic classes of company is granted registration as an controlled substances: The company plans to import the importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic Controlled substance Schedule listed controlled substances in finished class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources Cathinone (1235) ...... I for analytical testing and clinical trials The company plans to import the Methaqualone (2565) ...... I in which the foreign FDF will be listed controlled substance for product Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I compared to the company’s own development and preparation of Marihuana (7360) ...... I domestically-manufactured FDF. This stability batches. Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I analysis is required to allow the 4-Methyl-2,5- I company to export domestically- Dated: November 27, 2015. dimethoxyamphetamine (7395). Louis J. Milione, 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine I manufactured FDF to foreign markets. (7400). Deputy Assistant Administrator. Dated: November 27, 2015. Codeine-N-oxide (9053) ...... I [FR Doc. 2015–30556 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Louis J. Milione, Difenoxin (9168) ...... I BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Heroin (9200) ...... I Deputy Assistant Administrator. Morphine-N-oxide (9307) ...... I [FR Doc. 2015–30555 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Norlevorphanol (9634) ...... I BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Amphetamine (1100) ...... II

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Controlled substance Schedule DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Methamphetamine (1105) ...... II Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Enforcement Administration Phenmetrazine (1631) ...... II [Docket No. DEA–392] Methylphenidate (1724) ...... II [Docket No. DEA–392] Amobarbital (2125) ...... II Manufacturer of Controlled Pentobarbital (2270) ...... II Substances Registration: Navinta, LLC Importer of Controlled Substances Secobarbital (2315) ...... II Registration: Akorn, Inc. Glutethimide (2550) ...... II ACTION: Notice of registration. Phencyclidine (7471) ...... II ACTION: Notice of registration. 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine II SUMMARY: Navinta, LLC applied to be (ANPP) (8333). registered as a manufacturer of certain Phenylacetone (8501) ...... II basic classes of controlled substances. SUMMARY: Akorn, Inc. applied to be Alphaprodine (9010) ...... II The Drug Enforcement Administration registered as an importer of a certain Anileridine (9020) ...... II (DEA) grants Navinta, LLC registration basic class of controlled substance. The Cocaine (9041) ...... II as a manufacturer of those controlled Drug Enforcement Administration Codeine (9050) ...... II substances. (DEA) grants Akorn, Inc. registration as Dihydrocodeine (9120) ...... II SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice an importer of this controlled substance. Oxycodone (9143) ...... II dated June 25, 2015, and published in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hydromorphone (9150) ...... II the Federal Register on July 6, 2015, 80 Diphenoxylate (9170) ...... II FR 38471, Navinta, LLC, 1499 Lower By notice dated September 1, 2015, Hydrocodone (9193) ...... II Ferry Road, Ewing, New Jersey 08618– and published in the Federal Register Levomethorphan (9210) ...... II 1414 applied to be registered as a on September 9, 2015, 80 FR 54327 Levorphanol (9220) ...... II manufacturer of certain basic classes of Akorn, Inc., 1222 W. Grand Avenue, Meperidine (9230) ...... II controlled substances. No comments or Decatur, Illinois 62522 applied to be Methadone (9250) ...... II objections were submitted for this registered as an importer of a certain Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non- II notice. basic class of controlled substance. No dosage forms) (9273). The DEA has considered the factors in comments or objections were submitted Morphine (9300) ...... II 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that for this notice. Thebaine (9333) ...... II the registration of Navinta, LLC to Oxymorphone (9652) ...... II manufacture the basic classes of The DEA has considered the factors in Noroxymorphone (9668) ...... II controlled substances is consistent with 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and Alfentanil (9737) ...... II the public interest and with United determined that the registration of Sufentanil (9740) ...... II States obligations under international Akorn, Inc. to import the basic class of treaties, conventions, or protocols in controlled substance is consistent with The company plans to import the effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA the public interest and with United listed controlled substances in bulk investigated the company’s maintenance States obligations under international powder form from foreign sources for of effective controls against diversion by treaties, conventions, or protocols in the manufacture of analytical reference inspecting and testing the company’s effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA standards for sale to their customers. physical security systems, verifying the investigated the company’s maintenance company’s compliance with state and The company plans to import of effective controls against diversion by local laws, and reviewing the company’s inspecting and testing the company’s analytical reference standards for background and history. distribution to its customers for research physical security systems, verifying the Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. company’s compliance with state and and analytical purposes. Placement of 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR these drug codes onto the company’s local laws, and reviewing the company’s 1301.33, the above-named company is background and history. registration does not translate into granted registration as a bulk automatic approval of subsequent manufacturer of the following basic Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. permit applications to import controlled classes of controlled substances: 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance substances. Approval of permit with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named applications will occur only when the Controlled substance Schedule company is granted registration as an registrant’s business activity is importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine II class of controlled substance listed in consistent with what is authorized (ANPP) (8333). under to 21 U.S.C 952(a)(2). Fentanyl (9801) ...... II schedule II. Authorization will not extend to the The company plans to import import of FDA approved or non- The company plans initially to remifentanil in dosage form for approved finished dosage forms for manufacture API quantities of the listed distribution. commercial sale. controlled substances for validation Dated: November 23, 2015. Dated: November 23, 2015. purposes and FDA approval, then eventually upon FDA approval to Louis J. Milione, Louis J. Milione, produce commercial size batches for Deputy Assistant Administrator. Deputy Assistant Administrator. distribution to dosage form [FR Doc. 2015–30559 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2015–30552 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] manufacturers. BILLING CODE 4410–09–P BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Dated: November 23, 2015. Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015–30558 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75691

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Directorate for the Quality of Medicines In accordance with 21 CFR (EDQM). In order to ensure that its 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October Drug Enforcement Administration product will meet European 12, 2015, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [Docket No. DEA–392] specifications, the company seeks to 781 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, import morphine supplied by EDQM for West Virginia 26505 applied to be Importer of Controlled Substances use as reference standards. registered as an importer of the Application: Meridian Medical This is the sole purpose for which the following basic classes of controlled Technologies company will be authorized by the DEA substances: to import morphine. ACTION: Notice of application. Dated: November 27, 2015. Controlled substance Schedule Louis J. Milione, DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of Amphetamine (1100) ...... II the affected basic class, and applicants Deputy Assistant Administrator. Methylphenidate (1724) ...... II Oxycodone (9143) ...... II therefore, may file written comments on [FR Doc. 2015–30553 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Hydromorphone (9150) ...... II or objections to the issuance of the Methadone (9250) ...... II proposed registration in accordance Morphine (9300) ...... II with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Fentanyl (9801) ...... II January 4, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on Drug Enforcement Administration The company plans to import the the application pursuant to 21 CFR listed controlled substances in finished 1301.43 on or before January 4, 2016. [Docket No. DEA–392] dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials ADDRESSES: Written comments should Importer of Controlled Substances in which the foreign FDF will be be sent to: Drug Enforcement Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, compared to the company’s own Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Inc. Register Representative/OD/D, 8701 domestically-manufactured FDF. This Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia ACTION: Notice of application. analysis is required to allow the 22152. Request for hearings should be company to export domestically- sent to: Drug Enforcement DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of manufactured FDF to foreign markets. Administration, Attention: Hearing the affected basic classes, and Dated: November 23, 2015. Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, applicants therefore, may file written Louis J. Milione, Springfield, Virginia 22152. comments on or objections to the Deputy Assistant Administrator. issuance of the proposed registration in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The [FR Doc. 2015–30549 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on Attorney General has delegated her BILLING CODE 4410–09–P authority under the Controlled or before January 4, 2016. Such persons Substances Act to the Administrator of may also file a written request for a the Drug Enforcement Administration hearing on the application pursuant to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 4, exercise all necessary functions with 2016. Drug Enforcement Administration ADDRESSES: Written comments should respect to the promulgation and [Docket No. DEA–392] implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, be sent to: Drug Enforcement incident to the registration of Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, Register Representative/OD/D, 8701 Substances Application: Organix, Inc. importers, and exporters of controlled Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia substances (other than final orders in 22152. Request for hearings should be ACTION: Notice of application. connection with suspension, denial, or sent to: Drug Enforcement revocation of registration) has been Administration, Attention: Hearing DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, the affected basic classes, and Administrator of the DEA Office of Springfield, Virginia 22152. applicants therefore, may file written Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comments on or objections to the Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of Attorney General has delegated her issuance of the proposed registration in 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. authority under the Controlled accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on In accordance with 21 CFR Substances Act to the Administrator of or before February 1, 2016. 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October the Drug Enforcement Administration ADDRESSES: Written comments should 20, 2015, Meridian Medical (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to be sent to: Drug Enforcement Technologies, 2555 Hermelin Drive, exercise all necessary functions with Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Saint Louis, Missouri 63144 applied to respect to the promulgation and Register Representative/ODXL, 8701 be registered as an importer of morphine implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia (9300), a basic class of controlled incident to the registration of 22152. Request for hearings should be substance listed in schedule II. manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, sent to: Drug Enforcement The company manufactures a product importers, and exporters of controlled Administration, Attention: Hearing containing morphine in the United substances (other than final orders in Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, States. The company exports this connection with suspension, denial, or Springfield, Virginia 22152. product to customers around the world. revocation of registration) has been SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The The company has been asked to ensure redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General has delegated her that its product, which is sold to Administrator of the DEA Office of authority under the Controlled European customers, meets the Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant Substances Act to the Administrator of standards established by the European Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of the Drug Enforcement Administration Pharmacopeia, administered by the 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

exercise all necessary functions with Administration, Attention: DEA Federal DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE respect to the promulgation and Register Representative/OD/D, 8701 implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia Drug Enforcement Administration incident to the registration of 22152. Request for hearings should be manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, sent to: Drug Enforcement [Docket No. DEA–392] importers, and exporters of controlled Administration, Attention: Hearing substances (other than final orders in Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Importer of Controlled Substances connection with suspension, denial, or Springfield, Virginia 22152. Registration: Catalent CTS, LLC revocation of registration) has been SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The redelegated to the Deputy Assistant ACTION: Notice of registration. Attorney General has delegated her Administrator of the DEA Office of authority under the Controlled Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant SUMMARY: Catalent CTS, LLC applied to Substances Act to the Administrator of Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of be registered as an importer of a certain the Drug Enforcement Administration 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. basic class of controlled substance. The (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to In accordance with 21 CFR Drug Enforcement Administration exercise all necessary functions with 1301.33(a), this is notice that on (DEA) grants Catalent CTS, LLC respect to the promulgation and September 7, 2015, Organix, Inc., 240 registration as an importer of this implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts controlled substance. incident to the registration of 01801 applied to be registered as a bulk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, manufacturer of the following basic dated August 21, 2015, and published in importers, and exporters of controlled classes of controlled substances: the Federal Register on August 31, substances (other than final orders in 2015, 80 FR 52509, Catalent CTS, LLC, connection with suspension, denial, or Controlled substance Schedule 10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas revocation of registration) has been City, Missouri 64137 applied to be redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid I registered as an importer of a certain (2010). Administrator of the DEA Office of basic class of controlled substance. No Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant comments or objections were submitted Marihuana (7360) ...... I Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of for this notice. Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. Psilocybin (7437) ...... I The DEA has considered the factors in Psilocyn (7438) ...... I In accordance with 21 CFR 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and Heroin (9200) ...... I 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October determined that the registration of Morphine (9300) ...... II 6, 2015, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Catalent CTS, LLC to import the basic Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware class of controlled substance is The company plans to manufacture 19801–4417 applied to be registered as consistent with the public interest and reference standards for distribution to a bulk manufacturer of the following with United States obligations under its research and forensics customers. In basic classes of controlled substances: international treaties, conventions, or reference to drug codes 7360 protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The (marihuana) and 7370 (THC) the Controlled substance Schedule DEA investigated the company’s company plans to manufacture these maintenance of effective controls drugs as synthetic. No other activities Codeine-N-oxide (9053) ...... I Dihydromorphine (9145) ...... I against diversion by inspecting and for these drug codes are authorized for Morphine-N-oxide (9307) ...... I testing the company’s physical security this registration. Amphetamine (1100) ...... II systems, verifying the company’s Dated: November 27, 2015. Methylphenidate (1724) ...... II compliance with state and local laws, Louis J. Milione, Phenylacetone (8501) ...... II and reviewing the company’s Codeine (9050) ...... II Deputy Assistant Administrator. background and history. Dihydrocodeine (9120) ...... II Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 2015–30554 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Oxycodone (9143) ...... II BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Hydromorphone (9150) ...... II 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance Hydrocodone (9193) ...... II with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named Morphine (9300) ...... II company is granted registration as an DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Oripavine (9330) ...... II importer of marihuana (7360), a basic Thebaine (9333) ...... II class of controlled substance listed in Drug Enforcement Administration Opium extracts (9610) ...... II schedule I. Opium fluid extract (9620) ...... II [Docket No. DEA–392] The company plans to import finished Opium tincture (9630) ...... II pharmaceutical products containing Opium, powdered (9639) ...... II Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Opium, granulated (9640) ...... II cannabis extracts in dosage form for Substances Application: Noramco, Inc. Oxymorphone (9652) ...... II clinical trial studies. Noroxymorphone (9668) ...... II This compound is listed under drug ACTION: Notice of application. Tapentadol (9780) ...... II code 7360. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of The company plans to manufacture registration. Approval of permits the affected basic classes, and the above-listed controlled substances applications will occur only when the applicants therefore, may file written in bulk for distribution to its customers. registrant’s business activity is comments on or objections to the consistent with what is authorized issuance of the proposed registration in Dated: November 23, 2015. under to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on Louis J. Milione, Authorization will not extend to the or before February 1, 2016. Deputy Assistant Administrator. import of FDA approved or non- ADDRESSES: Written comments should [FR Doc. 2015–30550 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] approved finished dosage forms for be sent to: Drug Enforcement BILLING CODE 4410–09–P commercial sale.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75693

Dated: November 27, 2015. Washington, DC 20210; or by email: receive a month-to-month extension Louis J. Milione, [email protected]. while they undergo review. For Deputy Assistant Administrator. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: additional substantive information [FR Doc. 2015–30551 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– about this ICR, see the related notice BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not published in the Federal Register on toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_ May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29344). [email protected]. Interested parties are encouraged to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). send comments to the OMB, Office of Office of the Secretary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR Information and Regulatory Affairs at seeks to extend PRA authority for the the address shown in the ADDRESSES Agency Information Collection Hazardous Waste Operations and section within thirty (30) days of Activities; Submission for OMB Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) publication of this notice in the Federal Review; Comment Request; Hazardous Standard information collection. The Register. In order to help ensure Waste Operations and Emergency HAZWOPER Standard specifies a appropriate consideration, comments Response number of information collection should mention OMB Control Number requirements. Employers can use the 1218–0202. The OMB is particularly AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor. information collected under the interested in comments that: ACTION: Notice. HAZWOPER rule to develop the various • Evaluate whether the proposed programs the Standard requires and to SUMMARY: On November 30, 2015 the collection of information is necessary Department of Labor (DOL) will submit ensure that their workers are trained properly about the safety and health for the proper performance of the the Occupational Safety and Health functions of the agency, including Administration (OSHA) sponsored hazards associated with hazardous waste operations and emergency whether the information will have information collection request (ICR) practical utility; titled, ‘‘Hazardous Waste Operations response to hazardous waste releases. • and Emergency Response,’’ to the Office The OSHA uses the records developed Evaluate the accuracy of the of Management and Budget (OMB) for in response to this Standard to agency’s estimate of the burden of the review and approval for continued use, determine adequate compliance with proposed collection of information, without change, in accordance with the the Standard’s safety and health including the validity of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provisions. An employer’s failure to methodology and assumptions used; collect and distribute information (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public • Enhance the quality, utility, and comments on the ICR are invited. required in this standard will significantly affect OSHA efforts to clarity of the information to be DATES: The OMB will consider all control and reduce injuries and collected; and written comments that agency receives fatalities. Such failure would also be • Minimize the burden of the on or before January 4, 2016. contrary to the direction Congress collection of information on those who ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with provided in the Superfund are to respond, including through the applicable supporting documentation; Amendments and Reauthorization Act. use of appropriate automated, including a description of the likely Occupational Safety and Health Act of electronic, mechanical, or other respondents, proposed frequency of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) technological collection techniques or response, and estimated total burden authorize this information collection. may be obtained free of charge from the other forms of information technology, See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c). e.g., permitting electronic submission of RegInfo.gov Web site at http:// This information collection is subject responses. www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ to the PRA. A Federal agency generally PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201511-1218-003 cannot conduct or sponsor a collection Agency: DOL–OSHA. (this link will only become active on of information, and the public is Title of Collection: Hazardous Waste December 1, 2015) or by contacting generally not required to respond to an Operations and Emergency Response Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– information collection, unless it is Standard. 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not approved by the OMB under the PRA toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_ and displays a currently valid OMB OMB Control Number: 1218–0202. [email protected]. Control Number. In addition, Affected Public: Private Sector— Submit comments about this request notwithstanding any other provisions of businesses or other for-profit. by mail or courier to the Office of law, no person shall generally be subject Total Estimated Number of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to penalty for failing to comply with a Respondents: 30,052. Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, collection of information that does not Office of Management and Budget, display a valid Control Number. See 5 Total Estimated Number of Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL Responses: 1,440,759. Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202– obtains OMB approval for this Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 395–5806 (this is not a toll-free information collection under Control 261,551 hours. number); or by email: OIRA_ Number 1218–0202. [email protected]. Commenters OMB authorization for an ICR cannot Total Estimated Annual Other Costs are encouraged, but not required, to be for more than three (3) years without Burden: $3,124,960. send a courtesy copy of any comments renewal. The DOL seeks to extend PRA Dated: November 27, 2015. by mail or courier to the U.S. authorization for this information Michel Smyth, Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of collection for three (3) more years, Departmental Clearance Officer. the Chief Information Officer, Attn: without any change to existing [FR Doc. 2015–30576 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Departmental Information Compliance requirements. The DOL notes that Management Program, Room N1301, existing information collection BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 200 Constitution Avenue NW., requirements submitted to the OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR use of appropriate automated, seeks approval under the PRA for electronic, mechanical, or other Office of the Secretary revisions to the Respirable Coal Mine technological collection techniques or Dust Sampling. This information other forms of information technology, Agency Information Collection collection has been classified as a e.g., permitting electronic submission of Activities; Submission for OMB revision, because it increases burden responses. Review; Comment Request; Respirable based on provisions transferred to this Agency: DOL–MSHA. Coal Mine Dust Sampling collection from the request approved Title of Collection: Respirable Coal AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor. under ICR Reference Number, 201210– Mine Dust Sampling. ACTION: Notice. 1219–002. Federal Mine Safety and OMB Control Number: 1219–0011. Health Act of 1977 section 103(h) Affected Public: Private Sector— SUMMARY: On November 30, 2015, the authorizes this information collection. businesses or other for-profits. Department of Labor (DOL) will submit See 30 U.S.C. 813(h). Total Estimated Number of the Mine Safety and Health This information collection is subject Respondents: 1,035. Administration (MSHA) sponsored to the PRA. A Federal agency generally Total Estimated Number of information collection request (ICR) cannot conduct or sponsor a collection Responses: 1,749,915. revision titled, ‘‘Respirable Coal Mine of information, and the public is Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: Dust Sampling,’’ to the Office of generally not required to respond to an 115,345 hours. Management and Budget (OMB) for information collection, unless it is Total Estimated Annual Other Costs review and approval for use in approved by the OMB under the PRA Burden: $43,011 accordance with the Paperwork and displays a currently valid OMB Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Control Number. In addition, Dated: November 27, 2015. 3501 et seq.). Public comments on the notwithstanding any other provisions of Michel Smyth, ICR are invited. law, no person shall generally be subject Departmental Clearance Officer. DATES: The OMB will consider all to penalty for failing to comply with a [FR Doc. 2015–30577 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] written comments that agency receives collection of information that does not BILLING CODE 4510–43–P on or before January 4, 2016. display a valid Control Number. See 5 ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL applicable supporting documentation; obtains OMB approval for this DEPARTMENT OF LABOR information collection under Control including a description of the likely Office of the Secretary respondents, proposed frequency of Number 1219–0011. The DOL notes that response, and estimated total burden existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB Agency Information Collection may be obtained free of charge from the Activities; Submission for OMB RegInfo.gov Web site at http:// receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New Review; Comment Request; The 1,2- www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201206-1219-002 requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional (this link will only become active on ACTION: Notice. December 1, 2015) or by contacting substantive information about this ICR, Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– see the related notice published in the SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not Federal Register on September 17, 2015 (DOL) is submitting the Occupational toll-free numbers) or sending an email (80 FR 55874). Safety and Health Administration to [email protected]. Interested parties are encouraged to (OSHA) sponsored information Submit comments about this request send comments to the OMB, Office of collection request (ICR) titled, ‘‘The 1,2- by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard,’’ to Information and Regulatory Affairs, the address shown in the ADDRESSES the Office of Management and Budget Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL– section within thirty (30) days of (OMB) for review and approval for MSHA, Office of Management and publication of this notice in the Federal continued use, without change, in Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street Register. In order to help ensure accordance with the Paperwork NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: appropriate consideration, comments Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free should mention OMB Control Number 3501 et seq. Public comments on the number); or by email: OIRA_ 1219–0011. The OMB is particularly ICR are invited. interested in comments that: [email protected]. Commenters DATES: • Evaluate whether the proposed The OMB will consider all are encouraged, but not required, to written comments that agency receives send a courtesy copy of any comments collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the on or before January 4, 2016. by mail or courier to the U.S. ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have applicable supporting documentation; the Chief Information Officer, Attn: including a description of the likely Departmental Information Compliance practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the respondents, proposed frequency of Management Program, Room N1301, response, and estimated total burden 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, may be obtained free of charge from the Washington, DC 20210; or by email: RegInfo.gov Web site at http:// [email protected]. including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • Enhance the quality, utility, and PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201507-1218-005 Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– clarity of the information to be (this link will only become active on the 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not collected; and day following publication of this notice) toll-free numbers) or sending an email • Minimize the burden of the or by contacting Michel Smyth by _ _ to DOL PRA [email protected]. collection of information on those who telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202– Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). are to respond, including through the 693–8064, (these are not toll-free

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75695

numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_ renewal. The DOL seeks to extend PRA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE [email protected]. authorization for this information COMMISSION Submit comments about this request collection for three (3) more years, by mail or courier to the Office of [Release No. 34–76529; File No. SR–CBOE– without any change to existing 2015–106] Information and Regulatory Affairs, requirements. The DOL notes that Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, existing information collection Self-Regulatory Organizations; Office of Management and Budget, requirements submitted to the OMB Chicago Board Options Exchange, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., receive a month-to-month extension Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202– while they undergo review. For Proposed Rule Change To Permit P.M.- 395–5806 (this is not a toll-free additional substantive information _ Settled Options on Broad-Based number); or by email: OIRA about this ICR, see the related notice Indexes To Expire on Any Wednesday [email protected]. Commenters published in the Federal Register on of the Month by Expanding the End of are encouraged, but not required, to May 18, 2015 (80 FR 28300). Week/End of Month Pilot Program send a courtesy copy of any comments Interested parties are encouraged to by mail or courier to the U.S. send comments to the OMB, Office of November 30, 2015. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the the Chief Information Officer, Attn: the address shown in the ADDRESSES Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Departmental Information Compliance section within thirty (30) days of ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 Management Program, Room N1301, publication of this notice in the Federal notice is hereby given that on November 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Register. In order to help ensure 17, 2015, Chicago Board Options Washington, DC 20210; or by email: Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ _ _ appropriate consideration, comments DOL PRA [email protected]. should mention OMB Control Number or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1218–0101. The OMB is particularly and Exchange Commission (the Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– interested in comments that: ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not • Evaluate whether the proposed change as described in Items I, II, and toll-free numbers) or by email at DOL_ III below, which Items have been _ collection of information is necessary PRA [email protected]. for the proper performance of the prepared by the Exchange. The Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). functions of the agency, including Commission is publishing this notice to whether the information will have solicit comments on the proposed rule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR change from interested persons. seeks to extend PRA authority for the practical utility; 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) • Evaluate the accuracy of the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Standard information collection agency’s estimate of the burden of the Statement of the Terms of Substance of requirements codified in regulations 29 proposed collection of information, the Proposed Rule Change CFR 1910–1044. The Standard mandates including the validity of the The Exchange seeks to expand the an Occupational Safety and Health Act methodology and assumptions used; End of Week/End of Month Pilot (OSH Act) covered employer subject to • Enhance the quality, utility, and Program to permit P.M.-settled options the Standard to train workers about the clarity of the information to be on broad-based indexes to expire on any hazards of DBCP, to monitor worker collected; and Wednesday of the month. The text of exposure, to provide medical • Minimize the burden of the the proposed rule change is provided surveillance, and to maintain accurate collection of information on those who below (additions are italicized; records of worker exposure to DBCP. are to respond, including through the deletions are [bracketed]). Employers, workers, physicians, and the use of appropriate automated, * * * * * Government use these records to ensure electronic, mechanical, or other workers are not harmed by exposure to technological collection techniques or Chicago Board Options Exchange, DBCP in the workplace. OSH Act other forms of information technology, Incorporated Rules sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize e.g., permitting electronic submission of * * * * * this information collection. See 29 responses. Rule 24.4. Position Limits for Broad-Based U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c). Agency: DOL–OSHA. Index Options This information collection is subject Title of Collection: The 1,2-Dibromo- (a) No change. to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard. (b) End of Week Expirations, [and] End of cannot conduct or sponsor a collection OMB Control Number: 1218–0101. Month Expirations, and Wednesday of information, and the public is Expirations (as provided for in Rule 24.9(e), generally not required to respond to an Affected Public: Private Sector— QIXs, Q–CAPS, Packaged Vertical Spreads information collection, unless it is businesses or other for-profits. and Packaged Butterfly Spreads on a broad- approved by the OMB under the PRA Total Estimated Number of based index shall be aggregated with option and displays a currently valid OMB Respondents: 1. contracts on the same broad-based index and Control Number. In addition, Total Estimated Number of shall be subject to the overall position limit. notwithstanding any other provisions of Responses: 1. * * * * * law, no person shall generally be subject Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: Rule 24.9. Terms of Index Option Contracts to penalty for failing to comply with a 1 hour. collection of information that does not (a)–(d) No change. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs (e) Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program display a valid Control Number. See 5 Burden: $0. [End of Week/End of Month Expirations Pilot CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL Dated: November 27, 2015. Program (‘‘EOW/EOM Pilot Program’’)] obtains OMB approval for this (1) End of Week (‘‘EOW’’) Expirations. The Michel Smyth, information collection under Control Exchange may open for trading EOWs on any Number 1218–0101. Departmental Clearance Officer. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot [FR Doc. 2015–30575 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). be for more than three (3) years without BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75696 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

broad-based index eligible for standard and WEDs in a given class, the Exchange will The purpose of this filing is to expand options trading to expire on any Friday of the list an EOM instead of a WED in the given the Pilot to permit P.M.-settled options month, other than the third Friday-of-the- class. Other expirations in the same class are on broad-based indexes to expire on any month. EOWs shall be subject to all not counted as part of the maximum Wednesday of the month (‘‘WEDs’’), provisions of this Rule and treated the same numbers of WED expirations for a broad- other than Wednesdays that are EOM. as options on the same underlying index that based index class. expire on the third Friday of the expiration [(3)] (4) Duration of Nonstandard To expand the Pilot as described, the month; provided, however, that EOWs shall Expirations Pilot Program [EOW/EOM Pilot Exchange is proposing to amend Rule be P.M.-settled. Program]. The Nonstandard Expirations Pilot 24.9(e)(3) to expressly provide the The maximum numbers of expirations that Program [EOW/EOM Pilot Program] shall be Exchange with the ability to list P.M.- may be listed for EOWs is the same as the through May 3, [2016] 2017. settled WEDs on broad-based indexes maximum numbers of expirations permitted [(4)] (5) EOW/EOM/WED Trading Hours on eligible for options trading. In order to in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the the Last Trading Day. On the last trading day, allow data regarding WEDs to be same broad-based index. Other than transactions in expiring EOWs, [and] EOMs, collected, this proposal seeks to extend expirations that are third Friday-of-the- and WEDs may be effected on the Exchange month or that coincide with an EOM the duration of the Pilot to May 3, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) 2017.4 Additionally, if the Exchange expiration, EOW expirations shall be for [the and 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time). nearest] consecutive Friday expirations. were to propose an extension of the [from the actual listing date, other than the The text of the proposed rule change Pilot or should the Exchange propose to third Friday-of-the-month or that coincide is also available on the Exchange’s Web make the Pilot permanent, then the with an EOM expiration]. EOWs that are first site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/ Exchange would submit a filing listed in a given class may expire up to four CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at proposing such amendments to the weeks from the actual listing date. If the last the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, Pilot. Furthermore, any positions trading day of a month is a Friday and the established under the Pilot would not be Exchange lists EOMs and EOWs in a given and at the Commission’s Public class, the Exchange will list an EOM instead Reference Room. impacted by the expiration of the Pilot. of [and not] an EOW in the given class. Other For example, if the Exchange lists an II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s EOW, EOM, or WED expiration that expirations in the same class are not counted Statement of the Purpose of, and as part of the maximum numbers of EOW expires after the Pilot expires (and is not Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule expirations for a broad-based index class. extended) then those positions would (2) End of Month (‘‘EOM’’) Expirations. Change continue to exist. However, any further The Exchange may open for trading EOMs on In its filing with the Commission, the trading in those series would be any broad-based index eligible for standard Exchange included statements restricted to transactions where at least options trading to expire on last trading day one side of the trade is a closing of the month. EOMs shall be subject to all concerning the purpose of and basis for provisions of this Rule and treated the same the proposed rule change and discussed transaction. as options on the same underlying index that any comments it received on the Wednesday Expiration expire on [on] the third Friday of the proposed rule change. The text of these expiration month; provided, however, that statements may be examined at the With respect to Wednesday EOMs shall be P.M.-settled. places specified in Item IV below. The expirations, the Exchange proposes to The maximum numbers of expirations that Exchange has prepared summaries, set amend Rule 24.9(e)(3) by adding the may be listed for EOMs is the same as the forth in sections A, B, and C below, of following rule text maximum numbers of expirations permitted the most significant aspects of such Wednesday (‘‘WED’’) Expirations. The in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the statements. Exchange may open for trading WEDs on any same broad-based index. EOM expirations broad-based index eligible for standard shall be for [the nearest] consecutive end of A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s options trading to expire on any Wednesday month expirations [from the actual listing Statement of the Purpose of, and of the month, other than a Wednesday that date]. EOMs that are first listed in a given Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule is EOM. WEDs shall be subject to all class may expire up to four weeks from the Change provisions of this Rule and treated the same actual listing date. Other expirations in the as options on the same underlying index that same class are not counted as part of the 1. Purpose expire on the third Friday of the expiration maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a month; provided, however, that WEDs shall broad-based index class. On September 14, 2010, the be P.M.-settled. (3) Wednesday (‘‘WED’’) Expirations. The Commission approved a CBOE proposal WEDs will be subject to the same Exchange may open for trading WEDs on any to establish a pilot program under rules that currently govern the trading of broad-based index eligible for standard which the Exchange is permitted to list traditional index options, including options trading to expire on any Wednesday P.M.-settled options on broad-based of the month, other than a Wednesday that sales practice rules, margin indexes to expire on (a) any Friday of is EOM. WEDs shall be subject to all requirements, and floor trading the month, other than the third Friday- provisions of this Rule and treated the same procedures. Contract terms for WEDs of-the-month (‘‘EOWs’’), and (b) the last as options on the same underlying index that will be similar to EOWs. expire on the third Friday of the expiration trading day of the month (‘‘EOM’’).3 month; provided, however, that WEDs shall Under the terms of the End of Week/End Maximum Number of Expirations be P.M.-settled. of Month Expirations Pilot Program (the With respect to the maximum number The maximum numbers of expirations that ‘‘Pilot’’), EOWs and EOMs are permitted may be listed for WEDs is the same as the of expirations, the Exchange proposes to on any broad-based index that is eligible amend Rule 24.9(e)(3) by adding the maximum numbers of expirations permitted for regular options trading. EOWs and in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the following rule text: same broad-based index. Other than EOMs are cash-settled expirations with European-style exercise, and are subject The maximum numbers of expirations that expirations that coincide with an EOM may be listed for WEDs is the same as the expiration, WED expirations shall be for to the same rules that govern the trading maximum numbers of expirations permitted consecutive Wednesday expirations. WEDs of standard index options. that are first listed in a given class may 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73422 expire up to four weeks from the actual 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62911 (October 24, 2014), 79 FR 64640 (October 30, 2014) listing date. If the last trading day of a month (September 14, 2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, (SR–CBOE–2014–079). The Pilot is currently set to is a Wednesday and the Exchange lists EOMs 2010) (order approving SR–CBOE–2009–075). expire on May 3, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75697

in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the the first WEDs need not be Wednesday, proposes that WEDs on the same broad- same broad-based index. Other than November 4th; rather, the first based index (e.g., of the same class) expirations that coincide with an EOM expiration could be November 11th or a shall be aggregated for position limits (if expiration, WED expirations shall be for Wednesday thereafter. A similar any) and any applicable reporting and consecutive Wednesday expirations. WEDs 10 that are first listed in a given class may provision will apply to EOWs and other requirements. The Exchange is expire up to four weeks from the actual EOMs. proposing to add ‘‘WEDs’’ to Rule listing date. If the last trading day of a month CBOE also proposes to follow the 24.4(b) to reflect the aggregation is a Wednesday and the Exchange lists EOMs listing hierarchy described in the requirement. This proposed aggregation and WEDs in a given class, the Exchange will original Pilot filing, which provides that is consistent with the aggregation list an EOM instead of a WED in the given if the last trading day of the month is requirements for other types of option class. Other expirations in the same class are a Friday, the Exchange will list an EOM series (e.g., EOWs, EOMs, QOS, QIXs) not counted as part of the maximum numbers 7 that are listed on the Exchange and of WED expirations for a broad-based index instead of an EOW. Thus, with regards class. to WEDs, if the last trading day of a which do not expire on the customary month is a Wednesday, the Exchange ‘‘third Saturday. ’’ 11 In support of this change, CBOE states would list an EOM and not a WED. that under Rule 24.9(a)(2), the Retitle the EOW/EOM Pilot Program However, the Exchange is clarifying in maximum numbers [sic] of expirations Rules 24.9(e)(1) for EOWs and 24.9(e)(3) As part of adding WED expirations to varies depending on the type of class or for WEDs that the hierarchy of EOMs the existing EOW/EOM Pilot Program, by specific class. Therefore, the over EOWs and WEDs only arises when the Exchange believes it is necessary to maximum number of expirations the Exchange lists EOMs and EOWs or retitle paragraph (e) of Rule 24.9. Thus, permitted for WEDs on a given class WEDs in a particular options class. In the Exchange proposes to retitle the would be determined based on the other words, if the last trading day of a Pilot as the ‘‘Nonstandard Expirations specific broad-based index option class. month is a Wednesday and the Pilot Program.’’ For example, if the broad-based index option class is used to calculate a Exchange does not list EOMs in class Annual Pilot Program Report volatility index, the maximum number ABC but does list WEDs in ABC, then As part of the Pilot, the Exchange of WEDs permitted in that class would the Exchange may list a WED expiration currently submits a Pilot report to the be 12 expirations (as is permitted in for the last trading day of the month in Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 24.9(a)(2)). class ABC. The same goes for EOWs. If (‘‘Commission’’) at least two months For WEDs, CBOE proposes that other the last trading day of a month is a prior to the expiration date of the Pilot than expirations that coincide with an Friday and the Exchange does not list (the ‘‘annual report’’) . The annual EOM expiration, WED expirations shall EOMs in a particular options class but report contains an analysis of volume, be for consecutive Wednesday lists EOWs in the class, then the open interest and trading patterns. In expirations.5 However, the Exchange is Exchange may list EOWs for the last addition, for series that exceed certain also proposing that WEDs that are first trading day of the month in that minimum open interest parameters, the listed in a given class may expire up to particular options class. annual report provides analysis of index four weeks from the actual listing date.6 Finally, CBOE proposes to add that price volatility and, if needed, share It is generally the Exchange’s practice to other expirations in the same class trading activity. The annual report will list new expirations in a class in a would not be counted as part of the be expanded to provide the same data manner that allows market participants maximum numbers of WED expirations and analysis related to WED expirations to trade a particular product for longer for a broad-based index class. CBOE as is currently provided for EOW and than a week. Even weekly products such states that this provision is modeled EOM expirations. as EOWs and WEDs are not designed to after the maximum number of The Pilot is currently set to expire on have a life cycle—from listing to expirations applicable to EOW and EOM May 3, 2016. As the annual report is 8 expiration—of one week; instead, they options. This provision is also similar provided at least two months prior the are simply designed to expire weekly. to one recently adopted in connection expiration date of the Pilot, there would Thus, consistent with the Exchange’s with weekly CBOE Volatility Index not be significant data concerning WED listing practices, this rule change will (‘‘VIX’’) expirations, in that standard expirations in the next annual report, explicitly allow the Exchange to launch VIX expirations are not counted toward which is due in approximately February WEDs in an options class that do not the maximum number of expirations 2016. Thus, the Exchange is seeking to expire on the following Wednesday permitted for weekly expiration in VIX extend the pilot to May 3, 2017. The 9 from the actual listing date. For options. Exchange will still provide an annual example, upon approval of this rule CBOE has analyzed its capacity and report in approximately February 2016 change, if the actual listing date of the represents that it believes the Exchange that covers EOWs, EOMs, and WEDs. first WEDs in a class is Monday, and the Options Price Reporting November 2nd, the expiration date of Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) have the necessary 10 See e.g., Rule 4.13, Reports Related to Position systems capacity to handle any Limits and Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 5 This proposal also provides that for EOWs, other additional traffic associated with the 24.4 which sets forth the reporting requirements for than expirations that are third Friday-of-the-month listing of the maximum number of WED certain broad-based indexes that do not have or that coincide with an EOM expiration, EOW position limits. expirations shall be for consecutive Friday expirations permitted under the Pilot. 11 As will be discussed in detail below, the expirations. Position Limits Exchange trades structured quarterly and short term 6 The purpose of these provisions is to prevent options. FLEX Options do not become fungible with gaps in expirations. For example, the provision Since WEDs will be a new type of subsequently introduced Non-FLEX structured prevents the Exchange from listing a WED series and not a new class, the Exchange quarterly and short term options. See Securities expiration to expire on Wednesday, October 14th, Exchange Act Release No. 59675 (April 1, 2009), 74 then not listing a WED expiration to expire on FR 15794 (April 7, 2009) (SR–OCC–2009–05). October 21st, and then listing a WED expiration to 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62658 Because of the similarities between WED expire on October 28th. The provision is not meant (August 5, 2010), 75 FR 49010 (SR–CBOE–2009– expirations and existing structured quarterly and to prevent the Exchange from launching a new 075). short term options, FLEX Options will similarly not product and having the initial expiration dates be 8 See Rule 24.9(e)(1) and (2). become fungible with WED expirations listed for weeks from the initial launch. 9 See fourth bullet under Rule 24.9(a)(2). trading.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75698 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

All annual reports will continue to be following analysis related to index price market disruptions resulting from the provided to the Commission on a changes and, if needed, underlying P.M.-settlement feature of these options. confidential basis. share trading volume at the close on The Exchange does not believe that any expiration dates: market disruptions will be encountered Analysis of Volume and Open Interest (1) A comparison of index price with the introduction of P.M.-settlement For EOW, EOM, and WED series, the changes at the close of trading on a WED expirations. annual report will contain the following given expiration date with comparable The Exchange trades P.M.-settled volume and open interest data for each price changes from a control sample. EOW expirations, which provide market broad-based index overlying EOW, The data will include a calculation of participants a tool to hedge special EOM, and WED options: percentage price changes for various events and to reduce the premium cost (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all time intervals and compare that of buying protection. The Exchange EOW, EOM, and WED series, information to the respective control seeks to introduce P.M.-settled WED (2) Volume in EOW, EOM, and WED sample. Raw percentage price change expirations to, among other things, series aggregated by expiration date, data as well as percentage price change expand hedging tools available to (3) Month-end open interest data normalized for prevailing market market participants and to continue the aggregated for all EOW, EOM, and WED volatility, as measured by the CBOE reduction of premium cost of buying series, Volatility Index (‘‘VIX’’), will be protection. The Exchange believes that a (4) Month-end open interest for EOM provided; and WED expiration, similar to EOW series aggregated by expiration date, (2) if needed, a calculation of share expirations, would allow market week-ending open interest for EOW volume for a sample set of the participants to purchase an option based series aggregated by expiration date, and component securities representing an on their needed timing and allow them Wednesday-ending open interest for upper limit on share trading that could to tailor their investment or hedging WED series aggregated by expiration be attributable to expiring in-the-money needs more effectively. With SPX WEDs date, EOW, EOM, and WED expirations. The in particular, the Exchange believes VIX (5) Ratio of monthly aggregate volume data, if needed, will include a options and futures traders will be able in EOW, EOM, and WED series to total comparison of the calculated share to use SPX WEDs to more effectively monthly class volume, and volume for securities in the sample set manage the pricing complexity and risk (6) Ratio of month-end open interest to the average daily trading volumes of of VIX options and futures. In addition, in EOM series to total month-end class those securities over a sample period. because P.M.-settlement permits trading open interest, ratio of week-ending open The minimum open interest throughout the day on the day the interest in EOW series to total week- parameters, control sample, time contract expires, the Exchange believes ending open interest, and ratio of intervals, method for selecting the this feature will permit market Wednesday-ending open interest in component securities, and sample participants to more effectively manage WED series to total week-ending open periods will be determined by the overnight risk and trade out of their interest. Exchange and the Commission. positions up until the time the contract Upon request by the SEC, CBOE will settles. provide a data file containing: (1) EOW, Discussion EOM, and WED option volume data In support of this proposal, the 2. Statutory Basis aggregated by series, and (2) EOW week- Exchange states that it trades other types The Exchange believes the proposed ending open interest for expiring series, of series and FLEX Options 12 that rule change is consistent with the EOM month-end open interest for expire on different days than regular Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the expiring series, and WED Wednesday- options and in some cases have P.M.- ‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations ending open interest for expiring series. settlement. For example, since 1993 the thereunder applicable to the Exchange Exchange has traded Quarterly Index and, in particular, the requirements of Monthly Analysis of EOW & EOM & Expirations (‘‘QIXs’’) that are cash- Section 6(b) of the Act.15 Specifically, WED Trading Patterns settled options on certain broad-based the Exchange believes the proposed rule In the annual report, CBOE also indexes which expire on the first change is consistent with the Section proposes to identify EOW, EOM, and business day of the month following the 6(b)(5) 16 requirements that the rules of WED trading patterns by undertaking a end of a calendar quarter and are P.M.- an exchange be designed to prevent time series analysis of open interest in settled.13 The Exchange also trades fraudulent and manipulative acts and EOW, EOM, and WED series aggregated Quarterly Option Series (‘‘QOS’’) that practices, to promote just and equitable by expiration date compared to open overlie exchange traded funds (‘‘ETFs’’) principles of trade, to foster cooperation interest in near-term standard or indexes which expire at the close of and coordination with persons engaged Expiration Friday A.M.-settled series in business on the last business day of a in regulating, clearing, settling, order to determine whether users are calendar quarter and are P.M.-settled.14 processing information with respect to, shifting positions from standard series Additionally, as described above, this and facilitating transactions in to EOW, EOM, and WED series. Pilot currently allows the Exchange to securities, to remove impediments to Declining open interest in standard trade EOW and EOM options that are and perfect the mechanism of a free and series accompanied by rising open P.M.-settled. The Exchange has open market and a national market interest in EOW, EOM, and WED series experience with these special dated system, and, in general, to protect would suggest that users are shifting options and has not observed any investors and the public interest. positions. Additionally, the Exchange believes the 12 Provisional Analysis of Index Price See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61439 proposed rule change is consistent with (January 28, 2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4, 2010) the Section 6(b)(5) 17 requirement that Volatility and Share Trading Activity (SR–CBOE–2009–087) (order approving rule change to establish a pilot program to modify FLEX option the rules of an exchange not be designed For each EOW, EOM, and WED exercise settlement values and minimum value Expiration that has open interest that sizes). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). exceeds certain minimum thresholds, 13 See Rule 24.9(c). 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). the annual report will contain the 14 See Rules 5.5(e) and 24.9(a)(2)(B). 17 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75699

to permit unfair discrimination between B. institute proceedings to determine For the Commission, by the Division of customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. whether the proposed rule change Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 18 In particular, the Exchange believes should be disapproved. authority. the EOW/EOM Pilot has been successful Robert W. Errett, IV. Solicitation of Comments to date and that WEDs simply expand Deputy Secretary. the ability of investors to hedge risks Interested persons are invited to [FR Doc. 2015–30608 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] against market movements stemming submit written data, views, and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P from economic releases or market events arguments concerning the foregoing, that occur throughout the month in the including whether the proposed rule same way that EOWs and EOMs have change is consistent with the Act. DEPARTMENT OF STATE expanded the landscape of hedging. Comments may be submitted by any of [Public Notice: 9367] Similarly, the Exchange believes WEDs the following methods: should create greater trading and Overseas Schools Advisory Council hedging opportunities and flexibility, Electronic Comments Notice of Meeting and provide customers with the ability • to more closely tailor their investment Use the Commission’s Internet The Overseas Schools Advisory objectives. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Council, Department of State, will hold rules/sro.shtml); or its Executive Committee Meeting on B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Send an email to rule-comments@ Thursday, January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. Statement on Burden on Competition in conference room 1498, Marshall sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Center, Department of State Building, CBOE does not believe that the CBOE–2015–106 on the subject line. proposed rule change will impose any 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. burden on competition that is not Paper Comments The meeting is open to the public and necessary or appropriate in furtherance will last until approximately 12:00 p.m. • Send paper comments in triplicate The Overseas Schools Advisory of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities Council works closely with the U.S. the Exchange does not believe the and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street business community to improve proposal will impose any burden on American-sponsored schools overseas intramarket competition as all market NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. that are assisted by the Department of participants will be treated in the same All submissions should refer to File State and attended by dependents of manner as existing EOWs and EOMs. Number SR–CBOE–2015–106. This file U.S. government employees, and Additionally, the Exchange does not number should be included on the children of employees of U.S. believe the proposal will impose any subject line if email is used. To help the corporations and foundations abroad. burden on intermarket competition as Commission process and review your This meeting will deal with issues market participants on other exchanges comments more efficiently, please use related to the work and support are welcome to become Trading Permit only one method. The Commission will provided by the Overseas Schools Holders and trade at CBOE if they post all comments on the Commission’s Advisory Council to the American- determine that this proposed rule Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ sponsored overseas schools. There will change has made CBOE more attractive rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the be a report and discussion about the or favorable. Finally, although the submission, all subsequent status of the Council-sponsored projects majority of the Exchange’s broad-based amendments, all written statements such as The World Virtual School and index options are exclusively-listed at with respect to the proposed rule The Child Protection Project. The CBOE, all options exchanges are free to change that are filed with the Regional Education Officers in the compete by listing and trading their Commission, and all written Office of Overseas Schools will make own broad-based index options that communications relating to the presentations on the activities and expire on Wednesdays. proposed rule change between the initiatives in the American-sponsored C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission and any person, other than overseas schools. Statement on Comments on the those that may be withheld from the Members of the public may attend the Proposed Rule Change Received From public in accordance with the meeting and join in the discussion, Members, Participants, or Others provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be subject to the instructions of the Chair. available for Web site viewing and Admittance of public members will be The Exchange neither solicited nor printing in the Commission’s Public limited to the seating available. Access received comments on the proposed to the State Department is controlled, rule change. Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official and individual building passes are III. Date of Effectiveness of the business days between the hours of required for all attendees. Persons who Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the plan to attend should advise the office Commission Action filing also will be available for of Dr. Keith D. Miller, Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools, inspection and copying at the principal Within 45 days of the date of telephone 202–261–8200, prior to office of the Exchange. All comments publication of this notice in the Federal January 14, 2016. Each visitor will be received will be posted without change; Registeror within such longer period up asked to provide his/her date of birth the Commission does not edit personal to 90 days (i) as the Commission may and either a driver’s license or passport identifying information from designate if it finds such longer period number at the time of registration and to be appropriate and publishes its submissions. You should submit only attendance, and must carry a valid reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which information that you wish to make photo ID to the meeting. the Exchange consents, the Commission available publicly. All submissions Personal data is requested pursuant to will: should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– Public Law 99–399 (Omnibus A. By order approve or disapprove 2015–106 and should be submitted on such proposed rule change, or or before December 24, 2015. 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism This document shall be published in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law the Federal Register. Federal Aviation Administration 107–56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Dated: November 19, 2015. Executive Order 13356. The purpose of [Summary Notice No. 2015–63] the collection is to validate the identity Patrick F. Kennedy, of individuals who enter Department Under Secretary of State for Management. Petition for Exemption; Summary of facilities. The data will be entered into [FR Doc. 2015–30548 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Petition Received; United Airlines, Inc. the Visitor Access Control System BILLING CODE 4710–08–P (VACS–D) database. Please see the AGENCY: Federal Aviation Security Records System of Records Administration (FAA), DOT. Notice (State-36) at https:// DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACTION: Notice. foia.state.gov/_docs/SORN/State-36.pdf for additional information. Delegation of Authority 390; SUMMARY: This notice contains a Any requests for reasonable Delegation of Certain Authorities and summary of a petition seeking relief accommodation should be made at the Functions Under the International from specified requirements of Title 14 time of registration. All such requests Organizations Immunities Act of the Code of Federal Regulations. The will be considered, however, requests purpose of this notice is to improve the made after January 14, 2016, might not By virtue of the authority vested in public’s awareness of, and participation be possible to fill. All attendees must the Secretary of State by Section 1 of the in, the FAA’s exemption process. use the C Street entrance to the State Department Basic Authorities Act Neither publication of this notice nor building. (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and the International the inclusion or omission of information Organizations Immunities Act (the Act), in the summary is intended to affect the Dated: November 18, 2015. legal status of the petition or its final and delegated pursuant to Delegation of Keith D. Miller, disposition. Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Authority 245–1, dated February 13, Advisory Council. 2009, I hereby delegate to the Under DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and [FR Doc. 2015–30626 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] Secretary for Management, to the extent must be received on or before December BILLING CODE 4710–24–P consistent with law, the authorities and functions contained in Section 8 of the 23, 2015. Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 288e). ADDRESSES: Send comments identified DEPARTMENT OF STATE This authority may be re-delegated to by docket number FAA–2015–4360 using any of the following methods: the extent consistent with law. [Delegation of Authority 390–1] • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Any actions related to the functions http://www.regulations.gov and follow Re-Delegation of Certain Authorities described herein that may have been and Functions Under the International the online instructions for sending your taken prior to the date of this delegation Organizations Immunities Act comments electronically. of authority by the Office of the Chief of • Mail: Send comments to Docket By virtue of the authority vested in Protocol; the U.S. Mission to the United Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of the Secretary of State by the Nations; or the Office of Foreign Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey International Organizations Immunities Missions, are hereby confirmed and Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Act (the Act), and delegated on ratified. Such actions shall remain in Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC November 19, 2015, and to the extent force as if taken under this delegation of 20590–0001. consistent with law, I hereby delegate to authority, unless or until such actions • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take the following officers the authorities are rescinded, amended or superseded. comments to Docket Operations in and functions contained in Section 8 of Room W12–140 of the West Building Notwithstanding any provisions the Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 288e): Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey (1) The Director and Deputy Director herein, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 of the Office of Foreign Missions; or the Deputy Secretary for Management a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through (2) the Chief of Protocol and Assistant and Resources may at any time exercise Friday, except Federal holidays. Chief of Protocol for Diplomatic Affairs; the functions herein delegated. Any act, • Fax: Fax comments to Docket and executive order, regulation, manual or Operations at 202–493–2251. (3) the Deputy Permanent procedure subject to, affected, or Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. Representative and Minister Counselor incorporated by, this delegation shall be 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the for Host Country Affairs, of the U.S. deemed to be such act, executive order, public to better inform its rulemaking Mission to the United Nations, New regulation, manual or procedure as process. DOT posts these comments, York. amended from time to time. without edit, including any personal Notwithstanding any provisions This document shall be published in information the commenter provides, to herein, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the Federal Register. http://www.regulations.gov, as the Deputy Secretary for Management described in the system of records and Resources, or the Under Secretary Dated: November 19, 2015. notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can for Management may at any time Heather A. Higginbottom, be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/ exercise the functions herein delegated. Deputy Secretary of State for Management privacy. Any act, executive order, regulation, and Resources. Docket: Background documents or manual or procedure subject to, [FR Doc. 2015–30547 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] comments received may be read at affected, or incorporated by, this BILLING CODE 4710–08–P http://www.regulations.gov at any time. delegation shall be deemed to be such Follow the online instructions for act, executive order, regulation, manual accessing the docket or go to the Docket or procedure as amended from time to Operations in Room W12–140 of the time. West Building Ground Floor at 1200

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75701

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday http://www.regulations.gov and follow through Friday, except Federal holidays. the online instructions for sending your Federal Aviation Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments electronically. [Summary Notice No. 2015–58] Keira Jones (202) 267–4025, Office of • Mail: Send comments to Docket Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Petition for Exemption; Summary of Administration, 800 Independence Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Petition Received; Cargo Airlines Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Limited Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC This notice is published pursuant to 14 AGENCY: Federal Aviation CFR 11.85. 20590–0001. Issued in Washington, DC, on November • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take Administration (FAA), DOT. 25, 2015. comments to Docket Operations in ACTION: Notice. Lirio Liu, Room W12–140 of the West Building SUMMARY: This notice contains a Director, Office of Rulemaking. Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey summary of a petition seeking relief Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 Petition for Exemption from specified requirements of title 14 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Docket No.: FAA–2015–4360. Friday, except Federal holidays. Petitioner: United Airlines, Inc. • purpose of this notice is to improve the Fax: Fax comments to Docket public’s awareness of, and participation Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Operations at 202–493–2251. § 121.465(b)(1) and (2). in, the FAA’s exemption process. Description of Relief Sought: Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. Neither publication of this notice nor Petitioner seeks relief to enable a 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the the inclusion or omission of information scheduled Aircraft Dispatcher to public to better inform its rulemaking in the summary is intended to affect the complete the operating duty periods in process. DOT posts these comments, legal status of the petition or its final excess of 10 consecutive hours in order without edit, including any personal disposition. to complete operating familiarization information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as DATES: Comments on this petition must that would familiarize aircraft identify the petition docket number and dispatchers with long-range flights. The described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can must be received on or before December petitioner proposes that aircraft 23, 2015. dispatchers covered under the requested be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/ ADDRESSES: Send comments identified exemption would be provided a rest privacy. by docket number FAA–2015–3898 period of at least 8 hours prior to their Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at using any of the following methods: next duty assignment. • [FR Doc. 2015–30572 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket the online instructions for sending your Operations in Room W12–140 of the comments electronically. • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION West Building Ground Floor at 1200 Mail: Send comments to Docket New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Federal Aviation Administration DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West [Summary Notice No. 2015–60] through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC Petition for Exemption; Summary of 20590–0001. technical questions concerning this • Petition Received; Freight Runners action, contact Nia Daniels, (202) 267– Hand Delivery or Courier: Take Express, Inc. 7626, 800 Independence Avenue SW., comments to Docket Operations in Washington, DC 20009. Room W12–140 of the West Building AGENCY: Federal Aviation Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey This notice is published pursuant to Administration (FAA), DOT. Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 14 CFR 11.85. ACTION: Notice. a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Issued in Washington, DC, on November Friday, except Federal holidays. SUMMARY: This notice contains a 25, 2015. • Fax: Fax comments to Docket summary of a petition seeking relief Lirio Liu, Operations at 202–493–2251. from specified requirements of title 14 Director, Office of Rulemaking. Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Petition for Exemption 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the purpose of this notice is to improve the public to better inform its rulemaking Docket No.: FAA–2015–4436. public’s awareness of, and participation process. DOT posts these comments, in, the FAA’s exemption process. Petitioner: Freight Runners Express, without edit, including any personal Neither publication of this notice nor Inc. information the commenter provides, to the inclusion or omission of information Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: http://www.regulations.gov, as in the summary is intended to affect the 135.128(a). described in the system of records legal status of the petition or its final Description of Relief Sought: Freight notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can disposition. Runners Express, Inc. is requesting an be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/ DATES: Comments on this petition must exemption from § 135.128(a) to allow privacy. identify the petition docket number and FAA-certificated flight attendants to Docket: Background documents or must be received on or before December perform duties related to the safety of comments received may be read at 23, 2015. the airplane and its occupants by http://www.regulations.gov at any time. ADDRESSES: Send comments identified leaving their duty stations during taxi. Follow the online instructions for by docket number FAA–2015–4436 [FR Doc. 2015–30574 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] accessing the docket or go to the Docket using any of the following methods: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Operations in Room W12–140 of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 Electronic Access Buy America rolling stock provisions for New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, An electronic copy of this document other DOT agencies). Based on all the information available DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday may be downloaded from the Federal to the agency, FHWA concludes that through Friday, except Federal holidays. Register’s home page at http:// there are no domestic manufacturers FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: www.archives.gov and the Government that produce the vehicles and vehicle Keira Jones (202) 267–4025, Office of Printing Office’s database at http:// components identified in this notice in Rulemaking, Federal Aviation www.access.gpo.gov/nara. such a way that their steel and iron Administration, 800 Independence Background elements are manufactured Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice provides information domestically. The FHWA’s Buy America This notice is published pursuant to requirements were tailored to the types 14 CFR 11.85. regarding FHWA’s finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the of products that are typically used in Issued in Washington, DC, on November highway construction, which generally 25, 2015. obligation of Federal-aid funds for 74 State projects involving the acquisition meet the requirement that steel and iron Lirio Liu, of vehicles (including sedans, vans, materials be manufactured domestically. In today’s global industry, vehicles are Director, Office of Rulemaking. pickups, trucks, buses, and street assembled with iron and steel sweepers) and equipment (such as Petition for Exemption components that are manufactured all Bridge snooper truck and trail grooming over the world. The FHWA is not aware Docket No.: FAA–2015–3898. equipment) on the condition that they of any domestically produced vehicle Petitioner: Cargo Airlines Limited. be assembled in the U.S. The waiver on the market that meets FHWA’s Buy Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: would apply to approximately 547 America requirement to have all its iron § 61.77(a). vehicles. The requests, available at and steel be manufactured exclusively Description of Relief Sought: Cargo http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/ in the U.S. For example, the Chevrolet Airlines Limited (CAL) requests relief to contracts/cmaq151006.cfm, are Volt, which was identified by many obtain a special purpose flight incorporated by reference into this commenters in a November 21, 2011, authorization to operate in the U.S. notice. These projects are being Federal Register Notice (76 FR 72027) airspace to demonstrate, accept, and undertaken to implement air quality as a car that is made in the U.S., is ferry two Boeing B747–400F aircraft. improvement, safety, and mobility goals comprised of only 45 percent of U.S. under FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Canadian content according to the [FR Doc. 2015–30573 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] and Air Quality Improvement Program; BILLING CODE 4910–13–P National Highway Traffic Safety National Bridge and Tunnel Inventory Administration’s Part 583 American and Inspection Program; and the Automobile Labeling Act Report Web Recreational Trails Program. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION page (http://www.nhtsa.gov/ Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Laws+&+Regulations/Part Federal Highway Administration section 635.410 requires that steel or +583+American+Automobile iron materials (including protective +Labeling+Act+(AALA)+Reports). Buy America Waiver Notification coatings) that will be permanently Moreover, there is no indication of how incorporated in a Federal-aid project much of this 45 percent content is U.S.- AGENCY: Federal Highway must be manufactured in the U.S. For manufactured (from initial melting and Administration (FHWA), Department of FHWA, this means that all the processes mixing) iron and steel content. Transportation (DOT). that modified the chemical content, In accordance with Division K, ACTION: Notice. physical shape or size, or final finish of section 122 of the ‘‘Consolidated and the material (from initial melting and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, SUMMARY: This notice provides mixing, continuing through the bending 2015’’ (Pub. L. 113–235), FHWA information regarding FHWA’s finding and coating) occurred in the U.S. The published a notice of intent to issue a that a Buy America waiver is statute and regulations create a process waiver on its Web site at http:// appropriate for the obligation of for granting waivers from the Buy www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/ Federal-aid funds for 74 State projects America requirements when its contracts/waivers.cfm?id=115 on involving the acquisition of vehicles application would be inconsistent with October 6, 2015. The FHWA received no and equipment on the condition that the public interest or when satisfactory comments in response to the they be assembled in the U.S. quality domestic steel and iron products publication. DATES: The effective date of the waiver are not sufficiently available. In 1983, Based on FHWA’s conclusion that is December 4, 2015. FHWA determined that it was both in there are no domestic manufacturers the public interest and consistent with that can produce the vehicles and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the legislative intent to waive Buy equipment identified in this notice in questions about this notice, please America for manufactured products such a way that steel and iron materials contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA other than steel manufactured products. are manufactured domestically, and Office of Program Administration, 202– However, FHWA’s national waiver for after consideration of the comments 366–1562, or via email at manufactured products does not apply received, FHWA finds that application [email protected]. For legal to the requests in this notice because of FHWA’s Buy America requirements questions, please contact Mr. Jomar they involve predominately steel and to these products is inconsistent with Maldonado, FHWA Office of the Chief iron manufactured products. The the public interest (23 U.S.C. 313(b)(1) Counsel, 202–366–1373, or via email at FHWA’s Buy America requirements do and 23 CFR 635.410(c)(2)(i)). However, [email protected]. Office hours not have special provisions for applying FHWA believes that it is in the public for the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 Buy America to ‘‘rolling stock’’ such as interest and consistent with the Buy p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 America requirements to impose the except Federal holidays. U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and condition that the vehicles and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of vehicle components be assembled in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Notices 75703

U.S. Requiring final assembly to be Register on November 12, 2015, which OMB Control Number: 2900–0002. performed in the U.S. is consistent with contained errors to the title and abstract. Type of Review: Revision of a past guidance to FHWA Division Offices This document corrects these errors by currently approved collection. on manufactured products (see updating the title and abstract and Abstract: VA Form 21P–527EZ—The Memorandum on Buy America Policy making corrections throughout Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Response, Dec. 22, 1997, http:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: through its Veterans Benefits www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/ Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Administration (VBA), administers an contracts/122297.cfm). A waiver of the Service (005R1B), Department of integrated program of benefits and Buy America requirement without any Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue services, established by law, for regard to where the vehicle is assembled NW., Washington, DC 20420, at 202– veterans, service personnel, and their would diminish the purpose of the Buy 632–7492. dependents and/or beneficiaries. Title America requirement. Moreover, in 38 U.S.C. 5101(a) provides that a Correction today’s economic environment, the Buy specific claim in the form provided by America requirement is especially In FR Doc. 2015–28615, published on the Secretary must be filed in order for significant in that it will ensure that November 12, 2015, at 80 FR 70081, benefits to be paid to any individual Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars are make the following correction. On page under the laws administered by the used to support and create jobs in the 70081, in the second and third columns, Secretary. VA Form 21P–527EZ will be U.S. This approach is similar to the the notice should read as follows: the prescribed form for Veterans conditional waivers previously given for [OMB Control No. 2900–0002] Pension applications. various vehicle projects. Thus, so long VA proposes to remove VA Form 21– Agency Information Collection as the final assembly of the 74 State 527EZ, Application for Veterans (Income, Asset and Employment projects occurs in the U.S., applicants to Pension, from OMB control number Statement and Application for this waiver request may proceed to 2900–0747 and have it assigned to OMB Veterans Pension) Activity Under OMB purchase these vehicles and equipment control number 2900–0002 since the Review consistent with the Buy America form has been transferred to Pension & requirement. AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Fiduciary Service (21P). Also, due to the In accordance with the provisions of Administration, Department of Veterans change in business lines, we are section 117 of the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Affairs. changing the form prefix to 21P. Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity ACTION: Notice. VA Form 21P–527—This form will be Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical SUMMARY: used by Veterans to apply for pension Corrections Act of 2008’’ (Pub. L. 110– In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 benefits after they have previously 244), FHWA is providing this notice of applied for pension or for service- its finding that a public interest waiver (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits connected disability compensation of Buy America requirements is using one of the prescribed forms under appropriate on the condition that the Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the 38 U.S.C 5101(a). A veteran might vehicles and equipment identified in reapply for pension if a previous the notice be assembled in the U.S. The collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and compensation or pension claim was FHWA invites public comment on this denied or discontinued, or if the veteran finding for an additional 15 days Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the is receiving compensation and the following the effective date of the veteran now believes that pension finding. Comments may be submitted to nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes would be a greater benefit. FHWA’s Web site via the link provided An agency may not conduct or to the waiver page noted above. the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on sponsor, and a person is not required to (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110–161, or before January 4, 2016. respond to a collection of information 23 CFR 635.410) unless it displays a currently valid OMB ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Issued on: November 25, 2015. control number. on the collection of information through Gregory G. Nadeau, www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of The Federal Register Notice with a Administrator, Federal Highway Information and Regulatory Affairs, 60-day comment period soliciting Administration. Office of Management and Budget, Attn: comments on this collection of [FR Doc. 2015–30601 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW., information was published on August 7, BILLING CODE 4910–22–P Washington, DC 20503 or sent through 2015 at [80 FR 152, pages 47563–47564]. electronic mail to oira_submission@ Affected Public: Individuals or omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Households. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Control No. 2900–0002’’ in any Estimated Annual Burden: 59,230 AFFAIRS correspondence. hours. Estimated Average Burden per [OMB Control No. 2900–0002] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Respondent: 0.50 hours (30 minutes). Agency Information Collection Service (005R1B), Department of Frequency of Response: One-time. (Income, Asset and Employment Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue Estimated Number of Respondents: Statement and Application for NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632– 118,197 respondents. Veterans Pension) 7492 or email [email protected]. By direction of the Secretary. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. Kathleen M. Manwell, 0002.’’ ACTION: Notice; correction. Program Analyst, VA Privacy Service, Office SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of Privacy and Records Management, SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Title: Income, Asset and Employment Department of Veterans Affairs. Affairs (VA) published a collection of Statement and Application for Veterans [FR Doc. 2015–30439 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] information notice in the Federal Pension. BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM 03DEN1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 232 December 3, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Preamble Glossary of Terms and AGENCY comments on the information collection Abbreviations provisions are best assured of The following are abbreviations of 40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97 consideration if the Office of terms used in the preamble. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9935–25– Management and Budget (OMB) OAR] receives a copy of your comments on or CAA or Act Clean Air Act before January 4, 2016. CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule RIN 2060–AS05 CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model Public hearing. The EPA will be with Extensions Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update holding one public hearing on the CBI Confidential Business Information for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring Update for the 2008 Ozone National Systems AGENCY: Environmental Protection CFR Code of Federal Regulations Agency (EPA). Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ACTION: Proposed rule. hearing will be held to accept oral EGU Electric Generating Unit comments on the proposal. The hearing EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this will be held on December 17, 2015 in FIP Federal Implementation Plan proposal is to address interstate air Washington, DC. The hearing will begin FR Federal Register quality impacts with respect to the 2008 at 9 a.m. EST and will conclude at 8 GWh Gigawatt hours ozone National Ambient Air Quality p.m. EST. Additional information for ICR Information Collection Request Standards (NAAQS). The EPA IPM Integrated Planning Model this public hearing is available in a Km Kilometer promulgated the Cross-State Air separate Federal Register notice and at Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, lb/mmBtu Pounds per Million British http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/ Thermal Unit to address interstate transport of ozone proposed-cross-state-air-pollution- LNB Low-NOX Burners pollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS update-rule. mmBtu Pounds per Million British Thermal and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under Unit the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator EPA is proposing to update CSAPR to identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality address interstate emission transport OAR–2015–0500, to the Federal Standard with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. eRulemaking Portal: http:// NBP NOX Budget Trading Program NEI National Emission Inventory This proposal also responds to the July www.regulations.gov. Follow the online NOX Nitrogen Oxides 28, 2015 remand by the Court of instructions for submitting comments. Appeals for the District of Columbia NODA Notice of Data Availability Once submitted, comments cannot be NSPS New Source Performance Standard Circuit of certain states’ ozone-season edited or withdrawn. The EPA may OFA Overfire Air nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions publish any comment received to its PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter budgets established by CSAPR. This public docket. Do not submit PPB Parts Per Billion proposal also updates the status of RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis electronically any information you certain states’ outstanding interstate SC–CO2 Social Cost of Carbon ozone transport obligations with respect consider to be Confidential Business SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, for which Information (CBI) or other information SIP State Implementation Plan CSAPR provided a partial remedy. whose disclosure is restricted by statute. SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel This proposal finds that ozone season Multimedia submissions (audio, video, Emissions SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction emissions of NOX in 23 eastern states etc.) must be accompanied by a written affect the ability of downwind states to comment. The written comment is SO2 Sulfur Dioxide TSD Technical Support Document attain and maintain the 2008 ozone considered the official comment and NAAQS. These emissions can be should include discussion of all points Table of Contents transported downwind as NOX or, after you wish to make. The EPA will I. Executive Summary transformation in the atmosphere, as generally not consider comments or A. Purpose of Regulatory Action ozone. For these 23 eastern states, the comment contents located outside of the B. Major Provisions EPA proposes to issue Federal primary submission (i.e. on the web, C. Benefits and Costs Implementation Plans (FIPs) that cloud, or other file sharing system). For II. General Information generally update the existing CSAPR additional submission methods, the full A. To Whom Does the Proposed Action NO ozone-season emissions budgets Apply X EPA public comment policy, for electricity generating units (EGUs) III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and Overall information about CBI or multimedia and implement these budgets via the Approach for the Proposed Rule CSAPR NO ozone-season allowance submissions, and general guidance on A. The Interstate Transport Challenge X making effective comments, please visit Under the 2008 Ozone Standard trading program. The EPA would 1. Background on the Overall Nature of the finalize a FIP for any state that does not http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. Interstate Ozone Transport Problem have an approved SIP addressing its 2. Events Affecting Application of the contribution by the date this rule is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 finalized. The EPA is proposing David Risley, Clean Air Markets Ozone NAAQS implementation starting with the 2017 Division, Office of Atmospheric B. Proposed Approach To Address Ozone ozone season. In conjunction with other Transport Under the 2008 Ozone Programs (Mail Code 6204M), NAAQS via FIPS federal and state actions, these Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 requirements would assist downwind 1. The CSAPR Framework Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, states in the eastern United States in 2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of DC 20460; telephone number: (202) Transport Obligation attaining and maintaining the 2008 3. Why We Focus on Eastern States ozone standard. 343–9177; email address: Risley.David@ epa.gov. 4. Short-Term NOX Emissions DATES: Comments must be received on C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR or before January 19, 2016. Under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75707

D. Addressing the Status of Outstanding E. Relationship to Other Emission Trading exacerbation. Ozone exposure can also Transport Obligations for the 1997 and Ozone Transport Programs negatively impact ecosystems. Ozone NAAQS 1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR Studies have established that ozone IV. Legal Authority Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain occurs on a regional scale (i.e., A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed Rule Program, NOX SIP Call, 176A Petition, 1. Statutory Authority and Other State Implementation Plans thousands of kilometers) over much of 2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered by 2. Other Federal Rulemakings the eastern U.S., with elevated the Proposed Rule VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the concentrations occurring in rural as well V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality and Proposed Rule as metropolitan areas. To reduce this Upwind-State Contributions IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to the regional-scale ozone transport, A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs and assessments of ozone control Platform CSAPR Trading Program approaches have concluded that NOX B. Emission Inventories X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews control strategies are most effective. 1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Further, studies have found that EGU Sets Planning and Review and Executive 2. Development of Emission Inventories for Order 13563: Improving Regulation and NOX emission reductions can be EGUs Regulatory Review effective in reducing individual 8-hour 3. Development of Emission Inventories for B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) peak ozone concentrations and in Non-EGU Point Sources C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) reducing 8-hour peak ozone 4. Development of Emission Inventories for D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act concentrations averaged across the Onroad Mobile Sources (UMRA) ozone season.1 Specifically, studies 5. Development of Emission Inventories for E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism indicate that EGUs’ emissions, which Commercial Marine Category 3 (Vessel) F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 6. Development of Emission Inventories for are generally released higher in the air and Coordination With Indian Tribal column through tall stacks and are Other Nonroad Mobile Sources Governments 7. Development of Emission Inventories for G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of significant in quantity, may Nonpoint Sources Children From Environmental Health disproportionately contribute to long- C. Air Quality Modeling to Identify Risks and Safety Risks range transport of ozone pollution on a Nonattainment and Maintenance H. Executive Order 13211: Actions per-ton basis.2 Receptors Concerning Regulations That Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind Significantly Affect Energy Supply, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), sometimes States Distribution or Use called the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ 1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify I. National Technology Transfer and 3 Upwind State Contributions requires states to prohibit emissions Advancement Act (NTTAA) that will contribute significantly to 2. Application of Screening Threshold J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions nonattainment in, or interfere with VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU NOX To Address Environmental Justice in Reduction Potential to Reduce Interstate Minority Populations and Low-Income maintenance by, any other state with Ozone Transport for the 2008 NAAQS Populations respect to any primary or secondary A. Introduction K. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) NAAQS. B. NOX Mitigation Strategies and (d) The EPA originally finalized CSAPR 1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies on July 6, 2011. See 76 FR 48208 I. Executive Summary 2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies (August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses the C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for Assessment The EPA promulgated the original 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX Reductions, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Air Quality on July 6, 2011, to address interstate NAAQS.4 (See section IV for a E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets ozone transport under the 1997 ozone discussion of CSAPR litigation and VII. Implementation Using the Existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards implementation.) CSAPR Ozone-Season Allowance (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to CSAPR provides a 4-step process to Trading Program and Relationship to update CSAPR to address interstate address the requirements of the good Other Rules emission transport with respect to the neighbor provision for ozone or PM2.5 A. Background 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone standards: (1) Identifying downwind B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements of the CSAPR Trading Programs NAAQS is an 8-hour standard that was receptors that are expected to have 1. Applicability set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 73 problems attaining or maintaining clean 2. State Budgets FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). air standards (i.e., NAAQS); (2) determining which upwind states 3. Allocations of Emission Allowances A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, contribute to these identified problems and Penalties The purpose of this rulemaking is to in amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to 5. Implementation Approaches for reduce interstate emission transport that the downwind air quality problems; (3) Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX significantly contributes to Ozone-Season Program to Address nonattainment, or interferes with 1 Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of regional Transport for a Newer NAAQS maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8-hour ozone 6. Compliance Deadlines concentrations in the Washington, DC; 7. Monitoring and Reporting and the in the eastern U.S. To achieve this goal, Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs. Allowance Management System this proposal would further limit ozone ‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions 8. Recordation of Allowances season (May 1 through September 30) to ozone and fine particulate matter-related C. Submitting a SIP NO mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’. X emissions from electric generating 2 1. 2018 SIP Option units (EGUs) in 23 eastern states. Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate to 2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern USA.’’ Ozone causes a variety of negative 3 3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the The term ‘‘state’’ has the same meaning as provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically CSAPR Trading Program effects on human health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and includes the District of Columbia. 4. Submitting a SIP to Participate in 4 CSAPR did not evaluate the 2008 ozone CSAPR for States Not Included in This chronic exposure to ozone is associated standard because the 2008 ozone NAAQS was Proposal with premature mortality and a number under reconsideration during the analytic work for D. Title V Permitting of morbidity effects, such as asthma the rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for states linked to downwind air necessarily sufficient to eliminate all address the requirements of section quality problems, identifying upwind significant contribution to downwind 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate emissions that significantly contribute nonattainment or interference with transport of pollution as to the 2008 to downwind nonattainment or interfere downwind maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July with downwind maintenance of a ozone NAAQS downwind. Relying on 13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). standard by quantifying available base case modeling completed for this The finding action triggered a 2-year upwind emission reductions and proposed rulemaking, this action deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to apportioning upwind responsibility proposes to find that the reductions address the good neighbor provision for among linked states; and (4) for states required by those 11 FIPs were in fact these states by August 12, 2017. that are found to have emissions that sufficient to eliminate such significant The EPA would finalize a FIP for a significantly contribute to contributions to downwind air quality state that we find has failed to submit nonattainment or interfere with problems for that standard. a complete good neighbor SIP or for maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, This action also responds to the July which we issue a final rule reducing the identified upwind 28, 2015 opinion of the Court of disapproving its good neighbor SIP. emissions via regional emissions Appeals for the District of Columbia allowance trading programs. Each time (D.C. Circuit) remanding without The EPA proposes to align implementation of this proposed rule the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS are revised, vacatur 11 states’ CSAPR phase 2 NOX this process can be applied for the new ozone-season emissions budgets. EME with relevant attainment dates for the NAAQS. In this action, the EPA Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 2008 ozone NAAQS, as required by the proposes to apply this 4-step process to 795 F.3d 118, 129–30, 138 (EME Homer D.C. Circuit’s decision North Carolina v. 8 update CSAPR with respect to the 2008 City II). This action proposes to respond EPA. The EPA’s final 2008 Ozone 9 ozone NAAQS. to that remand by replacing the budgets NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule Application of this process with invalidated by the D.C. Circuit for nine revised the attainment deadline for respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS states and by removing two states from ozone nonattainment areas currently designated as moderate from December provides the analytic basis for proposing the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading to further limit ozone season EGU NOX program.6 2018 to July 2018 in accordance with emissions in 23 eastern states. However, On October 1, 2015, the EPA the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. the EPA seeks comment on this strengthened the ground-level ozone EPA.10 Because July 2018 falls during proposal from all states and NAAQS, based on extensive scientific the 2018 ozone season, the 2017 ozone stakeholders. evidence about ozone’s effects on public season will be the last full season from The requirements of this proposal are health and welfare. This proposal to which data can be used to determine in addition to existing, on-the-books reduce interstate emission transport attainment of the NAAQS by the July EPA and state environmental with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 2018 attainment date. We believe that regulations, including the Clean Power is a separate and distinct regulatory North Carolina compels the EPA to Plan (CPP), which is included in the action and is not meant to address the identify upwind reductions and base case for this proposal. On August CAA’s good neighbor provision with implementation programs to achieve 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS final these reductions, to the extent possible, announced the Clean Power Plan—a rule. for the 2017 ozone season. historic and important action on The Clean Air Act gives states the In order to apply the first and second emissions that contribute to climate responsibility to address interstate steps of the CSAPR 4-step process to change. The CPP reduces carbon pollution transport through good interstate transport for the 2008 ozone pollution from the power sector. Due to neighbor State Implementation Plans NAAQS, the EPA used air quality the compliance timeframes of the CPP, (SIPs). The EPA supports state efforts to modeling to project ozone the EPA does not anticipate significant submit good neighbor SIPs for the 2008 concentrations at air quality monitoring interactions with the CPP and the near- ozone NAAQS and has shared sites to 2017. The EPA evaluated these term ozone season EGU NOX emission information with states to facilitate such modeling projections for the air quality reduction requirements under this SIP submittals. However, in the event monitoring sites and considered current proposal. However, states and utilities that good neighbor SIPs are not ozone monitoring data at these sites to will be able to make their compliance submitted or cannot be approved, this identify receptors that are anticipated to plans with both programs in mind. rulemaking proposes Federal have problems attaining or maintaining Further discussion of the CPP is Implementation Plans (FIPs), as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA then provided later in this proposal. required under section 110(c)(1) of the used air quality modeling to evaluate In addition to reducing interstate CAA, to establish and implement EGU contributions from upwind states to ozone transport with respect to the 2008 NOX reductions identified in this rule. these downwind receptors. ozone NAAQS, this proposal also On July 13, 2015, the EPA published CSAPR and previous federal transport addresses the status of outstanding a rule finding that 24 states 7 failed to rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and the interstate ozone transport obligations make complete submissions that with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)— discussed in detail below—addressed Under CSAPR, the EPA promulgated 6 The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets FIPs for 25 states to address ozone for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North collective contributions of ozone transport under the 1997 NAAQS. For Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and pollution from states in the eastern U.S. 11 of these states,5 in the 2011 final rule, West Virginia. The EPA proposes to remove Florida These rules did not address and South Carolina from the CSAPR ozone-season CSAPR quantified ozone season NOX contributions in the 11 western NOX trading program. emission reductions that were not 7 The states included in this finding of failure to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, 8 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding 5 Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, that EPA must coordinate interstate transport Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, compliance deadlines with downwind attainment Tennessee, and Texas. (See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, deadlines). FR at 48220, and the CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 9 80 FR 12264, 12268; 40 CFR 51.1103. FR at 80760, December 27, 2011). Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 10 777 F.3d 456, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75709

contiguous United States.11 There may trading program provisions with regard significantly contribute to ozone be additional criteria to evaluate to that state. transport in the east) to participate in regarding collective contribution of To evaluate full elimination of a the CSAPR NOX ozone-season transported air pollution in the West, state’s significant contribution to allowance trading program (as modified such as those raised in EPA-state nonattainment and interference with by the proposed changes described meetings to discuss approaches for maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone elsewhere in this notice). CSAPR’s determining how emissions in upwind season NOX reductions should both be trading programs and EPA’s prior states impact air quality in downwind evaluated. To the extent air quality emissions trading programs provide a states.12 Given that the near-term 2017 impacts persist after implementation of proven implementation framework for implementation timeframe constrains the NOX reductions identified in this achieving emission reductions. In the opportunity to conduct evaluations rulemaking, a final judgment on addition to providing environmental of additional criteria, the EPA proposes whether the proposed EGU NOX certainty (i.e., a cap on emissions), these to focus this rulemaking on eastern reductions represent a full or partial programs also provide regulated sources states. This focus would not relieve elimination of a state’s good neighbor with flexibility in choosing compliance western states of obligations to address obligation for the 2008 NAAQS is strategies. By using the existing CSAPR interstate transport under the Act. The therefore subject to an evaluation of the NOX ozone-season allowance trading EPA and western states, working contribution to interstate transport from program, the EPA is proposing to use an together, would continue to evaluate additional non-EGU emission sectors. implementation framework that was interstate transport on a case-by-case However, the EPA believes that it is shaped by notice and comment in basis. While the EPA proposes to focus beneficial to implement, without further previous rulemakings and reflects the this rulemaking on eastern states, we delay, EGU NOX reductions since they evolution of these programs in response seek comment on whether to include are achievable in the near term. to court decisions. Further, this program western states in this rule. Generally, notwithstanding that is familiar to the EGUs that will be To apply the third step of the 4-step additional reductions may be required regulated under this rule, which means process, the EPA assessed ozone season to fully address the states’ interstate that monitoring, reporting, and NOX reductions that are achievable for transport obligations, the proposed NOX compliance will be done as it already is the 2017 ozone season. This assessment emission reductions are needed for under CSAPR’s current ozone-season reveals that there is significant EGU these states to eliminate their significant and annual programs.14 NOX reduction potential that can be contribution to nonattainment and These FIP requirements, if finalized, achieved for 2017 at reasonable cost, interference with maintenance of the would begin with the 2017 ozone season which would make meaningful and 2008 ozone NAAQS and needed for and would continue for subsequent timely improvements in ozone air downwind states with ozone ozone seasons to ensure that upwind quality. The EPA applied a multi-factor nonattainment areas that are required to states included in this proposed rule test to evaluate EGU NOX reduction attain the standard by 2018.13 meet their Clean Air Act obligation to potential for 2017 and proposes to At the same time, the EPA also notes address interstate emissions transport quantify EGU NOX ozone-season that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS emissions budgets reflecting emission only requires upwind states to prohibit for 2017 and future years. To the extent reductions from cost-effective pollution emissions that will significantly that emissions in an included state control measures achievable for the contribute to nonattainment or interfere would otherwise exceed the 2017 ozone season (estimated to obtain with maintenance of the NAAQS in promulgated emission level, these good NOX reductions at a uniform cost of other states. It does not shift to upwind neighbor EGU emissions limits will approximately $1,300 per ton). states the full responsibility for ensuring ensure that future emissions are The EPA is not proposing to quantify that all areas in other states attain and consistent with states’ ongoing good non-EGU emission reductions to reduce maintain the NAAQS. Downwind states neighbor obligations. To the extent that interstate ozone transport for the 2008 also have control responsibilities emissions in an included state would be ozone NAAQS at this time because we because, among other things, the Act reduced for other reasons, for example are uncertain that significant NO X requires each state to adopt enforceable planned lower-NO emitting generation mitigation is achievable from non-EGUs X plans to attain and maintain air quality coming online, then those actions will for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA will standards. The requirements established help the state comply with its good continue to evaluate whether non-EGU for upwind states through this proposed neighbor requirements. emission reductions can be achieved on rule will supplement downwind states’ Generally, for states that would be a longer time-frame at a future date. local emission control strategies that, in However, as explained later in this affected by one of the FIPs proposed in conjunction with the certainty on this action and that are already included document, this proposal seeks comment maximum allowable upwind state EGU on a preliminary evaluation of in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading emissions that this proposed rule would program to address interstate ozone stationary non-EGU NO mitigation X provide, promote attainment and transport for the 1997 NAAQS, this potential and on allowing a state to maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. action proposes to revise the existing include legacy NO SIP Call non-EGUs X To meet the fourth step of the 4-step part 97 regulations that define that in the CSAPR trading program by process (i.e., implementation) the program to incorporate lower EGU NOX adopting a SIP revision that the EPA proposed FIPs contain enforceable would approve as modifying the CSAPR ozone-season emissions budgets for measures necessary to achieve the each of the affected states in order to emission reductions in each state. The reduce ozone transport for the 2008 11 For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. proposed FIPs would require power (or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, plants in affected states (i.e., states that 14 One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ozone season requirement under this proposal. 13 Washington, and Wyoming. The proposed requirements for one state, North Kansas currently participates in the CSAPR NOX 12 For example, EPA-State meetings held in Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s and SO2 annual programs. The remaining 22 states Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and significant contribution to downwind air quality were included in the original CSAPR ozone-season Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013. problems. program as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

15 ozone NAAQS. If finalized, ozone-season and annual trading these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 annual compliance with these lower emissions programs. emissions budgets. The EPA intends to budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS The 23 eastern states for which the address the remand of the phase 2 SO2 would also satisfy compliance with the EPA proposes to promulgate FIPs to annual emissions budgets separately. existing higher emissions budgets for reduce interstate ozone transport as to The existing CSAPR emissions budgets the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the the 2008 ozone NAAQS are listed in and implementation programs (CSAPR EPA proposes to replace the existing Table I–1. SO2 annual and NOX annual CSAPR emissions budgets (i.e. for the requirements), which address interstate 1997 ozone NAAQS) for the affected TABLE I–A–1—PROPOSED LIST OF transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 states with the lower emissions budgets COVERED STATES FOR THE 2008 8- NAAQS, continue to apply at this time. proposed to reduce ozone transport for HOUR OZONE NAAQS B. Major Provisions the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Compliance with the final lower emissions budgets State name The major provision of this action are for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would described in the remainder of this supersede compliance with the CSAPR Alabama preamble and organized as follows: Arkansas NOX ozone-season budgets for the 1997 Section III describes the human health ozone NAAQS. This action would Illinois and environmental context, the EPA’s Indiana therefore respond to the remand of EME overall approach for addressing Iowa interstate transport, and the EPA’s Homer City II with respect to the NOX Kansas ozone-season emissions budgets for nine Kentucky response to the remand of certain states 16 by replacing the budgets Louisiana CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions declared invalid by the court with Maryland budgets; section IV describes the EPA’s revised budgets designed to address the Michigan legal authority for this action; section V 2008 ozone NAAQS. Mississippi describes the air quality modeling The proposed FIPs, if finalized, would Missouri platform and emission inventories that New Jersey the EPA used to identify downwind not limit states’ flexibility in meeting New York their CAA requirements, as any state receptors of concern and upwind state North Carolina ozone contributions to those receptors; included in this proposed rule can Ohio submit a good neighbor SIP at any time Oklahoma section VI describes the EPA’s proposed that, if approved by the EPA, could Pennsylvania approach to quantify upwind state replace the FIP for that state. Tennessee obligations in the form of EGU NOX Additionally, CSAPR already provides Texas emissions budgets; section VII details states with the option to submit Virginia the implementation requirements abbreviated SIPs to customize the West Virginia including key elements of the CSAPR Wisconsin allowance trading program and methodology for allocating NOX ozone- season allowances while participating deadlines for compliance; section VIII For eastern states for which the EPA describes the expected costs, benefits, in the ozone-season trading program is not proposing FIPs in this action, the and we propose to continue that and other impacts of this proposed rule; EPA notes that updates to the modeling section IX discusses proposed changes approach in this rule. for the final rule, made based on The EPA therefore proposes revisions to the existing regulatory text for the comments received on the proposal, to the Code of Federal Regulations, CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR trading could change the analysis as to which specifically 40 CFR part 97, subpart programs; and section X discusses the states significantly contribute to BBBBB (federal CSAPR NO ozone- statutes and executive orders affecting X nonattainment or interfere with season trading program); 40 CFR this rulemaking. The EPA invites maintenance. In this regard, the final 52.38(b) (rules on replacing or comment on this proposed rulemaking. modeling could result in additional modifying the federal CSAPR NO X states being included in the final rule. C. Benefits and Costs ozone-season trading program with a Therefore, the EPA provides all data and The proposed rule would achieve SIP); 40 CFR 52.540, 52.882, and methods necessary for all eastern states near-term emission reductions from the 52.2140 (adding or limiting to comment on all aspects of this power sector, lowering ozone season requirements for EGUs in certain proposal in the Ozone Transport Policy NO in 2017 by 85,000 tons, compared individual states to participate in the X Analysis TSD. This information to baseline 2017 projections without the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading includes EGU NOX ozone-season rule. program); and 40 CFR 78.1 (modifying emissions budgets for all eastern states, Consistent with Executive Order the list of decisions subject to in the event that final rule modeling 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and administrative appeal procedures under demonstrates that additional states Regulatory Review,’’ we have estimated part 78) to address interstate transport significantly contribute to downwind air the costs and benefits of the proposed for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, quality problems. rule. Estimates here are subject to various minor corrections are proposed The EPA notes that the annual PM2.5 uncertainties discussed further in the to these CFR and other sections of parts NAAQS was updated after CSAPR was Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the 52, 78, and 97 relating to the CSAPR promulgated (78 FR 306, January 15, docket. The estimated net benefits of the 2013). However, this rulemaking does proposed rule at a 3 percent discount 15 One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR ozone season requirement under this proposal. The not address the 2012 PM2.5 standard. rate are $700 million to $1.2 billion remaining 22 states were included in the original The EPA acknowledges that, in EME (2011$). The non-monetized benefits CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit also include reduced ecosystem effects and NAAQS. remanded without vacatur the CSAPR reduced visibility impairment. 16 The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets phase 2 SO emissions budgets as to for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North 2 Discussion of the costs and benefits of Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and four states. 795 F.3d at 129, 138. This the proposal is provided in preamble West Virginia. proposal does not address the remand of section VIII, below, and in the RIA,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75711

which is found in the docket for this quantified benefits is summarized in proposed rulemaking. The EPA’s Table I.C–1, below. estimate of the proposed rule’s costs and

TABLE I.C–1—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS, MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND MONETIZED NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE FOR 2017 (2011$)

Impacts at 3 per- Description cent discount rate ($ millions)

Annualized Compliance Costs a ...... $93. Monetized benefits b ...... 700 to 1,200. Net benefits (benefits-costs) ...... 620 to 1,200. a Total annualized social costs are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The social costs presented here reflect the EGU ozone season costs of complying with the proposed FIPs. b Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associ- ated with reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits and co-benefits include many but not all health effects associated with pollution exposure. Benefits are shown as a range reflecting studies from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008).

II. General Information A. To whom does this action apply? This proposed rule affects EGUs, and regulates the following groups:

Industry group NAICS *

Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation ...... 221112 * North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be volatile organic compounds (VOC) in concentrations during the summer exhaustive, but rather provides a guide the presence of sunlight. Emissions from ozone season. for readers regarding entities likely to be electric utilities and industrial facilities, The EPA has previously concluded in regulated by this action. This table lists motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR the types of entities that the EPA is now chemical solvents are some of the major that, for reducing regional-scale ozone aware could potentially be regulated by sources of NOX and VOC. transport, a NOX control strategy would this action. Other types of entities not Because ground-level ozone formation be most effective. NOX emissions can be listed in the table could also be increases with temperature and transported downwind as NOX or, after regulated. To determine whether your sunlight, ozone levels are generally transformation in the atmosphere, as entity is regulated by this action, you higher during the summer. Increased ozone. As a result of ozone transport, in should carefully examine the temperature also increases emissions of any given location, ozone pollution applicability criteria found in 40 CFR volatile man-made and biogenic levels are impacted by a combination of 97.504. If you have questions regarding organics and can indirectly increase local emissions and emissions from the applicability of this action to a NOX emissions as well (e.g., increased upwind sources. The transport of ozone particular entity, consult the person electricity generation for air pollution across state borders listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION conditioning). compounds the difficulty for downwind CONTACT section. The 2008 primary and secondary states in meeting health-based air III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and ozone standards are both 75 parts per quality standards (i.e., NAAQS). Overall Approach for the Proposed billion (ppb) as an 8-hour level. Recent assessments of ozone, for Rule Specifically, the standards require that example those conducted for the the 3-year average of the fourth highest October 2015 Regulatory Impact A. The Interstate Transport Challenge 24-hour maximum 8-hour average ozone Analysis of the Final Revisions to the Under the 2008 Ozone Standard concentration may not exceed 75 ppb. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1. Background on the Overall Nature of for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA–452/R– b. Ozone Transport the Interstate Ozone Transport Problem 15–007) continue to show the importance of NOX emissions on ozone Interstate transport of NOX emissions Studies have established that ozone poses significant challenges with formation, atmospheric residence, and transport. This analysis is in the docket respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the transport occurs on a regional scale (i.e., for this proposal and can be also found eastern U.S. and thus presents a threat thousands of kilometers) over much of at the EPA’s Web site at: http:// to public health and welfare. the eastern U.S., with elevated www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/ concentrations occurring in rural as well 20151001ria.pdf. a. Nature of Ozone and the Ozone as metropolitan areas. While substantial There are five general categories of NAAQS progress has been made in reducing NOX emission sources: EGUs, non-EGU Ground-level ozone is not emitted ozone in many urban areas, regional- point, onroad mobile, non-road mobile, directly into the air, but is created by scale ozone transport is still an and area. Studies have found that EGU chemical reactions between NOX and important component of peak ozone NOX emission reductions can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

effective in reducing individual 8-hour EGU NOX reductions would make and welfare and ecosystem effects peak ozone concentrations and in meaningful and timely improvements in associated with ambient ozone reducing 8-hour peak ozone ozone air quality. exposure. concentrations averaged across the The Clean Air Act’s good neighbor 2. Events Affecting Application of the ozone season. For example, a study that provision requires states and the EPA to address interstate transport of air Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 evaluates the effectiveness on ozone Ozone NAAQS concentrations of EGU NOX reductions pollution that affects downwind states’ achieved under the NOX Budget Trading ability to attain and maintain NAAQS. The 2008 revisions to the ozone Program shows that regulating NOX Other provisions of the CAA, namely NAAQS were promulgated on March 12, emissions has been highly effective in sections 179B and 319(b), are available 2008. See National Ambient Air Quality reducing both ozone and dry-NO3 to deal with NAAQS exceedances not Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, 73 FR concentrations during the ozone season. attributable to the interstate transport of 16436 (March 27, 2008). The revision of Further, this study indicates that EGU pollution covered by the good neighbor the NAAQS, in turn, triggered a 3-year emissions, which are generally released provisions but caused by emission deadline of March 12, 2011, for states to higher in the air column through tall sources outside the control of a submit SIP revisions addressing stacks and are significant in quantity, downwind state. These provisions infrastructure requirements under CAA may disproportionately contribute to address international transport and sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), long-range transport of ozone pollution exceptional events, respectively.19 20 including the good neighbor provision. 17 During this 3-year SIP development on a per-ton basis. Another study c. Health and Environmental Effects period, on September 16, 2009, the EPA shows that EGU NOX emissions can contribute between 5 ppb and 25 ppb to Exposure to ambient ozone causes a announced 21 that it would reconsider average 8-hour peak ozone variety of negative effects on human the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To reduce the health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In concentrations in mid-Atlantic workload for states during the interim humans, acute and chronic exposure to metropolitan statistical areas.18 period of reconsideration, the EPA also ozone is associated with premature Previous regional ozone transport announced its intention to propose mortality and a number of morbidity efforts, including the NO SIP Call, staying implementation of the 2008 X effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In CAIR, and CSAPR, required ozone standards for a number of the ecosystems, ozone exposure causes season NO reductions from EGUs to requirements. On January 6, 2010, the X visible foliar injury, decreases plant address interstate transport of ozone. EPA proposed to revise the 2008 growth, and affects ecosystem The EPA has taken comment on NAAQS for ozone from 75 ppb to a level community composition. See the EPA’s regulating EGU NO within the range of 60 to 70 ppb. See 75 X emissions to November 2014 Regulatory Impact address interstate ozone transport in the FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). The EPA Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to indicated its intent to issue final notice-and-comment process for these the National Ambient Air Quality rulemakings. The EPA received no standards based upon the Standards for Ground-Level Ozone reconsideration by summer 2011. significant adverse comments in any of (EPA–452/P–14–006), in the docket for these proposals regarding the rules’ On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized this proposal and available on the EPA’s CSAPR, in response to the DC Circuit’s focus on ozone season EGU NOX Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ reductions to address interstate ozone remand of the EPA’s prior federal ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf, for transport rule, CAIR. See 76 FR 48208 transport. more information on the human health As described later in this notice, the (August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses EPA’s analysis finds that the power ozone transport under the 1997 ozone 19 The EPA recognizes that both in-state and NAAQS, but does not address the 2008 sector continues to be capable of making upwind wildfires may contribute to monitored ozone standard, because the 2008 ozone NOX reductions at reasonable cost that ozone concentrations. The EPA encourages all reduce interstate transport with respect states to consider how the appropriate use of NAAQS was under reconsideration prescribed fire may benefit of public safety and to ground-level ozone. EGU NO during the analytic work for the rule. X health by resulting in fewer ozone exceedances for On September 2, 2011, consistent emission reductions can be made in the both the affected state and their neighboring states. with the direction of the President, the near-term under this proposal by fully 20 The CAA and the EPA’s implementing Administrator of the Office of operating existing EGU NO post- regulations, specifically the Exceptional Events X Rule at 40 CFR 50.14, allow for the exclusion of air Information and Regulatory Affairs of combustion controls (i.e., Selective quality monitoring data from regulatory the Office of Management and Budget Catalytic Reduction and Selective Non- determinations when events, including wildland returned the draft final 2008 ozone rule Catalytic Reduction)—including fires, contribute to NAAQS exceedances or EPA had developed upon optimizing NO removal by existing, violations if they meet certain requirements, X including the criterion that the event be not reconsideration to the Agency for operational controls and turning on and reasonably controllable or preventable. Wildland further consideration.22 In view of this optimizing existing idled controls; fires can be of two types: Wildfire (unplanned) and installation of (or upgrading to) state-of- prescribed fire (planned). Under the Exceptional direction and the timing of the agency’s Events Rule, wildfires are considered, by their ongoing periodic review of the ozone the-art NO combustion controls; and X nature, to be not reasonably controllable or NAAQS required under CAA section shifting generation to units with lower preventable. Because prescribed fires on wildland 109 (as announced on September 29, NO emission rates. Further, additional are intentionally ignited for resource management X 2008), the EPA decided to coordinate assessment reveals that these available purposes, to meet the not reasonably controllable or preventable criterion, they must be conducted further proceedings on its voluntary under a certified Smoke Management Program or reconsideration rulemaking of the 2008 17 Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate employ basic smoke management practices. Both to Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern types of wildland fire must also satisfy the other USA’’. rule criteria. The EPA will soon propose revisions 21 Fact Sheet. The EPA to reconsider Ozone 18 Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of to the Exceptional Events Rule and release a draft Pollution Standards. http://www.epa.gov/ _ _ regional NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8- guidance document, which applies the proposed groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3 Reconsideration FACT hour ozone concentrations in the Washington, DC; rule revisions to wildfire events that could %20SHEET_091609.pdf. Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs. influence ozone concentrations. These actions, 22 See Policy Assessment for the Review of the ‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions which the EPA intends to finalize in the summer Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to ozone and fine particulate matter-related of 2016, further clarify the treatment of wildland August 2014, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’. fires under the Exceptional Events Rule. standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf, at 1–9.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75713

ozone standard with that of its ongoing inventory projections for 2018 (79 FR remand from the Supreme Court, EME periodic review of the ozone NAAQS.23 2437, January 14, 2014). Homer City II, 795 F.3d 118. The court Implementation for the original 2008 On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court largely upheld CSAPR, but remanded to ozone standard was renewed. However, reversed the D.C. Circuit’s EME Homer EPA without vacatur certain states’ during this time period, a number of City opinion on CSAPR and held, emissions budgets for reconsideration. legal developments pertaining to the among other things, that under the plain This proposal responds to the remand of EPA’s promulgation of CSAPR created language of the CAA, states must submit certain CSAPR NOX ozone-season uncertainty surrounding the EPA’s SIPs addressing the good neighbor emissions budgets to the EPA for statutory interpretation and provision within 3 years of reconsideration; see section C below. implementation of the good neighbor promulgation of a new or revised Regarding the remand of CSAPR phase provision. NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA 2 SO2 annual emissions budgets as to first provides guidance, technical data, four states, this proposal does not On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit or rulemaking to quantify the state’s address that particular aspect of the D.C. issued a decision in EME Homer City obligation.27 Thus, the Supreme Court Circuit opinion. The EPA intends to Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing affirmed that states have an obligation address the remand of the phase 2 SO2 several legal challenges to CSAPR and in the first instance to address the good annual emissions budgets separately. holding, among other things, that states neighbor provision after promulgation had no obligation to submit good of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding B. Proposed Approach To Address neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first that also applies to states’ obligation to Ozone Transport Under the 2008 Ozone quantified each state’s good neighbor address transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS via FIPs obligation.24 According to that decision, NAAQS. 1. The CSAPR Framework the submission deadline for good The Supreme Court holding affirmed CSAPR establishes a 4-step process to neighbor SIPs under the CAA would not that states were required to submit SIPs address the requirements of the good necessarily be tied to the promulgation addressing the good neighbor provision neighbor provision.31 The EPA proposes of a new or revised NAAQS. While the with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS to follow the same steps for this EPA disagreed with this interpretation by March 12, 2011. To the extent that rulemaking with respect to the 2008 of the statute and sought review of the states have failed to submit SIPs to meet ozone NAAQS. These steps are: (1) decision in the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. this statutory obligation, then the EPA Identifying downwind receptors that are Supreme Court, the EPA complied with has not only the authority, but the expected to have problems attaining or obligation, to promulgate FIPs to the D.C. Circuit’s ruling during the maintaining clean air standards (i.e., address the CAA requirement. pendency of its appeal. In particular, the NAAQS); (2) determining which EPA indicated that, consistent with the Following the remand of the case to the D.C. Circuit, the EPA requested that upwind states contribute to these D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it would not at identified problems in amounts that time issue findings that states had the court lift the CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR compliance deadlines by sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to the failed to submit SIPs addressing the downwind air quality problems; (3) for good neighbor provision.25 three years. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request. states linked to downwind air quality On January 23, 2013, the Supreme The EPA issued an interim final rule to problems, identifying upwind emissions Court granted the EPA’s petition for that significantly contribute to 26 revise the regulatory deadlines in certiorari. During 2013 and early 2014, CSAPR to reflect the three-year delay in nonattainment or interfere with as the EPA awaited a decision from the implementation. Accordingly, CSAPR maintenance of a standard by Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts phase 1 implementation began in 2015 quantifying available upwind emission and technical analyses aimed at and phase 2 will begin in 2017.28 reductions and apportioning upwind identifying and quantifying state good On March 6, 2015, the EPA’s final responsibility among linked states; and neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements (4) for states that are found to have NAAQS. As part of this effort, the EPA Rule 29 revised the attainment deadline emissions that significantly contribute solicited stakeholder input and also for ozone nonattainment areas currently to nonattainment or interfere with provided states with, and requested designated as moderate to July 2018. In maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, input on, emissions inventories for 2011 order to demonstrate attainment by the reducing the identified upwind (78 FR 70935, November 27, 2013) and deadline, the demonstration would have emissions via regional emissions to be based on design values calculated allowance trading programs. 23 Id. using 2015 through 2017 ozone season Step 1—In the original CSAPR, 24 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 data, since the July 2018 deadline does downwind air quality problems were F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). not afford a full ozone season of assessed using modeled future air 25 See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air quality concentrations for a year aligned and Radiation former Assistant Administrator Gina measured data. The EPA established McCarthy to the EPA Regions, ‘‘Next Steps for this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP with attainment deadlines for the Pending Redesignation Requests and State Requirements Rule after previously NAAQS considered in that rulemaking. Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the establishing a deadline of December 31, The assessment of future air quality Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross- 2018, that was vacated by the D.C. conditions generally accounts for on- State Air Pollution Rule,’’ November 19, 2012; 78 32 FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on Circuit Court in Natural Resources the-books emission reductions and Florida infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8- Defense Council v. EPA.30 the most up-to-date forecast of future hour ozone NAAQS); 78 FR 14450 (March 6, 2013) On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit emissions in the absence of the (final action on Tennessee infrastructure SIP issued its opinion regarding CSAPR on transport policy being evaluated (i.e., submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); Final Rule, Findings of Failure To Submit a Complete base case conditions). The locations of State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a) 27 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014). 31 See CSAPR, Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August Quality Standard, 78 FR 2884 (January 15, 2013). 28 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014). 8, 2011). 26 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 29 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 32 Since CSAPR was designed to replace CAIR, S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other 51.1103. CAIR emissions reductions were not considered parties’ petitions for certiorari). 30 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014). ‘‘on-the-books.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

downwind air quality problems are reduction potential that was cost- budgets in a given year to account for identified as those with receptors that effective under this constraint. The EPA variability in EGU operations. CSAPR are projected to be unable to attain (i.e., evaluated NOX reduction potential, cost, set assurance levels equal to the sum of nonattainment receptor) or maintain and downwind air quality each state’s emissions budget plus its (i.e., maintenance receptor) the improvements available at several cost variability limit. The original CSAPR standard. This proposal follows this thresholds in the multi-factor test. This included assurance provisions that help same general approach. However, the evaluation quantified the magnitude of to assure that state emissions remain EPA also proposes to consider current emissions that significantly contribute below the assurance levels in each state monitored air quality data to further to nonattainment or interfere with by requiring additional allowance inform the projected identification of maintenance of a NAAQS downwind surrenders in the instance that downwind air quality problems for this and apportioned upwind responsibility emissions in the state exceed the state’s proposal. Further details and among linked states, an approach assurance level. This limited interstate application of step one for this proposal upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in trading approach is responsive to are described in section V of this notice. EPA v. EME Homer City.34 The EPA previous court decisions (see discussion Step 2—The original CSAPR used a proposes to apply this approach to in section IV of this preamble) and has screening threshold of one percent of identify NOX emission reductions been upheld in subsequent litigation the NAAQS to identify upwind states necessary to reduce interstate transport regarding CSAPR. The EPA proposes to that were ‘‘linked’’ to downwind air for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, updated to apply this approach to reduce interstate pollution problems. States were also explicitly consider over-control. transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. identified as needing further evaluation For this proposal, the multi-factor test is Implementation using the CSAPR for actions to address transport if their also used to evaluate possible over- allowance trading program is described air quality impact 33 was greater than or control by evaluating if an upwind state in section VII of this notice. equal to the threshold for at least one is linked solely to downwind air quality 2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of downwind problem receptor (i.e., problems that are resolved at a given Transport Obligation nonattainment or maintenance receptor cost threshold, or if upwind states identified in step 1). We evaluated a would reduce their emissions at a given Given the unique circumstances given state’s contribution based on the cost threshold to the extent that they surrounding the implementation of the average relative downwind impact would no longer meet or exceed the 1% 2008 ozone standard that have delayed calculated over multiple days. States air quality contribution threshold. This state and EPA efforts to address whose air quality impacts to all evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and interstate transport, at this time the EPA downwind problem receptors were air quality improvements, including its is focusing its efforts on the below this threshold did not require consideration of potential over-control, immediately available and cost-effective further evaluation for actions to address results in the EPA’s determination of emission reductions that are achievable transport—that is, these states were upwind emissions that significantly by the 2017 ozone season. determined to make insignificant contribute to nonattainment or interfere a. Partial Remedy Under Proposed FIPs contributions to downwind air quality with maintenance of the NAAQS problems and therefore have no downwind. Next, emissions budgets are This rulemaking proposes to establish emission reduction obligations under determined. Emissions budgets are (or revise currently established) FIPs for the good neighbor provision. The EPA remaining allowable emissions after the 23 eastern states under the good neighbor provision of the CAA. These used this threshold because much of the elimination of emissions identified as FIPs contain requirements for EGUs in ozone nonattainment problem in the significantly contributing to these states to reduce ozone season NO eastern half of the United States results nonattainment or interfering with X emissions for the 2017 ozone season. As from relatively small contributions from maintenance of the standard downwind. noted in section VI, the EPA has a number of upwind states. Use of the The EPA’s assessment of significant identified important EGU emission one percent threshold for CSAPR is contribution to nonattainment and reductions that are achievable starting discussed in the preambles to the interference with maintenance and for the 2017 ozone season in each of the proposed and final CSAPR rules. See 75 development of EGU NOX ozone-season covered states through actions such as FR 45237 (Aug. 2, 2010); 76 FR 48238, emissions budgets is described in turning on and operating existing (Aug. 8, 2011). The EPA proposes to use section VI of this notice. Step 4—Finally, the original CSAPR pollution controls. These readily this same approach for this rule. available emission reductions will assist Application of step two for this proposal used allowance trading programs to implement the necessary emission downwind states to attain and maintain is described in section V of this notice. the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will Step 3—For states that are linked in reductions. Specifically, the emissions provide human health and welfare step 2 to downwind air quality budgets identified in step 3 were benefits through reduced exposure to problems, the original CSAPR used a implemented via a tradable allowance program. Emissions allowances were ozone pollution. multi-factor test to evaluate emission While these reductions are necessary reductions available in upwind states by issued to units covered by the trading program and the allowances can be to assist downwind states attain and application of uniform cost thresholds. maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and The EPA evaluated NOX reductions that turned in at the close of each compliance period to account for a are necessary to address good neighbor were available in upwind states by obligations for these states, the EPA specified amount of ozone season EGU applying a marginal cost of NOX acknowledges that they may not be NO emissions. Additionally, the emissions to entities in these states. X sufficient to fully address these states’ original CSAPR included variability This approach, in essence, simulated good neighbor obligations.35 With limits, which define the amount by placing an economic value on NOX respect to the 2008 ozone standard, the emissions and evaluated emission which collective emissions within a state may exceed the level of the 35 The proposed requirements for one state, North 33 For ozone the impacts would include those Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s 34 from volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 significant contribution to downwind air quality and from all sectors. S. Ct. 1584, 1606–07 (2014). problems.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75715

EPA has generally not attempted to for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA maintenance problems in other states. quantify the ozone season NOX seeks comment on possible future steps The EPA would generally expect to reductions that may be necessary to that may be necessary to resolve the propose full approval of these SIPs. eliminate all significant contribution to remainder of the good neighbor (2) The SIP demonstrates that the state nonattainment and interference with obligation for the 2008 ozone standard. will timely achieve reductions that fully maintenance in other states. Given the The EPA has shared information with address its significant contribution to time constraints for implementing NOX states to facilitate the development of nonattainment or interference with reduction strategies, the EPA believes the ozone transport SIPs.36 The EPA maintenance in downwind states. This that implementation of a full remedy encourages state SIP development and demonstration could include an may not be achievable for 2017, even will continue to assist states in assessment of how all emissions source though a partial remedy is achievable. developing transport SIPs regardless of sectors contribute to the state’s To evaluate full elimination of a whether they are covered by this contribution and how these sectors are state’s significant contribution to proposed FIP. Where a state would be controlled in that state. States wishing nonattainment and interference with covered by this proposed FIP, the EPA to seek full approval of good neighbor maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone may be able to partially approve SIPs SIPs should contact their appropriate season NOX reductions should both be that include controls on EGU emissions regional office. Guidance on developing evaluated. However, the EPA is not that achieve ozone season NOX emission such SIPs is outside the scope of this proposing to quantify non-EGU reductions and/or that establish EGU action, but the EPA intends to work emissions reductions to address NOX ozone emissions budgets closely with any state that is interested interstate ozone transport for the 2008 approximately equivalent to those in pursuing this option. ozone NAAQS at this time because: (1) identified in this proposal as achievable 3. Why We Focus on Eastern States There is greater uncertainty in the non- by 2017. (This is discussed in more EGU emission inventory estimates than detail in Section VII.) In these SIPS, CSAPR and previous federal transport for EGUs; and (2) there appear to be few states could also demonstrate that they rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and non-EGU reductions that could be are achieving the same level of CAIR, were designed to address accomplished by the beginning of the emissions reductions through non-EGU collective contributions of ozone 2017 ozone season. This is discussed source measures as they would achieve pollution from states in the eastern U.S. further in section VI of this proposal under the EGU budgets established in These rules did not address and in the Non-EGU NOX Mitigation the FIP. For example, a SIP could set contributions in the 11 western Strategies TSD. We intend to continue EGU budgets, but allow emission contiguous United States.37 The EPA’s to collect information and undertake reductions from non-EGU sources as a air quality modeling that supports this analysis for potential future emissions compliance option. EPA also seeks proposed rule includes data for the reductions at non-EGUs that may be comment on methods it can use to western states. This assessment shows necessary to fully quantify states’ ensure that any non-EGU reductions are that there are problem receptors in the significant contributions in a future incremental to the base case, permanent, West to which western states contribute action. and enforceable. amounts greater than or equal to the Because the reductions proposed in screening threshold used to evaluate this action are EGU-only and because b. Potential for Full Remedy Under SIPs transport across eastern states (i.e., 1 EPA has focused the policy analysis for The EPA also notes that many states percent of the NAAQS). However, there this proposal on reductions available by have already submitted, or are currently may be additional criteria to evaluate 2017, for most states they represent a developing, SIP submittals to address regarding transported air pollution in first, partial step to addressing a given the good neighbor provision of the CAA the West when evaluating upwind upwind state’s significant contribution for the 2008 ozone standard, and states’ contributions to downwind air to downwind air quality impacts for the expects that some may assert that the quality impacts, such as those discussed 2008 ozone NAAQS. Generally, a final state plan fully addresses the state’s in EPA-state meetings to discuss determination of whether the proposed good neighbor obligation. approaches for determining how EGU NOX reductions represent a full or The EPA anticipates that those SIPs emissions in upwind states impact air partial elimination of a state’s good intending to fully address the state’s quality in downwind states.38 Given neighbor obligation for the 2008 good neighbor obligations and for which that the near-term 2017 implementation NAAQS is subject to an evaluation of the state is seeking approval may fall timeframe constrains the opportunity to the contribution to interstate transport into one of two categories: conduct a further evaluation of western from additional emission sectors, such (1) The SIP concludes that the state is states, the EPA proposes to focus this as non-EGUs. However, the EPA meeting its good neighbor obligation rulemaking on eastern states. This focus believes that it is beneficial to without need for additional NOX would not relieve western states of implement, without further delay, EGU reductions. This SIP could include an obligations to address interstate NOX reductions that are achievable in adequate demonstration, using EPA or transport under the Act. The EPA and the near term. The proposed NOX state-generated analytical results, which states working together would continue emission reductions are needed supports the state’s conclusion that the to evaluate interstate transport in the (although they may not be all that is state contributes insignificant amounts western states on a case-by-case basis. needed) for these states to eliminate to downwind nonattainment or The EPA would also continue to engage their significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with 36 On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo 37 For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. with preliminary air quality modeling data that (or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. characterized interstate ozone transport projected to states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, The EPA’s current statutory deadlines to 2018. On April 8, 2015, the EPA held a workshop Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, promulgate FIPs extend until 2017 for that continued a discussion with states on the path Washington, and Wyoming, and the eastern U.S. (or most states, and the EPA will remain forward for addressing interstate transport for the East) consists of the remaining states in the mindful of those deadlines as it 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 4, 2015, we contiguous U.S. published a NODA with updated modeling that 38 For example, EPA-State meetings held in evaluates what further steps may be states could use to support development of Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and necessary to address interstate transport transport SIPs. Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

with western states on air quality ozone season, for example during hot promulgated in the CSAPR rule to modeling analyses and the implications weeks. These states assert that address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the of those analyses for interstate transport. emissions from short-term idling of same budgets remanded by the D.C. While the EPA proposes to focus this controls may contribute to downwind Circuit for reconsideration. Further, as rulemaking on eastern states, we seek ozone NAAQS exceedances in the proposed in this rule, these proposed comment on whether to include western eastern U.S. These states suggest that budgets would be effective for the 2017 states in this rule. The EPA notes that sub-seasonal limits on EGU NOX ozone season, the same period in which analyses developed to support this emissions would reduce ozone the phase 2 budgets that were proposal, including air quality modeling formation that might be attributable to invalidated by the court are currently and the EPA’s assessment of EGU NOX short-term idling of NOX controls. scheduled to become effective. mitigation potential, contain data that The EPA seeks comment on whether Therefore, this proposed action provides could be useful for states in developing or not short-term (e.g., peak-day) EGU an appropriate and timely response to SIPs or could be used to develop FIPs, NOX emissions disproportionately the court’s remand by replacing the where necessary. impact downwind ozone budgets promulgated in the CSAPR to The EPA seeks comment on the data concentrations, and if they do, then address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which provided for western states, including what EGU emission limits (e.g., daily or were declared invalid by the D.C. emissions inventories, ozone monthly emission rates or differential Circuit, with budgets developed to concentration modeling, contribution allowance surrender ratios on high address the revised and more stringent modeling, and EPA’s assessment of EGU ozone days) would be reasonable 2008 ozone NAAQS.41 39 NOX reduction potential. These data complements to the proposed seasonal are available in the docket for this CSAPR requirement to mitigate this The EPA notes that it is able to proposal. The EPA also solicits impact. propose addressing the D.C. Circuit’s comment on whether to promulgate remand of CSAPR NOX ozone-season C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR emissions budgets because the agency FIPs to address interstate ozone NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for was already performing analysis and western states, either in this rulemaking As noted above, in EME Homer City policy development for this proposal, or in a subsequent rulemaking. II, the D.C. Circuit declared invalid the which is directly applicable to this CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion. 4. Short-Term NOX Emissions emissions budgets of 11 states, holding Separately, various petitioners filed In eastern states, the highest measured that those budgets over-control with legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit to a ozone days tend to occur within the respect to the downwind air quality supplemental rule that added five states hottest days, weeks, or months of the problems to which those states were to the CSAPR ozone-season trading summer. On many high ozone days, linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 795 program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011). there is higher demand for electricity F.3d at 129–30, 138. As to ten of these See Public Service Company of (for instance, to run air conditioners). In states, the court held that EPA’s 2014 Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12–1023 (D.C. general and technical discussions with modeling conducted to support the RIA Cir., filed Jan. 13, 2012). The case was representatives and officials of eastern for CSAPR demonstrated that air quality held in abeyance during the pendency states in April 2013 and April 2015, and problems at the downwind locations to of the litigation in EME Homer City. The in several letters to the EPA, officials which those states were linked would case remains pending in the D.C. Circuit from the Ozone Transport Region resolve by phase 2 of the CSAPR as of the date of signature of this (OTR) 40 states suggested that EGU program without further transport proposed rule.42 The EPA notes that this emissions transported from upwind regulation (either CAIR or CSAPR). Id. rulemaking also proposes to promulgate at 129–30. With respect to Texas, the states may disproportionally affect FIPs for all five states added to CSAPR court held that the record reflected that downwind ozone concentrations on in the supplemental rule: Iowa, the ozone air quality problems to which peak ozone days in the eastern U.S. Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and the state was linked could be resolved These representatives asked that the Wisconsin. The proposed FIPs at a lower cost threshold. Id. The court EPA consider additional ‘‘peak day’’ incorporate revised emissions budgets therefore remanded those budgets to limits on EGU NOX emissions. that would supplant and replace the EPA for reconsideration consistent with Some states have also asked the EPA budgets promulgated in the the court’s opinion. Id. at 138. The court to consider whether existing emission supplemental CSAPR rule to address the instructed the EPA to act ‘‘promptly’’ in controls are being turned off for short 1997 ozone NAAQS for these five states addressing these issues on remand. Id. periods (e.g., multiple days) within the at 132. The court’s decision explicitly applies 41 The methodology for developing the proposed 39 On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice budgets to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS is of Data Availability (80 FR 46271) requesting to 11 state budgets involved in that described in more detail in Sections VI and VII comment on the air quality modeling platform and litigation: Florida, Maryland, New below. Section VI also includes an evaluation, as air quality modeling results that are being used for Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, instructed by the court in EME Homer City II, to this proposed rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, affirm that the proposed budgets do not over- EPA requested comment on the data and control with respect to downwind air quality methodologies related to the 2011 and 2017 Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129– problems identified in this rule. 795 F.3d at 127– emissions and the air quality modeling to project 30, 138. EPA is proposing in this 28. 2017 concentrations and contributions. Comments rulemaking to promulgate FIPs for nine 42 In 2012, the EPA also finalized two rules received on that data via the NODA will be of those states to address interstate making certain revisions to CSAPR. 77 FR 10324 considered for the final rule. (Feb. 21, 2012); 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012). 40 The OTR was established by the CAA transport with respect to the 2008 ozone Various petitioners filed legal challenges to these amendments of 1990 to facilitate addressing the NAAQS: Maryland, New Jersey, New rules in the D.C. Circuit, and the cases were also ozone problem on a regional basis and consists of York, North Carolina, Ohio, held in abeyance pending the litigation in EME the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Homer City. See Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New EPA, No. 12–1163 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 6, 2012); Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia. The proposed FIPs incorporate Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1346 Vermont, the District of Columbia and northern revised emissions budgets that would (D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 9, 2012). The cases currently Virginia. 42 U.S.C. 7511c, CAA section 184. supplant and replace the budgets remain pending in the D.C. Circuit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75717

and would be effective for the 2017 proposed to regulate in this action. D. Addressing Outstanding Transport ozone season. These methods are described in section Obligations for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS For the two remaining ozone-season VI of this proposal and the methods and In the original CSAPR, the EPA noted states affected by this portion of the resulting emissions budgets are that the reductions for 11 states may not EME Homer City II decision, Florida and provided in the Ozone Transport Policy be sufficient to fully eliminate all South Carolina, the EPA is not Analysis TSD. significant contribution to proposing in this action to promulgate The EPA seeks comment on this nonattainment or interference with FIPs because the air quality modeling maintenance for certain downwind performed to support the proposal does approach with respect to addressing the remand as to Florida and South areas with respect to the 1997 ozone not indicate that these states are linked NAAQS.43 The 11 states are: Alabama, to any identified downwind Carolina, including the proposed budgets that would apply to those states Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, nonattainment or maintenance receptors Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, if a linkage is identified, which are with respect to the 2008 ozone standard. Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.44 In the Inherently then, because the 2008 ozone available in the docket. original CSAPR, the EPA’s analysis NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997 Additionally, the EPA notes Florida projected continued nonattainment and ozone NAAQS, this modeling also does and South Carolina may be relying upon maintenance problems at downwind not indicate that Florida or South emissions reductions that result from receptors to which these upwind states Carolina are linked to any remaining air now-remanded emissions budgets in were linked after implementation of the quality concerns with respect to the Florida and South Carolina to satisfy CSAPR trading programs. Specifically, 1997 ozone standard for which the statutory obligations other than the the persistent ozone problems were states were regulated in CSAPR. expected in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Accordingly, in order to address the interstate transport requirements. Houston, Texas; and Allegan, Michigan Court’s remand with respect to these However, Florida and South Carolina according to the remedy case modeling two states’ interstate transport may have an interest in submitting SIPs conducted for the final rule. At that time responsibility under the 1997 ozone to continue their participation in the the EPA did not address whether standard, the EPA proposes to remove CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading additional ozone season NO emission these states from the CSAPR ozone- program in order to meet other Clean X reductions would be needed in these season trading program beginning in Air Act requirements. Likewise, to the states to fully resolve the good neighbor 2017 when the phase 2 ozone-season extent that the final modeling indicates obligation under the CAA with respect emissions budgets were scheduled to be that other states included in the remand to the 1997 ozone NAAQS beyond the implemented. of the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone- EGU requirements promulgated in The EPA notes that because the season emissions budgets are not linked proposed rule modeling was performed CSAPR. to any identified downwind To evaluate whether additional prior to the D.C. Circuit’s issuance of nonattainment or maintenance receptors emission reductions would be needed in EME Homer City II, that modeling with respect to the 2008 ozone standard, these 11 states to address the states’ full assumed in its baseline for all states the they would not be included in the final good neighbor obligation for the 1997 emission reductions associated with the FIPs but they may be interested in ozone NAAQS, the EPA reviewed the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets. 2017 baseline air quality modeling In the final rule modeling, the EPA will continuing to participate in the CSAPR conducted for this proposal, which make any additional changes to the NOX ozone-season trading program in includes emission reductions associated emissions inventories or modeling order to meet other Clean Air Act with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season platform as may be justified based on requirements. The EPA seeks comment on whether to allow Florida, South budgets. comments received on the modeling The updated 2017 air quality performed for the proposed rule. In the Carolina, and other similarly situated states (if any) to continue their modeling shows that the predicted event that air quality modeling average DVs and maximum DVs for participation in the CSAPR NO ozone- conducted for the final rule X 2017 are below the level of the 1997 season program through voluntary SIPs demonstrates that either Florida or ozone NAAQS for the downwind

South Carolina are projected to that would retain the CSAPR NOX receptors of concern that the 11 states significantly (e.g., greater than or equal ozone-season emissions budgets, were linked to in the original CSAPR for to 1% of the NAAQS) contribute to an contingent upon review and approval by the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further, the air quality problem with respect to the the EPA. 2017 air quality modeling shows that 2008 ozone standard in the absence of The D.C. Circuit also remanded there are no other nonattainment or a CSAPR-related emissions budget in without vacatur the CSAPR SO annual place for those states, the EPA instead 2 emissions budgets for four states 43 See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR at 48220, and the proposes to finalize revised budgets (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 FR at 80760, (presented with this rulemaking for December 27, 2011. comment) for whichever of those states Texas) for reconsideration. 795 F.3d at 44 The EPA acknowledges that, despite its may be identified as linked to such air 129, 138. This proposal does not conclusion in CSAPR that the air quality problems address the remand of these CSAPR to which Texas was linked in the original CSAPR quality problems rather than remove were not fully resolved, the court concluded in EME phase 2 SO2 annual emissions budgets. those states from the CSAPR ozone- Homer City II that the NOX ozone-season emissions season trading program. The EPA has The EPA intends to address the remand budget finalized for Texas resulted in over-control calculated emissions budgets for Florida of the phase 2 SO2 annual emissions as to the ozone air quality problems to which the and South Carolina that we are budgets separately. The existing CSAPR state was linked. 795 F.3d at 129–30. As discussed annual emissions budgets and below in section V, this rule proposes to respond proposing to apply to those states if, and to the remand of Texas’s NOX ozone-season only if, the final rule air quality implementation programs (CSAPR SO2 emissions budget by promulgating a new budget to modeling identifies a linkage as just annual and NOX annual requirements), address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has also which address interstate transport for evaluated Texas’s contribution to any remaining air described. These proposed budgets are quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone developed using the same methods the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, NAAQS. [Text may be revised to reflect ongoing applied to the 23 states that the EPA continue to apply at this time. litigation.]

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

47 maintenance receptors to which these submission must address. All states, as the NOX Budget Trading Program areas would be linked with respect to regardless of whether the state includes (NBP). The NOX SIP Call was largely the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This areas designated as nonattainment for upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Michigan conclusion demonstrates that no further the relevant NAAQS, must have SIPs v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), emission reductions are required to that meet the applicable requirements of cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). address the interstate transport section 110(a)(2), including provisions The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), obligations of these states with respect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) described promulgated in 2005, addressed both to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and further below and which are the focus the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards therefore EPA finds that the original of this proposal. under the good neighbor provision.51 CSAPR emissions budgets satisfy these Section 110(c)(1) requires the CAIR required SIP revisions in 28 states states’ full obligation to address Administrator to promulgate a FIP at and the District of Columbia to ensure interstate ozone transport under the any time within 2 years after the that certain emissions of sulfur dioxide good neighbor provision of the CAA as Administrator: (1) Finds that a state has (SO2) and/or NOX—important to that NAAQS. Therefore, we propose failed to make a required SIP precursors of regionally transported to find that the original CSAPR FIPs submission, (2) finds a SIP submission PM2.5 (SO2 and NOX) and ozone fully satisfy those 11 states’ good to be incomplete pursuant to CAA (NOX)—were prohibited. Like the NOX neighbor CAA obligations regarding the section 110(k)(1)(C), or (3) disapproves SIP Call, states were given the option to emissions that contribute significantly a SIP submission, unless the state participate in a regional cap-and-trade to nonattainment or interfere with corrects the deficiency through a SIP program to satisfy their SIP obligations. maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS revision that the Administrator When the EPA promulgated the final in other states. approves before the FIP is CAIR in May 2005, the EPA also issued 48 a national rule finding that states had IV. Legal Authority promulgated. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known failed to submit SIPs to address the A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed as the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ requirements of CAA section Rule provides the basis for this proposed 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, given that 1. Statutory Authority action. It requires that each state SIP shall include provisions sufficient to states were required by the CAA to have The statutory authority for this ‘‘prohibit[] . . . any source or other type submitted section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs proposed action is provided by the CAA of emissions activity within the State for those standards by July 2000.52 This as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). from emitting any air pollutants in finding of failure to submit triggered a Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the amounts which will—(I) contribute 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs CAA provide the primary statutory significantly to nonattainment in, or to address interstate transport, and on bases for this proposal. The most interfere with maintenance by, any March 15, 2006, the EPA promulgated relevant portions of section 110 are other State with respect to any FIPs to ensure that the emission subsections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2), and [NAAQS].’’ 49 reductions required by CAIR would be 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(c)(1). The EPA has previously issued three achieved on schedule.53 CAIR was Section 110(a)(1) provides that states rules interpreting and clarifying the remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) North Carolina, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. years (or such shorter period as the for states in the eastern half of the 2008), modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. Administrator may prescribe) after the United States. These rules, and the For more information on the legal promulgation of a national primary associated court decisions addressing considerations of CAIR and the D.C. ambient air quality standard (or any these rules, provide important guidance Circuit holding in North Carolina, refer revision thereof),’’ and that these SIP regarding the requirements of section to the preamble of the final CSAPR submissions are to provide for the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). rule.54 ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and In 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 45 enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 1998, addressed the good neighbor to address the issues raised by the statute directly imposes on states the provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone remand of CAIR and additionally to duty to make these SIP submissions, NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone address the good neighbor provision for 55 and the requirement to make the NAAQS.50 The rule required 22 states the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR submissions is not conditioned upon and the District of Columbia to amend requires 28 states to reduce SO2 the EPA taking any action other than emissions, annual NOX emissions, and/ their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that promulgating a new or revised contribute to ozone nonattainment. The or ozone season NOX emissions that 46 NAAQS. EPA set a NO ozone-season budget for significantly contribute to other states’ The EPA has historically referred to X each affected state, essentially a cap on nonattainment or interfere with other SIP submissions made for the purpose ozone season NO emissions in the states’ abilities to maintain these air of satisfying the applicable requirements X state. Sources in the affected states were quality standards. To accomplish of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) given the option to participate in a implementation aligned with the as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. regional cap-and-trade program, known applicable attainment deadlines, the Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing EPA promulgated FIPs for each of the 28 and general requirements for 47 EPA’s general approach to infrastructure SIP states covered by CSAPR. The FIPs infrastructure SIP submissions, and submissions is explained in greater detail in implement regional cap-and-trade section 110(a)(2) provides more details individual notices acting or proposing to act on programs to achieve the necessary concerning the required content of these state infrastructure SIP submissions and in reductions. States can submit good guidance. See, e.g., Guidance on Infrastructure State submissions. It includes a list of specific Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 51 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 2013). 52 70 FR 21147 (May 12, 2005). 45 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). 48 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). 53 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006). 46 See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 49 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 54 76 FR 48208, 48217 (Aug. 8, 2011). 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014). 50 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). 55 76 FR 48208.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75719

neighbor SIPs at any time that, if statutory provisions and EPA’s technical 2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered approved by the EPA, would replace the decisions. The decision also remands by the Proposed Rule CSAPR FIP for that state. As discussed the rule without vacatur for a. Status of State Good Neighbor SIPs for below, CSAPR was the subject of reconsideration of EPA’s emissions the 2008 Ozone NAAQS decisions by both the D.C. Circuit and budgets for certain states. In particular As discussed above, all states have an the Supreme Court, which largely and as discussed in more detail in upheld the rule. obligation to submit SIPs that address section III, the court declared invalid the requirements of CAA section On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season issued a decision in EME Homer City 110(a)(2) within 3 years of promulgation emissions budgets of 11 states, holding of a new or revised NAAQS. With Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. that those budgets over-control with Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and holding, respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, respect to the downwind air quality states were required to submit SIPs among other things, that states had no problems to which those states were obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs addressing the good neighbor provision linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The until the EPA had first quantified each by March 12, 2011. If the EPA finds that court’s decision explicitly applies to 11 state’s good neighbor obligation.56 The a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet implication of this decision was that the states: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, its statutory obligation to address EPA did not have authority to New York, North Carolina, Ohio, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if EPA promulgate FIPs as a result of states’ Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, disapproves a good neighbor SIP, then failure to submit or EPA’s disapproval Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129– the EPA has not only the authority but the obligation, pursuant to section of such SIPs. The EPA sought review, 30, 138. The court also remanded 110(c)(1), to promulgate a FIP to address first with the D.C. Circuit en banc and without vacatur the SO2 annual the CAA requirement within 2 years of then with the Supreme Court. While the emissions budgets for four states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and the finding or disapproval. D.C. Circuit declined to consider the On July 13, 2015, the EPA published 57 Texas) for reconsideration. Id. at 129, EPA’s appeal en banc, on January 23, a rule finding that 24 states failed to 2013, the Supreme Court granted the 138. The court instructed the EPA to act 58 make complete submissions that EPA’s petition for certiorari. ‘‘promptly’’ in addressing these issues address the requirements of section On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court on remand. Id. at 132. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate issued a decision reversing the D.C. Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also transport of pollution as to the 2008 Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion on gives the Administrator of the EPA ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July CSAPR and held, among other things, general authority to prescribe such 13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). that under the plain language of the regulations as are necessary to carry out The finding action triggered a 2-year CAA, states must submit SIPs her functions under the Act.60 Pursuant deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to addressing the good neighbor provision to this section, the EPA has authority to address the good neighbor provision for within 3 years of promulgation of a new clarify the applicability of CAA these states by August 12, 2017. The or revised NAAQS, regardless of states included in this finding of failure whether the EPA first provides requirements. In this action, among other things, the EPA is clarifying the to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, guidance, technical data or rulemaking California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, 59 applicability of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to quantify the state’s obligation. Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, by identifying NOX emissions in certain Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed that Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, states have an obligation in the first states that must be prohibited pursuant to this section with respect to the 8-hour Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, instance to address the good neighbor North Carolina, Oklahoma, ozone NAAQS promulgated in 2008. provision after promulgation of a new or Pennsylvania, South Carolina, revised NAAQS, a holding that also In particular, the EPA is proposing to Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West applies to states’ obligation to address use its authority under sections 110 and Virginia. interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 301 to promulgate FIPs that establish or Since the EPA issued the findings NAAQS. The Supreme Court remanded revise EGU NOX ozone-season notice, EPA has received a SIP the litigation to the D.C. Circuit for emissions budgets for 23 eastern states submission addressing the good further proceedings. to mitigate their significant contribution neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone Finally, on July 28, 2015, the D.C. to nonattainment or interference with NAAQS from the state of Maine on Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR maintenance in another state. As which the EPA has not yet proposed regarding the remaining legal issues described in more detail later in this action. raised by the Petitioners on remand notice, generally the EPA is proposing Several additional states— from the Supreme Court, EME Homer to update each affected state’s FIP, Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota, City II, 795 F.3d 118. This decision Rhode Island, South Dakota, New York, largely upheld EPA’s approach to including revising the existing CSAPR budgets.61 The EPA is also proposing to Delaware, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, addressing interstate transport in Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, respond to the court’s remand in EME CSAPR, leaving the rule in place and Wisconsin, and the District of Homer City II with respect to the affirming EPA’s interpretation of various Columbia—have previously submitted remanded NOX ozone-season emissions SIPs to address the requirements of 56 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 budgets. section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 57 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. ozone NAAQS. To the extent that the 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No. EPA has not finalized action on these 1417012 (denying the EPA’s motion for rehearing submitted SIPs, these states can evaluate 60 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). en banc). their submissions in light of this 58 61 One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 proposal and the actions we are taking S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other ozone season requirement under this proposal. The parties’ petitions for certiorari). remaining 22 states were included in the original to reduce interstate ozone transport for 59 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to a S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014). NAAQS. judgment issued on May 15, 2015, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

EPA is required to take final action on that determined that the FIP obligation significant transport than, those that the interstate transport SIPs for was not triggered by the disapproval.68 would be achieved by the FIPs proposed Nebraska and North Dakota by January In this notice, the EPA is proposing to in this action. The EPA strongly 29, 2016, and for Maryland, Texas, Ohio correct the portion of the disapproval encourages such strengthening actions. and Indiana by June 7, 2016.62 In the notice indicating that the FIP clock If a state submits a SIP that is approved event that the EPA finalizes disapproval would not be triggered by the SIP (in whole or in part) by the EPA via or partial disapproval of any of these disapproval. The EPA believes that the notice-and-comment rulemaking and SIPs, that action would trigger the EPA’s EPA’s obligation to develop a FIP was that achieves ozone season NOX FIP authority to implement the triggered on the date of the judgment emission reductions and/or establishes requirements of the good neighbor issued by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EGU NOX ozone emissions budgets provision for those states. Alternatively, EME Homer City, June 2, 2014, and the approximately equivalent to those if any of these states withdraws its 2008 EPA is obligated to issue a FIP at any identified by EPA as achievable by ozone interstate transport SIP submittal, time within two years of that date. The 2017, the EPA does not anticipate the EPA plans to issue a separate notice EPA does not believe that the FIP subjecting the state to the EPA’s partial of finding of failure to submit for these obligation was triggered as of the date of remedy in this FIP action. the SIP disapproval because the states and will finalize FIPs as V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality controlling law as of that date was the appropriate. and Upwind-State Contributions On March 7, 2013, the EPA finalized D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer action on the State of Kentucky’s SIP City, which held that states had no In this section, we describe the air submission addressing, among other obligation to submit a SIP and the EPA quality modeling performed to (1) things, the good neighbor provision had no authority to issue a FIP until the identify locations where we expect there requirements for the 2008 ozone EPA first quantified each state’s to be nonattainment or maintenance NAAQS.63 The EPA disapproved the emission reduction obligation under the problems for 8-hour ozone for the 2017 submission as to the good neighbor good neighbor provision. Accordingly, analytic year chosen for this proposal, requirements. In the notice, the EPA the most reasonable conclusion is that and (2) quantify the contributions from explained that the disapproval of the the EPA’s FIP obligation was triggered anthropogenic emissions from upwind good neighbor portion of the state’s when the Supreme Court clarified the states to downwind ozone infrastructure SIP submission did not state and federal obligations with concentrations at monitoring sites trigger a mandatory duty for the EPA to respect to the good neighbor provision. projected to be in nonattainment or have promulgate a FIP to address these Thus, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance problems in 2017 for the requirements.64 Citing the D.C. Circuit’s FIP obligation was triggered as of June 2008 ozone NAAQS. Air quality decision EME Homer City Generation v. 2, 2014, and that the EPA is obligated modeling to assess the health and EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), the EPA to promulgate a FIP that corrects the welfare benefits of the emissions explained that the court concluded deficiency by June 2, 2016. reductions expected to result from this states have no obligation to make a SIP proposal is described in section VIII. b. States Submitting Transport SIPs This section includes information on submission to address the good Before FIP Is Finalized the air quality modeling platform used neighbor provision for a new or revised in support of the proposed rule with a NAAQS until the EPA first defines a The EPA recognizes that some states focus on the base year and future base state’s obligations pursuant to that are currently developing SIP case emission inventories. We also section.65 Therefore, because a good submissions or revising their submitted provide the projection of 2017 ozone neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone SIPs to address the good neighbor concentrations and the interstate standard was not at that time required, provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone contributions for 8-hour ozone. The Air the EPA indicated that its disapproval standard. The EPA encourages SIP Quality Modeling Technical Support action would not trigger an obligation development and will continue to assist Document (AQM TSD) in the docket for for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to states in developing transport SIPs. As this proposed rule contains more address the interstate transport noted above, the EPA is subject to a detailed information on the air quality requirements.66 court order requiring final action on certain state SIPs by January 29, and modeling aspects of this rulemaking. On April 30, 2013, the Sierra Club On August 4, 2015, the EPA filed a petition for review of the EPA’s June 7, 2016. The fact that the EPA is proposing a published a Notice of Data Availability action based on the Agency’s conclusion FIP for any state does not suggest that (80 FR 46271) requesting comment on that the FIP clock was not triggered by the EPA has determined that the state’s the air quality modeling platform and the disapproval of Kentucky’s good submittal is not approvable. If EPA air quality modeling results that are neighbor SIP.67 As described above, on finalizes approval of a state’s good being used for this proposed rule. April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court neighbor SIP before the FIP is applied, Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA issued a decision reversing and vacating the FIP that is now being proposed for requested comment on the data and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME that state would no longer be necessary. methodologies related to the 2011 and Homer City. Following the Supreme Further, the EPA notes that the 2017 emissions and the air quality Court decision, the EPA requested, and remedy being proposed in this notice modeling to project 2017 concentrations the court granted, vacatur and remand are not the only means a state has to and contributions. Comments received of the portion of the EPA’s final action mitigate interstate ozone transport on that data via the NODA will be under the good neighbor provision. considered for the final rule. 62 See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case States could submit measures that 4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling strengthen their current SIPs and 63 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013). Platform 64 Id. at 14683. achieve reductions that are similar to, or 65 Id. more efficacious in eliminating The EPA performed air quality 66 Id. modeling for three emissions scenarios: 67 Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546 (6th Cir., 68 Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546, A 2011 base year, a 2017 baseline, and filed Apr. 30, 2013). Document No. 74–1 (Mar. 13, 2015). a 2017 illustrative control case that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75721

reflects the emission reductions ozone and fine particles in the inventories and on data sets used during expected from the proposed rule.69 We atmosphere. The CAMx model contains the emissions modeling process are selected 2011 as the base year to reflect certain probing tools including source provided in the TSD ‘‘Preparation of the most recent National Emissions apportionment techniques that are Emissions Inventories for the Version Inventory (NEI). In addition, the designed to quantify the contribution of 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling meteorological conditions during the emissions from various sources and Platform,’’ hereafter known as the summer of 2011 were generally areas to ozone in other downwind ‘‘Emissions Modeling TSD.’’ This TSD is conducive for ozone formation across locations. The CAMx model available in the docket for this proposed much of the U.S., particularly the applications were performed for a rule and at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ eastern U.S. For example, as described modeling region (i.e., modeling domain) chief/emch/index.html#2011. in the AQM TSD, an analysis of that covers the contiguous 48 states, the The EPA published Federal Register meteorological-adjusted trends in District of Columbia, and adjacent notices on November 27, 2013 (78 FR seasonal mean ozone for the period portions of Canada and Mexico using a 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2000 through 2012 indicates that, on a horizontal resolution of 12 x 12 km. A 2437), to take comment on the 2011 and regional basis, the summer of 2011 was map of the air quality modeling domain 2018 72 emission modeling platforms, typical, in terms of the presence of is provided in the AQM TSD. including data and documentation on conditions conducive to ozone The 2011-based air quality modeling the methods used to prepare the formation, of high ozone years in the platform includes 2011 base year emission inventories for air quality eastern U.S. Additional analyses of emissions and future year projections of modeling. Comments were collected for meteorological conditions during the these emissions and 2011 meteorology the 2011 and 2018 emissions modeling summer of 2011 in comparison to for air quality modeling with CAMx. In platforms under the dockets EPA–HQ– conditions during several other recent the remainder of this section, we OAR–2013–0743 and EPA–HQ–OAR– years can be found in the AQM TSD. provide an overview of (1) the 2011 and 2013–0809, respectively. Comments The use of meteorological data 2017 emissions inventories, (2) the from those notices that were accepted representing conditions that are methods for projecting future by the EPA have been incorporated into conducive for ozone formation is nonattainment and maintenance along the emission modeling data and consistent with the EPA’s modeling with a list of 2017 baseline procedures for this proposal as guidance for attainment nonattainment and maintenance documented in the Emissions Modeling demonstrations.70 As noted above, we receptors in the eastern U.S., (3) the TSD. As indicated above, the updated selected 2017 as the projected analysis approach to developing metrics to emission inventories, methodologies, year to coincide with the attainment measure interstate contributions to 8- and data were provided in a Notice of date for moderate areas under the 2008 hour ozone, and (4) the predicted Data Availability published in the ozone NAAQS. We used the 2017 interstate contributions to downwind Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80 baseline emissions in our air quality nonattainment and maintenance in the FR 46271). Comments received on the modeling to identify future eastern U.S. We also identify which proposal data will be considered for the nonattainment and maintenance predicted interstate contributions are at final rule. locations and to quantify the or above the CSAPR screening contributions of emissions from upwind threshold, which we are proposing to 1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data states to 8-hour ozone concentrations at apply for regulation of interstate Sets downwind locations. We used the air transport of ozone for purposes of the The EPA developed emission data quality modeling of the 2017 baseline 2008 ozone standard. representing the year 2011 to support air and 2017 illustrative control case B. Emission Inventories quality modeling of a base year from emissions to estimate the air quality which future air quality could be impacts and health benefits of this The EPA developed emission inventories for this proposal including forecasted. The EPA used the 2011 proposal. National Emission Inventory (NEI) The EPA used the Comprehensive Air emission estimates for EGUs, non-EGU point sources, stationary nonpoint version 2 (2011NEIv2), released in Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) March 2015, as the primary basis for the 71 sources, onroad mobile sources, version 6.11 to simulate pollutant U.S. inventories supporting the 2011 air concentrations for the 2011 base year nonroad mobile sources, wild fires, prescribed fires, and for biogenic quality modeling. Documentation on the and the 2017 future year scenarios. 2011NEIv2 is available in the 2011 CAMx is a grid cell-based, multi- emissions that are not the result of human activities. The EPA’s air quality National Emissions Inventory, version 2 pollutant photochemical model that TSD available in the docket for this simulates the formation and fate of modeling relies on this comprehensive set of emission inventories because proposed rule and at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011 69 The 2017 illustrative control case is relevant to emissions from multiple source the EPA’s policy analysis discussed in section VI categories are needed to model ambient inventory.html#inventorydoc. The and to the benefits and costs assessment discussed air quality and to facilitate comparison future base case scenario modeled for in section VIII of this preamble. It is not used to of model outputs with ambient identify nonattainment or maintenance receptors or 72 During the 2013 and 2014 pre-proposal quantify the contributions from upwind states to measurements. comment periods for the modeling platforms, the these receptors. To prepare the emission inventories attainment deadline for the downwind areas was 70 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating for air quality modeling, the EPA established by regulation as December 2018. The Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, processed the emission inventories 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule revised and Regional Haze’’ U.S. Environmental Protection the attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. December using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel areas currently designated as Moderate from 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/ Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System December 2018 to July 2018, which means guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance- version 3.6.5 to produce the gridded, attainment determinations have to be based on 2014.pdf. hourly, speciated, model-ready design values calculated using 2015 through 2017 71 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with ozone season data. Therefore, in its July 2015 Extensions Version 6.11 User’s Guide. Environ emissions for input to the CAMx air NODA and in this proposal, the EPA has adjusted International Corporation. Novato, CA. December, quality model. Additional information the future year modeling to be for the year 2017 2014. on the development of the emission rather than 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

2017 includes a representation of The IPM version 5.14 base case emissions for units that are retiring in changes in activity data and of predicted accounts for comments received as a 2018 but are projected to operate in emission reductions from on-the-books result of the NODAs released in 2013 2017; and (3) adjusting NOX emissions actions, including planned emission and 2014 (including control for coal-fired units that are projected to control installations and promulgated configuration) as well as updated convert to natural gas (i.e., ‘‘coal-to- federal measures that affect environmental regulations. This gas’’) in 2018, but are still projected to anthropogenic emissions.73 projected base case accounts for the burn coal in 2017. These adjustments effects of the finalized MATS 75 and were only made to the air quality flat 2. Development of Emission Inventories CSAPR rules, New Source Review file outputs of IPM and are discussed in for EGUs settlements, and on-the-books state rules greater detail in the IPM documentation 76 Annual NOX and SO2 emissions for through 2014 impacting SO2, NOX, found in the docket for this proposed EGUs in the 2011NEIv2 are based directly emitted particulate matter, and rule. primarily on data from continuous CO2, and final actions the EPA has taken to implement the Regional Haze Rule. 3. Development of Emission Inventories emission monitoring systems (CEMS), for Non-EGU Point Sources with other EGU pollutants estimated The EPA’s IPM base case also includes using emission factors and annual heat two federal non-air rules affecting EGUs: The 2011 non-EGU point sources in input data reported to the EPA. For The Cooling Water Intake Structure the 2011 base case inventory match EGUs without CEMS, the EPA used data (Clean Water Act section 316(b)) rule those in the 2011NEIv2. Details on the submitted to the NEI by the states. For and the Coal Combustion Residuals development of the 2011 emission more information on the details of how (CCR) rule. Documentation of IPM inventories can be found in the the 2011 EGU emissions were version 5.14 is in the docket and 2011NEIv2 TSD. Prior to air quality developed and prepared for air quality available online at www.epa.gov/ modeling, the emission inventories modeling, see the Emissions Modeling powersectormodeling. must be processed into a format that is TSD. After the receptor and contribution appropriate for the air quality model to analyses for this proposal were The EPA projected future 2017 use. Details on the processing of the underway, the EPA released an updated baseline EGU emissions using version emissions for 2011 and on the IPM base case, version 5.15, and the 5.14 of the Integrated Planning Model development of the 2017 non-EGU final Clean Power Plan (CPP).77 In order (IPM) (http://www.epa.gov/powersector emission inventories are available in the to reflect all on-the-books policies as Emissions Modeling TSD. Projection modeling). IPM, developed by ICF well as the most current power sector Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peer- factors and percent reductions in this modeling data, the EPA performed an proposal reflect comments received as a reviewed, multi-regional, dynamic, assessment, described in section V–D deterministic linear programming model result of the NODAs in 2013 and 2014, below, to reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15 along with emission reductions due to of the contiguous U.S. electric power with the CPP in the base case for this sector. It provides forecasts of least cost national and local rules, control proposal. The EPA plans to use this base programs, plant closures, consent capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, case, including the final CPP, for its and emission control strategies while decrees and settlements. Reductions modeling analysis for the final rule. from several Maximum Achievable meeting energy demand and However, EPA’s analysis for the final environmental, transmission, dispatch, Control Technology (MACT) and rule may include updated or different National Emission Standards for and reliability constraints. EPA has used assumptions about the inclusion of the Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) IPM for over two decades to better CPP and the CSAPR phase 2 NO X standards are included. Projection understand power sector behavior under ozone-season or SO annual emissions 2 approaches for corn ethanol and future business-as-usual conditions and budgets for those states with budgets biodiesel plants, refineries and to evaluate the economic and emission that were declared invalid and upstream impacts represent impacts of prospective environmental remanded to the EPA by the D.C. requirements pursuant to the Energy policies. The model is designed to Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City II. reflect electricity markets as accurately In projecting future 2017 baseline Independence and Security Act of 2007 as possible. The EPA uses the best EGU emissions, the EPA adjusted the (EISA). available information from utilities, 2018 IPM version 5.14 base case results For aircraft emissions at airports, the industry experts, gas and coal market to account for three categories of EPA developed projection factors based experts, financial institutions, and differences between 2017 and 2018. The on activity growth projected by the government statistics as the basis for the categories are: (1) Adjusting NOX Federal Aviation Administration detailed power sector modeling in IPM. emissions for units with SCRs in 2018 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system, The model documentation provides but that are assumed not to operate or published in March 2013. additional information on the be installed in 2017; (2) adding NOX Point source and nonpoint oil and gas assumptions discussed here as well as emissions are projected to 2018 using all other model assumptions and 75 In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court regional projection factors by product inputs.74 reversed on narrow grounds a portion of the D.C. type using Annual Energy Outlook Circuit decision upholding the MATS rule, finding (AEO) 2014 projections to year 2017. that EPA erred by not considering cost when 73 Biogenic emissions and emissions from wild determining that regulation of EGUs was NOX and VOC reductions that are co- fires and prescribed fires were held constant ‘‘appropriate’’ pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1). benefits to the NESHAP and New between 2011 and 2017 since (1) these emissions 135 S.Ct. 192 (2015). The case was remanded to the Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are tied to the 2011 meteorological conditions and D.C. Circuit for further proceedings, and the MATS (2) the focus of this rule is on the contribution from rule currently remains in place. for Stationary Reciprocating Internal anthropogenic emissions to projected ozone 76 For any specific version of IPM there is a cutoff Combustion Engines (RICE) are reflected nonattainment and maintenance. date after which it is no longer possible to for select source categories. In addition, 74 Detailed information and documentation of incorporate updates into the input databases. For Natural Gas Turbines and Process EPA’s Base Case, including all the underlying version 5.14, that cutoff date was November 2014. Heaters NSPS NO controls and NSPS assumptions, data sources, and architecture 77 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for X parameters can be found on EPA’s Web site at: Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Oil and Gas VOC controls are reflected www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling. Generating Units, 80 FR 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015). for select source categories.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75723

4. Development of Emission Inventories support this proposed rule. Therefore, locomotives, diesel engines and marine for Onroad Mobile Sources for this proposal, future year onroad engines, along with standards for fuel The EPA developed the onroad mobile source emissions were computed sulfur content and evaporative mobile source emissions for states other for 2018 and adjusted to 2017 levels emissions. A comprehensive list of than California using the EPA’s Motor using adjustment factors derived from control programs included for mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) national MOVES runs for 2017 and sources is available in the Emissions 2014. We computed the emissions 2018. Emission factors will be generated Modeling TSD. within SMOKE by multiplying emission directly for 2017 prior to air quality modeling for the final rule. 7. Development of Emission Inventories factors developed using MOVES with for Nonpoint Sources the appropriate activity data. We also 5. Development of Emission Inventories used MOVES emission factors to for Commercial Marine Category 3 The emissions for stationary nonpoint estimate emissions from refueling. The (Vessel) sources in our 2011 base case emission 2011 onroad mobile source emissions inventory are largely consistent with The commercial marine category 3 those in the 2011NEIv2. For more used in the inventory for this rule are vessel (‘‘C3 marine’’) emissions in the similar but not identical to the information on the nonpoint sources in 2011 base case emission inventory for the 2011 base case inventory, see the 2011NEIv2 emissions due to a more this proposed rule are consistent with detailed treatment of E–85 emissions in Emissions Modeling TSD and the those in the 2011NEIv2. These 2011NEIv2 TSD. the 2011 emission modeling platform emissions reflect reductions associated Where states provided EPA with used for this rule. Additional with the Emissions Control Area information about projected control information on the approach for proposal to the International Maritime measures or changes in nonpoint source generating the onroad mobile source Organization control strategy (EPA– emissions, the EPA incorporated those emissions is available in the Emissions 420–F–10–041, August 2010); inputs in its projections. We included Modeling TSD. Onroad mobile source reductions of NO , VOC, and CO X adjustments for state fuel sulfur content emissions for California are consistent emissions for new C3 engines that went rules for fuel oil in the Northeast. with the emissions submitted by the into effect in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits Projected emissions for portable fuel state as reflected in the 2011NEIv2. that went into effect as early as 2010. containers reflect the impact of In the future-year modeling for mobile The cumulative impacts of these rules projection factors required by the final sources, we included all national through 2017 are incorporated in the measures known at the time of 2017 projected emissions for C3 marine Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule modeling. The future scenarios for sources. and the EISA, including updates to mobile sources reflect projected changes cellulosic ethanol plants, ethanol to fuel usage and onroad mobile control 6. Development of Emission Inventories transport working losses, and ethanol programs finalized as of the date of the for Other Nonroad Mobile Sources distribution vapor losses. model run. Finalized rules that are To develop the nonroad mobile The EPA developed regional incorporated into the mobile source source emission inventories other than projection factors for nonpoint oil and emissions include: Tier 3 Standards C3 marine for the modeling platform, gas sources by product type based on (March 2014), the Light-Duty the EPA used monthly, county, and Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013), process level emissions output from the projections to year 2018. We reflected Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse National Mobile Inventory Model criteria air pollutant (CAP) co-benefit Gas Rule (August 2011), the Renewable (NMIM) (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ reductions resulting from the National Fuel Standard (February 2010), the nmim.htm). State-submitted emissions Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April data for nonroad sources were used for Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating 2010), the Corporate-Average Fuel Texas and California. These emissions Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) and Economy standards for 2008–2011 are consistent with those in the NSPS rules and Oil and Gas NSPS VOC (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad Heavy- 2011NEIv2. controls for select source categories. Duty Rule (February 2009), and the The EPA also used NMIM to project Additional details on the projections are Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule nonroad mobile emissions for future available in the Emissions Modeling (MSAT2) (February 2007). Impacts of years. Development of the future year TSD. rules that were in effect in 2011 are nonroad emissions require a substantial C. Air Quality Modeling To Identify reflected in the 2011 base year amount of lead time and the emissions Nonattainment and Maintenance emissions at a level that corresponds to were prepared for the year 2018 before Receptors the extent to which each rule had the model year was changed to 2017 penetrated into the fleet and fuel supply when the attainment date was revised in In this section, we describe the air by the year 2011. Local control the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP quality modeling performed to identify programs such as the California LEV III Requirements Rule. To develop a 2017 locations where we expect there to be program are included in the onroad nonroad emissions inventory for this nonattainment or maintenance problems mobile source emissions. Activity data proposal that accounted for the for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in for onroad mobile sources was projected difference between 2017 and 2018 the 2017 analytic future year chosen for using AEO 2014. Because EPA changed emissions levels, we calculated the this proposal. We then describe how we the model year from 2018 to 2017 nonroad emissions for 2018, and then factored current monitored data into the between its pre-proposal modeling and adjusted those emissions to 2017 levels identification of sites as having either the modeling conducted for this using national adjustment factors nonattainment or maintenance concerns proposal (see footnote 64), and due to derived from national NMIM runs for for the purposes of this rulemaking. the substantial amount of lead time 2017 and 2018. Emissions specific to These sites are used as the ‘‘receptors’’ required to generate emission factors 2017 will be developed for the modeling for quantifying the contributions of with MOVES, the EPA was unable to that will support the final rule. The emissions in upwind states to directly generate emission factors for nonroad mobile emission control nonattainment and maintenance 2017 prior to the modeling used to programs include reductions to concerns in downwind locations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

In this proposed rule, the EPA is reductions from CAIR, which CSAPR that receptor to be a ‘‘maintenance’’ relying on CSAPR’s approach to identify was designed to replace. As recently receptor for purposes of defining separate nonattainment and affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, it was interference with maintenance in this maintenance receptors in order to give therefore reasonable for the EPA to proposal, consistent with the method independent effect to both the decide not to compare monitored data used in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. ‘‘contribute significantly to reflecting CAIR emissions reductions to Circuit in EME Homer City II.81 That is, nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with its modeling projections that instead monitoring sites with a maximum maintenance’’ prongs of section excluded CAIR from its baseline.80 design value that exceeds the NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the As the EPA is not replacing an are projected to have a maintenance D.C. Circuit’s direction in North existing transport program in this problem in 2017. Carolina.78 In its decision on remand rulemaking proposal, we are proposing Consistent with the CSAPR from the Supreme Court, the D.C. to consider current monitored data as methodology, monitoring sites with a Circuit confirmed that EPA’s approach part of the process for identifying to identifying maintenance receptors in projected nonattainment receptors for projected maximum design value that CSAPR comported with the court’s prior this rulemaking. Accordingly, in this exceeds the NAAQS, but with a instruction to give independent rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to projected average design value that is meaning to the ‘‘interfere with return to our prior practice of comparing below the NAAQS, are identified as maintenance’’ prong in the good our modeled nonattainment projections maintenance-only receptors. In neighbor provision. EME Homer City II, to current monitored air quality. For the addition, those sites that are currently 795 F.3d at 136. purposes of this rulemaking, the EPA measuring clean data, but are projected In CSAPR, the EPA identified proposes to identify as nonattainment to be nonattainment based on the nonattainment receptors as those receptors those monitors that both average design value and that, by monitoring sites that are projected to currently measure nonattainment and definition, are projected to have a have average design values that exceed that the EPA projects will be in maximum design value above the the NAAQS. The EPA separately nonattainment in 2017. standard are also identified as identified maintenance receptors as As noted above, in CSAPR the EPA maintenance-only receptors. We are not those receptors that would have identified maintenance receptors as proposing that monitored data have any difficulty maintaining the relevant those receptors that would have effect on the EPA’s determination of NAAQS in a scenario that takes into difficulty maintaining the relevant maintenance receptors using the CSAPR account historical variability in air NAAQS in a scenario that takes into method since even those receptor sites quality at that receptor. The CSAPR account historical variability in air that are not currently monitoring approach for identifying nonattainment quality at that receptor. The variability violations are still subject to conditions and maintenance receptors relied only in air quality was determined by that may allow violations to reoccur and upon air quality model projections of evaluating the ‘‘maximum’’ future therefore have future maintenance measured design values. In CSAPR, if design value at each receptor based on concerns. the average design value in the analysis a projection of the maximum measured The following is a brief summary of year was projected to exceed the design value over the relevant period. the procedures for projecting future-year NAAQS, then the monitoring site is The EPA interprets the projected 8-hour ozone average and maximum identified as a nonattainment receptor maximum future design value to be a design values to 2017. Consistent with without consideration of whether the potential future air quality outcome the EPA’s modeling guidance we use the monitoring site is currently measuring consistent with the meteorology that air quality modeling results in a ‘‘clean data’’ (i.e., design values below yielded maximum measured ‘‘relative’’ sense to project future the NAAQS based on the most recent concentrations in the ambient data set concentrations. That is, the ratios of three years of measured data). In prior analyzed for that receptor. The EPA also future year model predictions to base transport rulemakings, such as the NOX recognizes that previously experienced year model predictions are used to SIP Call and CAIR, the EPA defined meteorological conditions (e.g., adjust ambient ozone design values 82 nonattainment receptors as those areas dominant wind direction, temperatures, up or down depending on the relative that both currently monitor air mass patterns) promoting ozone (percent) change in model predictions nonattainment and that the EPA projects formation that led to maximum for each location. The modeling will be in nonattainment in the future concentrations in the measured data guidance recommends using measured 79 compliance year. We explained that may reoccur in the future. The ozone concentrations for the 5-year we had the most confidence in our maximum design value gives a period centered on the base year as the projections of nonattainment for those reasonable projection of future air air quality data starting point for future counties that also measure quality at the receptor under a scenario year projections. This average design nonattainment for the most recent in which such conditions do, in fact, value is used to dampen the effects of period of available ambient data. In reoccur. The projected maximum design inter-annual variability in meteorology CSAPR, we were compelled to deviate value is used to identify upwind on ozone concentrations and to provide from this practice of incorporating emissions that, under those a reasonable projection of future air monitored data into EPA’s evaluation of circumstances, could interfere with the quality at the receptor under ‘‘average’’ projected nonattainment receptors downwind area’s ability to maintain the conditions. Because the base year for because the most recent monitoring data NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA assesses this proposal is 2011, we are using the then available reflected large emission the magnitude of the maximum base period 2009–2013 ambient ozone projected design value for 2017 at each design value data in order to project 78 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that the EPA receptor in relation to the 2008 ozone must give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong NAAQS and, where such a value of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 81 See 795 F.3d at 136. 79 63 FR at 57375, 57377 (Oct. 27, 1998); 70 FR exceeds the NAAQS, EPA determines 82 The ozone design value at a particular at 25241 (May 12, 2005). See also North Carolina, monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual 531 F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s 80 EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 135–36; see also 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). 76 FR 48208 at 48230–31 (August 8, 2011). concentration at that site.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75725

2017 average design values in a manner future average design value at that maximum design values for each of consistent with the modeling guidance. particular monitoring location. these sites is always greater than or The approach for projecting future Step 3: We calculate the maximum equal to the average design value. The ozone design values involved the future design value by multiplying the monitoring sites that we project to be projection of an average of up to 3 RRF for each site by the three base nonattainment and maintenance design value periods, which include the periods (2009–2011, 2010–2012, and receptors for the ozone NAAQS in the years 2009–2013 (design values for 2011–2013) separately. The highest of 2017 baseline are used for assessing the 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 2011– the three future values is the projected contribution of emissions in upwind 2013). The 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and maximum design value. Consistent with states to downwind nonattainment and 2011–2013 design values are accessible the truncation and rounding procedures maintenance of ozone NAAQS as part of at www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the this proposal. The average of the 3 design values projected design values are truncated to integers in units of ppb.85 Table V.C–1 contains the 2009–2013 creates a ‘‘5-year weighted average’’ base period average and maximum 8- value. The 5-year weighted average Projected design values that are greater than or equal to 76 ppb are hour ozone design values, the 2017 values were then projected to 2017. To baseline average and maximum design project 8-hour ozone design values we considered to be violating the NAAQS in 2017. For those sites that are values, and the 2012–2014 design used the 2011 base year and 2017 future projected to be violating the NAAQS values for the 8 sites in the eastern U.S. base-case model-predicted ozone based on the average design values in projected to be 2017 nonattainment concentrations to calculate relative 2017, we examined measured design receptors. Table V.C–2 contains this reduction factors (RRFs) for the location values for the period 2012–2014, which same information for the 6 maintenance- of each monitoring site. The RRFs were is the most recent available measured only sites in the eastern U.S. that are applied to the 2009–2013 average ozone design values at the time of this projected nonattainment but currently design values and the individual design proposal. As noted above, we are measuring clean data. Table V.C–3 values for 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and proposing to identify nonattainment contains this same information for the 2011–2013 through the following steps: receptors in this rulemaking as those 23 maintenance-only sites in the eastern Step 1: For each monitoring site, we sites that are violating the NAAQS U.S. that are projected to have average calculate the average concentration based on current measured air quality design values below the NAAQS, but across the 10 days with the 10 highest and also have projected average design maximum design values above the 8-hour daily maximum ozone values of 76 ppb or greater. NAAQS. The design values for all predictions in the 2017 baseline 83 using Maintenance-only receptors therefore monitoring sites in the U.S. are the predictions in the nine grid cells include both (1) those sites with provided in docket item EPA–HQ– that include or surround the location of projected average design values above OAR–2015–0500–0006. Additional the monitoring site. The RRF for a site the NAAQS that are currently details on the approach for projecting is the ratio of the mean prediction in the measuring clean data and (2) those sites average and maximum design values are future year to the mean prediction in the with projected average design values provided in the modeling guidance, 2011 base year. The RRFs were below the level of the NAAQS, but with Model Attainment Test Software 86 calculated on a site-by-site basis.84 projected maximum design values of 76 documentation, and the AQM TSD. The Step 2: The RRF for each site is then ppb or greater. In addition to the EPA is seeking comment on the multiplied by the 2009–2013 5-year maintenance-only receptors, the 2017 proposed methods for determining weighted average ambient design value ozone nonattainment receptors are also projected nonattainment and for that site, yielding an estimate of the maintenance receptors because the maintenance receptors.

TABLE V.C–1—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. [Nonattainment receptors]

Average Maximum Average Maximum Monitor ID State County design value design value design value design value 2012–2014 2009–2013 2009–2013 2017 2017 design value

90013007 ...... Connecticut ...... Fairfield ...... 84.3 89.0 77.1 81.4 84.0 90019003 ...... Connecticut ...... Fairfield ...... 83.7 87.0 78.0 81.1 85.0 90099002 ...... Connecticut ...... New Haven ...... 85.7 89.0 77.2 80.2 81.0 480391004 ...... Texas ...... Brazoria ...... 88.0 89.0 81.4 82.3 80.0 481210034 ...... Texas ...... Denton ...... 84.3 87.0 76.9 79.4 81.0 484392003 ...... Texas ...... Tarrant ...... 87.3 90.0 79.6 82.1 77.0 484393009 ...... Texas ...... Tarrant ...... 86.0 86.0 78.6 78.6 80.0 551170006 ...... Wisconsin ...... Sheboygan ...... 84.3 87.0 77.0 79.4 81.0

83 As specified in the attainment demonstration are fewer than 5 days >= 60 ppb, then an RRF 85 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P to Part 50— modeling guidance, if there are fewer than 10 calculation is not completed for that site. Interpretation of the Primary and Secondary modeled days greater than or equal to (>=) 70 ppb, 84 Sites with insufficient valid design values were National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. then the threshold is lowered in 1 ppb increments not included in the calculation. In addition, sites 86 Abt Associates, 2014. User’s Guide: Modeled (to as low as 60 ppb) until there are 10 days. If there with fewer than 5 days with predicted 8-hour ozone Attainment Test Software. http://www.epa.gov/ >= 60 ppb in 2018 were dropped from the analysis. scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C–2—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. THAT ARE PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT BUT CUR- RENTLY MEASURING CLEAN DATA [Maintenance-only receptors]

Average Maximum Average Maximum Monitor ID State County design value design value design value design value 2012–2014 2009–2013 2009–2013 2017 2017 design value

240251001 ...... Maryland ...... Harford ...... 90.0 93.0 81.3 84.0 75.0 360850067 ...... New York ...... Richmond ...... 81.3 83.0 76.3 77.8 73.0 361030002 ...... New York ...... Suffolk ...... 83.3 85.0 79.2 80.8 73.0 390610006 ...... Ohio ...... Hamilton ...... 82.0 85.0 76.3 79.1 75.0 482011034 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 81.0 82.0 76.8 77.8 72.0 482011039 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 82.0 84.0 78.2 80.2 72.0

TABLE V.C–3—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. BASED ON THE CSAPR METHODOLOGY [Maintenance-only receptors]

Average Maximum Average Maximum 2012–2014 Monitor ID State County design value design value design value design value 2009–2013 2009–2013 2017 2017 design value

90010017 ...... Connecticut ...... Fairfield ...... 80.3 83.0 75.8 78.4 82.0 211110067 ...... Kentucky ...... Jefferson ...... 82.0 85.0 75.8 78.6 Incomplete Data 211850004 ...... Kentucky ...... Oldham ...... 82.0 86.0 73.7 77.3 74.0 240053001 ...... Maryland ...... Baltimore ...... 80.7 84.0 73.2 76.2 72.0 260050003 ...... Michigan ...... Allegan ...... 82.7 86.0 75.5 78.5 83.0 261630019 ...... Michigan ...... Wayne ...... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.2 74.0 340071001 ...... New Jersey ...... Camden ...... 82.7 87.0 74.2 78.1 76.0 340150002 ...... New Jersey ...... Gloucester ...... 84.3 87.0 75.1 77.5 76.0 340230011 ...... New Jersey ...... Middlesex ...... 81.3 85.0 73.0 76.3 74.0 340290006 ...... New Jersey ...... Ocean ...... 82.0 85.0 73.9 76.6 75.0 360810124 ...... New York ...... Queens ...... 78.0 80.0 75.7 77.6 72.0 420031005 ...... Pennsylvania ..... Allegheny ...... 80.7 82.0 75.3 76.5 77.0 421010024 ...... Pennsylvania ..... Philadelphia ...... 83.3 87.0 75.1 78.4 75.0 480850005 ...... Texas ...... Collin ...... 82.7 84.0 74.9 76.0 78.0 481130069 ...... Texas ...... Dallas ...... 79.7 84.0 74.0 78.0 78.0 481130075 ...... Texas ...... Dallas ...... 82.0 83.0 75.8 76.7 77.0 481211032 ...... Texas ...... Denton ...... 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3 79.0 482010024 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 80.3 83.0 75.9 78.5 72.0 482010026 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 77.3 80.0 73.5 76.1 67.0 482010055 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 81.3 83.0 75.4 77.0 75.0 482011050 ...... Texas ...... Harris ...... 78.3 80.0 74.6 76.2 72.0 484390075 ...... Texas ...... Tarrant ...... 82.0 83.0 75.5 76.4 79.0 484393011 ...... Texas ...... Tarrant ...... 80.7 83.0 74.5 76.6 75.0

D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind calculates the contribution of sources quantify the contribution of 2017 States and precursors to ozone for individual baseline NOX and VOC emissions from receptor locations. The strength of the all sources in each state to projected 1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify photochemical model source 2017 ozone concentrations at air quality Upwind State Contributions apportionment technique is that all monitoring sites. In the source This section documents the modeled ozone at a given receptor apportionment model run, we tracked procedures the EPA used to quantify the location in the modeling domain is the ozone formed from each of the impact of emissions from specific tracked back to specific sources of following contribution categories (i.e., upwind states on 2017 8-hour design emissions and boundary conditions to ‘‘tags’’): values for identified downwind fully characterize culpable sources. • States—anthropogenic NO and nonattainment and maintenance X The EPA performed nationwide, state- VOC emissions from each state tracked receptors. The EPA used CAMx level ozone source apportionment individually (emissions from all photochemical source apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone anthropogenic sectors in a given state modeling to quantify the impact of Source Apportionment Technology/ were combined); emissions in specific upwind states on Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability • downwind nonattainment and Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 87 to maintenance receptors for 8-hour ozone. emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by CAMx employs enhanced source state); 87 apportionment techniques that track the As part of this technique, ozone formed from • Boundary Concentrations— reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with formation and transport of ozone from anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the concentrations transported into the specific emissions sources and anthropogenic emissions. modeling domain;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75727

• Tribes—the emissions from those ‘‘fires’’ category. That is, the details on the source apportionment tribal lands for which we have point contributions from the ‘‘biogenic’’ and modeling and the procedures for source inventory data in the 2011 NEI ‘‘fires’’ categories are not assigned to calculating contributions can be found (we did not model the contributions individual states nor are they included in the AQM TSD. The EPA is seeking from individual tribes); in the state contributions. comment on the methodologies for • Canada and Mexico— The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run calculating ozone contributions. anthropogenic emissions from sources was performed for the period May 1 The average contribution metric is in the portions of Canada and Mexico through September 30 using the intended to provide a reasonable included in the modeling domain (we projected 2017 baseline emissions and representation of the contribution from did not model the contributions from 2011 meteorology for this time period. individual states to the projected 2017 Canada and Mexico separately); The hourly contributions 88 from each design value, based on modeled • Fires—combined emissions from tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour transport patterns and other wild and prescribed fires domain-wide average contributions corresponding to meteorological conditions generally (i.e., not by state); and the time period of the 8-hour daily associated with modeled high ozone • Offshore—combined emissions maximum concentration on each day in concentrations at the receptor. An from offshore marine vessels and the 2017 model simulation. This step average contribution metric constructed offshore drilling platforms. was performed for those model grid in this manner is beneficial since the The contribution modeling provided cells containing monitoring sites in magnitude of the contributions is contributions to ozone from order to obtain 8-hour average directly related to the magnitude of the anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions contributions for each day at the design value at each site. in each state, individually. The location of each site. The model- The largest contribution from each contributions to ozone from chemical predicted contributions were then state in the East to 8-hour ozone reactions between biogenic NOX and applied in a relative sense to quantify nonattainment receptors in downwind VOC emissions were modeled and the contributions to the 2017 average states is provided in Table V.D–1. The assigned to the ‘‘biogenic’’ category. The design value at each site. The resulting largest contribution from each state in contributions from wild fire and 2017 contributions from each tag to each the East to 8-hour ozone maintenance- prescribed fire NOX and VOC emissions monitoring site in the eastern and only receptors in downwind states is were modeled and assigned to the western U.S. along with additional also provided in Table V.D–1.

TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S.

Largest downwind Largest downwind contribution to contribution to nonattainment maintenance Upwind state receptors receptors for ozone for ozone (ppb) (ppb)

AL ...... 0.79 1.28 AR ...... 0.98 2.15 CT ...... 0.00 0.46 DE ...... 0.37 2.23 DC ...... 0.06 0.73 FL ...... 0.54 0.72 GA ...... 0.47 0.58 IL ...... 17.48 23.17 IN ...... 6.24 14.95 IA ...... 0.61 0.85 KS ...... 0.80 1.03 KY ...... 0.75 11.17 LA ...... 3.09 4.23 ME ...... 0.00 0.08 MD ...... 2.07 7.11 MA ...... 0.10 0.37 MI ...... 2.69 1.79 MN ...... 0.40 0.47 MS ...... 0.78 1.48 MO ...... 1.63 3.69 NE ...... 0.24 0.36 NH ...... 0.02 0.07 NJ ...... 8.84 12.38 NY ...... 16.96 17.21 NC ...... 0.55 0.93 ND ...... 0.11 0.28 OH ...... 2.18 7.92 OK ...... 1.70 2.46 PA ...... 9.39 15.93 RI ...... 0.02 0.08 SC ...... 0.16 0.21

88 Contributions from anthropogenic emissions regimes were combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ chemical emissions in each state.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S.—Continued

Largest downwind Largest downwind contribution to contribution to nonattainment maintenance Upwind state receptors receptors for ozone for ozone (ppb) (ppb)

SD ...... 0.08 0.12 TN ...... 0.51 1.67 TX ...... 2.44 2.95 VT ...... 0.01 0.05 VA ...... 1.87 5.29 WV ...... 0.95 3.11 WI ...... 0.34 2.59

2. Application of Screening Threshold whether and what emissions reductions a linkage as just described. These might be required from each state. budgets are available in the Ozone The EPA then evaluated the States in the East whose contributions Transport Policy Analysis TSD. magnitude of the contributions from are below the threshold are not included Based on the maximum downwind each upwind state to downwind in the proposed rule and are considered contributions in Table V.D–1, the nonattainment and maintenance to make insignificant contributions to following states contribute at or above receptors. In this proposal, the EPA uses projected downwind air quality the 0.75 ppb threshold to downwind an air quality screening threshold to problems. However, for eastern states nonattainment receptors: Alabama, identify upwind states that contribute to for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, downwind ozone concentrations in in this action, the EPA notes that Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to updates to the modeling for the final Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New these to downwind nonattainment and rule could change the analysis as to Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, maintenance receptors. which states have contributions that Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West As discussed above in section III, the meet or exceed the screening threshold. Virginia. Based on the maximum EPA is proposing to establish the air In the event that air quality modeling downwind contributions in Table quality screening threshold calculated conducted for the final rule V.D–1, the following states contribute at as one percent of the NAAQS. demonstrates that states that contribute or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to Specifically for this rule, we propose amounts below the threshold in the downwind maintenance-only receptors: calculating an 8-hour ozone value for proposal are projected to contribute Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, this air quality threshold of 0.75 ppb as amounts greater than or equal to the Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, the quantification of one percent of the threshold in the final rule modeling, the Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA instead proposes to finalize revised Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New States in the East 89 whose budgets (presented with this rulemaking York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, contributions to a specific receptor meet for comment) for whichever of those Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, or exceed the screening threshold are states may be identified as linked to Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. considered linked to that receptor; those such air quality problems. The EPA has The linkages between each upwind state states’ ozone contributions and calculated emissions budgets for all and downwind nonattainment receptors emissions (and available emission eastern states that we are proposing to and maintenance-only receptors in the reductions) are analyzed further, as apply to those states if, and only if, the eastern U.S. are provided in Table described in section VI, to determine final rule air quality modeling identifies V.D–2 and Table V.D–3, respectively.

TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S.

Upwind state Downwind nonattainment receptors

AL ...... Tarrant Co., TX (484392003). AR ...... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009). IL ...... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). IN ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). KS ...... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). KY ...... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). LA ...... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). MD ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). MI ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). MS ...... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004).

89 As discussed in section III this assessment evaluate eastern states (i.e., 1 percent of the proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states, shows that there are problem receptors in the West NAAQS). However, there may be additional criteria but seeks comment on whether to include western where western states contribute amounts greater to evaluate regarding transported air pollution in states in this rule. than or equal to the screening threshold used to the West and upwind state obligations. The EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75729

TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S.—Continued

Upwind state Downwind nonattainment receptors

MO ...... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). NJ ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). NY ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). OH ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). OK ...... Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). PA ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). TX ...... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). VA ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). WV ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003).

TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S.

Upwind state Downwind maintenance receptors

AL ...... Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010055). AR ...... Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). DE ...... Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). IL ...... Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011039). IN ...... Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). IA ...... Allegan Co., MI (260050003). KS ...... Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). KY ...... Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). LA ...... Collin Co., TX (480850005); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); Denton Co., TX (481211032); Harris Co., TX (482010024); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011034); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). MD ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadel- phia Co., PA (421010024). MI ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005). MS ...... Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039). MO ...... Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050). NJ ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). NY ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006). NC ...... Baltimore Co., MD (240053001). OH ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). OK ...... Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); Denton Co., TX (481211032); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011034); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). PA ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002). TN ...... Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S.—Continued

Upwind state Downwind maintenance receptors

TX ...... Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). VA ...... Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). WV ...... Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). WI ...... Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019).

As discussed previously, after the have maximum design values exceeding VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU receptor and contribution analyses for the NAAQS in the modeled base case, NOX Reduction Potential To Reduce this proposal were underway, the EPA are expected to have maximum design Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2008 released an updated IPM base case, values below the NAAQS with the NAAQS version 5.15, and the final CPP. In order adjusted base case. With the adjusted A. Introduction to reflect all on-the-books policies as base case, these sites would not be well as the most current power sector considered nonattainment or This section describes the EPA’s modeling data, the EPA performed an maintenance receptors for the purposes proposed quantification of near-term assessment to reflect inclusion of IPM of this proposal. However, because no EGU NOX reductions that are necessary 5.15 with the CPP in an ‘‘adjusted’’ base state is linked solely to any one of these to fulfill (at least in part) the Clean Air case for this proposal. All references sites, changing the status of these Act requirement to address interstate below to the ‘‘adjusted base case’’ refer receptors does not impact the scope of ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS. to the 2017 air quality modeling base states linked to downwind This section also describes the EPA’s case which has been adjusted to account nonattainment or maintenance receptors proposal to translate these reductions for the revised IPM 5.15 with CPP for this proposal. into EGU NOX ozone-season emissions emissions. This assessment method budgets. Section VII describes the EPA’s In addition to evaluating the status of relied on the EPA’s air quality modeling proposal to implement these proposed downwind receptors identified for this contribution data as well as projected emissions budgets via updates to the proposal, the EPA evaluated whether ozone concentrations from an existing CSAPR NO ozone-season the adjusted base case would reduce X illustrative EGU NO mitigation trading program. X ozone contributions from upwind states scenario. For more information about to the extent that a previously linked As described in section V, the EPA these methods, refer to the Ozone state would have a maximum separately identified nonattainment Transport Policy Analysis Technical contribution less than the 1% threshold. receptors and maintenance receptors. Support Document. This assessment shows that in the The EPA proposes to apply a single This assessment shows that two adjusted base case, all states are approach for quantifying an upwind receptors—Hamilton County Ohio expected to remain linked (i.e., state’s ozone transport obligation to both (390610006) and Richmond County contribute greater than or equal to 1% nonattainment and maintenance New York (360850067)—that were of the NAAQS) to at least one receptors. It is reasonable to apply the projected to have average design values downwind nonattainment or same approach to quantify upwind-state exceeding the NAAQS in the modeled maintenance receptor. Therefore, using reduction requirements with respect to 2017 baseline, are expected to have the adjusted base case for this proposal both nonattainment and maintenance average design values below the does not impact the scope of states because the structure of the problems is NAAQS with the adjusted base case. linked to downwind nonattainment or the same—emissions from sources in However, these receptors are still maintenance receptors relative to the upwind states contributing to expected to have maximum design modeled base case. downwind ozone concentrations that values exceeding the NAAQS with the put the downwind receptor at risk of adjusted base case. Because both of The analyses that EPA uses in section nonattainment with respect to the EPA’s these receptors are also considered VI to quantify EGU NOX ozone-season clean air standards. Moreover, as all maintenance receptors for the purposes emissions budgets for this proposal also nonattainment receptors are also of this proposal, their status as rely on the adjusted base case. maintenance receptors because the identified air quality concerns and the The EPA seeks comment on its maximum design value will always be status of states linked to these receptors assessment of the impacts of relying on equal to or exceed the average design is unchanged by the adjusted base case. the adjusted base case for these value, it is reasonable to control all sites This assessment also shows that four purposes, and on EPA’s intention to rely consistent with the level of control receptors—Allegheny County on full air quality and IPM modeling of necessary to reduce maintenance Pennsylvania (420031005), Collin the adjusted base case to identify concerns. County Texas (480850005), Wayne nonattainment and maintenance As described in section III of this County Michigan (261630019), and receptors and to inform the analysis of preamble, due to the impending July Middlesex County New Jersey interstate ozone transport for the 2008 2018 moderate area attainment date, the (340230011)—that were projected to ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing, as a first step, to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75731

quantify near-term EGU NOX ozone- were selected based on the cost exceeds 18 and 12 months, respectively. season emission reductions to reduce thresholds at which various EGU NOX For both technologies, conceptual interstate ozone transport for the 2008 control technologies are widely design, permitting, financing, and bid ozone NAAQS. For this section, this available, the use of certain EGU NOX review require additional time. It would means that the EPA is proposing to cost thresholds in previous rules to therefore not be feasible to retrofit new quantify ozone season EGU NOX address ozone transport, and EGU NOX SCR or SNCR to achieve EGU NOX reductions achievable for the 2017 cost thresholds incorporated into state reductions in the 2017 ozone season. ozone season (i.e., the last full ozone requirements to address ozone See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD season prior to the July 2018 attainment nonattainment. for discussion of feasibility of EGU NOX date). In this proposal, the EPA evaluated controls for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA’s assessment of upwind state the emission reduction potential in each Therefore, the EPA analyzed the obligations in this proposal reflects upwind state at each uniform NOX cost remaining strategies for purposes of application of a multi-factor test that threshold using the adjusted IPM base quantifying upwind state obligations in considers cost, available emission case 5.15. In this case, the EPA limited this rule. Exclusion of new SCR and reductions, and air quality. This is the IPM’s evaluation of NOX mitigation SNCR installation from this analysis same multi-factor test used in the strategies to those that can be reflects a determination only that these original CSAPR. This multi-factor test implemented for the 2017 ozone season, strategies are infeasible by 2017, not a considers increasing levels of uniform which is the proposed compliance determination that they are infeasible or control stringency, where each level is timing for this rulemaking, as described inappropriate for consideration of cost- represented by cost, to determine the in section VI.B below. effective NOX reduction potential over a appropriate magnitude of pollution longer timeframe. The EPA requests B. NOX Mitigation Strategies reduction that would reduce the comment on what EGU NOX mitigation impacts of interstate transport on The following sub-sections describe strategies are feasible for the 2017 ozone downwind states and to apportion that the EPA’s assessment of EGU and non- season. reduction responsibility among EGU point source NOX mitigation collectively-contributing upwind states. strategies. For more details on these a. Fully Operating Existing SCRs and SNCRs This approach to quantifying upwind assessments, refer to the EGU NOX state emission reduction obligations was Mitigation Strategies TSD and the Fully operating existing SCR and reviewed by the Supreme Court in EPA Update to Non-EGU Emission SNCRs can significantly reduce EGU v. EME Homer City Generation, which Reductions Cost and Potential for States NOX emissions quickly, using held that using such an approach to with Potentially Significant investments that have already been apportion reduction responsibilities Contributions under the 2008 Ozone made. SCRs can achieve up to 90 among upwind states that are Standard TSD in the docket for this percent reduction in EGU NOX (with collectively responsible for downwind proposed rule. sufficient installed catalyst), while air quality impacts ‘‘is an efficient and SNCRs can achieve 20–30 percent 1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies equitable solution to the allocation reduction in EGU NOX, beyond the problem the Good Neighbor Provision In developing this proposed rule, the reductions from combustion controls. requires the Agency to address.’’ 134 EPA considered all widely used EGU These controls are in widespread use S.Ct. at 1607. NOX control strategies: Fully operating across the U.S. power sector. In the east, There are three steps in developing existing Selective Catalytic Reduction approximately 64 percent of coal-fired and applying the multi-factor test to (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic EGU capacity and 75 percent of natural quantify upwind state emission Reduction (SNCR)—including gas combined cycle (NGCC) EGU reductions as to the 2008 ozone optimizing NOX removal by existing, capacity is equipped with SCR or SNCR. NAAQS: (1) Identify NOX mitigation operational SCRs and SNCRs and Recent power sector data reveal that strategies, focusing on those that can be turning on and optimizing existing idled some SCR and SNCR controls are being in place for the 2017 ozone season; (2) SCRs and SNCRs; installation of (or underused.90 In some cases, controls are develop uniform EGU NOX cost upgrading to) state-of-the-art NOX not fully operating (i.e., the controls thresholds based on these NOx combustion controls; shifting generation could be operated at a higher NOX mitigation strategies; (3) assess EGU to units with lower NOX emission rates removal rate). In other cases, controls NOX mitigation potential that is within the same state; and installing have been idled for years. Fully achievable for 2017 and assess new SCRs and SNCRs. Although this operating existing SCR and SNCR would corresponding air quality improvements proposal does not require or impose any be a cost-effective and readily available resulting from the application of each specific technology standards to approach for EGUs to reduce NOX uniform cost threshold, including to demonstrate compliance, EPA emissions and the EPA evaluated this check for over-control. This multi-factor determined that certain technologies NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying evaluation informs the EPA’s would be available by the 2017 EGU NOX obligations for this proposal. determination of appropriate ozone timeframe when assessing potential For existing SCRs and SNCRs that are season EGU NOX reductions necessary reductions in the region. operating to some extent, but not at their to reduce significant contribution to For the reasons explained below, the full pollution control capability, the nonattainment and interference with EPA determined that the power sector EPA’s analysis determined that $500 per maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS could implement all of these NOX ton represents the costs reflective of for the proposed 2017 compliance year. mitigation strategies, except installation fully operating these systems. Because These steps are discussed in further of new SCRs or SNCRs, between the SCR or SNCR is already installed detail in the following sections. finalization of this proposal in summer and is at least to some extent operating, This proposal evaluates a range of of 2016 and the 2017 ozone season. As the EPA assumes that additional reagent uniform EGU NOX costs from $500 per to the installation of new SCRs or (i.e., ammonia or urea) is the only ton to $10,000 per ton. This range, and SNCRs, the amount of time from 90 the intermediate uniform NOX cost contract award through commissioning This assessment is available in the EGU NOX thresholds evaluated within that range, for retrofit with new SCR or SNCR Mitigation Strategies TSD.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

significant cost required for full or urea) and that the resulting cost per widely available at $1,300 per ton of operation. We observe that urea can cost ton of NOX reduction is sensitive to the NOX removed. on the order of $300 per metric ton. The NOX rate of the unit prior to SNCR As described in CSAPR the EPA has cost for anhydrous ammonia is around operation. Based on the results of this observed that upgrade, replacement, or $750 per ton.91 In our assessment, we analysis, and in order to represent a installation of combustion controls has assume that a 50 percent solution is broad range of unit-level NOX rates been demonstrated to be achievable used in removing an equivalent amount before SNCR operation, the EPA within the timeframe provided for by of NOX. Thus, we estimate that proposes that turning on and fully this rulemaking and its compliance sufficient reagent could be purchased at operating idled SNCRs is widely dates.94 The EPA revisited this analysis a cost of $500 per ton of NOX removed available at a uniform cost of $3,400 per with data specific to this proposal and to achieve full operation for most SCRs ton of NOX removed. For more details proposes that a 2017 compliance and SNCRs. For more details on this on this assessment, refer to the EGU timeframe is feasible for this EGU NOX assessment, refer to the EGU NOX NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD in the mitigation strategy. These controls are Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket docket for this proposed rule. The fully proven, widely used, and with a for this proposed rule. The proposal proposal seeks comment on this reasonable effort can be procured, seeks comment on this assessment. assessment and on higher cost designed, installed, tested and be in The operational difference between thresholds that would require some operation on any coal-steam EGU not fully operating and fully operating installation of new SCRs/SNCRs and the consistent with the compliance existing SCRs and SNCRs is increasing appropriate timetable or phase-in timeframe provided for this rulemaking. reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea) flow rate needed to accommodate those The EPA proposes that this will be and ensuring sufficient reagent exists to technologies. feasible for the 2017 ozone season. The sustain higher flow operations. The EPA also evaluated the feasibility proposal seeks comment on additional Therefore, increasing NOX removal from of turning on idled SCR and SNCR for EGU NOx mitigation strategies that may these controls can be implemented by the 2017 ozone season. Based on past be feasible for the 2017 ozone season. procuring more reagent. Stocking-up practice and the possible effort to restart For more details on this assessment, additional reagent for sustaining the controls (e.g., stockpiling reagent, refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation increased NOX removal could be done bringing the system out of protective Strategies TSD in the docket for this in a one or two weeks.92 lay-up, performing inspections, etc.), proposed rule. The proposal seeks For existing SCRs and SNCRs that returning these idled controls to comment on this assessment. have been idled for years, unit operators operation should be available in equal c. Shifting Generation to Lower NOX- may need to restart payment of some to or less than 3 months.93 The proposal Emitting EGUs fixed and variable costs associated with seeks comment on this assessment. that control. Fixed and variable costs Shifting generation to lower NOX- include labor, maintenance and repair, b. State-of-the-Art NOX Combustion emitting EGUs, similar to operating reagent, parasitic load, and ammonia or Controls existing post-combustion controls, uses investments that have already been urea. As further detailed in the EGU State-of-the-art combustion controls made, can be done quickly, and can NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD, which is such as low-NO burners (LNB) and/or X significantly reduce EGU NO found in the docket for this proposed over-fire air (OFA) are cost-effective, can X emissions. rule, the EPA performed an in-depth be installed quickly, and can Since CSAPR was promulgated, cost assessment for all coal-fired units significantly reduce EGU NO X electricity generation has trended with SCRs, finding that 90 percent of emissions. Ninety-nine percent of coal- toward lower NO -emitting generation the units had total SCR operation costs fired EGU capacity in the East is X due to market conditions (e.g., low of $1,300 per ton of NOX removed, or equipped with some form of combustion natural gas prices) and state and federal less. control. Combustion controls alone can environmental policies. For example, Based on this assessment, the EPA achieve NO emission rates of 0.15 to X new NGCC facilities, which represented proposes that turning on and fully 0.50 lb/mmBtu. Once installed, 45% of new 2014 capacity, can achieve operating idled SCRs is widely available combustion controls reduce NO X NO emission rates of 0.0095 lb/mmBtu, at a uniform cost of $1,300 per ton of emissions at all times of EGU operation. X compared to existing coal steam NOX removed. For more details on this State-of-the-art combustion controls facilities, which emitted at an average assessment, refer to the EGU NOX would be a cost-effective, timely, and rate across the 23 states included in this Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket readily available approach for EGUs to proposal of 0.18 lbs/mmBtu of NO in for this proposed rule. The proposal reduce NO emissions and the EPA X X 2014. This substantial difference in NO seeks comment on this assessment. included this NO mitigation strategy in X X emission performance between existing The EPA performed a similar quantifying EGU NO reductions for X coal steam and new NGCC generation is assessment for fully operating existing this proposal. idled SNCR systems, finding that the due both to higher nitrogen content in The cost of state-of-the-art combustion majority of the total fixed and variable coal compared to natural gas, as well as controls per ton of NO reduced is operating cost for SNCR is related to the X to the substantially lower generating dependent on the combustion control cost of the reagent used (e.g., ammonia efficiency of steam combustion type and unit type. We estimate the cost technology compared to combined cycle per ton of state-of-the-art combustion 91 Schnitkey, G. ‘‘Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices and combustion technology. Shifting controls to be $500 per ton to $1,200 per 2015 Planting Decisions.’’ farmdoc daily (4):195, generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs Department of Agricultural and Consumer ton of NOX removed. To be would be a cost-effective, timely, and Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana- conservative, the EPA proposes that readily available approach for EGUs to Champaign, October 9, 2014. installation of (or upgrading to) state-of- Permalink URL http://farmdocvdaily.illinois.edu/ reduce NOX emissions and the EPA 2014/10/nitrogen-fertilizer-prices-and-2015- the-art NOX combustion controls is 94 planting-decisions.html. ‘‘Installation Timing for Low NOX Burners 92 93 This assessment is available in the EGU NOX This assessment is available in the EGU NOX (LNB)’’, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– Mitigation Strategies TSD. Mitigation Strategies TSD. 0051.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75733

included this NOX mitigation strategy in achievable from non-EGU point sources C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for quantifying EGU NOX obligations for for 2017. Moreover, there is greater Assessment this proposal. uncertainty in the EPA’s assessment of As discussed above, the multi-factor Shifting generation to lower NO - X non-EGU point-source NOX mitigation test used here considers increasing emitting EGUs occurs on a continuum potential (see below). The EPA requests levels of uniform control stringency, in response to economic factors such as comment on these issues, including where each level is represented by cost, fuel costs and uniform NO cost X how non-EGU reductions should be in combination with consideration of thresholds, including those evaluated addressed and considered in fulfilling NO reduction potential and for this proposal (i.e., relatively lower X upwind states’ good neighbor corresponding air quality uniform NO cost thresholds X obligations under the 2008 ozone improvements. To determine which cost incentivize relatively fewer EGU NO X standard in the future, as the control of thresholds to use to assess upwind state reductions resulting from shifting non-EGUs may be a necessary part of NO mitigation potential, the EPA generation, while relatively higher X addressing states’ full transport evaluated EGU NOX control costs that uniform NOX cost thresholds encourage obligation. States can always choose to more EGU NO reductions driven by represent the thresholds at which X reduce non-EGU emissions via good various control technologies are widely shifting generation). As a result, the EPA neighbor SIPs. quantified reduction potential from this available (described previously in The EPA has evaluated the potential section VI.B), the use of certain cost EGU NOX mitigation strategy at each cost level identified that represents the for ozone season NOX reductions from thresholds in previous rules to address availability of other pollution control non-EGU sources. A detailed discussion ozone transport, and cost thresholds measures evaluated in our assessment of of this assessment is provided in the incorporated into state requirements to address ozone nonattainment. uniform NOX cost thresholds described Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Potential in section VI.C. TSD, located in the docket for this The EPA began by determining the In this analysis, the EPA assumed proposed rule. This TSD discusses non- appropriate range of costs to evaluate. shifting generation to units with lower EGU source category emissions, EPA The lower end of the range is informed by a confluence of considerations. In NOX emission rates could occur within tools for estimating emission reductions the same state by the near-term 2017 from non-EGU categories, and efforts, to CSAPR, $500 per ton was the EGU NOX implementation timing for this date, to review and refine our estimates cost threshold relied upon to partially proposed rule when assessing state for certain states. In addition, the TSD address ozone transport for the less emission reduction potential for contains brief discussions of available stringent 1997 standard. It is also the emissions budget purposes. This controls, costs, and potential emission lowest marginal cost where EPA expects conservative approach does not capture reductions for a few specific source NOX reduction to be cost effective, emission reductions that would occur if categories. The EPA views this non-EGU based on our assessment of EGU NOX generation was shifted more broadly assessment as an initial step in future mitigation strategies (see section B). among units in different states, which efforts to evaluate non-EGU categories Specifically, the cost of this approach to the EPA believes is feasible over time that may be necessary to fully quantify NOX reduction is the marginal cost of but which may be subject to out-of-merit upwind states’ significant contribution running currently operating SCR and order dispatch constraints in the near to nonattainment and interference with SNCR systems at higher levels of NOX term. Limiting such generation shifting maintenance. The EPA seeks comment removal than they are currently potential to units within each state is on its assessment that non-EGU controls achieving. The EPA has not identified a not a reflection of how generation are not feasible by the 2017 ozone- discrete NOX pollution control measure shifting works in practice (given that the season. It also seeks comment on its that would achieve sufficient emission reductions to address relevant air grid crosses state boundaries); instead, it broader non-EGU NOX mitigation is an analytic proxy designed to respect assessment and the availability of non- quality impacts at an estimated cost of the feasibility of near-term generation less than $500 per ton; as a result, the EGU NOX emission reductions to shifting in light of these potential near- mitigate interstate ozone transport in EPA has not included a representation term out-of-merit order dispatch years following 2017. of such a cost level in this proposal’s constraints. The EPA seeks comment on analyses.95 this assessment and on this limitation in Although EPA did not find non-EGU The EPA then evaluated EGU NOX reductions feasible by 2017 in this quantifying EGU NOX reduction cost thresholds to determine an potential for the 2017 ozone season. proposal, it is taking comment on that appropriate upper bound for our assessment. Future EPA rulemakings or assessment. The EPA identified $10,000 2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies guidance could revisit the potential for per ton as an upper bound, exceeding The EPA is not proposing to address reductions from non-EGU sources. the costs of operating existing or non-EGU emission reductions in its Under such a scenario, EPA could use installing new EGU NOX controls. efforts to reduce interstate ozone a similar approach of identifying The EPA seeks comment on whether transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at appropriate cost thresholds for non- $500 per ton is an appropriate minimum this time. Compared to EGUs, there are EGUs and EGUs alike, and then identify and $10,000 per ton is an appropriate relatively more non-EGU point sources potential emission reductions and maximum uniform cost threshold to and these sources on average are smaller corresponding emission budgets. Under evaluate for the purpose of quantifying than EGUs. The implication of these this scenario, an emission budget could EGU NOX reductions to reduce fleet characteristics is that there are be established for all covered sources interstate ozone transport for the 2008 more individual sources to control and (e.g., EGUs and non-EGUs alike) with ozone NAAQS. there are relatively fewer emission fungible allowances. EPA is taking reductions available from each source. comment on the potential to combine 95 Additionally, the EPA notes that, as discussed Given the proposed 2017 EGUs and non-EGUs into a single in more detail below, no identified air quality problems were resolved at the $500 per ton cost implementation timing for this trading program to resolve the threshold. Accordingly, it would not be practical for rulemaking, we are uncertain that remaining non-attainment and the EPA to evaluate emission reductions achieved significant aggregate NOX mitigation is maintenance issues at a later date. at cost thresholds below $500 per ton.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

The EPA then determined appropriate those selected, this would not yield reveal significant incremental emission EGU NOX cost thresholds to evaluate meaningful insights as to NOX reduction reduction potential that isn’t already within the range of $500 per ton to potential. The EPA has identified cost anticipated at the analyzed cost $10,000 per ton. As described above, thresholds where control technologies thresholds. Table VI.C–1 lists the EGU these cost thresholds are informed by are widely available and thereby where NOX cost thresholds evaluated and the our assessment of the costs at which the most significant incremental NOX reduction strategy or policy used to EGU NOX control strategies are widely emission reduction potential is identify each cost threshold. available. While the EPA could evaluate expected. Analyzing costs between additional cost thresholds in between these cost thresholds is not expected to

TABLE VI.C–1

EGU NOX cost threshold

$500/ton ...... CSAPR ozone season NOX cost threshold; fully operating post-combustion controls that are already running. $1,300/ton ...... Widespread availability of restarting idled SCRs and state of the art combustion controls. $3,400/ton ...... NOX SIP Call ozone season NOX cost threshold, adjusted to 2014$; Widespread availability of restarting idled SNCRs. $5,000/ton ...... Widespread availability of new SCRs.96 $6,400/ton ...... Widespread availability of new SNCRs.97 $10,000/ton ...... Upper bound.

The EPA proposes that this range and D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX 48 contiguous United States and the selection of interim uniform cost Reductions, and Air Quality District of Columbia, starting in 2017. thresholds are appropriate to evaluate The analysis covered EGUs with a

potential EGU NO reduction The EPA analyzed ozone season NOX capacity (electrical output) greater than X emission reductions available from the obligations to address interstate ozone 25 MW to make the analysis similar to power sector in each state using IPM.98 transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. previous analyses done for interstate The agency analyzed levels of uniform Because these cost thresholds are linked transport purposes. The EGU Emission control stringency, where each level is to costs at which EGU NOX mitigation Reduction Cost Analysis TSD, which is represented by uniform EGU NOX cost strategies become widely available in in the docket for this proposed rule, thresholds listed in Table VI.C–1 above provides further details of EPA’s each state, the cost thresholds represent and repeated here: $500 per ton; $1,300 analysis of ozone season NOX emission the break points at which the most per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; significant step-changes in EGU NO reductions occurring at the X $6,400 per ton; and $10,000 per ton. The representative EGU NO cost thresholds mitigation are expected. The EPA seeks X EPA limited IPM’s NOX mitigation analyzed for the 2017 ozone season. comment on the appropriateness of strategies to those that could be Table VI.D—1 shows the 2017 evaluating these uniform cost thresholds implemented for 2017, as described in baseline EGU emissions and ozone for the purpose of quantifying EGU NOX section VI.B. season NOX reduction potential in each reductions to reduce interstate ozone The analysis applied these uniform state corresponding to the uniform cost transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EGU NOX cost thresholds to EGUs in the levels.

TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)

2017 emissions Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative State (short tons) marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) Base case $500/ton $1,300/ton $3,400/ton

Alabama ...... 13,289 1,729 3,582 3,670 Arkansas ...... 6,224 13 104 859 Illinois ...... 10,021 395 472 546 Indiana ...... 41,748 6,611 12,173 12,989 Iowa ...... 7,911 186 423 717 Kansas ...... 11,332 428 438 465 Kentucky ...... 27,141 3,608 11,896 12,382 Louisiana ...... 10,897 64 117 400 Maryland ...... 6,470 1,028 1,026 1,164 Michigan ...... 20,049 403 3,033 3,528 Mississippi ...... 7,871 82 297 893 Missouri ...... 17,050 934 996 1,152 New Jersey ...... 3,302 370 372 378 New York ...... 4,948 115 284 359 North Carolina ...... 14,435 1,922 1,922 3,526

96 The cost assessment for new SCR is available chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SNCRs were 5.15, including the Clean Power Plan. IPM in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While not considered a feasible control on the compliance documentation is in the docket and available at chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SCRs were timeframe being proposed for this rule. www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling. not considered a feasible control on the compliance 98 IPM version 5.14 is discussed in preamble timeframe being proposed for this rule. section IV.B, and as noted in preamble section V, 97 The cost assessment for new SNCR is available for purposes of this quantification analysis EPA in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While used an adjusted base case reflecting IPM version

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75735

TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)—Continued

2017 emissions Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative State (short tons) marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) Base case $500/ton $1,300/ton $3,400/ton

Ohio ...... 27,795 5,746 9,646 9,666 Oklahoma ...... 19,593 703 2,170 3,169 Pennsylvania ...... 41,533 2,210 26,759 26,791 Tennessee ...... 5,554 74 113 146 Texas ...... 58,199 685 3,610 5,810 Virginia ...... 7,196 423 539 1,587 West Virginia ...... 25,384 592 10,908 12,014 Wisconsin ...... 5,257 5 36 107

Total ...... 393,198 28,325 90,916 102,318

TABLE VI.D–1 (CONTINUED)—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)

Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative State marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) $5,000/ton $6,400/ton $10,000/ton

Alabama ...... 4,780 5,418 5,840 Arkansas ...... 1,147 1,242 1,935 Illinois ...... 622 640 761 Indiana ...... 13,770 13,437 17,109 Iowa ...... 717 717 1,317 Kansas ...... 677 838 1,150 Kentucky ...... 12,473 13,456 14,503 Louisiana ...... 461 467 706 Maryland ...... 1,176 1,369 1,369 Michigan ...... 3,756 3,889 4,411 Mississippi ...... 1,165 1,479 2,208 Missouri ...... 1,298 1,930 2,775 New Jersey ...... 381 384 465 New York ...... 370 661 906 North Carolina ...... 3,626 4,415 4,643 Ohio ...... 9,773 10,078 10,231 Oklahoma ...... 3,821 5,702 6,609 Pennsylvania ...... 26,913 26,932 27,091 Tennessee ...... 224 241 285 Texas ...... 6,940 7,772 8,380 Virginia ...... 3,104 3,560 3,610 West Virginia ...... 12,211 12,243 12,243 Wisconsin ...... 131 276 618

Total ...... 109,535 117,145 129,166

Next, the EPA performed a combined that is expected from progressively more ton, the residual design values at this multi-factor assessment of costs (i.e., the stringent upwind EGU NOX reductions site are expected to continue to exceed uniform cost thresholds evaluated), EGU in states that are linked to that receptor. the 2008 ozone NAAQS with an average NOX reductions (i.e., the reductions in For example, the EPA evaluated the design value of 80.6 ppb and a Table VI.D–1), and corresponding Harford County Maryland receptor with maximum design value of 83.3 ppb. improvements in downwind ozone all linked states controlling their With respect to this receptor, the EPA concentrations. For this assessment, the emissions at $500 per ton. This then evaluated each progressively more EPA used simplifying assumptions assessment showed a 0.35 ppb stringent uniform control stringency (i.e. regarding the relationship between EGU reduction in expected ozone design $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; $6,400 NOX emissions and corresponding values at $500 per ton. The residual per ton; and $10,000 per ton). Generally, ozone concentrations at nonattainment design values at this site are still the EPA evaluated the air quality and maintenance receptors of concern. expected to exceed the 2008 ozone improvements at each monitoring site For more information about how this NAAQS with an average design value of for each progressively more stringent assessment was performed, refer to the 81.2 ppb and a maximum design value uniform EGU NOX control level. This Ozone Transport Policy Analysis of 83.9 ppb. Next, the EPA evaluated information is available in the Ozone Technical Support Document. this receptor with all linked states Transport Policy Analysis TSD. For each nonattainment or controlling their emissions at $1,300 per This approach evaluates interstate maintenance receptor identified for this ton. This assessment showed a 0.94 ppb ozone transport for each receptor proposal, the EPA evaluated the air reduction in expected ozone design independently. Also, by evaluating the quality improvement at that receptor values. At a cost threshold of $1,300 per downwind ozone impact of upwind

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

reductions that are made in all linked reduction metrics) in a multi-factor test meaningful improvements in downwind states at the same uniform control that allows the EPA to evaluate the cost- ozone concentrations at the identified stringency, this approach provides effectiveness of various levels of nonattainment and maintenance equitable treatment of all upwind states emission reductions and the resulting receptors for this proposal. For example, as to their contribution to each improvements in downwind ozone the combined downwind ozone downwind receptor to which they are concentrations. improvement across nonattainment and linked. This evaluation shows that maintenance receptors is approximately The EPA aggregates the relevant data meaningful EGU NOX reductions are 19 ppb at the $1,300 per ton level. See (i.e., cost of control, EGU NOX reduction available at reasonable cost and that Figure VI.1. potential, and downwind ozone these reductions can provide

Combining costs, EGU NOX reductions that would justify these 1608. On remand from the Supreme reductions, and corresponding higher costs. Court, the D.C. Circuit held that this improvements in downwind ozone As part of this analysis, the EPA means that EPA might overstep its concentrations results in a ‘‘knee in the evaluates potential over-control with authority ‘‘when those downwind curve’’ at $1,300 per ton. This uniform respect to whether (1) the expected locations would achieve attainment cost of reduction represents the ozone improvements would be even if less stringent emissions limits sufficient or greater than necessary to threshold at which EGU NOX reduction were imposed on the upwind States potential and corresponding downwind resolve the downwind ozone pollution linked to those locations.’’ EME Homer problem (i.e., resolving nonattainment ozone air quality improvements are City II, 795 F.3d at 127. The D.C. Circuit or maintenance problems) or (2) the maximized with respect to marginal qualified this statement by noting that expected ozone improvements would cost. That is, the ratio of emission reduce upwind state ozone this ‘‘does not mean that every such reductions to marginal cost and the ratio contributions to below the screening upwind State would then be entitled to of ozone improvements to marginal cost threshold (i.e., 1% of the NAAQS). less stringent emission limits. Some of are maximized relative to the other In EME Homer City, the Supreme those upwind States may still be subject uniform cost thresholds evaluated. Court held that EPA cannot ‘‘require[ ] to the more stringent emissions limits so Further, at higher cost thresholds, as a an upwind State to reduce emissions by as not to cause other downwind result of this analysis we do not more than the amount necessary to locations to which those States are anticipate significant additional achieve attainment in every downwind linked to fall into nonattainment.’’ Id. at State to which it is linked.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 14–15.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP03DE15.000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75737

Consistent with these instructions with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. from the Supreme Court and the D.C. The EPA seeks comment on this As such, based on the data supporting Circuit, the EPA evaluated whether determination. this proposal, North Carolina was reductions quantified under the The EPA also proposes that, based on excluded from assessment of air quality evaluated cost thresholds can be the information supporting this improvements at more stringent uniform anticipated to resolve any downwind proposal, this level of EGU NOX control EGU NOX control levels. nonattainment or maintenance problems for North Carolina would not constitute The EPA’s assessment shows that the (as defined in section V) and by how over-control as to the Baltimore County uniform control stringency represented much. receptor. The level of the 2008 ozone by $3,400 per ton would resolve the The EPA’s assessment shows that the standard NAAQS is 75 ppb. At the maintenance problem at two additional uniform control stringency represented uniform $1,300 per ton cost threshold, downwind maintenance receptors— by $500 per ton would resolve the EPA’s assessment demonstrates that the Denton County, Texas (481211032) maintenance problem at two downwind receptor would just be maintaining the (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb) maintenance receptors—Ocean County, standard, with a maximum design value and Harris County, Texas (482011050) New Jersey (maximum design value of of 75.6 ppb. Therefore, the emissions (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb). 75.9 ppb) and Oldham County, reductions that would be achieved at Because no state is linked solely to one Kentucky (maximum design value of the $1,300 per ton cost threshold would of these maintenance receptors, 75.8 ppb). Because no state is linked not result in air quality improvements at resolving these downwind air quality solely to one of these maintenance the Baltimore County receptor impacts does not fully address any receptors, resolving these downwind air significantly better than the standard individual upwind state’s good neighbor quality impact does not fully address such the emission reductions might obligation. any individual upwind state’s good constitute over-control as to that The EPA provides this summary of neighbor obligation. receptor. On the contrary, the emission the evaluation for the $500 per ton; This assessment shows that the reductions achieved in upwind states at $1,300 per ton; and $3,400 per ton uniform control stringency represented the $1,300 per ton cost threshold are uniform cost thresholds because, as by $1,300 per ton would resolve necessary to bring the maximum design described below, the EPA is proposing maintenance problems at three value at the Baltimore County receptor to use the $1,300 per ton level and is additional downwind maintenance into alignment with the standard. The taking comment on using the $500 per receptors—Baltimore County, Maryland EPA also seeks comment on this ton level or $3,400 per ton level to (maximum design value of 75.6 ppb), determination. quantify ozone season EGU NOX Hamilton County, Ohio (maximum For the remainder of the states for requirements to reduce interstate ozone design value of 75.1 ppb), and which the EPA is proposing FIPs in this transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Gloucester County, New Jersey action, none of these states are linked Further information on the EPA’s (maximum design value of 75.8 ppb). solely to one of these maintenance evaluation of these cost thresholds as The EPA’s assessment shows that this receptors with air quality resolved at the well as additional cost thresholds control level does resolve the only $1,300 per ton cost threshold. Therefore, ($5,000 per ton; $6,400 per ton; and identified nonattainment or resolving these downwind air quality $10,000 per ton) are provided in the maintenance problem to which North impacts does not fully address any other Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Carolina is linked for this proposal—the individual upwind state’s good neighbor Technical Support Document. Baltimore County, Maryland obligation. Additionally, Table VI.D–2 provides a maintenance receptor. The EPA As noted above the EPA is proposing summary of the expected number of therefore proposes that this EGU control that the $1,300 per ton EGU control nonattainment and maintenance-only level would fully address North level would fully address North receptors at the adjusted base case and Carolina’s good neighbor obligation Carolina’s good neighbor obligation cost thresholds.

TABLE VI.D–2—NUMBER OF NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS AFTER EGU NOX MITIGATION

Nonattainment Maintenance- Cost threshold receptors only receptors

Base Case (IPM 5.15 w/CPP) ...... 12 21 $500 per ton ...... 12 19 $1,300 per ton ...... 12 14 $3,400 per ton ...... 12 13 $5,000 per ton ...... 12 13 $6,400 per ton ...... 12 13 $10,000 per ton ...... 12 12

In EME Homer City, the Supreme the relevant NAAQS.’’ Id. Accordingly, would be below the 1% threshold that Court also held that ‘‘EPA cannot the EPA also evaluated the potential for linked the upwind state to the require a State to reduce its output of over-control with respect to the 1% downwind receptors. If the EPA found pollution . . . at odds with the one- threshold proposed to be applied in this that any state’s reduction obligation at percent threshold the Agency has set.’’ rulemaking at each relevant cost the applied cost threshold decreased its 134 S.Ct. at 1608. The Court explained threshold. Specifically, the EPA contribution to every downwind that ‘‘EPA cannot demand reductions evaluated whether the uniform cost receptor to which it is linked below the that would drive an upwind State’s thresholds would reduce upwind EGU 1% threshold, we would need to adjust contribution to every downwind State to emissions to a level where the the state’s reduction obligation which it is linked below one percent of contribution from each upwind state accordingly. The EPA’s assessment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

reveals that there is not over-control proposed approach for quantifying $1,300 per ton would not result in over- with respect to the 1% threshold at any requirements. control at any of the identified non- of the evaluated uniform costs in any The EPA also seeks comment on attainment or maintenance receptors upwind state; in fact, even at the highest implementation of the resulting and it is reasonable to require such uniform cost threshold evaluated (e.g., emissions budgets. The EPA proposes reductions from upwind states. $10,000 per ton), all upwind states that that if there are groups of states with The EPA requests comment on its contributed greater than or equal to the ozone season NOX control requirements proposal to quantify ozone season EGU 1% threshold in the base case continued based on different cost levels, we would NOX reductions to reduce interstate to contribute greater than or equal to 1% nevertheless finalize FIPs for the states transport with respect to the 2008 ozone of the NAAQS to at least one downwind in these groups of states that incorporate NAAQS using the $1,300 per ton nonattainment or maintenance participation in a trading program that uniform cost threshold. 99 allows them to trade allowances with receptor. Therefore, the EPA does not Note that our assessment of EGU NOX expect any of the uniform cost each other subject to limitations reduction potential shows zero thresholds evaluated to result in over- described in section VII of this proposal. reductions available in Delaware in control relative to the 1% threshold. For By way of example and as noted 2017 at any evaluated cost threshold. At more information about this assessment, above, the EPA is also seeking comment this time, because the assessment shows on potentially basing ozone season NOX refer to the Ozone Transport Policy no EGU NOX reduction potential within Analysis Technical Support Document. control requirements on the $3,400 per Delaware up to $10,000 per ton and ton uniform cost levels. If the EPA were because Delaware does not currently The EPA proposes to determine ozone to finalize ozone season NO control X participate in the original CSAPR NO season EGU NOX control requirements requirements based on this level, given X ozone-season allowance trading for upwind states to reduce interstate the specific data informing this program, the EPA is not proposing to ozone transport for the 2008 ozone proposal, then the EPA would set North promulgate a FIP for Delaware to be NAAQS based on the reduction Carolina’s requirements based on the included in this rule. However, as this potential quantified from pollution less stringent $1,300 per ton level assessment has only considered control measures that are cost-effective because, as discussed above, the sole reductions available at EGUs by 2017, at the $1,300 per ton level. The EPA receptor to which North Carolina is the EPA cannot at this time conclude seeks comment on potentially basing linked for this proposal is resolved at these ozone season NOX control the $1,300 per ton level with a that Delaware does not have reductions requirements on uniform cost levels that maximum design value of 75.6 ppb. available on a longer timeframe or from are less stringent ($500 per ton) or more Therefore, because the $1,300 per ton other emission sectors. Accordingly, the stringent ($3,400 per ton), including level fully addresses North Carolina’s EPA cannot conclude at this time that comments on the proposed approach to good neighbor obligation, if EPA were to Delaware does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere addressing a state like North Carolina in determine ozone season NOX control such a situation, which is explained requirements based on the $3,400 per with maintenance at downwind below. ton level for the remainder of states, the receptors to which it is linked. The EPA The EPA notes that the evaluation of EPA would finalize good neighbor will evaluate additional reduction potential from Delaware in a future cost, NOX reductions, and ozone requirements for these two groups of improvements for the final rule could states using different uniform control rulemaking to address the 2008 ozone show different results for different stringencies. The EPA proposes that it standard. The EPA seeks comment on states. For example, one or more states would finalize FIPs for the states that not including Delaware in the proposed could fully address their good neighbor incorporate participation in a trading FIPs. The EPA’s EGU NOX reduction obligation based on ozone season NOX program that allows them to trade control requirements represented by one allowances with each other subject to assessment also shows nearly zero cost level while one or more other states limitations described in section VII of reductions available in Wisconsin in would not fully address their good this proposal. 2017 at the proposed $1,300 per ton cost neighbor obligation at that level and The EPA’s selection of reductions for threshold. However, Wisconsin currently participates in the original would have ozone season NOX control this proposed rule is specific to, and requirements based on a more stringent appropriate for, defining near-term CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions cost level in order to fully address or achievable upwind obligations with trading program and Wisconsin’s make further progress toward partially respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in original CSAPR NOX ozone emissions addressing their good neighbor states where a FIP is necessary. We do budget is greater than its projected base obligation. In this situation, the EPA not intend—nor do we believe we case emissions. The EPA proposes to proposes that it would quantify would be justified in doing so in any update Wisconsin’s emissions budgets requirements for these different groups event—that the cost-level-based because not doing so would mean that of states based on different uniform determinations in this proposed rule Wisconsin, which is found to contribute control stringencies. This could be impose a constraint for selection of cost above 1% to downwind ozone similar to EPA’s establishing two levels in addressing transported problems, could increase emissions above its base case level. The EPA different SO2 groups under the original pollution with respect to future NAAQS proposes to determine ozone season CSAPR as to addressing PM2.5 transport. and/or any revisions to these FIPs for The EPA seeks comment on this any other future transport rules that the NOX control requirements for Wisconsin EPA may develop to address any to reduce interstate ozone transport for 99 As discussed above, North Carolina would not potential remaining obligation as to the the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the be regulated at any level higher than $1300/ton and current NAAQS, for which different cost reduction potential quantified from at that level, there’s no over-control as to the 1% levels may be appropriate. pollution control measures that are cost- threshold. In fact, while the receptor to which As described above, the EPA is effective at the $1,300 per ton level. For North Carolina is linked resolves its maintenance problem at the $1,300/ton level, North Carolina proposing that the NOX emission Wisconsin, based on modeling for this would continue to contribute equal to or greater reductions associated with uniform proposal, this level is similar to its than 1% to that air quality monitor. control stringency represented by projected base-case level. The EPA seeks

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75739

comment on the proposed FIP for However, for the CSAPR final rule, the divided by the total heat input from Wisconsin. EPA set budgets using only the these sources. Second, the EPA The EPA also requests comment as to modeling results from CSAPR’s uniform proposes to multiply this modeled state- whether the EPA should treat Delaware cost assessment. For this rule, the EPA level emissions rate by 2014 monitored and Wisconsin in the same manner with proposes to set emissions budgets by historic state-level heat input. respect to their inclusion or exclusion considering monitored heat input and Multiplying the projected state-level from the ozone-season trading program modeled emissions rates, similar to the emissions rate by historical heat input with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. original CSAPR proposal. The EPA yields state-specific ozone season EGU For example, the EPA requests comment seeks comment on all aspects of NOX emissions for 2018. Third, the EPA as to whether both Delaware and quantifying state emissions budgets proposes to add an adjustment to Wisconsin should be included in the reflecting upwind obligations, including account for differences in unit ozone-season trading program with alternative metrics to heat input, such as availability between the IPM 2018 run budgets on the reduction potential generation. year and 2017, yielding state-specific quantified from pollution control The EPA proposes to quantify state ozone season EGU NOX emissions for measures that are cost-effective at emissions budgets using the minimum 2017. Finally, the EPA then proposes $1,300 per ton,. EPA also requests of calculated EGU emissions budgets EGU emissions budgets as the minimum comment as to whether both states using the state-level EGU NOX emission of this calculated 2017 emission level or should instead be excluded from the rates that correspond to the upwind 2014 historic monitored emissions. ozone-season trading program. state reductions identified above using a This proposed approach reflects the uniform cost threshold of $1,300 per ton EGU NO reduction potential described E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets X or 2014 monitored historic emissions. above and grounds the EPA’s The proposed emissions budgets The proposed approach for translating quantification of emissions budgets in reflect remaining EGU emissions after this EGU NOX reduction potential into historical data. The proposed EGU NOx upwind states achieve the emission emissions budgets is a four step process. ozone-season emissions budgets reduction obligations defined in section First, the EPA would use the resulting calculated using this approach can be VI of this proposal. 2018 state-level modeled EGU NOX found in Table VI.E–1. Tables VI.E–2 In the original CSAPR proposal, the emissions rate (lbs/mmBtu) from the and VI.E–3 provide the EGU NOX EPA set proposed emissions budgets by IPM $1,300 per ton uniform cost ozone-season emissions budgets using an approach that considered assessment. The state-level rate is reflecting EGU NOX mitigation available monitored state-level heat input and calculated as the total emissions from for 2017 at $500 per ton and $3,400 per modeled state-level emissions rates. affected sources within the state, ton, respectively.

TABLE VI.E–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON

2014 2018 2017 2017 EGU NOX State emissions $1,300/ton 2014 Heat Input adjustment Ozone-season emission rate (MMBtu) 100 emissions budget (tons) (lbs/MMBtu) (tons) (tons)

Alabama ...... 21,075 0.049 410,477,094 0 9,979 Arkansas ...... 18,135 0.074 185,511,093 51 6,949 Illinois ...... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 9 12,078 Indiana ...... 40,247 0.126 447,417,615 0 28,284 Iowa ...... 13,857 0.11 151,989,571 0 8,351 Kansas ...... 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,272 Kentucky ...... 33,896 0.102 380,694,315 2,169 21,519 Louisiana ...... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,807 Maryland ...... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,669 4,026 Michigan ...... 25,065 0.112 307,723,171 1,836 19,115 Mississippi ...... 10,229 0.069 172,406,970 0 5,910 Missouri ...... 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,210 15,323 New Jersey ...... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,015 New York ...... 5,547 0.038 235,619,397 0 4,450 North Carolina ...... 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,275 Ohio ...... 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,660 Oklahoma ...... 16,215 0.144 236,715,186 154 16,215 Pennsylvania ...... 44,551 0.057 508,608,673 0 14,387 Tennessee ...... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,481 Texas ...... 58,492 0.079 1,474,773,212 33 58,002 Virginia ...... 9,695 0.076 179,324,728 0 6,818 West Virginia ...... 29,420 0.084 317,087,558 0 13,390 Wisconsin ...... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,561

23 State Region ...... 478,610 ...... 7,581,393,627 ...... 311,867

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VI.E–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $500 PER TON

2017 EGU NOX 2018 $500/ton ozone-season State 2014 emissions emission rate 2014 heat input 2017 adjustment (tons) (MMBtu) (tons) 101 emissions budget (lbs/MMBtu) (tons)

Alabama ...... 21,075 0.058 410,477,094 0 11,886 Arkansas ...... 18,135 0.075 185,511,093 51 7,038 Illinois ...... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 23 12,144 Indiana ...... 40,247 0.15 447,417,615 0 33,483 Iowa ...... 13,857 0.113 151,989,571 0 8,614 Kansas ...... 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,278 Kentucky ...... 33,896 0.149 380,694,315 4,463 32,783 Louisiana ...... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,861 Maryland ...... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,672 4,026 Michigan ...... 25,065 0.131 307,723,171 1,836 22,022 Mississippi ...... 10,229 0.071 172,406,970 0 6,083 Missouri ...... 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,123 15,380 New Jersey ...... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,016 New York ...... 5,547 0.039 235,619,397 0 4,607 North Carolina ...... 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,278 Ohio ...... 32,181 0.088 457,251,027 0 20,194 Oklahoma ...... 16,215 0.156 236,715,186 154 16,215 Pennsylvania ...... 44,551 0.15 508,608,673 0 38,270 Tennessee ...... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,520 Texas ...... 58,492 0.083 1,474,773,212 0 58,492 Virginia ...... 9,695 0.078 179,324,728 0 6,955 West Virginia ...... 29,420 0.145 317,087,558 0 22,932 Wisconsin ...... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,588

23 State Region ...... 478,610 ...... 7,581,393,627 ...... 371,665

TABLE VI.E–3—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $3,400 PER TON

2018 $3,400/ton 2017 EGU NOX State 2014 emissions emission rate 2014 heat input 2017 adjustment ozone-season (tons) (MMBtu) (tons) 102 emissions budget (lbs/MMBtu) (tons)

Alabama ...... 21,075 0.048 410,477,094 0 9,931 Arkansas ...... 18,135 0.065 185,511,093 51 6,101 Illinois ...... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 0 11,992 Indiana ...... 40,247 0.123 447,417,615 0 27,585 Iowa ...... 13,857 0.107 151,989,571 0 8,118 Kansas ...... 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,259 Kentucky ...... 33,896 0.099 380,694,315 2,169 20,945 Louisiana ...... 18,278 0.094 326,662,000 17 15,378 Maryland ...... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,523 4,026 Michigan ...... 25,065 0.108 307,723,171 1,978 18,624 Mississippi ...... 10,229 0.064 172,406,970 0 5,487 Missouri ...... 31,235 0.083 330,006,788 1,500 15,240 New Jersey ...... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,011 New York ...... 5,547 0.037 235,619,397 0 4,391 North Carolina ...... 16,759 0.068 315,255,877 0 10,705 Ohio ...... 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,637 Oklahoma ...... 16,215 0.137 236,715,186 146 16,215 Pennsylvania ...... 44,551 0.056 508,608,673 0 14,358 Tennessee ...... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,449 Texas ...... 58,492 0.076 1,474,773,212 100 55,864 Virginia ...... 9,695 0.065 179,324,728 0 5,834 West Virginia ...... 29,420 0.078 317,087,558 0 12,367 Wisconsin ...... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,511

23 State Region ...... 478,610 ...... 7,581,393,627 ...... 302,028

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75741

VII. Implementation Using the Existing NAAQS were in fact still being met. The any final rule, contact your regional CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Allowance EPA will also evaluate power sector office to alert the EPA. Trading Program and Relationship to behavior for 2015, the first year of By this action, the EPA is proposing Other Rules CSAPR implementation, and provide federal implementation plans with that assessment for the final rule. The respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for A. Background EPA expects that certain aspects of this each state potentially covered by this This section describes implementing proposal will alleviate some of these rule. Section VI above describes the and enforcing the budgets quantified in concerns. In particular, this proposal is EPA’s approach to defining state-level section VI. In the 4-step CSAPR aimed at establishing new, lower EGU emissions budgets that represent methodology previously described, once emissions budgets that are calculated the EGU emissions remaining after emission reduction potential is based on a uniform cost that is reflective reducing that state’s significant quantified into emissions budgets, the of, among other things, operating those contribution to downwind remaining step is to identify an controls. Furthermore, as described later nonattainment and/or interference with approach for ensuring that such in this notice, we are proposing maintenance. The EPA is proposing to reductions occur and are enforceable. adjustments to the CSAPR regulations implement these EGU emissions As discussed previously, EPA is that, if adopted, would address the role budgets in the FIPs through the CSAPR proposing implement the budgets to that the banked allowances may play in EGU NOX ozone-season trading address the 2008 ozone NAAQS using allowance prices. For these reasons, the program. the existing CSAPR trading program that EPA does not believe that including a When the EPA finalized CSAPR in allows limited interstate trading among short-term complementary rate-based 2011 under the good neighbor provision states participating in the ozone-season limit in the proposed FIPs is necessary. of the CAA to reduce emissions of SO2 trading program. The EPA proposes to Nevertheless, we invite comment on the and NOX from power plants in eastern revise the existing budgets, developed to need for such an approach and, from states, the rule put in place regional address transport as to the 1997 ozone commenters arguing that it is needed, trading programs to quickly and cost- NAAQS, where necessary to reflect the we invite suggestions for calculating it. effectively address pollution that affects additional reductions that the EPA As explained in greater detail in air quality in downwind states. The EPA identified as necessary to address section IV, under CAA sections envisioned that the methodology could transport as to the 2008 NAAQS. The 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is be used to address transport concerns EPA will implement the trading required to submit a SIP that provides under other existing NAAQS and future program in each affected state through for the implementation, maintenance, NAAQS revisions. See 76 FR 48211 and the issuance of a FIP. and enforcement of each primary or 48246, August 8, 2011. Accordingly, the In electing to propose to implement secondary NAAQS. According to EPA proposes to use the CSAPR ozone- these near-term EGU reductions for the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the SIP for season trading program and related 2008 ozone standard using the existing each state, regardless of a state’s provisions as codified under 40 CFR CSAPR trading infrastructure, the EPA designation status for the relevant part 97, subpart BBBBB and section considered the many significant NAAQS, must prohibit sources or other 52.38, as amended in this proposal, to advantages of continuing to use the types of emissions activity from implement the proposed EGU NOX existing CSAPR program, including the emitting any air pollutant in amounts ozone-season emissions budgets for the ease of transition to the new budgets, that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 2008 ozone NAAQS. This program will the economic and administrative nonattainment’’ of the standard in a be initially implemented in each state efficiency of trading approaches, and downwind state or ‘‘interfere with through a FIP. the flexibility afforded to sources maintenance’’ of the standard in a In this notice, the EPA proposes that regarding compliance. downwind state. Section IV also the first control period for the The EPA also considered views explains in detail that the EPA is requirements is the 2017 ozone season. expressed by some stakeholders that a obligated to promulgate FIPs when we A covered state would be required to complementary short-term (e.g., 30-day) find that a state fails to submit a demonstrate compliance with FIP rate-based limit would ensure that complete SIP or the EPA disapproves a requirements for each subsequent ozone control measures adopted to meet the SIP submittal. season until it submits, and the EPA revised budgets continue to operate over The EPA recognizes that several states approves, a SIP or the EPA promulgates time. Some stakeholders have observed, included in this proposal have another federal rule replacing the FIP. for example, that some existing SCR and submitted transport SIPs to address the The EPA notes that the compliance SNCR units may not have operated in 2008 ozone standard that the EPA is flexibility provided by the CSAPR NOX recent years because CAIR allowance reviewing, and it is possible that ozone-season trading program allows prices are below the operating costs of additional states may submit SIPs in the sources to demonstrate compliance by the controls. The EPA notes that in such future. As explained in section IV holding allowances and does not cases, the CAIR emissions budgets that above, the EPA may only finalize FIPs prescribe unit-specific and technology- states were required to meet to address for states where FIP authority exists; specific NOX mitigation. In other words, significant contribution for the 1997 that is, for states where either the EPA while the EPA quantified EGU NOX found that the state failed to submit a reductions resulting from mitigation 100 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used complete transport SIP or where the strategies such as operating or installing in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because EPA has disapproved a transport SIP (or upgrading to) state-of-the-art it would push their budget above their 2014 emissions. submittal for that state. The EPA intends combustion controls, no particular 101 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used to finalize these proposed FIPs together reduction strategy is required for any in calculating for Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas in a single action and, to the greatest specific unit because the Act only because it would push their budget above their extent possible, the EPA intends to take requires that an upwind state’s aggregate 2014 emissions. final action on SIP submittals currently emissions neither significantly 102 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because before the agency prior to finalizing this contribute to nonattainment nor it would push their budget above their 2014 proposal. In the event that a state plans interfere with maintenance of the emissions. to revise its SIP or submit a SIP prior to NAAQS in a downwind state.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

In practice, the EGU emissions Under the general applicability states that are currently in the CSAPR budgets that the EPA is proposing in provisions of the CSAPR final rule, a ozone-season program, but are not this action are achievable for each of the covered unit is any stationary fossil- affected under this proposed transport 23 states through operating existing SCR fuel-fired boiler or combustion turbine rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., and SNCR controls, installing or serving at any time on or after January Georgia based on information used to upgrading to state-of-the-art combustion 1, 2005, a generator with nameplate develop this proposal), the EPA will controls, or shifting generation to low- capacity exceeding 25 MW producing maintain the state’s budget as finalized NOX emitting units. The EPA believes electricity for sale, with the exception of in the original CSAPR rulemakings. certain cogeneration units and solid that this proposed rule provides 3. Allocations of Emission Allowances sufficient lead time to implement these waste incineration units (see 76 FR control strategies by the 2017 ozone 48273, August 8, 2011, for a discussion Pursuant to the CSAPR trading season. For the EPA’s assessment of the on applicability in the final CSAPR program regulations, a covered source is feasibility of controls for 2017, refer to rule). The EPA is not proposing any required to hold sufficient allowances to cover the emissions from all covered section VI above and the EGU NOX changes to this provision. units at the source during the control Reduction TSD in the docket for this 2. State Budgets proposal.103 period for the NOX ozone season. The In this section of the preamble, the This proposal includes revisions to 40 EPA assesses compliance with these following topics are addressed: FIP CFR 97.510 to reflect new budgets for allowance-holding requirements at the requirements and key elements of the states covered under this proposal as source (i.e., facility) level. CSAPR trading programs; participation delineated in section VI above. This This section explains that the EPA includes the NOX ozone-season trading proposes to allocate a state’s budget to in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program with a new budget; source budgets, new unit set-asides, and Indian existing units and new units in that monitoring and reporting; replacing the country new unit set-asides for 2017 state by applying the same allocation FIP with a SIP; title V permitting; and and beyond, described in further detail approach as finalized in CSAPR, based the relationship of this proposed rule to below. on a unit’s historical heat input and its For states already covered by the maximum historical emissions (see 76 existing programs (NO SIP Call, X original CSAPR ozone-season program, FR 48284, August 8, 2011). This section CSAPR trading programs, Clean Power the EPA proposes to update CSAPR also describes allocation for Tribes, the Plan (CPP), and other ozone transport EGU NO ozone-season budgets to new unit set-asides and Indian country programs). X reflect obligations to reduce interstate new unit set-asides in each state, B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements transport to address the 2008 ozone allocations to units that are not of the CSAPR Trading Programs standard. For states that are newly operating; and the recordation of The original CSAPR establishes an brought into the CSAPR ozone-season allowance allocations in source NO ozone-season allowance trading program because emissions from the compliance accounts. X states significantly contribute to program that allows covered sources A. Allocations for Existing Units within each state to trade allowances nonattainment or interfere with The EPA proposes to implement each with other sources within the same maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS state’s EGU NO ozone-season trading group. Pursuant to the CSAPR in a downwind state (i.e., Kansas based X emissions budget in the trading program NO ozone-season trading program, on information used to develop this X by allocating the number of emission sources are required to hold one proposal), the proposal includes an EGU NO ozone-season emissions budget. allowances to sources within that state, allowance for each ton of NO emitted X X For states currently in the CSAPR equivalent to the tonnage of that specific during the ozone season. We propose to ozone-season trading program, but not state budget, as shown in section VI. For use that same regional trading program, identified as contributing to interstate these 23 states, the EPA would allocate with adjusted budgets and certain ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS allowances under each state’s budget to additional revisions described below, as (i.e., Georgia based on information used covered units in that state. The portion the compliance remedy for the proposed to develop this proposal), participation of a state budget allocated to existing FIPs to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. in CSAPR would continue unchanged units in that state is the state budget The first control period for this updated pursuant to their previously-defined minus the new unit set-aside and minus CSAPR NO ozone-season trading X obligation (budget) with respect to the the Indian country new unit set-aside. program is proposed to begin with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The new unit set-asides are portions of 2017 ozone season, on May 1, 2017. The EPA proposes to establish each budget reserved for new units that In this section, the EPA is proposing reduced or new ozone-season emissions might locate in each state or in Indian to use the existing NO ozone-season X budgets for the 23 eastern states affected country in the future. For the existing allowance trading system that was by the transport rule for the 2008 ozone source level allocations, see the TSD established under CSAPR in 40 CFR NAAQS. The EPA proposes to called, ‘‘Existing Source Level part 97, subpart BBBBB, to implement implement these emissions budgets by Allocations for the 2008 NO Ozone- the emission reductions identified and X allocating allowances to sources in season Rule FIPs,’’ in the docket for this quantified in the FIPs for this action. those states equal to the proposed rulemaking. The methodology used to 1. Applicability budgets for compliance starting in 2017. allocate allowances to individual units The EPA will establish allowance In this proposed rule, the EPA would in a particular state has no impact on allocations for the existing units in each maintain the applicability provisions in that state’s budget. state through this rulemaking. Portions For the purpose of allocations, an the final CSAPR rule for the NO ozone- X of the state budgets will be set aside for ‘‘existing unit’’ in CSAPR is one that season trading program (see 40 CFR new units, and the EPA will use the commenced commercial operation prior 97.504). existing processes set forth in the to January 1, 2010. For the 23 states 103 The EPA notes that a state can instead require CSAPR regulations to annually allocate included in this proposed rulemaking non-EGU NOX emission reductions through a SIP, allowances to the new units in each for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA if they choose to do so. state from the new unit set-asides. For proposes to identify an ‘‘existing unit’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75743

as one that commenced commercial the allocation of revised NOX ozone- information. The FIPs that EPA is operation prior to January 1, 2015. EPA season emissions budgets established proposing will incorporate a trading has updated information on affected under this proposed rule, provided that program in which EPA is proposing to units that have commenced commercial the SIP revision includes not only define a covered unit as a ‘‘new unit’’ operation prior to January 1, 2015 specific allocations given the total state if it commences commercial operation (currently defined either as existing budget expected at the time of the SIP on or after January 1, 2015; if it becomes units or as new units pursuant to the revision, but also a methodology for covered by meeting applicability criteria current CSAPR regulations) that would determining allocations from any given subsequent to January 1, 2015; if it allow these units to be considered total state budget. For states that have relocates into a different state covered existing units for purposes of allocations EPA-approved full SIP revisions, the by this FIP; or if it was an ‘‘existing’’ and would allow new unit set-asides to EPA proposes to use the EPA-approved covered unit that stopped operating for be fully reserved for any future new allocation provisions of the state’s SIP 2 consecutive years but resumes units in affected states or Indian revision to allocate allowances to commercial operation at some point country. The EPA is not proposing to sources in that particular state using the thereafter. To the extent that states seek change the January 1, 2010 date for revised emissions budget proposed to approval of SIPs with different states that remain in the original CSAPR address interstate ozone transport for allocation provisions than EPA, these and are not affected by the changes the 2008 NAAQS, again provided that SIPs may seek to define new units proposed here (i.e., Georgia with respect the SIP includes not only specific differently. to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season allocations but a methodology for allowances and all states with respect to determining allocations from any given The EPA further proposes that its CSAPR SO2 or NOX annual allowances); total state budget. trading program will make allocations to thus, the only allowance allocations that Further, where the state regulation each state for new units (the new unit are proposed to be changed in this approved as a full or abbreviated SIP set-aside) equal to a basic minimum 2 rulemaking for any units under any of revision does not contain an allocation percent of the total state budget, plus the CSAPR trading programs are methodology but the materials the projected amount of emissions from allocations of NOX ozone-season submitted by the state to support EPA’s planned units in that state (for instance, allowances from budgets that are approval of that regulation as a SIP if planned units in state A are projected proposed to be revised in this proposed revision contain the state’s allocation to emit 3 percent of the state’s NOX rule. method, described in an unambiguous ozone-season emissions budget, then the The EPA proposes to follow the manner, the EPA seeks comment on new unit set-aside for the state would be original CSAPR methodology for using that state-approved methodology set at 5 percent, consisting of the basic distributing, or allocating, emission to determine the allocations of minimum 2 percent plus an additional allowances to existing units based on allowances to sources in the state under 3 percent for planned units). See 76 FR the unit’s share of the state’s heat input, the FIPs established in this proposed 48292. New units may receive limited by the unit’s maximum rule. These possible approaches could allocations starting with the first year historical emissions. This approach uses prevent a state from needing to submit they are subject to the allowance- the highest three of the last five years to another SIP revision to implement the holding requirements of the rule. If establish the heat input baseline for same allocation provisions under this unallocated to new units, set-asides are each unit, and constrains the unit-level proposed rule that the state has already redistributed to unretired existing units allocations so as not to exceed the implemented under CSAPR before before the compliance deadline. The maximum historical baseline emissions adoption of this proposed rule. EPA requests comments on following during 2007–2014. As discussed in the For all other states, the EPA proposes the CSAPR approach for new unit original CSAPR final rule (see 76 FR to use the allocation method previously allocations under this proposal. (For 48288–9, August 8, 2011), the EPA finds finalized in the final CSAPR rulemaking more detail on the CSAPR new unit set- no advantage or disadvantage in this as discussed in this section. These aside provisions, see 40 CFR 97.511(b) approach that would penalize those provisions would not prevent any state and 97.512.) units that have already invested in (one with an EPA-approved SIP revision cleaner fuels or other pollution or without) from submitting an The EPA notes that applying the reduction measures. The EPA considers alternative allocation methodology CSAPR approach using the data for this this allocation approach to be fuel- under this proposed rule for later proposal results in a new-unit set-aside neutral, control-neutral, transparent, compliance years. EPA requests for New Jersey that is greater than 50% based on reliable data, and similar to comment on this modified allocation of the total proposed EGU NOX ozone- allocation methodologies previously approach for states with EPA-approved season emissions budget for the state. used in the NOX SIP Call and Acid Rain SIP revisions under the current rule. This result is influenced by the EPA’s Program. The EPA requests comments projected emissions rates for new units on following the CSAPR approach for b. Allocations for New Units that are anticipated to come online existing unit allocations in states For the purpose of allocations, CSAPR within states. The EPA seeks comment covered by this proposed rule as to the identifies a ‘‘new unit’’ as one that on these data, which are available in the 2008 ozone NAAQS. commenced commercial operation on or IPM documentation in the docket for For states that have EPA-approved after January 1, 2010, and provides a this proposal. Further, the EPA seeks abbreviated SIP revisions adopting a methodology for allocating emission comment on whether additional data different allocation methodology for allowances to new units from new unit should be considered—for example, sources located within the state for set-asides in each state and to new units reported NOX emission rates of recently CSAPR for the 2017 ozone season and that locate in Indian country. See 76 FR constructed new NGCC units in each beyond, those provisions would address 48290–48294 (Aug. 8, 2011), for more state.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VII.B–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON NEW-UNIT SET-ASIDE AMOUNTS, REFLECTING PROPOSED EGU EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TONS)

Proposed Indian country EGU NOX New-unit set- New-unit set- set-aside State emissions aside amount aside amount budgets (percent) (tons) amount (tons) (tons)

Alabama ...... 9,979 2 205 Arkansas ...... 6,949 2 141 Illinois ...... 12,078 5 591 Indiana ...... 28,284 2 565 Iowa ...... 8,351 5 419 8 Kansas ...... 9,272 3 281 9 Kentucky ...... 21,519 3 647 Louisiana ...... 15,807 4 628 16 Maryland ...... 4,026 12 485 Michigan ...... 19,115 2 382 19 Mississippi ...... 5,910 10 590 6 Missouri ...... 15,323 2 314 New Jersey ...... 2,015 57 1,151 New York ...... 4,450 2 93 4 North Carolina ...... 12,275 2 248 12 Ohio ...... 16,660 2 337 Oklahoma ...... 16,215 2 325 16 Pennsylvania ...... 14,387 7 1,017 Tennessee ...... 5,481 2 109 Texas ...... 58,002 5 2,910 58 Virginia ...... 6,818 27 1,844 West Virginia ...... 13,390 2 268 Wisconsin ...... 5,561 2 121 6

23 State Region ...... 311,867 ...... 13,671 154

c. Allocations for Tribes and New Units units in Indian country within that state allowance allocation for non-operating in Indian Country (5 percent of the basic 2 percent new units to, for instance, two years or three Tribes are not required to submit unit set-aside prior to any increase in a years, in which case allowances would tribal implementation plans. However, state’s new unit set-aside amount for revert to the new unit set-aside in the as explained in the EPA’s regulations planned units). Unallocated allowances second or third year after the first of two outlining Tribal Clean Air Act authority, from a state’s Indian country new unit consecutive years of non-operation of a the EPA is authorized to promulgate set-aside are returned to the state’s new unit. unit set-aside and allocated according to FIPs for Indian country as necessary or 4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, the methodology described above. The appropriate to protect air quality if a and Penalties tribe does not submit and get EPA EPA requests comment on following the approval of a tribal implementation CSAPR approach for new unit In the original CSAPR, the EPA plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a); see also 42 allocations in such areas of Indian developed assurance provisions, U.S.C. 7601(d)(4). For this proposed country under the transport rule for the including variability limits and ozone rule, there are no existing affected 2008 ozone NAAQS. assurance levels (with associated compliance penalties), to assure that units in Indian country in the states d. Units That Do Not Operate and the each state will meet its pollution control affected by this rule. New Unit Set-Aside Under the current rule, allowances to obligations and to accommodate possible future new units locating in The EPA proposes to continue to inherent year-to-year variability in state- Indian country are allocated by the EPA apply for purposes of this proposed rule level EGU operations. from an Indian country new unit set- the existing CSAPR provision under The original CSAPR budgets, and the aside established for each state with which a covered unit that does not updated CSAPR emissions budgets Indian country. (See 40 CFR operate for a period of two consecutive proposed in this notice, reflect EGU 97.511(b)(2) and 97.512(b).) Because years will receive allowance allocations operations in an ‘‘average year.’’ states generally have no SIP authority in for a total of up to five years of non- However, year-to-year variability in reservation areas of Indian country and operation. 40 CFR 97.511(a)(2). Starting EGU operations occurs due to the other areas of Indian country over in the fifth year after the first year of interconnected nature of the power which a tribe or EPA has demonstrated non-operation, allowances allocated to sector and from changing weather that a tribe has jurisdiction, the EPA such units will instead be allocated to patterns, demand growth, or disruptions continues to allocate such allowances to the new unit set-aside for the state in in electricity supply from other units or sources locating in such areas of Indian which the non-operating unit is located. from the transmission grid. Recognizing country within a state even if the state This approach allows the new unit set- this, the FIP includes variability limits, submits a SIP to replace the FIP. (40 asides to grow over time. The EPA which define the amount by which state CFR 52.38(b)(5)(v) and (vi) and requests comment on retaining this emissions may exceed the level of the 52.38(b)(6).) The EPA reserves 0.1 timeline for allowance allocation for budgets in a given year to account for percent of the total state budget for new non-operating units or changing the this variability in EGU operations. A

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75745

state’s budget plus its variability limit rates. (See 76 FR 48265, August 8, rule’s budgets. The EPA proposes that equals a state’s assurance level, which 2011.) The variability limits for ozone- the same 21% figure is appropriate to acts as a cap on each state’s NOX season NOX in the original CSAPR were use because variability in state-level emissions during a control period (that calculated as 21 percent of each state’s heat input across a multi-year period is is, during the May-September ozone budget, and these variability limits were expected to be relatively consistent season in the case of this rule). then codified in 40 CFR 97.510 along around long-term trends. The EPA seeks To establish the variability limits in with the state budgets. Applying the comment on this approach. Table VII.B– the original CSAPR, the EPA analyzed CSAPR approach, the EPA proposes to 2 shows the proposed EGU NOX ozone- historical state-level heat input set new variability limits applying the season emissions budgets, variability variability as a proxy for emissions same 21 percent figure as determined in limits, and assurance levels for each variability, assuming constant emission the original CSAPR to this proposed state.

TABLE VII.B–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON, VARIABILITY LIMITS, AND ASSURANCE LEVELS (TONS)

EGU NOX EGU NOX ozone-season Variability ozone-season State emissions limits assurance budgets levels

Alabama ...... 9,979 2,096 12,075 Arkansas ...... 6,949 1,459 8,408 Illinois ...... 12,078 2,536 14,614 Indiana ...... 28,284 5,940 34,224 Iowa ...... 8,351 1,754 10,105 Kansas ...... 9,272 1,947 11,219 Kentucky ...... 21,519 4,519 26,038 Louisiana ...... 15,807 3,319 19,126 Maryland ...... 4,026 845 4,871 Michigan ...... 19,115 4,014 23,129 Mississippi ...... 5,910 1,241 7,151 Missouri ...... 15,323 3,218 18,541 New Jersey ...... 2,015 423 2,438 New York ...... 4,450 935 5,385 North Carolina ...... 12,275 2,578 14,853 Ohio ...... 16,660 3,499 20,159 Oklahoma ...... 16,215 3,405 19,620 Pennsylvania ...... 14,387 3,021 17,408 Tennessee ...... 5,481 1,151 6,632 Texas ...... 58,002 12,180 70,182 Virginia ...... 6,818 1,432 8,250 West Virginia ...... 13,390 2,812 16,202 Wisconsin ...... 5,561 1,168 6,729

Region cap ...... 311,867 65,493 ......

The assurance provisions include to the court’s holding in North Carolina share of the state assurance level, penalties that are triggered when the requiring the EPA to assure that sources regardless of whether the individual state emissions as a whole exceed its in each state were required to eliminate source had enough allowances to cover assurance level. The original CSAPR emissions that significantly contribute its emissions during the control period. provided that a state that exceeds its to nonattainment and interfere with This provision is triggered only if two assurance level in a given year is maintenance of the NAAQS in another criteria are met: (1) The group of sources assessed a total of 3-to-1 allowance state.104 and units with a common DR are surrender on the excess tons. Each To assess the penalty under the located in a state where the total state excess ton above the assurance level assurance provisions, the EPA evaluates EGU emissions for a control period must be met with one allowance for whether any state’s total EGU emissions exceed the state assurance level; and (2) normal compliance plus two additional in a control period exceeded the state’s that group with the common DR had allowances to satisfy the penalty. The assurance level, and if so, the EPA then emissions exceeding the respective DR’s penalty is designed to deter state-level determines which owners and operators share of the state assurance level. emissions from exceeding assurance of units in the state will be subject to an For more information on the CSAPR levels. This was referred to in the allowance surrender requirement based assurance provisions see 76 FR 48294 original CSAPR as air quality-assured on each source’s emissions as compared (August 8, 2011). trading that accounts for variability in to its unit-level assurance level. Since a 5. Implementation Approaches for the electricity sector but also ensures single designated representative (DR) Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX that the necessary emission reductions often represents multiple sources, the Ozone-Season Program To Address occur within each covered state. If a EPA evaluates which groups of units at Transport for a Newer NAAQS state does not exceed its assurance level, the common DR level had emissions no penalties are incurred by any source. exceeding the respective common DR’s Consistent with the original CSAPR Establishing assurance levels with approach, EPA proposes that in this compliance penalties therefore responds 104 531 F.3d at 908. updated rulemaking, EGUs would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

able to trade NOX ozone-season putting further downward pressure on after year. Rather, the use of banked emission allowances among units emissions. Approximately 28.5 GW of allowances is intended to be limited by within the state and across state coal units retired from the fleet between binding emissions budgets such that boundaries, with emissions and use of 2012 and June of 2015. In addition, drawing down the bank in one year is allowances limited by the assurance demand growth has slowed; a majority only possible because of actions taken to provisions. The following sections of U.S. states have implemented build up the bank in a previous year. describe approaches to transition the renewable portfolio standards and other Moreover, a relatively large allowance existing CSAPR program designed for energy efficiency programs; and high- bank that enables emissions budgets to the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address efficiency building designs, residential be exceeded year after year may interstate ozone transport for the 2008 energy conservation, roof-top solar, and encourage sources to postpone emission ozone NAAQS. other forms of distributed generation reductions that would be more timely in A primary focus of this section is the have grown. In combination, these the 2017 timeframe in order to align extent to which allowances created to factors have significantly reduced EGU reductions with the downwind area address interstate transport with respect NOX emissions between 2012 and 2015. attainment dates for the 2008 ozone to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, reflecting As a result of protracted litigation, NAAQS. emissions budgets at $500 per ton, are CSAPR implementation was delayed by The EPA is proposing and taking fungible with allowances created under three years, from 2012 to 2015. Due to comment on a range of options for how this proposal to address interstate this delay, combined with the market to treat the use of banked 2015 and 2016 transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, forces and changes that took place CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances reflecting emissions budgets at $1,300 during that timeframe, expectations are by units in the 23 states with new or per ton. The EPA proposes that these that total banked allowances for the updated budgets in this proposal. The implementation tools are not CSAPR ozone-season trading program use of banked allowances by states that presumptively equivalent, given that could be in excess of 210,000 tons by are not included in the proposed FIPs to they were developed to address ozone the start of the 2017 ozone-season address ozone transport under the 2008 transport under different NAAQS and compliance period, which is more than NAAQS (i.e., Georgia for CSAPR NOX using different cost thresholds. twice the emission reduction potential ozone-season program and all states for However, as further discussed below, estimated at the $1,300 per ton control CSAPR SO2 and NOX annual programs) the EPA is proposing approaches under level described in section VI above. This would not be affected by these options. which allowances allocated under number was estimated by comparing The EPA is proposing that allowances budgets established to address the 1997 recent measured emission levels to the issued for compliance in 2015 and 2016 NAAQS could be used for compliance under CSAPR may be used for original CSAPR NOX ozone-season for addressing interstate transport for phase 1 emissions budgets, assuming compliance under the updated CSAPR the 2008 NAAQS, subject to specific from 2017 forward in order to smooth EGU emissions in CSAPR NOX ozone- limitations. The EPA is also taking season states for 2015 and 2016 would implementation in the first few years comment on several other approaches continue at 2014 levels.105 under the new budgets. However, the for addressing the transition from a The use of allowance banks generally EPA is proposing to impose certain program in which all budgets were provide a glide path for sources required limits on the use of these banked established based on an integrated to meet more stringent emission limits allowances starting in 2017. analysis using a single control cost in later years and accommodate year-to- Specifically, the EPA is proposing that threshold to address the 1997 NAAQS year variability in operation. However, sources in the 23 states with new or to a program with a mix of budgets allowing unrestricted use of the large updated budgets in this proposal may established in independent analyses number of banked allowances for use all of their banked allowances, but at a tonnage authorization level using different control cost thresholds, compliance with this proposed rule significantly lower than one ton per in some cases to address the 1997 could result in regional 2017 ozone allowance. This would be realized NAAQS and in other cases to address season NO emissions that exceed the X through a surrender ratio greater than the 2008 NAAQS. collective state budgets quantified in one pre-2017 allowances (vintage 2015 this rulemaking to address transported a. Use of CSAPR Ozone-season Trading or 2016) to cover one ton of NO air pollution with respect to the 2008 X Program Bank in the Transport Rule for emitted in 2017 and each year ozone standard. While the assurance the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Trading thereafter. The surrender ratio, such as provisions included in CSAPR do limit Program four-for-one or two-for-one, would the ultimate amount of pollution that Since CSAPR was promulgated in require more than one pre-2017 banked 2011, the U.S. electric sector has may occur in these states in 2017 (i.e., allowance to be used for each ton of no matter how large an allowance bank undergone considerable transformation ozone season NOX emitted in 2017 and primarily due to economic and market may exist, only a portion of that bank beyond. This would have the dual effect forces precipitated by the natural gas may be used in a state in any given year of carrying over the banked allowances boom. For example, Henry Hub natural without exceeding the assurance levels into the new program to promote gas prices reached below $2.00 per and incurring penalties), unrestricted program continuity, while also million BTU in 2012 and were in the use of the bank in this situation could recognizing the environmental $2.00–$3.00 range for most of 2012. allow emissions to exceed the state objectives of the updated ozone NAAQS These prices are below the level initially budgets, up to the assurance level, year for 2008 and the corresponding new anticipated when establishing the phase after year. state emission budgets designed to help 1 and 2 budgets, and have made the As described in CSAPR, the flexibility move air quality towards compliance operation of lower emitting units more provided by the assurance provisions is with that NAAQS standard. A surrender competitive, putting more downward not designed to be used repeatedly, year ratio would respect the flexibility of pressure on emissions. There has also sources to operate at their assurance 105 This data analysis relies on 40 CFR part 75 been turnover in the power generation emissions reporting data as available in EPA Air levels in the program’s early years, but fleet as newer, lower emitting sources Markets Program Data available at http:// would reduce the ability for the replace older, higher emitting sources, ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. collective EGU fleet to repeatedly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75747

exceed the emissions budget year after whether an alternative ratio would be budgets and their collective assurance year. appropriate. levels). As under the illustrative four- Finally, EPA believes a surrender The EPA is also soliciting comment for-one surrender ratio option, the ratio is appropriate as it reflects the fact on another approach that we believe remaining amount of banked allowances that tighter budgets will put upward could achieve these same goals (i.e., that would remain after using this initial pressure on allowance value in the valuing the anticipated CSAPR reduced allocation is approximately the future. Therefore, fewer allowances will allowance bank while promoting near- amount of banked allowances that be needed to reach the same value of a term emission reductions). Under this would allow all states to emit up to their alternative approach, the EPA would current allowance holding, making a assurance levels for one year. surrender ratio a natural complement to issue fewer allowances than the tons carrying over the value of the banked quantified in state budgets for the 23 The EPA also seeks comment on what allowances in a program where more states affected by this rulemaking in the other percentages of the budget and stringent emission budgets are replacing first three years of program time-frames could be appropriately used less stringent emission budgets. implementation (i.e. 2017, 2018, and to implement this alternative approach. EPA is proposing a surrender ratio 2019). This approach recognizes that As in the specific example above, the greater than one-for-one, such as two- 2015 and 2016 allowances are available EPA would seek a combination of time for-one or four-for-one. For analytic to sources for compliance and would and recordation percentage such that purposes in this rulemaking, it reflects allow use of those banked CSAPR NOX the ultimate influence of the anticipated the four-for-one surrender ratio to ozone allowances at a one-to-one turn- allowance bank is limited to illustrate one potential surrender ratio. in ratio (i.e., one allowance is approximately the regional variability However, in the final rule, EPA would surrendered for one ton of emissions). limit (i.e., the difference between the update this assumption to reflect the By reducing overall allocations for a collective emissions budgets and the surrender ratio finalized. period of time, the impact of states collective assurance levels). This ratio of four or two banked using those banked allowances on emission levels would be mitigated. Under either approach, the EPA allowances to one ton of emissions is The EPA seeks comment on what would conduct unit-level allowance derived from the ratio of the anticipated percentage (below 100 percent) of allocations in the same manner as allowance bank in 2017 (approximately allowances to issue, and over what described above, such that each unit’s 210,000 allowances) to the ozone season number of years, under this alternative share of its state’s total allowances variability limit (i.e., the difference approach. As a specific example, the issued is determined by that allocation between the sum of the emissions EPA seeks comment on implementing approach whether the EPA issues budgets for all 23 states and the sum of this approach in a manner such that the the assurance levels for all 23 states; allowances in the full amount of the EPA would issue allowances to sources state budget with a surrender ratio for approximately 60,000 tons) or the ozone within each of the 23 states with season variability limit multiplied by banked allowances or in a lesser amount updated budgets under this proposal at to address the potential effect of the two (120,000 tons), rounded to the a level of 85 percent of the proposed nearest whole number. The EPA allowance bank (as entertained in this emissions budgets for the first three alternative on which we are inviting identified this approach to limit the years that the new budgets are effective. comment). In other words, the effect of emissions impact of using banked Using the proposed EGU NO ozone- X this alternative approach would be to allowances to the magnitude of all states season emissions budget of 9,979 tons emitting up to their assurance levels for for Alabama as an example, this would reduce unit-level allowance allocations one or two years. The variability limit mean issuing approximately 8,482 in those years in a proportional manner respects the upper bound variation in allowances for each of the 2017 through (e.g., all unit-level allowance allocations emissions and load EPA would expect 2019 (inclusive) control periods (and would decrease by the same percentage in any given year. Thus, the carryover the full budget for each subsequent as the reduction in total allowances of banked allowances equal to one or control period). Applying this approach issued below that state’s budget). two years’ worth of variability limits to all 23 states with updated budgets Additionally, the EPA is soliciting provides the affected fleet with the under this proposal (which sum to comment on less and more restrictive ability to accommodate potential 312,824 allowances) would mean that approaches to address use of the CSAPR variation from the mean in its load and EPA would issue approximately 266,900 EGU NOX ozone allowance bank. emission patterns in the first years of allowances across those states in each of Specifically, the EPA seeks comment the program, while balancing the need the 2017, 2018, and 2019 control on: (1) Allowing banked 2015 and 2016 to ensure that emissions are reduced, on periods. EGUs in those states would be average, to the level of the budgets and CSAPR NOX ozone allowances to be able to use allowances from the used for compliance with the proposed within the assurance levels in anticipated 210,000 allowance bank in budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS subsequent years. addition to allowances issued for these starting in 2017 at a 1-to-1 ratio, or (2) The EPA believes that a surrender years in order to comply with the ratio approach provides a means for the updated CSAPR emission requirements. completely disallowing the use of banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX existing CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season Allocating approximately 266,900 allowances to retain some value, while allowances for the first three years of the ozone allowances for compliance with appropriately mitigating the potential updated requirements would, based on the proposed budgets for the 2008 ozone adverse impact of the allowance bank current estimates, result in NAAQS starting in 2017. The EPA is on the emission-reducing actions approximately 47,000 banked also soliciting comment on whether and needed from affected units in states allowances used for compliance each how the assurance provision penalty with obligations to address interstate year. This would leave approximately might be increased, in conjunction with transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 70,000 banked allowances, which is any of the above approaches, to address The EPA seeks comment on a surrender roughly equivalent to the regional the relationship of the allowance bank ratio approach and on the use of a ratio, variability limit (i.e., the difference to emissions occurring under this such as two-for-one or four-for-one, and between the states’ collective emissions revised program from 2017 onward.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

B. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season budgets set using the $500 per ton cost C. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-season Allowances From States Addressing the threshold, the EPA is not proposing to Allowances Between States With 1997 Ozone NAAQS for Compliance in prohibit altogether trading between the Different Control Stringencies States Addressing the 2008 Ozone two groups in this instance. The EPA Addressing the 2008 Ozone NAAQS NAAQS does not expect that a single state (i.e., Georgia) would drastically influence As discussed in Section VI of this Consistent with the original CSAPR, proposal, the EPA notes that the EGUs covered by the seasonal NOX emission reductions in the other 23 states covered by this proposed rule. evaluation of EGU NOX requirements for budget trading program that will be the final rule could show one or more EPA is instead proposing to permit incorporated into these proposed FIPs states fully addressing their good trading between the two groups of ozone are able to trade NOX ozone-season neighbor obligation based on ozone emission allowances among units states subject to certain restrictions on season NO control requirements within the state and across state trading. In particular, the EPA is X represented by one cost level while one boundaries, with emissions and the use proposing to require that sources in or more other states have ozone season of allowances limited by the assurance states addressing the 2008 ozone NO control requirements based on a provisions. X NAAQS under this proposal may use more stringent cost level. In this The EPA is considering how to allowances issued in states only situation, the EPA proposes that it transition allowance trading between addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS via would quantify requirements for these the group of states that are in the CSAPR the CSAPR trading programs (e.g., NO ozone-season program with respect different groups of states based on X Georgia) at a rate of 2.5 allowances for different uniform control stringencies. to the 1997 ozone NAAQS but will not each ton of NOX emitted. The EPA have updated emissions budgets However, CSAPR allowances issued proposes a ratio of 2.5-to-1 in order to under budgets established using a one proposed in this action (e.g., Georgia align with the ratio of the cost of ozone based on this proposal) and the group of cost threshold (e.g., $1,300 per ton) in season EGU NOX reduction promulgated one state may not be appropriately states for which the EPA is proposing to in the original CSAPR (i.e., $500 per establish new or lower budgets to valued to reduce interstate ozone ton) to the cost proposed for this transport in another state where budgets address the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this rulemaking (i.e., $1,300 per ton). The action. might be established using different cost EPA proposes this restriction as The EPA believes that, where threshold (e.g., $3,400 per ton). sufficient, in conjunction with the appropriate and feasible, continuity of Consistent with the previous discussion programs is important, particularly for assurance provisions, to protect the (regarding allowances issued in states market-based and other power sector needed reductions in the 23 states continuing to address the 1997 ozone regulations, as this sector makes long- addressing interstate transport for the NAAQS under budgets established term investment and operational 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA requests using $500 per ton threshold), the EPA decisions. However, CSAPR allowances comments on this approach. The EPA is proposing to permit trading between issued under budgets established to also seeks comment on using a different these groups of states subject to certain address the 1997 ozone NAAQS using a ratio than 2.5-to-1, and on using the restrictions on trading. In particular, the $500 per ton cost threshold in one state same ratio as the ratio for the use of EPA is proposing to require that sources may not be appropriately valued to banked allowances, whether that ratio is in states with emissions budgets reduce interstate ozone transport in 4-to-1 as proposed or a different ratio. established using the more stringent cost thresholds (e.g., $3,400 per ton) another state for the 2008 NAAQS under The EPA is also seeking comment on may use allowances issued in states this proposal where budgets are being allowing trading without distinction with emissions budgets established established using a $1,300 per ton cost between the particular NAAQS (1997 using the less stringent cost thresholds threshold. In the original CSAPR ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS) rulemaking, the EPA discussed the (e.g., $1,300 per ton) at a rate of for which an upwind state has allowances for each ton of NO emitted concern that allowing unrestricted obligations to reduce transported X trading between groups of states whose based on the ratio of these cost pollution, and subject only to the thresholds. For example, states with budgets were established using different constraints of the CSAPR assurance cost thresholds would impact whether emissions budgets established using provisions with no additional $3,400 per ton could use allowances at the necessary emission reductions restrictions. The EPA is soliciting would be achieved within each state.106 a rate of approximately 2.5-to-1 in order comment on whether and how the to align with the ratio of the relevant The assurance provisions used in assurance provision penalty might be CSAPR provide some assurance that cost thresholds. The EPA requests increased in conjunction with this comments on allowing the states to emission reductions will occur within approach. each state, but in the CSAPR rulemaking trade with the proposed restrictions on the EPA acknowledged concerns that Alternatively, the EPA is seeking the use of allowances by sources in the assurance provisions alone may not comment on separating compliance states controlled using the more be sufficient. Consistent with those between groups of upwind states under stringent cost threshold. previously acknowledged concerns, the each NAAQS, whereby the use of NOX The EPA is also seeking comment on EPA is proposing in this rulemaking not ozone-season emission allowances from allowing trading without distinction to allow these two groups of states to one group (e.g., sources in states only between the particular cost thresholds trade without some additional covered for the 1997 ozone NAAQS) for which an upwind state has assurances that the emission reductions would be disallowed for compliance use obligations to reduce transported will be appropriately achieved within by units in the other group (e.g., sources pollution, and subject only to the each state. in states covered for the 2008 ozone constraints of the CSAPR assurance However, because of the relatively NAAQS), similar to the existing provisions with no additional small size of the group of states with separation between the CSAPR SO2 restrictions. The EPA is also soliciting Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 comment on whether and how the 106 76 FR at 48263–64. programs. assurance provision penalty might be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75749

increased in conjunction with this in the other group, similar to the within the state and across state approach. existing separation between the CSAPR boundaries, with emissions and use of Alternatively, the EPA is seeking SO2 Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances limited by the assurance comment on separating compliance programs. provisions. However, the EPA is between groups of upwind states under D. Summary of Proposed Allowance proposing to impose certain additional each cost threshold, whereby the use of Surrender Ratios limits on the use of allowances starting in 2017 for EGUs in the 23 states with NOX ozone-season emission allowances As discussed in sections a. and b. updated budgets in this proposal. Table from one group (e.g., sources in states above, the EPA proposes that in this with allowances issued using the more updated rulemaking, EGUs would be VII–2 summarizes the limits on the proposed use for CSAPR NOX ozone- stringent cost threshold) would be able to trade NOX ozone-season 107 disallowed for compliance use by units emission allowances among units season allowances.

6. Compliance Deadlines deadline is coordinated with the time for sources to plan for compliance As discussed in sections II.A., III.B., attainment deadline for the relevant and operate necessary controls. and IV.A., the proposed rule would NAAQS and the proposed rule includes For states for which EPA has already provisions to assure that all necessary require NOX reductions from sources established a FIP requiring their units to starting May 1, 2017, to ensure that reductions occur at sources within each participate in the CSAPR NOX ozone- reductions are made as expeditiously as individual state. season trading program because of practicable to assist downwind states’ In section VI above, the EPA explains transport obligations under the 1997 attainment and maintenance of the 2008 that this is an adequate and reasonable ozone NAAQS, no CFR changes are ozone NAAQS. The compliance necessary to accommodate this

107 In the regulatory text revisions for this allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.25 allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.40 1 proposal, the proposed limits discussed here are tons per allowance ( ⁄4 = 0.25). In the case of 2017 tons per allowance (1⁄2.5 = 0.40). In a case where one described in terms of the ‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ of or later allowances from a state with an original allowance is needed for each ton of emissions, such an allowance. In the case of 2015 or 2016 vintage CSAPR budget used for compliance by a unit in a allowances would have a tonnage equivalent of one allowances used for compliance in a control period state with an updated budget based on the 2008 ton per allowance. See proposed 40 CFR 97.524(f) in 2017 or later, where 4 allowances would be ozone NAAQS, where 2.5 allowances would be needed for each ton of emissions, each such needed for each ton of emissions, each such in the regulatory text for this proposal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP03DE15.001 75750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

compliance deadline. The EPA proposes addition, when a monitoring system is giving affected units time to make to amend the regulatory text in 40 CFR not operating properly, standard compliance plans. Compliance true-up 97.506(c)(3) to reflect the 2017 start of substitute data procedures are applied for the 2017 ozone season occurs after compliance obligations for units in and result in a conservative estimate of December 1, 2017, so affected sources states that were not previously subject emissions for the period involved. would have more than a year from the to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading Further, part 75 requires electronic extended recordation deadline to ensure program (e.g., Kansas). The EPA also submission of a quarterly emissions they hold enough allowances for 2017 proposes to amend various FIP report to the Administrator, and in a ozone season compliance. The EPA is provisions in 40 CFR part 52 to indicate format prescribed by the Administrator. taking comment on this new deadline the start and end of compliance The report would contain all of the data for 2017 and 2018 allowance allocation required concerning ozone season NO obligations under the FIPs for sources in X recordation. The EPA is also taking emissions. states added to the trading program comment on whether the provision to under this proposed rule (e.g., Kansas) Units currently subject to CSAPR NOX delay 2017 and 2018 allocation or removed from the trading program in ozone-season or CSAPR NOX annual recordation should be finalized ahead of response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of trading program requirements monitor final action on this full proposal if this certain NOX ozone-season emissions and report NOX emissions in accordance budgets (e.g., Florida and South with part 75, so most sources would not proposal is not finalized before July 1, Carolina). have to make any changes to monitoring 2016. and reporting practices. In fact, only The EPA is also proposing to extend 7. Monitoring and Reporting and the units in Kansas currently subject to the the existing deadlines for recording Allowance Management System CSAPR NOX annual trading program but CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances Monitoring and reporting in not the CSAPR NOX ozone-season for the 2019 and 2020 compliance accordance with the provisions of 40 trading program would need to start periods and for the 2021 and 2022 CFR part 75 are required for all units newly reporting ozone season NOX mass compliance periods each by one year, to subject to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions. These emissions are already July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, trading programs and would also be measured under the annual program, so respectively. The purpose of these required for all units covered under the the change would be a minor reporting proposed deadline extensions is to proposed transport rule for the 2008 modification. Units in the following provide time for states to submit SIP ozone NAAQS requirements. The EPA states monitor and report NO X revisions to modify or replace the FIPs proposes that the monitoring emissions under the CSAPR NOX ozone- certification deadline by which season trading program and would proposed in this rulemaking on monitors are installed and certified for continue to do so without change under schedules comparable to the schedules compliance use generally would be May the CSAPR ozone update for the 2008 for the SIP revision options that the 1, 2017, the beginning of the first NAAQS: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, states have under the current CSAPR compliance period proposed in this Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, regulations. The EPA seeks comment on rule, with potentially later deadlines for Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, extending these recordation deadlines units that commence commercial Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North as discussed. operation after July 1, 2016. Similarly, Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, C. Submitting a SIP the EPA proposes that the first calendar Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, quarter in which quarterly emission Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. As noted earlier in this section VIII, reporting is required would generally be 8. Recordation of Allowances states may replace the FIP with a SIP at the quarter including May 1, 2017. any time if approved by the EPA. These deadlines are analogous to the The EPA proposes to update the ‘‘Abbreviated’’ and ‘‘full’’ SIP options deadlines by which EPA would record current deadlines under CSAPR but are continue to be available. An allowances for the CSAPR NO ozone- delayed by two years to reflect the fact X ‘‘abbreviated SIP’’ allows a state to season trading program for the that this rule’s initial implementation submit a SIP that would modify year would be two years later than the compliance periods in the years from 2017 through 2022. The proposed new allocation provisions in the NOX budget existing CSAPR programs’ initial trading program that is incorporated implementation year. dates would amend the recordation into FIP to allow the state to substitute Under part 75, a unit has several deadlines in 40 CFR 97.521 as shown in options for monitoring and reporting, the proposed regulatory text its own allocation provisions. A second namely the use of a CEMS; an excepted amendments at the end of this proposal. approach, referred to as a full SIP, monitoring methodology based in part The existing recordation provisions allows a state to adopt a trading program on fuel flow metering for certain gas- or require EPA to record either FIP-based meeting certain requirements that oil-fired peaking units; low-mass (i.e., governed by part 97) or SIP-based would allow sources in the state to emissions monitoring for certain non- allocations for 2017 and 2018 by July 1, continue to use the EPA-administered coal-fired, low emitting units; or an 2016. The EPA proposes to delay this trading program through an approved alternative monitoring system approved deadline to December 1, 2016. The SIP, rather than a FIP. In addition, as by the Administrator through a petition extension would allow EPA to finalize under CSAPR, EPA proposes to provide process. In addition, sources can submit any changes to the state budgets for the states with an opportunity to adopt petitions to the Administrator for 2017 compliance period before state-determined allowance allocations alternatives to specific CSAPR and part recording 2017 allowances. This would for existing units for the second 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and prevent the need to take back compliance period under this proposed reporting requirements. Each CEMS allowances that were recorded under rule—in this case, the 2018 compliance must undergo rigorous initial existing budgets in cases where state period—through streamlined SIP certification testing and periodic quality budgets are reduced. The extended revisions. See 76 FR 48208 at 48326– assurance testing thereafter, including deadline would still allow allocations to 48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional the use of relative accuracy test audits be recorded five months prior to the discussion on full and abbreviated SIP (RATAs) and 24-hour calibrations. In start of the 2017 compliance period, options and 40 CFR 52.38(b).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75751

1. 2018 SIP Option general elements: (1) A comprehensive redesignation of an area to attainment As under CSAPR, the EPA proposes to baseline 2017 statewide NOX emission that relies on participation in the allow a state to submit a SIP revision inventory (which includes growth and trading program as part of the state’s establishing allowance allocations for existing control requirements), which demonstration that emissions will not existing units for the second year of the should be consistent with the 2017 exceed certain levels, or the state may wish to rely on participation in the new requirements, 2018, to replace the emission inventory the EPA would use when finalizing this rulemaking to trading program for purposes of a SIP FIP-based allocations. The process calculate the required state budget; (2) a revision to satisfy certain obligations would be the same as under the current list and description of control measures under the Regional Haze Rule. The EPA rule with deadlines shifted roughly 2 to satisfy the state emission reduction seeks comment on whether the EPA years—i.e., a state would submit a letter obligation and a demonstration showing should revise the CSAPR regulations to to EPA by November 15, 2016 indicating when each measure would be in place allow the EPA to approve a SIP revision its intent to submit a complete SIP to meet the 2017 compliance date; (3) in which a state seeks to participate in revision by April 1, 2017. The SIP fully-adopted state rules providing for the NO ozone-season trading program would provide in an EPA-prescribed X such NO controls during the ozone for a purpose other than addressing format a list of existing units and their X season; (4) for EGUs greater than 25 ozone transport obligations. allocations for the 2018 control period. MWe and large boilers and combustion Further, the EPA seeks comment on If a state does not submit a letter of turbines with a rated heat input capacity the conditions that should apply to any intent to submit a SIP revision, FIP of 250 mmBtu per hour or greater, Part such approval in order to ensure that allocations would be recorded by 75 monitoring, and for other units, the state’s participation is consistent December 1, 2016. If a state submits a monitoring and reporting procedures with the trading program’s ability to timely letter of intent but fails to submit sufficient to demonstrate that sources achieve the program’s objectives with a SIP revision, FIP allocations would be are complying with the SIP; and (5) a respect to interstate transport of ozone recorded by April 1, 2017. If a state projected inventory demonstrating that pollution. The EPA believes that the submits a timely letter of intent state measures along with federal primary conditions for consideration in followed by a timely SIP revision that is measures will achieve the necessary this circumstance would be the level of approved, the approved SIP allocations emission reductions in time to meet the the state emissions budget and what, if would be recorded by October 1, 2017. 2017 compliance deadline.108 The SIPs any, limitations would be placed on the 2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option must meet the requirements for public use of allowances issued to the sources hearing, be adopted by the appropriate in that state by sources in other states. For the 2019 control period and later, board or authority, and establish by a The EPA specifically seeks comment EPA proposes that the SIP submittal practically enforceable regulation or on whether a presumption of deadline be delayed one year, until permit a schedule and date for each approvability of such a SIP revision December 1, 2017, from the current affected source or source category to should arise, without limitations on the deadline. The deadline to then submit achieve compliance. Once the state has use of corresponding allowances for state allocations for 2019 and 2020 made a SIP submission, the EPA will compliance by sources within that state would be June 1, 2018 and the deadline evaluate the submission(s) for or in other states, if the state would to record those allocations would be completeness. The EPA’s criteria for adopt as part of the SIP revision a NOX July 1, 2018. Under the proposed new determining completeness of a SIP ozone-season emissions budget no deadlines, a state could submit a SIP submission are codified at 40 CFR part higher than the emissions budgets that revision for 2021 and beyond control 51, appendix V. the EPA finalizes under this rule. For periods by December 1, 2018, with state For further information on replacing a example, based on this proposal, an allocations due June 1, 2019, and FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the emissions budget that reflects EGU NOX allocation recordation by July 1, 2019. final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326, mitigation strategies represented by a For 2019 control period and later, SIPs August 8, 2011). The EPA requests uniform cost of $1,300 per ton. The EPA can be full or abbreviated SIPs. An comment on what types of additional notes that such emissions budgets could allocation methodology approved in an information and guidance would be be developed using the data and abbreviated SIP submitted for 2017 helpful and stands ready to assist states analysis used to establish the emissions under the existing CSAPR regulations in SIP development. budgets for this rule. could also apply under the proposed EPA also specifically seeks comment new rule in 2017 and 2018. See section 4. Submitting a SIP To Participate in on whether a presumption of III of this preamble and 76 FR 48208 at CSAPR for States Not Included in This approvability of such a SIP revision 48326–48332 (August 8, 2011) for Proposal should arise, with limitations on the use additional discussion on full and The EPA believes that there could be of allowances issued to the state’s abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR circumstances where a state that is not sources analogous to the limitations 52.38(b). obligated to reduce NOX emissions in proposed for allowances issued to Georgia’s units in this proposed rule, if 3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the order to eliminate significant the state would adopt as part of the SIP CSAPR Trading Program contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of ozone revision a NOX ozone-season emissions For a transport SIP revision that does standards in another state (such as budget no higher than the base case not use the CSAPR NOX ozone-season Florida or South Carolina for purposes ozone season NOX emissions that EPA trading program, EPA would evaluate of this proposal) may wish to participate projected for the state in the analysis the transport SIP based on the particular in the NOX ozone-season trading used to establish the emissions budgets control strategies selected and whether program in order to serve a different for this proposed rule. the strategies as a whole provide regulatory purpose. For example, the The EPA also specifically seeks adequate and enforceable provisions state may have a pending request for comment on whether, in the case of a ensuring that the emission reductions state previously subject to the CSAPR will be achieved. The SIP revision at a 108 The EPA notes that the SIP is not required to NOX ozone-season trading program (e.g., minimum should include the following include modeling. Florida or South Carolina), a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

presumption of approvability of such a be addressed in the title V permits. For Specifically, sources may use the minor SIP revision should arise at an example, requirements concerning modification procedure so long as the emissions level higher than the state’s designated representatives, monitoring, new monitoring and reporting approach base case emissions in the analysis used reporting, and recordkeeping, the is one of the prior-approved approaches to establish the emissions budgets for requirement to hold allowances under CSAPR (i.e., approaches using a this proposed rule—for example, an covering emissions, the assurance continuous emission monitoring system, emissions level equal to the state’s provisions, and liability will be an excepted monitoring system under previously promulgated CSAPR ‘‘applicable requirements’’ to be appendices D and E to part 75, a low budget—subject to the imposition of addressed in the permits. mass emissions excepted monitoring trading limitations on allowances issued Title V of the CAA establishes the methodology under 40 CFR 75.19, or an to the state’s units analogous to the basic requirements for state title V alternative monitoring system under limitations proposed for allowances permitting programs, including, among subpart E of part 75), and the permit issued to Georgia’s units in this other things, provisions governing already includes a description of the proposal. permit applications, permit content, and new monitoring and reporting approach Finally, the EPA also seeks comment permit revisions that address applicable to be used. See 40 CFR 97.506(d)(2); 40 on whether a state whose allowances requirements under final FIPs in a CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 40 CFR would otherwise be subject to manner that provides the flexibility 71.7(e)(1)(i)(B). As described in our necessary to implement market-based limitations on use analogous to the 2015 guidance, we suggest in our programs such as the trading programs limitations proposed for allowances template that sources may comply with established by CSAPR and updated by issued to Georgia’s units in this this requirement by including a table of this proposed ozone interstate transport proposed rule could avoid those all of the approved monitoring and rule. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b). limitations by adopting in a SIP revision reporting approaches under the rule, a more stringent budget reflecting In CSAPR, EPA established standard requirements governing how sources and the applicable requirements emission levels at higher dollar per ton governing each of those approaches. emission reduction costs comparable to covered by the rule would comply with 110 Inclusion of the table in a source’s title the dollar per ton emission reduction title V and its regulations. 40 CFR 97.506(d). Under this proposed rule, V permit therefore allows a covered unit costs used to establish the budgets for that seeks to change or add to their other states in this proposed rule. EPA proposes that those same requirements would continue to apply chosen monitoring and recordkeeping D. Title V Permitting to sources already in the CSAPR NOX approach to easily comply with the This proposed rule, like CSAPR, does Ozone-season Trading Program and to regulations governing the use of the title not establish any permitting any newly covered sources that have V minor modification procedure. requirements independent of those been added to address interstate Under CSAPR, in order to employ a under title V of the CAA and the transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For monitoring or reporting approach regulations implementing title V, 40 example, the title V regulations provide different from the prior-approved CFR parts 70 and 71.109 All major that a permit issued under title V must approaches discussed above, unit stationary sources of air pollution and include ‘‘[a] provision stating that no owners and operators must submit certain other sources are required to permit revision shall be required under monitoring system certification apply for title V operating permits that any approved . . . emissions trading applications to the EPA establishing the include emission limitations and other and other similar programs or processes monitoring and reporting approach conditions as necessary to assure for changes that are provided for in the actually to be used by the unit, or, if the compliance with the applicable permit.’’ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8) and owners and operators choose to employ requirements of the CAA, including the 71.6(a)(8). Consistent with these an alternative monitoring system, to requirements of the applicable State provisions in the title V regulations, in submit petitions for that alternative to Implementation Plan. CAA sections CSAPR, EPA included a provision the EPA. These applications and 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a) stating that no permit revision is petitions are subject to EPA review and and 7661c(a). The ‘‘applicable necessary for the allocation, holding, approval to ensure consistency in requirements’’ that must be addressed in deduction, or transfer of allowances. 40 monitoring and reporting among all title V permits are defined in the title V CFR 97.506(d)(1). This provision is also trading program participants. The EPA’s included in each title V permit for a regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 responses to any petitions for alternative covered source. The EPA proposes to (definition of ‘‘applicable monitoring systems or for alternatives to maintain its approach under CSAPR requirement’’)). specific monitoring or reporting that allowances can be traded (or The EPA anticipates that, given the requirements are posted on the EPA’s allocated, held, or deducted) without a nature of the units subject to this Web site.111 EPA proposes to maintain transport rule and given that many of revision to the title V permit of any of the sources involved. the same approach in this proposed the units covered here are already rule. subject to CSAPR, most of the sources Similarly, the EPA is also proposing at which the units are located are to maintain that sources in the CSAPR Consistent with the EPA’s approach already subject to title V permitting NOX Ozone-season Trading Program can under CSAPR, the applicable requirements. For sources subject to title continue to use the title V minor requirements resulting from this V, the interstate transport requirements modification procedure to change their proposed FIP would be incorporated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would approach for monitoring and reporting into covered sources’ existing title V be applicable to them under the final emissions, in certain circumstances. permits either pursuant to the FIPs will be ‘‘applicable requirements’’ provisions for reopening for cause (40 110 under title V and therefore will need to EPA also issued a guidance document and CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f)) or the template that includes instructions describing how standard permit renewal provisions (40 to incorporate the CSAPR applicable requirements 109 Part 70 addresses requirements for state title into a source’s title V permit. http://www.epa.gov/ V programs, and part 71 governs the federal title V airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_Title_V_Permit_ 111 http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/part-75- program. Guidance.pdf. petition-responses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75753

CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)).112 For sources Air Act, and will continue to apply CAIR are still working to find suitable newly subject to title V that will also be independently of this proposed rule’s solutions.115 covered sources under the final FIPs, provisions. Acid Rain sources will still Therefore, the EPA is taking comment the initial title V permit issued pursuant be required to comply with Title IV on whether to allow any NOX SIP Call to 40 CFR 70.7(a) should address the requirements, including the requirement state affected by this proposed rule to final FIP requirements. to hold Title IV allowances to cover SO2 voluntarily submit a SIP revision at a As in CSAPR, the approach to title V emissions at the end of a compliance budget level that is environmentally permitting under the proposed FIPs year. neutral to address the state’s NOX SIP imposes no independent permitting Call requirement for ozone season NOX requirements and should reduce the c. NOX SIP Call Interactions reductions. The SIP revision could burden on sources already required to States affected by both the NOX SIP include a rule to expand the be permitted under title V and on Call and any final CSAPR ozone update applicability of the CSAPR NOX ozone- permitting authorities. for the 2008 NAAQS will be required to season trading program to include all NO Budget Trading Program units. E. Relationship to Other Emission comply with the requirements of both X Analysis shows that these units (mainly Trading and Ozone Transport Programs rules. This proposed rule requires NOX ozone season emission reductions from large non-EGU boilers, combustion 1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR 113 EGUs greater than 25 MW in nearly all turbines, and combined cycle units with Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain NOX SIP Call states and at levels greater a maximum rated heat input capacity Program, NOX SIP Call, Section 176A than required by the NOX SIP Call. greater than 250 mmBtu/hr) continue to Petition, and Other State Therefore, this proposed rule would emit well below their portion of the Implementation Plans satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP NOX SIP Call budget. In order to ensure a. CSAPR Annual Programs Call for these large EGU units. that the necessary amount of EGU The NO SIP Call states used the NO emission reductions occur for this Nothing in this proposal affects any X X Budget Trading Program to comply with proposed rule, the corresponding state CSAPR NO annual or CSAPR SO X 2 the NO SIP Call requirements for EGUs ozone-season emissions budget amount Group 1 or CSAPR SO Group 2 X 2 serving a generator with a nameplate could be increased by the lesser of the requirements. The CSAPR annual capacity greater than 25 MW and large highest ozone season NOX emissions (in requirements were premised on the 116 non-EGUs with a maximum rated heat the last 3–5 years) from those units 1997 and 2006 PM NAAQS that are 2.5 input capacity greater than 250 or the relevant non-EGU budget under not being addressed in this rulemaking. MMBTU/hr. (In some states, EGUs the NOX SIP Call, and this small group The CSAPR NOX annual trading of non-EGUs could participate in the program and the CSAPR SO Group 1 smaller than 25 MW were also part of 2 the NBP as a carryover from the Ozone CSAPR ozone-season trading program. and Group 2 trading programs remain in The environmental impact would be place and will continue to be Transport Commission NOX Budget Trading Program.) When the EPA neutral using this approach, and hourly administered by the EPA. reporting of emissions under part 75 The EPA acknowledges that, in promulgated CAIR, it allowed states to modify that program and include all would continue. This approach would addition to the ozone budgets discussed address requests by states for help in NOX Budget Trading Program units in above, the D.C. Circuit has remanded for determining an appropriate way to the CAIR NOX Ozone-season Trading reconsideration the CSAPR SO2 budgets Program as a way to continue to meet address the continuing NOX SIP Call for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, requirement as to non-EGU sources. the requirements of the NOX SIP Call for and Texas. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d EPA proposes that if this option is at 138. This proposal does not address these sources. In CSAPR, however, the EPA allowed finalized that the variability limits the remand of these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 established for EGUs be unchanged as a emissions budgets. The EPA intends to states to expand applicability of the trading program to EGUs smaller than result of including these non-EGUs. The address the remand of the phase 2 SO2 assurance provisions would apply to annual emissions budgets separately. 25 MW but did not allow the expansion of applicability to include large non- EGUs, and emissions from non-EGUs b. Title IV Interactions EGU sources. The reason for excluding would not affect the assurance levels. The NO SIP Call generally requires This proposed rule if adopted would large non-EGU sources was largely that X that states choosing to rely on large not affect any Acid Rain Program emissions from these sources were EGUs and large non-EGUs for meeting requirements. Any Title IV sources that generally much lower than the budget NO SIP Call emission reduction are subject to provisions of this amount and there was concern that X requirements must establish a NO mass proposed rule would still need to surplus allowances created as a result of X emissions cap on each source and continue to comply with all Acid Rain an overestimation of baseline emissions require part 75, subpart H monitoring. provisions. Acid Rain Program SO2 and and subsequent shutdowns (since 1999 As an alternative to source-by-source NOX requirements are established when the NO SIP Call was X NO mass emission caps, a state may independently in Title IV of the Clean promulgated) would prevent needed X impose NO emission rate limits on reductions by the EGUs to address X each source and use maximum 112 A permit is reopened for cause if any new significant contribution to downwind operating capacity for estimating NO applicable requirements (such as those under a FIP) air quality impacts. X become applicable to a covered source with a mass emissions or may rely on other Since then, states have had to find remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If the requirements that the state demonstrates remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such appropriate ways to continue to show to be equivalent to either the NOX mass new applicable requirements will be added to the compliance with the NOX SIP Call, permit during permit renewal. See 40 CFR particularly for large non-EGUs.114 Most 70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I). 115 Affected sources continue to report ozone 113 The CSAPR Annual Programs are referred to states that included such sources in season emissions using part 75 as required by the in regulations as the Transport Rule NOX Annual NOX SIP Call and emissions in most states cannot 114 Trading Program (40 CFR 97.401–97.435), the CSAPR generally satisfies NOX SIP Call (or are not likely to) exceed NOX SIP Call non-EGU Transport Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading Program (40 requirements for EGUs in most affected states budget levels. 116 CFR 97.601–97.635) and the Transport Rule SO2 because the CSAPR cap is lower than the EGU EPA requests comment on the appropriate Group 2 Trading Program (40 CFR 97.701–97.735). portion of the NOX SIP Call emission levels. time period for this determination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

emission caps or the NOX emission rate 2. Other Federal Rulemakings limited to: Reducing cost, addressing limits that assume maximum operating a. Clean Power Plan reliability concerns, addressing capacity. Collectively, the caps or their concerns about stranded assets, and alternatives cannot exceed the portion On August 3, 2015, President Obama facilitating the integration of meeting and EPA announced the Clean Power of the state budget for those sources. See the emission guidelines and compliance Plan—a historic and important action 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4). If the EPA by affected EGUs with other air quality on emissions that contribute to climate and pollution control obligations on the were to allow a state to expand the change. The CPP reduces carbon applicability of this proposed rule to part of both states and affected EGUs. pollution from the power sector. With The EPA is also cognizant of the include all the NOX Budget Trading strong but achievable standards for potential influence of addressing Program units in the CSAPR NOX power plants, and customized goals for interstate ozone transport on the CPP. ozone-season trading program, the cap states to cut the carbon pollution (CO2) requirement would be met through the As states and utilities undertake the that is driving climate change, the Clean near- and longer-term planning that will new budget and the monitoring Power Plan (CPP) provides national be needed for the CPP, they will have requirement would be met through the consistency, accountability and a level the opportunity to consider how trading program provisions, which playing field while reflecting each compliance with this proposed rule can require part 75 monitoring. Whether this state’s energy mix. anticipate, or be consistent with, The Clean Air Act—under section option is finalized or not, the EPA will expected compliance strategies for the 111(d)—creates a partnership between work with states to ensure that NOX SIP CPP. While some EGU NO mitigation EPA, states, tribes and U.S. territories— X Call obligations continue to be met. The strategies, most notably shifting with EPA setting a goal and states and EPA requests comment on the voluntary generation from higher-NO tribes choosing how they will meet it. X emitting inclusion of NOX SIP Call non-EGUs in The CPP follows that approach. The coal-fired units to lower NOX emitting this 2008 ozone-season proposed rule. NGCC units, can potentially also reduce CPP establishes interim and final CO2 d. CAA Section 176A Petition To emission performance rates and CO2 emissions, the EGU emissions Expand the OTR statewide goals. States then develop and analysis performed for this interstate implement plans that ensure that the transport action does not results in a On December 9, 2013, the EPA power plants in their state—either notable difference in CO2 emissions. received a CAA section 176A petition individually, together or in combination However, EPA’s results do not preclude from the states of Connecticut, with other measures—achieve these states and utilities from considering Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, rates or goals. States will be required to these programs together. And, as the New Hampshire, New York, Rhode submit a state plan, or an initial EPA has structured the interstate Island, and Vermont. The petition was submittal with an extension request, by transport obligations that would be amended on December 12, 2013 to add September 6, 2016. Complete state plans established by this proposal as the state of Pennsylvania as a must be submitted no later than requirements to limit aggregate affected petitioning state. The petition requests September 6, 2018. The interim rates EGU emissions and the EPA is not that the EPA add 8 states and the and goals are assessed over the years proposing to enforce source-specific emission reduction requirements, EGU remainder of the Commonwealth of 2022 to 2029 and the final CO2 emission Virginia to the current Ozone Transport performance rates, rate-based goals, or owners have the flexibility to plan for compliance with the interstate ozone Region that was established under CAA mass-based goals are assessed for 2030 transport requirements in ways that are section 184.117 The EPA will address and after. consistent with state and EGU strategies this petition at a future date. Because the final deadline for states to submit complete plans under the CPP is to reduce CO2 emissions for the Clean e. Other State Implementation Plans September 2018 and because mandatory Power Plan. CPP reductions do not begin until the With respect to concerns about In this proposal, the EPA has not 118 interim period (i.e., starting in 2022), the potentially stranded investments in conducted any technical analysis to EPA does not anticipate significant NOX control equipment, the EPA’s determine whether compliance with the interactions with the CPP and the near- budget-setting approach quantifies NOX proposed rule would satisfy other term (i.e., starting in 2017) ozone season reductions from upgrading combustion requirements for EGUs in any controls at coal-fired units. However, EGU NOX emission reduction attainment or nonattainment areas (e.g., requirements under this proposal. CSAPR’s flexible compliance does not RACT or BART). For that reason, the However the EPA notes that actions require that specific NOX controls be EPA is not now making determinations taken to reduce CO2 emissions (e.g., installed at any specific facilities, and nor establishing any presumptions that deployment of zero-emitting generation) we would not expect such controls to be compliance with the proposed rule may also reduce ozone season NOX installed on units that may not be satisfies any other requirements for emissions. To the extent that states or economic to operate in the future. EGUs. Based on analyses that states electric utilities consider emission b. 2015 Ozone Standard conduct on a case-by-case basis, states reduction strategies to meet these two may be able to conclude that separate requirements—CPP and On October 1, 2015, the EPA compliance with the proposed rule for interstate ozone transport—in a strengthened the ground-level ozone certain EGUs fulfills other SIP coordinated manner, they may find NAAQS to 70 ppb, based on extensive requirements. efficiency gains in that actions to meet scientific evidence about ozone’s effects the CPP goals may also help meet on public health and welfare. This proposed rule to update CSAPR to 117 The named 8 states are: Illinois, Indiana, interstate ozone transport requirements. Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, The EPA believes that timing address interstate emissions transport Tennessee, and West Virginia. Currently, the flexibility provided in the CPP offers 118 portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the significant benefits that allow states to A potential stranded investment is an OTR is in the consolidated metropolitan statistical investment in an EGU NOX reduction strategy (e.g., area that includes the District of Columbia and develop plans that will help achieve a combustion controls) for which the affected EGU northern Virginia. number of goals, including, but not retires before the investment is fully depreciated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75755

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS to identify projected nonattainment and details for this assessment can be found is a separate and distinct regulatory maintenance receptors and identify the in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the action and is not meant to address the upwind states that contribute docket for this proposed rule. CAA’s good neighbor provision with significantly to these receptors. The EPA notes that its analysis of the respect to the strengthened 2015 ozone VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the NAAQS. of the Proposed Rule proposal and more and less stringent The EPA is mindful of the need to The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in address ozone transport for the 2015 and impacts of compliance with the part because the EPA proposes to implement the proposed EGU NOX ozone NAAQS. The statutory deadline proposed EGU NOX ozone-season for the EPA to finalize area designations emissions budgets that reflect uniform emissions budgets via a regional NOX ozone-season allowance trading is October 1, 2017. Further, good NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see neighbor SIPs from states are due on proposed emissions budgets in table program. This implementation approach October 1, 2018. The steps taken under VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed provides utilities with the flexibility to this proposal to reduce interstate ozone compliance with other more and less determine their own compliance path. The EPA’s assessment develops and transport, when finalized, will help stringent alternative EGU NOX ozone- states attain and maintain the 2015 season emissions budgets, reflecting analyzes one possible scenario for implementing the NOX budgets ozone NAAQS. Moreover, to facilitate uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton the implementation of the CAA good and $500 per ton, respectively (see proposed by this action and one neighbor provision the EPA intends to alternative emissions budgets in tables possible scenario for implementing the provide information regarding steps 1 VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the more and less stringent alternatives. and 2 of the CSAPR framework in the impact of implementing these emissions Table VIII.1 provides the projected fall of 2016. In particular, the EPA budgets to reduce interstate transport for 2017 EGU emissions reductions for the expects to conduct modeling necessary the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More evaluated regulatory control scenarios.

TABLE VIII.1—PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF NOX, SO2, AND CO2 WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS BUDGETS AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [TONS] 1

More stringent Less stringent Proposal alternative alternative

NOX (annual) ...... 89,969 92,582 23,686 NOX (ozone season) ...... 84,856 83,680 25,051 SO2 (annual) ...... 383 425 301 CO2 (annual) ...... 610,092 614,385 719,760

1 NOX and SO2 emissions are reported in English (short) tons; CO2 is reported in metric tons.

The EPA estimates the costs the private compliance cost of reducing for the evaluated regulatory control associated with compliance with the NOX emissions to comply with the scenarios, including the proposal and illustrative proposed regulatory control proposal and include monitoring, more and less stringent alternatives. alternative to be approximately $93 recordkeeping, and reporting costs. Estimates are in 2011 dollars. million annually. These costs represent Table VIII.2 provides the estimated costs

TABLE VIII.2—COST ESTIMATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS BUDGETS AND MORE AND LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [2011]$ 1

More stringent Less stringent Proposal alternative alternative

Costs ...... $93 $96 $4.7 1 Levelized annualized costs over the period 2016 through 2040, discounted using the 4.77 discount rate used in IPM’s objective function of minimizing the net present value of the stream of total costs of electricity generation.

In this analysis, the EPA monetized of hydrogen chloride, but could not recommended by the interagency the estimated benefits associated with quantify these impacts. Among the working group). The EPA estimates the reducing population exposure to ozone benefits it could quantify, the EPA monetized ozone-related benefits 119 of and PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased estimated combinations of health the proposal to be $490 million to $790 emissions of CO2, but was unable to benefits at discount rates of 3 percent million (2011$) in 2017 and the monetize the co-benefits associated with and 7 percent (as recommended by the reducing exposure to mercury, carbon EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing monoxide, and NO2, as well as Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014] ecosystem effects and visibility and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003]) 119 impairment. In addition, the EPA and climate co-benefits at discount rates The ozone-related health benefits range is based on applying different adult mortality expects positive health and welfare of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and impacts associated with reduced levels 3 percent (95th percentile) (as Schwartz (2008)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

120 PM2.5-related co-benefits of the (2011$). Additional details on this VIII.4 summarizes the estimated proposal to be $190 million to $430 analysis are provided in the RIA for this avoided ozone- and PM2.5-related health million (2011$) using a 3% discount proposal. Tables VIII.3 and VIII.5 incidences for the proposal and the rate and $170 million to $380 million summarize the quantified monetized more and less stringent control (2011$) using a 7% discount rate. human health and climate benefits of alternatives. Further, the EPA estimates CO2-related the proposal and the more and less co-benefits of $6.5 to $66 million stringent control alternatives. Table

TABLE VIII.3—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [Millions of 2011]$ 1

More stringent Less stringent Proposal alternative alternative

NOX (as ozone) ...... $490 to $790 $500 to $820 $140 to $220 NOX (as PM2.5): 3% Discount Rate ...... 190 to 430 190 to 440 49 to 110 7% Discount Rate ...... 170 to 380 170 to 390 45 to 100 Total: 3% Discount Rate ...... 670 to 1,200 690 to 1,300 190 to 340 7% Discount Rate ...... 650 to 1,200 670 to 1,200 180 to 330 1 The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).

TABLE VIII.4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVOIDED OZONE-RELATED AND PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH INCIDENCES FROM PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES1

More stringent Less stringent Proposal alternative alternative

Ozone-Related Health Effects

Avoided Premature Mortality: Smith et al. (2009) (all ages) ...... 48 50 14 Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) (all ages) ...... 81 83 23 Avoided Morbidity: Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (ages > 65) ...... 79 81 22 Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) ...... 320 330 90 Asthma exacerbation (ages 6–18) ...... 93,000 95,000 26,000 Minor restricted-activity days (ages 18–65) ...... 240,000 240,000 67,000 School loss days (ages 5–17) ...... 77,000 79,000 22,000

PM2.5-Rrelated Health Effects

Avoided Premature Mortality: Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) ...... 21 22 6 Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) ...... 48 50 13 Woodruff et al. (1997) (infant) ...... <1 <1 <1 Avoided Morbidity: Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) ...... 12 12 3 Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) ...... 31 32 8 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) ...... 390 400 100 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) ...... 560 570 150 Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) ...... 16,000 16,000 4,200 Lost work days (age 18–65) ...... 2,700 2,700 700 Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) ...... 580 600 150 Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) ...... 6 7 2 Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) ...... 8 8 2 Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) ...... Peters et al. (2001) ...... 25 26 7

Pooled estimate of 4 studies ...... 3 3 1 1 All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures.

120 The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et based on applying different adult mortality al. (2012)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75757

TABLE VIII.5—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [Millions of 2011$] 1

More stringent Less stringent Discount rate and statistic Proposal alternative alternative

5% (average) ...... $6.5 $6.5 $7.6 3 (average) ...... 23 23 27 2.5 (average) ...... 35 35 41 3 (95th percentile) ...... 66 66 78

1 The social cost of carbon (SC–CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.

The EPA combined this information this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and alternatives—shown in the RIA in the to perform a benefit-cost analysis for for the more and less stringent docket for this proposed rule).

TABLE VIII.6—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S. [Millions of 2011$]

Climate Co-Benefits ...... $23. Air Quality Health ...... 670 to 1200. Total Benefits ...... 700 to 1200. Annualized ...... 93. Net Benefits ...... 600 to 1100. Non-Monetized ...... Non-monetized climate benefits. Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2. Reductions in mercury deposition. Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in Visibility impairment.

There are additional important associated with electricity price changes IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to benefits that the EPA could not to consumers that may result from this the Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs monetize. Due to current data and proposed rule. This assessment can be and CSAPR Trading Programs modeling limitations, our estimates of found in the RIA for this proposed rule. This section describes proposed

the co-benefits from reducing CO2 Executive Order 13563 directs federal amendments to the regulatory text in the emissions do not include important agencies to consider the effect of CFR for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR impacts like ocean acidification or regulations on job creation and NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program potential tipping points in natural or employment. According to the related to the findings and remedy managed ecosystems. Unquantified discussed throughout this preamble. benefits also include climate co-benefits Executive Order, ‘‘our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, This section also describes other minor from reducing emissions of non-CO2 safety, and our environment while proposed corrections to the existing CFR GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) text for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR promoting economic growth, and co-benefits from reducing direct trading programs more generally. innovation, competitiveness, and job exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous The proposed regulatory text air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as creation. It must be based on the best amendments related to the CSAPR FIPs available science’’ (Executive Order from reducing ecosystem effects and and the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season visibility impairment. Based upon the 13563, 2011). Although standard Trading Program would be made in foregoing discussion, it remains clear benefit-cost analyses have not typically parts 52, 78, and 97 of title 40 of the that the benefits of this proposed action included a separate analysis of CFR. Proposed changes to update the are substantial, and far exceed the costs. regulation-induced employment list of states that would be subject to Additional details on benefits, costs, impacts, employment impacts are of FIPs to address obligations related to and net benefits estimates are provided particular concern and questions may transported ozone pollution are in in the RIA for this proposal. arise about their existence and §§ 52.38(b)(2) (summarizing all states For this proposed rule, the EPA magnitude. subject to FIPs), 52.540 (ending FIP for analyzed the costs to the electric power States have the responsibility and Florida), 52.882 (establishing FIP for sector using IPM. The IPM is a dynamic flexibility to implement policies and Kansas), and 52.2140 (ending FIP for linear programming model that can be practices as part of developing SIPs for South Carolina). Section 97.510 used to examine the economic impacts compliance with the emissions budgets contains the proposed changes of air pollution control policies for SO2 establishing or revising the amounts of found in this proposed rule. Given the and NOX throughout the contiguous NO Ozone-Season trading budgets, wide range of approaches that may be X United States for the entire power new unit set-asides (NUSAs), Indian system. Documentation for IPM can be used and industries that could be country NUSAs, and variability limits found in the docket for this rulemaking affected, quantifying the associated for states whose sources participate in employment impacts is difficult. or at www.epa.gov/ the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Trading powersectormodeling. Program. Additional proposed changes The EPA provides a qualitative to accommodate trading program assessment of economic impacts participation by sources whose coverage

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

starts in different years are in administrative appeal procedures set would make the language in these §§ 97.506(c)(3) (compliance deadlines), forth in part 78. CSAPR FIPs consistent with the FIP 97.512 (NUSA allowance allocation In addition to the proposed CFR language for the remaining CSAPR FIPs procedures), 97.530(b) (monitor changes described above, this proposal that address states with Indian country. certification deadlines), and 97.534(d) also includes other minor amendments Analogous proposed changes to the (reporting deadlines). throughout the sections of parts 52, 78, general CSAPR FIP language in Proposed changes to § 52.38(b)(3) and 97 implementing CSAPR, including §§ 52.38(a)(5) and (6) and (b)(5) and (6) through (5) would update states’ options sections implementing CSAPR’s other and 52.39(f), (i), and (j) would remove to submit SIP revisions which, upon three emissions trading programs. The the phrase ‘‘in whole or in part’’ approval by the EPA, would modify most common category of these minor (referencing states without Indian certain CSAPR trading program changes consists of proposed country and states with Indian country, provisions as applied to those states or corrections to cross-references. Some respectively) while adding language replace the states’ FIPs with SIPs— cross-references would change as a distinguishing the effect that the EPA’s options that correspond closely to result of this proposal and corrections of approval of a SIP revision would have states’ SIP revision options under those cross-references are therefore on sources in the state from the lack of CSAPR as initially promulgated. related to the changes described above, effect on any sources in Indian country Proposed changes in § 97.521 while other cross-references as within the borders of the state. (allowance recordation) delay the originally published indicated incorrect Third, language would be added to locations because of typographical § 78.1 clarifying that determinations by deadlines for recording CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season allowances for the errors or indicated correct locations but the EPA Administrator under the control periods in 2018 through 2022 in did not use the correct CFR format. In CSAPR trading programs that are subject order to coordinate with the proposed virtually all cases, the intended correct to the part 78 administrative appeal updated submission deadlines for the cross-reference can be determined from procedures are subject to those optional SIP revisions. A similar context, but the corrections clarify the procedures whether the source in proposed delay in the deadline for regulations. question participates in a CSAPR Besides the proposed corrections to recording allowances for the control trading program under a FIP or under an cross-references, most of the remaining period in 2017 would provide time to approved SIP revision. This approach is proposed corrections address other finalize this rulemaking and would consistent with the approach taken typographical errors. However, a small under CAIR FIPs and SIPs and with the thereby allow the EPA to record number of the proposed CFR changes EPA’s intent in CSAPR, as evidenced by allocations of 2017 allowances based on correct errors that are not cross- the lack of any proposal or discussion the final revised budgets instead of references or obviously typographical in the CSAPR rulemaking regarding recording allocations based on existing errors. While the EPA views all of these deviation from the historical approach. budgets that are proposed to be proposed corrections as This approach is also consistent with superseded. noncontroversial, a few merit a short provisions in §§ 52.38 and 52.39 The proposed limitations on the use explanation. prohibiting approvable SIP revisions of emission allowances issued for a First, the phrase ‘‘with regard to the from altering certain provisions of the compliance period before 2017 or from State’’ or ‘‘the State and’’ would be CSAPR trading programs, including the the state NOX Ozone-Season trading added in a number of locations in provisions specifying that budget for Georgia are implemented by §§ 52.38 and 52.39 where it was administrative appeal procedures for redefining sources’ obligations under inadvertently omitted. The added determinations of the EPA the trading program in terms of phrase clarifies that when the EPA Administrator under the trading ‘‘tonnage equivalents’’ of allowances approves a state’s SIP revision as programs are set forth in part 78. rather than in terms of nominal modifying or replacing provisions in a Fourth, the phrase ‘‘steam turbine quantities of allowances. Section 97.502 CSAPR trading program, the generator’’ would be changed to contains a proposed new definition of modification or replacement is effective ‘‘generator’’ in the list of required ‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ and related only with regard to that particular state. equipment in the definition of a proposed modifications to the Correcting the omissions of these ‘‘cogeneration system’’ in §§ 97.402, definitions of ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone- phrases would make the language 97.502, 97.602, and 97.702. Absent this Season allowance’’ and ‘‘CSAPR NOX concerning SIP revisions consistent for correction, a combustion turbine in a Ozone-Season emissions limitation.’’ A all the types of SIP revisions under all facility that uses the combustion turbine new § 97.524(f) sets out the proposed the CSAPR trading programs. in combination with an electricity procedures for determining the tonnage Second, the phrase ‘‘in part’’ would generator and heat recovery steam equivalent of an allowance. Additional be removed from the existing FIP generator, but no steam turbine, to proposed changes to reflect the use of language in various sections of part 52 produce electricity and useful thermal allowances based on their tonnage for certain states with Indian country to energy would not meet the definition of equivalents (rather than their nominal clarify that in order to replace a CSAPR a ‘‘cogeneration unit.’’ The proposed numbers) to meet various obligations are FIP affecting the sources in these states, correction would clarify that a contained in §§ 97.506(c) (standard a SIP revision must fully, not ‘‘in part,’’ combustion turbine in such a facility requirements relating to NOX correct the SIP deficiency identified by should be able to qualify as a emissions), 97.511(c) (corrections of the EPA as the basis for the FIP. The ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ (assuming it meets incorrect allowance allocations), 97.524 intended purpose of the words ‘‘in other relevant criteria) under the CSAPR (compliance with emissions limitations part’’—specifically, to indicate that trading programs, as it could under the and excess emissions provisions), and approval of a state’s SIP revision would CAIR trading programs. The consistency 97.525 (compliance with assurance not relieve any sources in Indian of this approach with the EPA’s intent provisions). A proposed change to § 78.1 country within the borders of the state in the CSAPR rulemaking is evidenced would make EPA’s determinations of from obligations under the FIP—is by the lack of any proposal or the tonnage equivalents of particular already served by other language in discussion in that rulemaking regarding allowance holdings subject to the those FIPs. The proposed corrections the concept of narrowing the set of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75759

facilities qualifying for an applicability A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory The EPA notes that its analysis of the exemption as cogeneration units. To the Planning and Review and Executive regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the contrary, as discussed in the preamble Order 13563: Improving Regulation and proposal and more and less stringent to the CSAPR proposal (75 FR 45307, Regulatory Review alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in August 2, 2010), the definition of This action is an economically part because the EPA proposes to ‘‘cogeneration system’’ was created in significant regulatory action that was implement the proposed EGU NOX CSAPR to potentially broaden the set of submitted to the Office of Management emissions budgets via a regional NOX facilities qualifying for the exemption, and Budget (OMB) for review. Any ozone-season allowance trading specifically by facilitating qualification changes made in response to OMB program. This implementation approach as ‘‘cogeneration units’’ for certain units recommendations have been provides utilities with the flexibility to that might not meet the required levels documented in the docket. The EPA determine their own compliance path. of efficiency on an individual basis but The EPA’s assessment develops and prepared an analysis of the potential that operate as components of multi- analyzes one possible scenario for costs and benefits associated with this unit ‘‘cogeneration systems’’ that do implementing the NO budgets action. This analysis, which is X meet the required levels of efficiency. proposed by this action and one contained in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Fifth, the deadline for recording possible scenario for implementing the Analysis for the Proposed Cross-State certain allowance allocations under more and less stringent alternatives. §§ 97.421(j), 97.521(j), 97.621(j), and Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 The EPA estimates the costs 97.721(j) would be changed from the Ozone NAAQS’’ [EPA–452/R–15–009], associated with compliance with the ‘‘date on which’’ the EPA receives the is available in the docket and is briefly illustrative proposed regulatory control necessary allocation information to the summarized in section VIII of this alternative to be approximately $93 date ‘‘15 days after the date on which’’ preamble. million (2011$) annually. These costs the EPA receives the information. The Consistent with Executive Orders represent the private compliance cost of 12866 and 13563, the EPA estimated the EPA’s lack of intention in the CSAPR reducing NOX emissions to comply with rulemaking to establish the deadline as costs and benefits for three regulatory the proposal. defined prior to the correction is control alternatives: The proposed EGU In this analysis, the EPA monetized evidenced by the impracticability of NOX ozone-season emissions budgets the estimated benefits associated with complying with such a deadline. and more and less stringent alternatives. the reduced exposure to ozone and Sixth, a proposed change to a This proposed action would reduce PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased description of a required notice under ozone season NOX emissions from EGUs emissions of CO2, but was unable to the assurance provisions in in 23 eastern states. Actions taken to monetize the co-benefits associated with §§ 97.425(b)(2)(iii)(B), comply with the proposed EGU NOX reducing exposure to mercury, carbon 97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.625(b)(2)(iii)(B), ozone-season emissions budgets would monoxide, and NO2, as well as and 97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B) would modify also reduce emissions of other criteria ecosystem effects and visibility the phrase ‘‘any adjustments’’ to the air pollution and hazardous air impairment. In addition, there are phrase ‘‘calculations incorporating any pollution emissions, including annual expected to be unquantified health and adjustments’’ in order to clarify that the NOX, and CO2. The benefits associated welfare impacts associated with changes required notice will identify not only with these co-pollutant reductions are in hydrogen chloride. Specifically, the any adjustments made to previously referred to as co-benefits, as these EPA estimated combinations of health noticed calculations, but also the reductions are not the primary objective benefits at discount rates of 3 percent complete calculations with (or without) of this proposed rule. and 7 percent (as recommended by the such adjustments. The intended The RIA for this proposal analyzed EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing meaning is clear from the subsequent illustrative compliance approaches for Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014] provisions that use this notice as the implementing the proposed FIPs. This and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003]) point of reference for the complete proposal would establish EGU NOX and climate co-benefits at discount rates calculations used in the succeeding ozone-season emissions budgets for 23 of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and administrative procedures. states and implement these budgets via 3 percent (95th percentile) (as Finally, the EPA notes that the the existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season recommended by the interagency proposed amendments include updating allowance trading program. working group). The EPA estimates the the nomenclature in the CFR from its The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, monetized ozone-related benefits 121 of name as initially proposed—‘‘Transport and impacts of implementing the the proposal to be $490 million to $790 proposed EGU NOX ozone-season Rule’’ or ‘‘TR’’—to its name as million (2011$) in 2017 and the PM2.5- finalized—‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution emissions budgets that reflect uniform related co-benefits 122 of the proposal to Rule’’ or ‘‘CSAPR.’’ This update is NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see be $190 million to $430 million (2011$) intended to reduce confusion and proposed emissions budgets in table using a 3% discount rate and $170 simplify communications regarding the VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed million to $380 million (2011$) using a regulations by allowing a single name to implementation of other more and less 7% discount rate. Further, the EPA stringent alternative EGU NOX ozone- be used in all contexts. estimates CO2-related co-benefits of $6.5 The EPA invites comment on the season emissions budgets, reflecting to $66 million (2011$). Additional proposed regulatory text amendments uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton details on this analysis are provided in described above and shown at the end and $500 per ton, respectively (see the RIA for this proposal. Tables X.A– of this notice. alternative emissions budgets in tables VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the 121 X. Statutory and Executive Order The ozone-related health benefits range is impact of implementing these emissions based on applying different adult mortality Reviews budgets to reduce interstate transport for functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and Additional information about these the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More Schwartz (2008)). 122 The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is statutes and Executive Orders can be details for this assessment can be found based on applying different adult mortality found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. docket for this proposed rule. al. (2012)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1, X.A–2, and X.A–3 summarize the and the more and less stringent control quantified human health and climate alternatives. benefits and the costs of the proposal

TABLE X.A–1—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [Millions of 2011$] 1

Proposal More stringent Less stringent

NOX (as ozone) ...... $490 to $790 ...... $500 to $820 ...... $140 to $220 NOX (as PM2.5) 3% Discount Rate ...... $190 to $430 ...... $190 to $440 ...... $49 to $110. 7% Discount Rate ...... $170 to $380 ...... $170 to $390 ...... $45 to $100. Total 3% Discount Rate ...... $670 to $1,200 ...... $690 to $1,300 ...... $190 to $340. 7% Discount Rate ...... $650 to $1,200 ...... $670 to $1,200 ...... $180 to $330. 1 The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).

TABLE X.A–2—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES [Millions of 2011$] 1

More Less Discount rate and statistic Proposal stringent stringent

5% (average) ...... $6 .5 $6 .5 $7 .6 3% (average) ...... 23 23 27 2.5% (average) ...... 35 35 41 3% (95th percentile) ...... 66 66 78

1 The social cost of carbon (SC–CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.

The EPA combined this information this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and alternatives—shown in the RIA in the to perform a benefit-cost analysis for for the more and less stringent docket for this proposed rule).

TABLE X.A–3—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S. [Millions of 2011$]

Climate Co-Benefits ...... $23. Air Quality Health Benefits ...... $670 to $1200. Total Benefits ...... $700 to $1200. Annualized Costs ...... $93. Compliance Costs ...... $10. Net Benefits ...... $600 to $1100. Non-Monetized Benefits ...... Non-monetized climate benefits. Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2. Reductions in mercury deposition. Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM. Visibility impairment.

There are additional important from reducing ecosystem effects and U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information benefits that the EPA could not visibility impairment. Based upon the Collection Request (ICR) document that monetize. Due to current data and foregoing discussion, it remains clear the EPA prepared has been assigned modeling limitations, our estimates of that the benefits of this proposed action EPA ICR number 2391.04. You can find the co-benefits from reducing CO2 are substantial, and far exceed the costs. a copy of the ICR in the docket for this emissions do not include important Additional details on benefits, costs, proposed rule, and it is briefly impacts like ocean acidification or and net benefits estimates are provided summarized here. potential tipping points in natural or in the RIA for this proposal. The information generated by managed ecosystems. Unquantified B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection activities under benefits also include climate co-benefits CSAPR is used by the EPA to ensure from reducing emissions of non-CO2 The information collection activities that affected facilities comply with the GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) in this proposed rule have been emission limits and other requirements. and co-benefits from reducing direct submitted for approval to the Office of Records and reports are necessary to exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous Management and Budget (OMB) under enable EPA or states to identify affected air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 facilities that may not be in compliance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75761

with the requirements. The Respondent’s obligation to respond: Submit your comments on the recordkeeping requirements require Mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) Agency’s need for this information, the only the specific information needed to of the Clean Air Act). accuracy of the provided burden determine compliance. These Estimated number of respondents: estimates and any suggested methods recordkeeping and reporting 116 sources in Florida, Kansas, and for minimizing respondent burden to requirements are established pursuant South Carolina with one or more EGUs. the EPA using the docket identified at to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and (c) and Frequency of response: Quarterly, the beginning of this proposed rule. You 301(a) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D) and (c) occasionally. may also send your ICR-related and 7601(a)) and are specifically Total estimated burden: Reduction of comments to OMB’s Office of authorized by CAA section 114 (42 14,064 hours (per year). Burden is Information and Regulatory Affairs via U.S.C. 7414). Reported data may also be defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). email to oria_submissions@ used for other regulatory and Total estimated cost: Reduction of omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for programmatic purposes. All information $1,472,047 (per year), includes the EPA. Because OMB is required to submitted to the EPA for which a claim reduction of $450,951 operation and make a decision concerning the ICR of confidentiality is made will be maintenance costs. between 30 and 60 days after receipt, The burden and cost estimates above safeguarded according to EPA policies OMB must receive comments no later reflect the reduction in burden and cost in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, than January 4, 2016. The EPA will for Florida sources with EGUs that Confidentiality of Business Information. respond to any ICR-related comments in would no longer be required to report All of the EGUs that would be subject the final rule. The information NOX mass emissions and heat input collection requirements in the proposed to changed information collection data for the ozone season to the EPA requirements under this proposed rule rule have been submitted for approval to under the proposed rule and that are not OMB under the PRA. The information are already subject to information subject to similar information collection collection requirements under CSAPR. collection requirements are not requirements under the Acid Rain enforceable until OMB approves them. Most of these EGUs also are already Program. Because these EGUs would no subject to information collection The information collection activities in longer need to collect NOX emissions or requirements under the Acid Rain this proposed rule include monitoring heat input data under 40 CFR part 75, and the maintenance of records. Program (ARP) established under Title the estimates above also reflect the IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act reduction in burden and cost to collect E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Amendments. Both CSAPR and the ARP and quality assure these data and to I certify that this action will not have have existing approved ICRs: EPA ICR maintain the associated monitoring a significant economic impact on a Number 2391.03/OMB Control Number equipment. substantial number of small entities 2060–0667 (CSAPR) and EPA ICR The EPA estimates that the proposed under the RFA. The small entities Number 1633.16/OMB Control Number rule would cause no change in subject to the requirements of this 2060–0258 (ARP). The burden and costs information collection burden or cost action are small businesses, small of the information collection for EGUs in Kansas that would be organizations, and small governmental requirements covered under the CSAPR required to report NOX mass emissions jurisdictions. ICR are estimated as incremental to the and heat input data for the ozone season The EPA has lessened the impacts for information collection requirements to the EPA or for EGUs in South small entities by excluding all units covered under the ARP ICR. Most of the Carolina that would no longer be smaller than 25 MWe. This exclusion, in information used to estimate burden required to report NOX emissions and addition to the exemptions for and costs in this ICR was developed for heat input data for the ozone season to cogeneration units and solid waste the existing CSAPR and ARP ICRs. the EPA. The EGUs in both Kansas and incineration units, eliminates the This proposed rule would change the South Carolina already are and would burden of higher costs for a substantial universe of sources subject to certain remain subject to requirements to report number of small entities located in the information collection requirements NOX mass emissions and heat input 23 states for which the EPA is proposing under CSAPR but would not change the data for the entire year to the EPA under FIPs. substance of any CSAPR information the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Within these states, the EPA collection requirements. The burden Program, and the requirements related identified a total of 318 potentially and costs associated with the proposed to ozone season reporting are a subset of affected EGUs (i.e., greater than 25 changes in the reporting universe are the requirements related to annual MWe) warranting examination in its estimated as reductions from the burden reporting. Similarly, the EPA estimates RFA analysis. Of these, EPA identified and costs under the existing CSAPR that the proposed rule would cause no 16 potentially affected EGUs that are ICR. (This proposed rule would not change in information collection burden owned by 7 entities that met the Small change any source’s information or cost for EGUs in Florida that are Business Administration’s criteria for collection requirements with respect to subject to the Acid Rain Program identifying small entities. The EPA the ARP.) The EPA intends to because of the close similarity between estimated the annualized net incorporate the burden and costs the information collection requirements compliance cost to these 7 small entities associated with the proposed changes in under CSAPR and under the Acid Rain to be approximately ¥$38.3 million in the reporting universe under this Program. 2017, or savings of $38.3 million. The rulemaking into the next renewal of the More information on the ICR analysis fact that the net compliance costs for all CSAPR ICR. is included in the docket for this rule. entities are actually net savings does not Respondents/affected entities: Entities An agency may not conduct or mean that each small entity would potentially affected by this proposed sponsor, and a person is not required to benefit from the proposal to update action are EGUs in the states of Florida, respond to, a collection of information CSAPR. The net savings are driven by Kansas, and South Carolina that meet unless it displays a currently valid OMB entities that are able to increase their the applicability criteria for the CSAPR control number. The OMB control revenues by increasing generation. Of NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program in numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 the 7 small entities considered in this 40 CFR 97.404. CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. analysis, 1 entity may experience

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

compliance costs greater than 1 or 3 However, at this time, none of the certification is included in the docket percent of generation revenues in 2017. existing or planned EGUs affected by for this action. Since this entity is not projected to this proposed rule are owned by tribes G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of operate in the base case, we are unable or located in Indian country. This action Children From Environmental Health to compare the estimated compliance may have tribal implications if a new Risks and Safety Risks costs to base case generation revenues. affected EGU is built in Indian country. However, we note that this entity is Additionally, tribes have a vested The EPA interprets Executive Order located in a cost of service market, interest in how this proposed rule 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as where typically we expect entities would affect air quality. applying to those regulatory actions that should be able to recover all of their In developing CSAPR, which was concern health or safety risks, such that costs of complying with the proposal. promulgated on July 6, 2011 to address the analysis required under section 5– EPA has concluded that there is no interstate transport of ozone pollution 501 of the Order has the potential to significant economic impact on a under the 1997 ozone NAAQS,123 the influence the regulation. This action is substantial number of small entities (No EPA consulted with tribal officials not subject to Executive Order 13045 SISNOSE) for this rule. Details of this under the EPA Policy on Consultation because it does not involve decisions on analysis are presented in the RIA, which and Coordination with Indian Tribes environmental health or safety risks that is in the public docket. early in the process of developing that may disproportionately affect children. regulation to permit them to have The EPA believes that the ozone-related F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act benefits, PM -related co-benefits, and (UMRA) meaningful and timely input into its 2.5 development. A summary of that CO2-related co-benefits would further This action does not contain an consultation is provided in 76 FR 48346 improve children’s health. unfunded mandate of $100 million or (August 8, 2011). more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 1531–1538, and does not significantly or EPA received comments from several Concerning Regulations That uniquely affect small governments. tribal commenters regarding the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, However, the EPA analyzed the availability of CSAPR allowance Distribution or Use economic impacts of the proposal on allocations to new units in Indian This action, which is a significant government entities. According to EPA’s country. EPA responded to these regulatory action under Executive Order analysis, the total net economic impact comments by instituting Indian country 12866, is likely to have a significant on government owned entities (state- new unit set-asides in the final CSAPR. effect on the supply, distribution, or use and municipality-owned utilities and In order to protect tribal sovereignty, of energy. The EPA notes that one subdivisions) is expected to be negative these set-asides are managed and aspect of this proposal that may affect (i.e., cost savings) in 2014. Note that we distributed by the federal government energy supply, disposition or use is the expect the proposal to potentially have regardless of whether CSAPR in the EPA’s proposing and taking comment an impact on only one category of adjoining or surrounding state is on a range of options with respect to use government-owned entities implemented through a FIP or SIP. of 2015 vintage and 2016 vintage While there are no existing affected (municipality-owned entities). This CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances analysis does not examine potential EGUs in Indian country covered by this for compliance with 2017 and later indirect economic impacts associated proposal, the Indian country set-asides ozone season requirements. The EPA with the proposal, such as employment will ensure that any future new units has prepared a Statement of Energy effects in industries providing fuel and built in Indian country will be able to Effects for the proposed regulatory pollution control equipment, or the obtain the necessary allowances. This control alternative as follows. We potential effects of electricity price proposal maintains the Indian country estimate a much less than 1 percent increases on government entities. For new unit set-aside and adjusts the change in retail electricity prices on more information on the estimated amounts of allowances in each set-aside average across the contiguous U.S. in impact on government entities, refer to according to the same methodology of 2017, and a much less than 1 percent the RIA, which is in the public docket. the original CSAPR rule. reduction in coal-fired electricity The EPA has informed tribes of our generation in 2017 as a result of this E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism development of this proposal through a rule. The EPA projects that utility power This action does not have federalism National Tribal Air Association—EPA sector delivered natural gas prices will implications. It will not have substantial air policy conference call (January 29, change by less than 1 percent in 2017. direct effects on the states, on the 2015). The EPA plans to further consult For more information on the estimated relationship between the national with tribal officials under the EPA energy effects, refer to the RIA, which is government and the states, or on the Policy on Consultation and in the public docket. distribution of power and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in responsibilities among the various the process of developing this regulation I. National Technology Transfer and levels of government. to permit them to have meaningful and Advancement Act (NTTAA) timely input into its development. The This rulemaking does not involve F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation EPA will facilitate this consultation technical standards. and Coordination With Indian Tribal before finalizing this proposed rule. Governments J. Executive Order 12898: Federal As required by section 7(a), the EPA’s Actions To Address Environmental This action has tribal implications. Tribal Consultation Official has certified However, it will neither impose Justice in Minority Populations and that the requirements of the executive Low-Income Populations substantial direct compliance costs on order have been met in a meaningful federally recognized tribal governments, and timely manner. A copy of the The EPA believes the human health or nor preempt tribal law. environmental risk addressed by this This action proposes to implement 123 CSAPR also addressed interstate transport of action will not have potential EGU NOX ozone season emissions fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the 1997 and disproportionately high and adverse reductions in 23 eastern states. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. human health or environmental effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75763

on minority, low-income or indigenous penalties for failing to hold an adequate air policy conference call (January 29, populations. number of allowances to cover 2015). The EPA plans to further consult The EPA notes that this action emissions. with communities early in the process proposes to update CSAPR to reduce This approach reduces EGU emissions of developing this regulation to permit interstate ozone transport with respect in each state that significantly them to have meaningful and timely to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This contribute to downwind nonattainment input into its development. The EPA proposed rule uses EPA’s authority in or maintenance areas, while allowing will facilitate this engagement before CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to reduce power companies to adjust generation as finalizing this proposed rule. (nitrogen oxides) NOX pollution that needed and ensure that the country’s significantly contributes to downwind electricity needs will continue to be K. Determinations Under Section ozone nonattainment or maintenance met. EPA maintains that the existence of 307(b)(1) and (d) areas. As a result, the proposed rule will these assurance provisions, including Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates reduce exposures to ozone in the most- the penalties imposed when triggered, which Federal Courts of Appeal have contaminated areas (i.e., areas that are will ensure that state emissions will stay venue for petitions of review of final not meeting the 2008 ozone National below the level of the budget plus actions by EPA. This section provides, Ambient Air Quality Standards variability limit. in part, that petitions for review must be (NAAQS)). In addition, this proposed In addition, all sources must hold filed in the Court of Appeals for the rule separately identifies both enough allowances to cover their District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the nonattainment areas and maintenance emissions. Therefore, if a source emits agency action consists of ‘‘nationally areas. This requirement reduces the more than its allocation in a given year, applicable regulations promulgated, or likelihood that areas close to the level either another source must have used final action taken, by the of the standard will exceed the current less than its allocation and be willing to Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is health-based standards in the future. sell some of its excess allowances, or the locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such The EPA proposes to implement these source itself had emitted less than its action is based on a determination of emission reductions using the CSAPR allocation in one or more previous years nationwide scope or effect and if in EGU NOX ozone-season emissions (i.e., banked allowances for future use). taking such action the Administrator trading program with assurance In summary, the CSAPR minimizes finds and publishes that such action is provisions. community concerns about localized based on such a determination.’’ EPA recognizes that many hot spots and reduces ambient The EPA proposes to find that any environmental justice communities concentrations of pollution where they final action related to this rulemaking is have voiced concerns in the past about are most needed by sensitive and ‘‘nationally applicable’’ or of emission trading and the potential for vulnerable populations by: Considering ‘‘nationwide scope and effect’’ within any emission increases in any location. the science of ozone transport to set the meaning of section 307(b)(1). The EPA believes that CSAPR mitigated strict state emissions budgets to reduce Through this rulemaking action, the these concerns and that this proposal, significant contributions to ozone EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, which applies the CSAPR framework to nonattainment and maintenance (i.e., a provision which has nationwide reduce interstate ozone pollution and the most polluted) areas; implementing applicability. In addition, the proposed implement these reductions, will also air quality-assured trading; requiring rule would apply to 23 States. The minimize community concerns. The any emissions above the level of the proposed rule is also based on a EPA seeks comment from communities allocations to be offset by emission common core of factual findings and on this proposal. decreases; and imposing strict penalties analyses concerning the transport of Ozone pollution from power plants for sources that contribute to a state’s pollutants between the different states have both local and regional exceedance of its budget plus variability subject to it. For these reasons, the components: Part of the pollution in a limit. In addition, it is important to note Administrator proposes to determine given location—even in locations near that nothing in this proposed rule that any final action related to the emission sources—is due to emissions allows sources to violate their title V proposed rule is of nationwide scope from nearby sources and part is due to permit or any other federal, state, or and effect for purposes of section emissions that travel hundreds of miles local emissions or air quality 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section and mix with emissions from other requirements. 307(b) any petitions for review of any sources. In addition, it is important to note final actions regarding the rulemaking It is important to note that the section that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d), which would be filed in the Court of Appeals of the Clean Air Act providing authority addresses transport of criteria pollutants for the District of Columbia Circuit for this proposed rule, section between states, is only one of many within 60 days from the date any final 110(a)(2)(D), unlike some other provisions of the CAA that provide EPA, action is published in the Federal provisions, does not dictate levels of states, and local governments with Register. control for particular facilities. CSAPR authorities to reduce exposure to ozone In addition, pursuant to sections allows sources to trade allowances with in communities. These legal authorities 307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the other sources in the same or different work together to reduce exposure to CAA, the Administrator proposes to states while firmly constraining any these pollutants in communities, determine that this action is subject to emissions shifting that may occur by including for minority, low-income, and the provisions of section 307(d). CAA requiring a strict emission ceiling in tribal populations, and provide section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that each state (the assurance level). In substantial health benefits to both the section 307(d) applies to, among other addition, assurance provisions in the general public and sensitive sub- things, to ‘‘the promulgation or revision existing CSAPR regulations that will populations. of an implementation plan by the remain in place under this proposal The EPA has informed communities Administrator under CAA section outline the allowance surrender of our development of this proposal 110(c).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under penalties for failing to meet the through an Environmental Justice section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of assurance level; there are additional community call (January 28, 2015) and section 307(d) also apply to ‘‘such other allowance penalties as well as financial a National Tribal Air Association—EPA actions as the Administrator may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75764 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

determine.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(V). §§ 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, ■ k. In paragraph (a)(5)(vi), by removing The Agency has complied with 52.984, 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, ‘‘paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii)’’ and procedural requirements of CAA section 52.1284, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685, adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (a)(5)(i)’’; 52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2283, ■ l. In paragraph (a)(6), by removing ‘‘in 307(d) during the course of this 52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended] rulemaking. whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by ■ 3. Sections 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, removing ‘‘described in paragraphs List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52, 78, 52.882, 52.883, 52.984, 52.1186, (a)(1) through (5)’’ and adding in its and 97. 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, place ‘‘set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685, through (4)’’, and by removing ‘‘the Environmental protection, 52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, sources’’ and adding in its place Administrative practice and procedure, 52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588 ‘‘sources’’; Air pollution control, Electric power are amended by removing ‘‘correcting in ■ m. In paragraph (a)(7), by removing ‘‘a plants, Incorporation by reference, part the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and for the CSAPR Federal Implementation State’’; recordkeeping requirements. Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in ■ n. In paragraph (b)(1), by adding its place ‘‘correcting the SIP’s deficiency ‘‘subpart BBBBB of’’ before ‘‘part 97’’; Dated: November 16, 2015. that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal ■ o. Revising paragraph (b)(2); Gina McCarthy, Implementation Plan’’. ■ p. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as Administrator. paragraph (b)(3)(i); in redesignated Subpart A—General Provisions For the reasons stated in the paragraph (b)(3)(i), by further redesignating paragraphs (i) through (v) preamble, parts 52, 78, and 97 of § 52.36 [Amended] as paragraphs (A) through (E); and in chapter I of title 40 of the Code of ■ 4. Section 52.36 is amended in redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E), by Federal Regulations are proposed to be paragraph (e)(1)(i) by removing further redesignating paragraphs (A) and amended as follows: ‘‘paragraphs (a) through (e)’’ and adding (B) as paragraphs (1) and (2); in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a) through (c)’’. ■ q. In newly redesignated paragraph PART 52—APPROVAL AND ■ 5. Section 52.38 is amended by: (b)(3)(i) introductory text, by removing ■ PROMULGATION OF a. Revising the section heading; ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ and adding in its ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing IMPLEMENTATION PLANS place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii)’’; ‘‘the sources in the following States’’ ■ r. In newly redesignated paragraph ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 and adding in its place ‘‘sources in each (b)(3)(i)(B), by adding ‘‘the’’ before continues to read as follows: of the following States’’; ‘‘CSAPR NO Ozone Season trading ■ c. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by adding X Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. budget’’; ‘‘the’’ before ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual ■ s. In newly redesignated paragraph §§ 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 52.184, 52.540, trading budget’’; (b)(3)(i)(E)(1), by removing ‘‘paragraph ■ d. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A), by 52.584, 52.585, 52.731, 52.732, 52.789, (b)(3)(i) through (iv)’’ and adding in its 52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, removing ‘‘paragraph’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through 52.940, 52.941, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1085, place ‘‘paragraphs’’; ■ (D)’’; 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, e. In the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), ■ t. In newly redesignated paragraph 52.1326, 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its (b)(3)(i)(E)(2), by removing ‘‘paragraph 52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784, 52.1785, place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing (b)(3)(v)(A)’’ and adding in its place 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2041, ‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E)(1)’’; 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, ‘‘the Administrator’’; ■ u. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii); 52.2284, 52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541, ■ f. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by removing ■ v. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory 52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended] ‘‘for the first control period’’ and adding text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ in its place ‘‘applicable to the first ■ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 2. Sections 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, control period’’; 52.184, 52.540, 52.584, 52.585, 52.731, (b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’; ■ g. In paragraph (a)(5) introductory ■ w. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing 52.732, 52.789, 52.790, 52.840, 52.841, text, by removing ‘‘in whole or in part, ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by 52.882, 52.883, 52.940, 52.941, 52.984, as appropriate,’’, and by removing adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with 52.1084, 52.1085, 52.1186, 52.1187, ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this regard to the State’’, and by removing 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 52.1326, section’’ and adding in its place ‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this ‘‘wherever’’; 52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784, section with regard to sources in the ■ x. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) 52.1785, 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, State but not sources in any Indian introductory text; 52.2040, 52.2041, 52.2140, 52.2141, country within the borders of the State’’; ■ y. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B), by 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 52.2284, ■ h. In the table in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B), revising the table; 52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541, by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its ■ z. In paragraph (b)(5) introductory 52.2587, and 52.2588 are amended by place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ removing ‘‘TR Federal Implementation ‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in ‘‘the Administrator’’; (b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’, by removing ‘‘in whole ■ its place ‘‘CSAPR Federal i. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by adding or in part, as appropriate,’’, and by after ‘‘97.412(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this Implementation Plan’’, by removing ‘‘TR removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) chapter’’; of this section’’ and adding in its place NOX’’ wherever it appears and adding in ■ j. In paragraph (a)(5)(v), by removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this its place ‘‘CSAPR NO ’’, and by X ‘‘97.425, and’’ and adding in its place section with regard to sources in the removing ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears ‘‘and 97.425 of this chapter and’’, and State but not sources in any Indian and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’. by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the country within the borders of the State’’; words ‘‘of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of ■ aa. In paragraph (b)(5)(i), by removing this chapter’’; ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75765

adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with (b) * * * set-aside and Indian country new unit regard to the State’’, and by removing (2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB set-aside; ‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place of part 97 of this chapter apply to (C) The list must be submitted ‘‘wherever’’; sources in each of the following States electronically in a format specified by ■ bb. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) and Indian country located within the the Administrator; and introductory text; borders of such States with regard to ■ cc. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B), by emissions in the following years: (D) The SIP revision must not provide removing ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and (i) With regard to emissions in 2015 for any change in the units and adding in its place ‘‘auctions of and 2016 only, Florida and South allocations on the list after approval of CSAPR’’, and by revising the table; Carolina; the SIP revision by the Administrator ■ dd. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C), by (ii) With regard to emissions in 2015 and must not provide for any change in removing ‘‘any control period’’ and and each subsequent year, Alabama, any allocation determined and recorded adding in its place ‘‘any such control Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, by the Administrator under subpart period’’; BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter; ■ ee. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), by adding Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, a comma after ‘‘May adopt’’; Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New (E) Provided that: ■ ff. In paragraph (b)(5)(v), by adding Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, (1) By November 15, 2016, the State after ‘‘97.512(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, must notify the Administrator chapter’’; Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and electronically in a format specified by ■ gg. In paragraph (b)(5)(vi), by Wisconsin; and the Administrator of the State’s intent to removing ‘‘97.525, and’’ and adding in (iii) With regard to emissions in 2017 submit to the Administrator a complete its place ‘‘and 97.525 of this chapter and each subsequent year, Kansas. SIP revision meeting the requirements and’’, and by adding after ‘‘other (3) * * * of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of provisions’’ the words ‘‘of subpart (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section by April 1, 2017; and BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter’’; paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State ■ hh. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii), by other than Georgia listed in paragraph (2) The State must submit to the removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i) through (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section may Administrator a complete SIP revision (v)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph adopt and include in a SIP revision, and described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of (b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section and the Administrator will approve, as this section by April 1, 2017. paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) through (v)’’, by CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance (4) * * * removing ‘‘paragraphs (5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’ allocation provisions replacing the (ii) The State may adopt, as CSAPR and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs provisions in § 97.511(a) of this chapter NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’, and by removing with regard to the State and the control or auction provisions replacing the ‘‘paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and (iii)’’ and period in 2018, a list of CSAPR NOX provisions in §§ 97.511(a) and (b)(1) and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i) Ozone Season units and the amount of 97.512(a) of this chapter with regard to or (ii)’’; CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances the State and the control period in 2017 ■ ii. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing allocated to each unit on such list, ‘‘in whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, or any subsequent year or, for Kansas, provided that the list of units and 2019 or any subsequent year, any and by removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) allocations meets the following through (5)’’ and adding in its place methodology under which the State or requirements: the permitting authority allocates or ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)’’; and (A) All of the units on the list must ■ auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone Season jj. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing ‘‘a be units that are in the State and State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the allowances and may adopt, in addition commenced commercial operation to the definitions in § 97.502 of this State’’. before January 1, 2015; The additions and revisions read as chapter, one or more definitions that (B) The total amount of CSAPR NO follows: X shall apply only to terms as used in the Ozone Season allowance allocations on adopted CSAPR NOX Ozone Season § 52.38 What are the requirements of the the list must not exceed the amount, allowance allocation or auction Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the under § 97.510(a) of this chapter for the provisions, if such methodology— Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) State and the control period in 2018, of * * * * * relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides? the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading * * * * * budget minus the sum of the new unit (B) * * *

Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Deadline for submission of allocations or allowances are allocated or auctioned auction results to the Administrator

2017 ...... November 1, 2016. 2018 ...... November 1, 2016. 2019 ...... June 1, 2018. 2020 ...... June 1, 2018. 2021 ...... June 1, 2019. 2022 ...... June 1, 2019. 2023 and any year thereafter ...... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period.

* * * * * and (b)(1) and 97.512(a) of this chapter State or the permitting authority (5) * * * with regard to the State and the control allocates or auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone (ii) May adopt, as CSAPR NOX Ozone period in 2019 or any subsequent year Season allowances and that— Season allowance allocation provisions or, for Georgia, 2017 or any subsequent * * * * * replacing the provisions in §§ 97.511(a) year, any methodology under which the (B) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Deadline for submission of allocations or allowances are allocated or auctioned auction results to the Administrator

2017 ...... November 1, 2016. 2018 ...... November 1, 2016. 2019 ...... June 1, 2018. 2020 ...... June 1, 2018. 2021 ...... June 1, 2019. 2022 ...... June 1, 2019. 2023 and any year thereafter ...... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period.

* * * * * words ‘‘of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of ■ x. In paragraph (i)(5), by removing this chapter’’; ‘‘97.725, and’’ and adding in its place § 52.39 What are the requirements of the ■ m. In paragraph (f)(6), by removing ‘‘and 97.725 of this chapter and’’, and Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide? (f)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its words ‘‘of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph ■ 6. Section 52.39 is amended by: this chapter’’; ■ a. Revising the section heading as set (f)(1)’’; ■ y. In paragraph (i)(6), by removing ■ forth above; n. In paragraph (g) introductory text, ‘‘hold an auction under paragraphs ■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’ by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the (i)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its before ‘‘CSAPR SO Group 1 trading words ‘‘the State and’’; place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 2 ■ budget’’; o. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’ (i)(1)’’; before ‘‘CSAPR SO Group 2 trading ■ c. In paragraph (d)(5)(i), by removing 2 ■ z. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘in ‘‘paragraph (d)(1) through (4)’’ and budget’’; ■ whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (d)(1) p. In paragraph (g)(5)(i), by removing ‘‘paragraph (g)(1) through (4)’’ and adding after ‘‘CSAPR Federal through (4)’’; Implementation Plan’’ the words ‘‘set ■ adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (g)(1) d. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ through (4)’’; ■ q. In paragraph (h)(1) introductory of this section or paragraphs (a), (c), (g), the words ‘‘the State and’’; and (h) of this section, as applicable’’, ■ text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ e. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing and by removing ‘‘paragraph (b) and (c)’’ ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b) place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by or (c)’’; and removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place ‘‘or any ■ and adding in its place ‘‘the subsequent year’’; aa. In paragraph (k), by removing ‘‘a Administrator’’; ■ r. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii), by removing State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the ■ f. In paragraph (f) introductory text, by ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its State’’. removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by Subpart B—Alabama appropriate,’’, and by removing removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ ‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this and adding in its place ‘‘the § 52.54 [Amended] section’’ and adding in its place Administrator’’; ■ ‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this ■ s. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing 7. Section 52.54 is amended in section with regard to sources in the ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph paragraph (b)(2) by removing ‘‘the’’ State but not sources in any Indian (h)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its before ‘‘Alabama’s SIP revision’’. place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph country within the borders of the State’’; Subpart K—Florida ■ g. In paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, (h)(1)’’; ■ t. In paragraph (i) introductory text, by by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the ■ 8. Section 52.540 is amended by removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as words ‘‘the State and’’, and by removing adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: ‘‘and any subsequent year’’ and adding appropriate,’’, and by removing in its place ‘‘or any subsequent year’’; ‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this § 52.540 Interstate pollutant transport ■ h. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), by removing section’’ and adding in its place provisions; What are the FIP requirements ‘‘for such control period’’ and adding in ‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this for decreases in emissions of nitrogen its place ‘‘for any such control period’’; section with regard to sources in the oxides? ■ i. In paragraph (f)(1)(ii), by removing State but not sources in any Indian * * * * * ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its country within the borders of the State’’; (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by ■ u. In paragraph (i)(1) introductory this section, no source or unit located in removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the State of Florida or Indian country and adding in its place ‘‘the the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by within the borders of the State shall be Administrator’’; removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’ required under paragraph (a) of this ■ j. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing and adding in its place ‘‘or any section to comply with the requirements subsequent year’’; ‘‘paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii)’’ and set forth under the CSAPR NOX Ozone adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) ■ v. In paragraph (i)(1)(ii), by removing Season Trading Program in subpart and (iii)’’; ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter with ■ k. In paragraph (f)(4), by adding after place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by regard to emissions after 2016. ‘‘97.612(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’; removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ ■ l. In paragraph (f)(5), by removing and adding in its place ‘‘the Subpart R—Kansas ‘‘97.625, and’’ and adding in its place Administrator’’; ‘‘and 97.625 of this chapter and’’, and ■ w. In paragraph (i)(4), by adding after ■ 9. Section 52.882 is amended by by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the ‘‘97.712(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’; revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75767

§ 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport § 52.2140 Interstate pollutant transport § 78.4 [Amended] provisions; What are the FIP requirements provisions; What are the FIP requirements ■ 15. Section 78.4 is amended in for decreases in emissions of nitrogen for decreases in emissions of nitrogen paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ‘‘a oxides? oxides? affected’’ and adding in its place ‘‘an * * * * * * * * * * affected’’, by adding ‘‘or’’ before (b) * * * (b)(1) The owner and operator of each ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit’’, and by source and each unit located in the State (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) removing ‘‘, or a unit for which a TR of this section, no source or unit located of Kansas and Indian country within the opt-in application is submitted and not in the State of South Carolina or Indian withdrawn’’. borders of the State and for which country within the borders of the State requirements are set forth under the shall be required under paragraph (b)(1) PART 97—FEDERAL NOX BUDGET CSAPR NO Ozone Season Trading X of this section to comply with the TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of requirements set forth under the CSAPR SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND this chapter must comply with such NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING requirements. The obligation to comply subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter PROGRAMS with such requirements with regard to with regard to emissions after 2016. ■ 16. The heading of part 97 is revised sources and units in the State will be to read as set forth above. eliminated by the promulgation of an PART 78—APPEAL PROCEDURES ■ 17. The authority citation for part 97 approval by the Administrator of a ■ continues to read as follows: revision to Kansas’ State 12. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, the CSAPR Federal Implementation 7411, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. §§ 97.401 through 97.735 [Amended] Plan under § 52.38(b), except to the §§ 78.1 and 78.4 [Amended] ■ 18. Sections 97.401 through 97.735 are amended by removing ‘‘Transport extent the Administrator’s approval is ■ 13. Sections 78.1 and 78.4 are Rule (TR)’’ wherever it appears and partial or conditional. The obligation to amended by removing ‘‘TR NO ’’ X adding in its place ‘‘Cross-State Air comply with such requirements with wherever it appears and adding in its regard to sources and units located in Pollution Rule (CSAPR)’’, by removing place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and by removing ‘‘TR NOX’’ wherever it appears and Indian country within the borders of the ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears and State will not be eliminated by the adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’. by removing ‘‘TR SO ’’ wherever it promulgation of an approval by the ■ 2 14. Section 78.1 is amended by: appears and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR Administrator of a revision to Kansas’ ■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding after SO2’’. SIP. ‘‘part 97 of this chapter’’ the words ‘‘or (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of State regulations approved under Subpart AAAAA—CSAPR NOX Annual paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the § 52.38(a)(4) or (5) or (b)(4) or (5) of this Trading Program chapter or § 52.39(e), (f), (h), or (i) of this time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP ■ 19. The heading of subpart AAAAA of revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of chapter’’, and by adding a new third sentence at the end of the paragraph; part 97 is revised to read as set forth this section, the Administrator has above. already started recording any allocations ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(14)(viii); and ■ of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season c. In paragraphs (b)(16)(ii), (iii), and § 97.402 [Amended] allowances under subpart BBBBB of (v), by removing ‘‘SO2 Group 1’’ and ■ 20. Section 97.402 is amended by: part 97 of this chapter to units in the adding in its place ‘‘SO2 Group 2’’. ■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning State for a control period in any year, The additions read as follows: with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part locations in the list of definitions; § 78.1 Purpose and scope. ■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 97 of this chapter authorizing the (a)(1) * * * All references in system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine Administrator to complete the paragraph (b) of this section and in generator’’ and adding in its place allocation and recordation of CSAPR § 78.3 to subpart AAAAA of part 97 of ‘‘generator’’; NOX Ozone Season allowances to units this chapter, subpart BBBBB of part 97 ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence in the State for each such control period of this chapter, subpart CCCCC of part commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) shall continue to apply, unless provided 97 of this chapter, and subpart DDDDD introductory text, by adding after otherwise by such approval of the of part 97 of this chapter shall be read ‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; State’s SIP revision. to include the comparable provisions in ■ d. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR NOX State regulations approved under Annual allowances held or hold TR NO4 Subpart X—Michigan § 52.38(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, Annual allowances’’, by removing ‘‘TR NO4’’ and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR § 52.1187 [Amended] § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, § 52.39(e) or (f) of this chapter, and NOX’’; ■ 10. Section 52.1187 is amended in § 52.39(h) or (i) of this chapter, ■ e. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR SO2 paragraph (c)(2) by removing respectively. Group 2 Trading Program’’, by removing ‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘Maryland’s SIP revision’’ and adding * * * * * in its place ‘‘Michigan’s SIP revision’’. ‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’; (b) * * * ■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by (14) * * * Subpart PP—South Carolina removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place (viii) The determination of the § ’’; ■ 11. Section 52.2140 is amended by tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR NOX ■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Owner’’, by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as Ozone Season allowance under removing the paragraph designator ‘‘3)’’ § 97.524(f) of this chapter. follows: and adding in its place the paragraph * * * * * designator ‘‘(3)’’; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

■ h. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use ■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding a CSAPR NOX Annual unit’’, by adding of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of ‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. this chapter’’; and dates’’ each time it appears, and by ■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing removing the final period and adding in § 97.404 [Amended] ‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its its place a colon; ■ 21. Section 97.404 is amended by: place ‘‘of this section’’. ■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing (b)(2) introductory text; ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its § 97.412 [Amended] ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and ■ 25. Section 97.412 is amended by: and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); ■ b. Italicizing the headings of ■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; (b)(2), by removing the final semicolon ■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing and adding in its place a period; § 97.406 [Amended] ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and ■ e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory ■ 22. Section 97.406 is amended by: adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in ■ a. Italicizing the headings of through (iii)’’; its place ‘‘§ ’’; and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) ■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding ■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding through (7); and after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this ■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), this section’’; chapter’’. ■ by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual’’ before d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding ‘‘allowances.’’ after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; § 97.431 [Amended] ■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding ■ 31. Section 97.431 is amended by: § 97.410 State NOX Annual trading after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of ■ a. Italicizing the headings of budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian this section’’; paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) country new unit set-asides, and variability ■ through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), limits. f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; and (d)(3)(v); and ■ 23. Section 97.410 is amended by: and ■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory ■ a. Revising the heading as set forth ■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in above; after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of its place ‘‘§ ’’. ■ b. Removing ‘‘NOX annual trading this chapter’’. budget’’ wherever it appears and adding § 97.434 [Amended] ■ in its place ‘‘NOX Annual trading § 97.421 [Amended] 32. Section 97.434 is amended by: budget’’; ■ 26. Section 97.421 is amended by: ■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’ ■ c. Removing ‘‘NOX annual new unit ■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by before ‘‘requirements’’; set-aside’’ wherever it appears and removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its ■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; place ‘‘periods’’; and text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and ■ d. Removing ‘‘NOX annual Indian ■ b. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by country new unit set-aside’’ wherever it date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final appears and adding in its place ‘‘Indian 15 days after the date’’. colon; country new unit set-aside’’; ■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing § 97.425 [Amended] ■ e. Removing ‘‘NOX annual variability ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial limit’’ wherever it appears and adding ■ 27. Section 97.425 is amended by: operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and ■ in its place ‘‘variability limit’’; a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and ■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ ■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing by removing ‘‘new unit-set aside’’ and and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; (b)(1)(ii)’’; operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ ■ ■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by (a)(11)(vi) and (a)(16)(vi); and adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the ■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after before ‘‘any adjustments’’; third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which ■ ‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing c. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing case reporting shall commence in the ‘‘the’’ before ‘‘them’’; and quarter covering January 1, 2015 ‘‘identified’’, and by removing ‘‘set ■ aside’’ wherever it appears and adding d. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by through March 31, 2015’’. in its place ‘‘set-aside’’. removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word ‘‘at’’. Subpart BBBBB—CSAPR NOX Ozone § 97.411 [Amended] Season Trading Program § 97.426 [Amended] ■ 24. Section 97.411 is amended by: ■ ■ 28. Section 97.426 is amended in 33. The heading of subpart BBBBB of ■ a. Italicizing the headings of paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘97.427, or part 97 is revised to read as set forth paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 97.428’’ and adding in its place above. ■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and ■ ‘‘§ 97.427, or § 97.428’’. 34. Section 97.502 is amended by: (b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 ■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; § 97.428 [Amended] with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical ■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ■ 29. Section 97.428 is amended in locations in the list of definitions; ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph ■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration its place ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’; (a)(1)’’ and adding in its place system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine ■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding ‘‘paragraph (a)’’. generator’’ and adding in its place after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of ‘‘generator’’; this chapter’’; § 97.430 [Amended] ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence ■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory ■ 30. Section 97.430 is amended by: commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ ■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, introductory text, by adding after and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of ‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75769

■ d. Revising the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR purpose, the unrounded sum of the State and such control period, shall NOX Ozone Season allowance’’ and tonnage equivalents of the individual hold (in the assurance account ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances established for the owners and operators limitation’’; comprising the group. of such group) CSAPR NOX Ozone ■ e. In the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR SO2 * * * * * Season allowances available for Group 1 Trading Program’’ and ‘‘CSAPR deduction for such control period under SO2 Group 2 Trading Program’’, by § 97.504 [Amended] § 97.525(a) with a tonnage equivalent removing ‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in in its ■ 35. Section 97.504 is amended by: not less than two times the product place ‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’; ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing (rounded to the nearest whole number), ■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its as determined by the Administrator in removing ‘‘§§’’ and adding in its place place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’, and by accordance with § 97.525(b), of §’’; removing ‘‘TR NOX’’ and adding in its multiplying— ■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’; and * * * * * of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding ■ b. Italicizing the headings of (v) * * * after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’; and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). (B) Each ton of the tonnage equivalent ■ ■ h. Adding, in alphabetical order, a 36. Section 97.506 is amended by: of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season definition of ‘‘Tonnage equivalent.’’ ■ a. Italicizing the headings of allowances that the owners and The additions and revisions read as paragraphs (c), (c)(1) and (2), and (c)(4) operators fail to hold for such control follows: through (7); period in accordance with paragraphs ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and § 97.502 Definitions. (c)(2)(i) introductory text, and each day of such control period shall * * * * * (c)(2)(v)(B); constitute a separate violation of this ■ CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(i) as subpart and the Clean Air Act. means a limited authorization under the paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), and revising it; (3) * * * ■ CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading d. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B); (i)(A) Except as provided in paragraph ■ Program issued and allocated or e. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a CSAPR NOX auctioned to a CSAPR NOX Ozone by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season’’ Ozone Season unit shall be subject to Season unit in a State (or Indian country before ‘‘allowances’’; and the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) within the borders of such State) by the ■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(6) of this section for the control period Administrator under this subpart, or by introductory text. starting on the later of May 1, 2015 or the State or permitting authority under The revisions and additions read as the deadline for meeting the unit’s a SIP revision approved by the follows: monitor certification requirements Administrator under § 52.38(b)(3), (4), § 97.506 Standard requirements. under § 97.530(b) and for each control or (5) of this chapter, to emit either: period thereafter. * * * * * (B) A CSAPR NO Ozone Season unit (1) One ton of NOX in the State (or (c) * * * X Indian country located within the in the State of Kansas (or Indian country (1) * * * within the borders of the State) that is borders of such State) during a control (i) As of the allowance transfer not a CSAPR NO Ozone Season unit in period of the specified calendar year for deadline for a control period in a given X another State (or Indian country within which the authorization is allocated or year, the owners and operators of each the borders of another State) during any auctioned; or CSAPR NO Ozone Season source and X portion of a control period in 2015 or (2) As determined under § 97.524(f), each CSAPR NO Ozone Season unit at X 2016 shall be subject to the up to one ton of NOX in another State the source shall hold, in the source’s requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of (or Indian country located within the compliance account, CSAPR NO X this section for the control period borders of another State) or during a Ozone Season allowances available for starting on the later of May 1, 2017 or control period after the specified deduction for such control period under the deadline for meeting the unit’s calendar year for which the § 97.524(a) with a tonnage equivalent monitor certification requirements authorization is allocated or auctioned. not less than the tons of total NO X under § 97.530(b) and for each control * * * * * emissions for such control period from period thereafter. CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at limitation means, for a CSAPR NOX the source. * * * * * (6) Limited authorization. A CSAPR Ozone Season source, the tonnage of * * * * * NOX; Ozone Season allowance is a NOX emissions authorized in a control (2) * * * limited authorization to emit up to one period in a given year by the tonnage (i) If total NOX emissions during a ton of NOX; during the control period in equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone control period in a given year from all one year as determined under Season allowances available for CSAPR NO Ozone Season units at X § 97.524(f). Such authorization is deduction for the source under CSAPR NO Ozone Season sources in a X limited in its use and duration as § 97.524(a) for such control period. State (and Indian country within the follows: * * * * * borders of such State) exceed the State Tonnage equivalent means, with assurance level, then the owners and * * * * * ■ regard to a specific individual CSAPR operators of such sources and units in 37. Section 97.510 is revised to read as follows: NOX Ozone Season allowance held or each group of one or more sources and

deducted for an identified purpose, the units having a common designated § 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading portion of one ton represented by the representative for such control period, budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance as where the common designated country new unit set-asides, and variability determined under § 97.524(f) or, with representative’s share of such NOX limits. regard to a specific group of CSAPR emissions during such control period (a) The State NOX Ozone Season NOX Ozone Season allowances held or exceeds the common designated trading budgets, new unit set-asides, deducted for a common identified representative’s assurance level for the and Indian country new unit set-asides

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (iii) The Indian country new unit set- Season allowances for the control and thereafter is 565 tons. aside for 2015 and 2016 is 28 tons. periods in 2015 and thereafter are as (vi) [Reserved] (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading follows: (7) Iowa. (i) The NOX Ozone Season budget for 2017 and thereafter is 19,115 (1) Alabama. (i) The NOX Ozone trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is tons. Season trading budget for 2015 and 16,532 tons. (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 2016 is 31,746 tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and thereafter is 363 tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 314 tons. (vi) The Indian country new unit set- and 2016 is 635 tons. (iii) The Indian country new unit set- aside for 2017 and thereafter is 19 tons. (iii) [Reserved] aside for 2015 and 2016 is 17 tons. (13) Mississippi. (i) The NOX Ozone (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading Season trading budget for 2015 and budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,979 budget for 2017 and thereafter is 8,351 2016 is 12,429 tons. tons. tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and 2016 is 237 tons. and thereafter is 205 tons. and thereafter is 411 tons. (iii) The Indian country new unit set- (vi) [Reserved] (vi) The Indian country new unit set- aside for 2015 and 2016 is 12 tons. (2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX Ozone aside for 2017 and thereafter is 8 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading Season trading budget for 2015 and (8) Kansas. (i) [Reserved] budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,910 2016 is 15,110 tons. (ii) [Reserved] tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (iii) [Reserved] (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and 2016 is 756 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading and thereafter is 584 tons. (iii) [Reserved] budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,272 (vi) The Indian country new unit set- (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading tons. aside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,949 (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (14) Missouri. (i) The NOX Ozone tons. and thereafter is 272 tons. Season trading budget for 2015 and (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (vi) The Indian country new unit set- 2016 is 22,788 tons. and thereafter is 141 tons. aside for 2017 and thereafter is 9 tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is (vi) [Reserved] (9) Kentucky. (i) The NOX Ozone 684 tons and for 2016 is 1,367 tons. (3) Florida. (i) The NOX Ozone Season Season trading budget for 2015 and (iii) [Reserved] trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 2016 is 36,167 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 28,644 tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,323 (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,447 tons. tons. and 2016 is 544 tons. (iii) [Reserved] (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 314 tons. (iii) The Indian country new unit set- (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading aside for 2015 and 2016 is 29 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 21,519 (vi) [Reserved] (15) New Jersey. (i) The NO Ozone (iv) [Reserved] tons. X (v) [Reserved] (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 Season trading budget for 2015 and (vi) [Reserved] and thereafter is 647 tons. 2016 is 4,128 tons. (4) Georgia. (i) The NOX Ozone (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (vi) [Reserved] Season trading budget for 2015 and (10) Louisiana. (i) The NO Ozone and 2016 is 83 tons. 2016 is 27,944 tons. X (iii) [Reserved] Season trading budget for 2015 and (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 2016 is 18,115 tons. and 2016 is 559 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 2,015 (iii) [Reserved] (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 tons. and 2016 is 344 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 budget for 2017 and thereafter is 24,041 (iii) The Indian country new unit set- and thereafter is 1,151 tons. tons. aside for 2015 and 2016 is 18 tons. (vi) [Reserved] (iv) The NO Ozone Season trading (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 X (16) New York. (i) The NOX Ozone and thereafter is 481 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,807 Season trading budget for 2015 and (vi) [Reserved] tons. 2016 is 10,369 tons. (5) Illinois. (i) The NOX Ozone Season (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is and thereafter is 612 tons. and 2016 is 197 tons. 21,208 tons. (vi) The Indian country new unit set- (iii) The Indian country new unit set- (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 aside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons. aside for 2015 and 2016 is 10 tons. and 2016 is 1,697 tons. (11) Maryland. (i) The NOX Ozone (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (iii) [Reserved] Season trading budget for 2015 and budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,450 (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 2016 is 7,179 tons. tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,078 (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 tons. and 2016 is 144 tons. and thereafter is 89 tons. (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (iii) [Reserved] (vi) The Indian country new unit set- and thereafter is 591 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading aside for 2017 and thereafter is 4 tons. (vi) [Reserved] budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,026 (17) North Carolina. (i) The NOX (6) Indiana. (i) The NOX Ozone tons. Ozone Season trading budget for 2015 Season trading budget for 2015 and (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and 2016 is 22,168 tons. 2016 is 46,876 tons. and thereafter is 485 tons. (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (vi) [Reserved] and 2016 is 1,308 tons. and 2016 is 1,406 tons. (12) Michigan. (i) The NOX Ozone (iii) The Indian country new unit set- (iii) [Reserved] Season trading budget for 2015 and aside for 2015 and 2016 is 22 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 2016 is 28,041 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and thereafter is 28,284 (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,275 tons. and 2016 is 533 tons. tons.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75771

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (12) The variability limit for Michigan and thereafter is 236 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 58,002 is 4,014 tons. (vi) The Indian country new unit set- tons. (13) The variability limit for aside for 2017 and thereafter is 12 tons. (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 Mississippi is 1,241 tons. (18) Ohio. (i) The NOX Ozone Season and thereafter is 2,852 tons. (14) The variability limit for Missouri trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is (vi) The Indian country new unit set- is 3,218 tons. 41,284 tons. aside for 2017 and thereafter is 58 tons. (15) The variability limit for New (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (24) Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone Jersey is 423 tons. and 2016 is 826 tons. Season trading budget for 2015 and (16) The variability limit for New (iii) [Reserved] 2016 is 14,452 tons. York is 935 tons. (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (17) The variability limit for North budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,660 and 2016 is 723 tons. Carolina is 2,578 tons. tons. (iii) [Reserved] (18) The variability limit for Ohio is (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 3,499 tons. and thereafter is 337 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,818 (19) The variability limit for (vi) [Reserved] tons. Oklahoma is 3,405 tons. (19) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX Ozone (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (20) The variability limit for Season trading budget for 2015 is 36,567 and thereafter is 1,844 tons. Pennsylvania is 3,021 tons. tons and for 2016 is 22,694 tons. (vi) [Reserved] (21) [Reserved] (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is (25) West Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone (22) The variability limit for 731 tons and for 2016 is 454 tons. Season trading budget for 2015 and Tennessee is 1,151 tons. (iii) [Reserved] 2016 is 25,283 tons. (23) The variability limit for Texas is (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 12,180 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,215 and 2016 is 1,264 tons. (24) The variability limit for Virginia tons. (iii) [Reserved] is 1,432 tons. (iv) The NO Ozone Season trading (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 X (25) The variability limit for West budget for 2017 and thereafter is 13,390 and thereafter is 309 tons. Virginia is 2,812 tons. (vi) The Indian country new unit set- tons. (26) The variability limit for aside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons. (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 Wisconsin is 1,168 tons. (20) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX Ozone and thereafter is 268 tons. (c) Each State NO Ozone Season Season trading budget for 2015 and (vi) [Reserved] X trading budget in this section includes 2016 is 52,201 tons. (26) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX Ozone any tons in a new unit set-aside or (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 Season trading budget for 2015 and Indian country new unit set-aside, but and 2016 is 1,044 tons. 2016 is 14,784 tons. (iii) [Reserved] (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 does not include any tons in a (iv) The NO Ozone Season trading and 2016 is 872 tons. variability limit. X ■ budget for 2017 and thereafter is 14,387 (iii) The Indian country new unit set- 38. Section 97.511 is amended by: ■ tons. aside for 2015 and 2016 is 15 tons. a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading ■ and thereafter is 1,017 tons. budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,561 b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (vi) [Reserved] tons. (b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘August 31 (21) South Carolina. (i) The NOX (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; Ozone Season trading budget for 2015 and thereafter is 115 tons. ■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B), by adding and 2016 is 13,909 tons. (vi) The Indian country new unit set- a paragraph break after the end of the (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 aside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons. second sentence and before the and 2016 is 264 tons. (b) The States’ variability limits for paragraph designator ‘‘(v)’’ for the (iii) The Indian country new unit set- the State NOX Ozone Season trading following paragraph (b)(2)(v); aside for 2015 and 2016 is 14 tons. budgets for the control periods in 2017 ■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing (iv) [Reserved] and thereafter are as follows: ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in (v) [Reserved] (1) The variability limit for Alabama its place ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’, and by (vi) [Reserved] is 2,096 tons. removing ‘‘January 1’’ and adding in its (22) Tennessee. (i) The NOX Ozone (2) The variability limit for Arkansas place ‘‘May 1’’; Season trading budget for 2015 and is 1,459 tons. ■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 2016 is 14,908 tons. (3) [Reserved] ■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (4) The variability limit for Georgia is after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of and 2016 is 298 tons. 5,049 tons. this chapter’’; (iii) [Reserved] (5) The variability limit for Illinois is ■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory (iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 2,536 tons. text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,481 (6) The variability limit for Indiana is and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; tons. 5,940 tons. ■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding (v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 (7) The variability limit for Iowa is after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of and thereafter is 109 tons. 1,754 tons. this chapter’’; and (vi) [Reserved] (8) The variability limit for Kansas is ■ i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing (23) Texas. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 1,947 tons. ‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is (9) The variability limit for Kentucky place ‘‘of this section’’. 65,560 tons. is 4,519 tons. The revisions read as follows: (ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 (10) The variability limit for Louisiana and 2016 is 2,556 tons. is 3,319 tons. § 97.511 Timing requirements for CSAPR (iii) The Indian country new unit set- (11) The variability limit for Maryland NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations. aside for 2015 and 2016 is 66 tons. is 845 tons. * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(c) * * * Ozone Season units located in Indian § 97.511(a) for the control period in (3) If the Administrator already country within the borders of each State 2018. recorded such CSAPR NOX Ozone for which an Indian country new unit (B) If the State submits to the Season allowances under § 97.521 and if set-aside is set forth in § 97.510 for that Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the the Administrator makes the control period, the Administrator will Administrator approves by October 1, determination under paragraph (c)(1) of allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 2017 such complete SIP revision, the this section before making deductions allowances to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Administrator will record by October 1, for the source that includes such Season units as follows: 2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season recipient under § 97.524(b) for such * * * * * source’s compliance account the CSAPR control period, then the Administrator ■ 40. Section 97.521 is amended by: NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated will deduct from the account in which ■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season by removing ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i) through at the source as provided in such allowances were recorded CSAPR NOX (iv)’’ and adding in its place approved, complete SIP revision for the Ozone Season allowances allocated for ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i)(A) through (D)’’; control period in 2018. the same or a prior control period until ■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (C) If the State submits to the the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR paragraph (c)(1), and revising it; Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the NOX Ozone Season allowances ■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(2); Administrator does not approve by deducted under this paragraph equals or ■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and October 1, 2017 such complete SIP exceeds the tonnage equivalent of such ■ e. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the revision, the Administrator will record already recorded CSAPR NOX Ozone date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date by October 1, 2017 in each CSAPR NOX Season allowances, making all such 15 days after the date’’. Ozone Season source’s compliance deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone The revisions read as follows: account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Season allowances. The authorized allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX § 97.521 Recordation of CSAPR NOX account representative shall ensure that Ozone Season allowance allocations and Ozone Season units at the source in there are CSAPR NOX Ozone Season auction results. accordance with § 97.511(a) for the allowances in such account with a control period in 2018. * * * * * (d) By July 1, 2018, the Administrator tonnage equivalent sufficient for (c)(1) By December 1, 2016, the will record in each CSAPR NO Ozone completion of the deduction. Administrator will record in each X Season source’s compliance account the * * * * * CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source’s ■ CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 39. Section 97.512 is amended by: compliance account the CSAPR NOX ■ allocated to the CSAPR NO Ozone a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory Ozone Season allowances allocated to X Season units at the source, or in each text; the CSAPR NO Ozone Season units at ■ X appropriate Allowance Management b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing the source, or in each appropriate System account the CSAPR NO Ozone ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and Allowance Management System account X Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) the CSAPR NO Ozone Season X NO Ozone Season units, in accordance through (iii)’’; allowances auctioned to CSAPR NO X ■ c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing X with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision Ozone Season units, in accordance with ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision ■ d. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding this chapter, for the control periods in approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 2019 and 2020. this chapter, for the control period in this section’’; (e) By July 1, 2019, the Administrator 2017 or, for such sources in Georgia, the ■ e. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; control periods in 2017 and 2018. Season source’s compliance account the (2) For the CSAPR NO Ozone Season ■ f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory X CSAPR NO Ozone Season allowances sources not in Georgia, by December 1, X text; allocated to the CSAPR NO Ozone 2016, the Administrator will record in X ■ g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding Season units at the source, or in each each such source’s compliance account after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of appropriate Allowance Management the CSAPR NO Ozone Season this section’’; X System account the CSAPR NO Ozone allowances allocated to the CSAPR NO X ■ h. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding X Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR Ozone Season units at the source in after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; NO Ozone Season units, in accordance accordance with § 97.511(a) for the X and with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision ■ control period in 2018, unless the State i. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of in which the source is located notifies after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter, for the control periods in the Administrator in writing by this chapter’’. 2021 and 2022. The revisions read as follows: November 15, 2016 of the State’s intent to submit to the Administrator a * * * * * ■ 41. Section 97.524 is amended by: § 97.512 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season complete SIP revision by April 1, 2017 ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) allowance allocations to new units. meeting the requirements of introductory text, (b)(1), (c)(2) (a) For each control period in 2015 § 52.38(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of this introductory text, and (c)(2)(i) and (ii); and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX chapter. ■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) Ozone Season units in each State for (A) If the State does not submit to the which a new unit set-aside is set forth through (v); Administrator by April 1, 2017 such ■ in § 97.510 for that control period, the c. Revising paragraph (d); and complete SIP revision, the ■ d. Adding paragraph (f).

Administrator will allocate CSAPR NOX Administrator will record by April 15, The revisions and additions read as Ozone Season allowances to the CSAPR 2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season follows: NOX Ozone Season units as follows: source’s compliance account the CSAPR * * * * * NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated § 97.524 Compliance with CSAPR NOX (b) For each control period in 2015 to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units Ozone Season emissions limitation. and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX at the source in accordance with * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75773

(b) Deductions for compliance. After allowance that were allocated or emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone the recordation, in accordance with auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season Season unit in another State (or Indian § 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading budget for the State within country within the borders of another allowance transfers submitted by the whose borders the source is located to State) or for the purpose of correcting an allowance transfer deadline for a control the units at the source and were not allocation or recordation error affecting period in a given year, the transferred out of the compliance a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in Administrator will deduct from each account, in the order of recordation; and another State (or Indian country within source’s compliance account CSAPR (v) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season the borders of another State), the NOX Ozone Season allowances available allowances determined under paragraph tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NOX under paragraph (a) of this section in (f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage Ozone Season allowance shall be four order to determine whether the source equivalent of one fourth of one ton per tenths of one ton per allowance. meets the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance that were not allocated or (3) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone emissions limitation for such control auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season Season allowance has been allocated or period, making all such deductions in trading budget for the State within auctioned for a control period in 2015 whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season whose borders the source is located to or 2016, and where the CSAPR NOX allowances, as follows: any unit at the source and were Ozone Season allowance is held or (1) Until the tonnage equivalent of the transferred to and recorded in the deducted for any purpose related to CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances compliance account pursuant to this emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone deducted equals or exceeds the number subpart, in the order of recordation. Season unit in any State except Georgia of tons of total NOX emissions from all (d) Deductions for excess emissions. (or Indian country within the borders of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at the After making the deductions for such a State) in a control period in 2017 source for such control period; or compliance under paragraph (b) of this or a subsequent year or for the purpose * * * * * section for a control period in a year in of correcting an allocation or (c) * * * which the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season recordation error affecting a CSAPR (2) Default order of deductions. The source has excess emissions, the NOX Ozone Season unit in any State Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX Administrator will deduct from the except Georgia (or Indian country Ozone Season allowances under source’s compliance account CSAPR within the borders of such a State) for paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated a control period in 2017 or a subsequent the source’s compliance account in for a control period in a prior year or the year, the tonnage equivalent of the accordance with a complete request control period in the year of the excess CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, emissions or in the immediately shall be one fourth of one ton per in the absence of such request or in the following year, making all such allowance. case of identification of an insufficient deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone (4) The Administrator will determine the year of the compliance period for amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Season allowances, until the tonnage allowances in such request, in the equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone which a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season following order: Season allowances deducted under this allowance was allocated or auctioned and the State from whose NOX Ozone (i) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season paragraph equals or exceeds two times allowances determined under paragraph the number of tons of the source’s Season trading budget the CSAPR NOX (f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage excess emissions. Ozone Season allowance was allocated equivalent of one ton per allowance that * * * * * or auctioned based on the records were allocated or auctioned from the (f) Tonnage equivalents of CSAPR maintained in the Allowance Management System. NO Ozone Season trading budget for NOX Ozone Season allowances. Where a X ■ the State within whose borders the determination is needed of the tonnage 42. Section 97.525 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) source is located to the units at the equivalent of a CSAPR NOX Ozone source and were not transferred out of Season allowance held or deducted introductory text and (b)(2)(ii); ■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory the compliance account, in the order of under any provision of § 97.506(c), text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ recordation; § 97.511(c), § 97.524, § 97.525, § 97.527, and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (ii) Any CSAPR NO Ozone Season or § 97.528 relating to the holding or X (b)(1)(ii)’’; allowances determined under paragraph deduction of CSAPR NO X Ozone Season ■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding (f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage allowances, the Administrator will ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ before equivalent of one ton per allowance that make the determination as follows, ‘‘any adjustments’’; and were not allocated or auctioned from the provided that notwithstanding any such ■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5), NOX Ozone Season trading budget for determination the CSAPR NOX Ozone (b)(6) introductory text, (b)(6)(i) and (ii), the State within whose borders the Season allowance remains subject to the (b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and source is located to any unit at the limitations in § 97.506(c)(6): (b)(6)(iii)(A) and (B). source and were transferred to and (1) Except as provided under The revisions read as follows: recorded in the compliance account paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section, pursuant to this subpart, in the order of the tonnage equivalent of each CSAPR § 97.525 Compliance with CSAPR NOX recordation; NOX Ozone Season allowance shall be Ozone Season assurance provisions. (iii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season one ton per allowance. * * * * * allowances determined under paragraph (2) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone (b) Deductions for compliance. The (f)(2) of this section to have a tonnage Season allowance has been allocated or Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX equivalent of four tenths of one ton per auctioned for a control period in 2017 Ozone Season allowances available allowance, in the order of recordation; or a subsequent year from the NOX under paragraph (a) of this section for (iv) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Ozone Season trading budget for compliance with the CSAPR NOX Ozone allowances determined under paragraph Georgia, and where the CSAPR NOX Season assurance provisions for a State (f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage Ozone Season allowance is held or for a control period in a given year in equivalent of one fourth of one ton per deducted for any purpose related to accordance with the following

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75774 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

procedures, making all such deductions midnight of such date, the (ii) If any such data are revised by the in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Administrator will determine whether owners and operators of a CSAPR NOX allowances: the owners and operators described in Ozone Season source and CSAPR NOX * * * * * paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in Ozone Season unit whose designated (2) * * * the assurance account for the representative submitted such data (ii) By August 1 immediately after the appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, promulgation of such notice, the sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season as a result of a decision in or settlement Administrator will calculate, for each units, and State (and Indian country of litigation concerning such such State (and Indian country within within the borders of such State) submission, then the Administrator will the borders of such State) and such established under paragraph (b)(3) of use the data as so revised to recalculate control period and each common this section, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX designated representative for such allowances available under paragraph Ozone Season allowances that owners control period for a group of one or (a) of this section with the tonnage and operators are required to hold in more CSAPR NOX Ozone Season equivalent that the owners and accordance with the calculation formula sources and units in the State (and operators are required to hold with in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control Indian country within the borders of regard to such sources, units, and State period with regard to the CSAPR NOX such State), the common designated (and Indian country within the borders Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX representative’s share of the total NOX of such State) as calculated by the Ozone Season units, and State (and emissions from all CSAPR NOX Ozone Administrator and referenced in the Indian country within the borders of Season units at CSAPR NOX Ozone notice required in paragraph such State) involved, provided that such Season sources in the State (and Indian (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. litigation was initiated no later than 30 country within the borders of such (6) Notwithstanding any other days after promulgation of such notice State), the common designated provision of this subpart and any required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of representative’s assurance level, and the revision, made by or submitted to the this section. tonnage equivalent (if any) of CSAPR Administrator after the promulgation of (iii) If the revised data are used to NOX Ozone Season allowances that the the notice of data availability required recalculate, in accordance with owners and operators of such group of in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this sources and units must hold in for a control period in a given year, of section, the tonnage equivalent of accordance with the calculation formula any data used in making the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate calculations referenced in such notice, that the owners and operators are a notice of data availability of the results the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX required to hold for such control period of these calculations. Ozone Season allowances that the with regard to the CSAPR NOX Ozone * * * * * owners and operators are required to Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone (4) * * * hold in accordance with § 97.506(c)(2)(i) Season units, and State (and Indian (i) As of midnight of November 1 for such control period shall continue to country within the borders of such immediately after the promulgation of be such tonnage equivalents as State) involved— each notice of data availability required calculated by the Administrator and (A) Where the tonnage equivalent of in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, referenced in such notice required in CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, that the owners and operators are paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall except as follows: required to hold increases as a result of hold in the assurance account (i) If any such data are revised by the the use of all such revised data, the established for them and for the Administrator as a result of a decision Administrator will establish a new, appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season in or settlement of litigation concerning reasonable deadline on which the sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season such data on appeal under part 78 of owners and operators shall hold CSAPR units, and State (and Indian country this chapter of such notice, or on appeal NOX Ozone Season allowances with the within the borders of such State) under under section 307 of the Clean Air Act additional tonnage equivalent in the paragraph (b)(3) of this section CSAPR of a decision rendered under part 78 of assurance account established by the NOX Ozone Season allowances, this chapter on appeal of such notice, Administrator for the appropriate available for deduction under paragraph then the Administrator will use the data CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, (a) of this section, with a total tonnage as so revised to recalculate the tonnage CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and equivalent not less than the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone State (and Indian country within the equivalent such owners and operators Season allowances that owners and borders of such State) under paragraph are required to hold with regard to such operators are required to hold in (b)(3) of this section. The owners’ and sources, units and State (and Indian accordance with the calculation formula operators’ failure to hold such country within the borders of such in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control additional tonnage equivalent, as State) as calculated by the period with regard to the CSAPR NOX required, before the new deadline shall Administrator and referenced in such Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. notice. Ozone Season units, and State (and The owners’ and operators’ failure to * * * * * Indian country within the borders of hold such additional tonnage (5) After November 1 (or the date such State) involved, provided that such equivalent, as required, as of the new described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this litigation under part 78 of this chapter, deadline shall be a violation of the section) immediately after the or the proceeding under part 78 of this Clean Air Act. Each ton of the tonnage promulgation of each notice of data chapter that resulted in the decision equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone availability required in paragraph appealed in such litigation under Season allowances that the owners and (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was operators fail to hold as required as of recordation, in accordance with initiated no later than 30 days after the new deadline, and each day in such § 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season promulgation of such notice required in control period, shall be a separate allowance transfers submitted by paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. violation of the Clean Air Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75775

(B) For the owners and operators for (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before covering May 1, 2015 through June 30, which the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR the latest of the following dates and 2015; or NOX Ozone Season allowances required shall record, report, and quality-assure (B) For a unit in the State of Kansas to be held decreases as a result of the the data from the monitoring systems (or Indian country within the borders of use of all such revised data, the under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX Administrator will record, in all and after the latest of the following Ozone Season unit in another State (or accounts from which CSAPR NOX dates: Indian country within the borders of Ozone Season allowances were (1)(i) For a unit other than a unit another State) during any portion of a transferred by such owners and described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this control period in 2015 or 2016, the operators for such control period to the section, May 1, 2015; or calendar quarter covering May 1, 2017 assurance account established by the (ii) For a unit in the State of Kansas through June 30, 2017; Administrator for the appropriate (or Indian country within the borders of (ii) The calendar quarter CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX corresponding to the earlier of the date CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and Ozone Season unit in another State (or of provisional certification or the State (and Indian country within the Indian country within the borders of applicable deadline for initial borders of such State) under paragraph another State) during any portion of a certification under § 97.530(b); or (b)(3) of this section, a total amount of control period in 2015 or 2016, May 1, (iii) For a unit that reports on a the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 2017; control period basis under paragraph allowances held in such assurance (2) 180 calendar days after the date on (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if the account that the Administrator which the unit commences commercial calendar quarter under paragraph determines may be transferred from operation; or (d)(1)(ii) of this section does not include such assurance account without causing (3) Where data for the unit is reported a month from May through September, the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR on a control period basis under the calendar quarter covering May 1 NOX Ozone Season allowances held by § 97.534(d)(2)(ii)(B), and where the through June 30 immediately after the such owners and operators in such compliance date under paragraph (b)(2) calendar quarter under paragraph assurance account to fall below the of this section is not in a month from (d)(1)(ii) of this section. tonnage equivalent required to be held May through September, May 1 (2)(i) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season by such owners and operators in such immediately after the compliance date unit is subject to the Acid Rain Program assurance account, making any transfers under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. or a CSAPR NOX Annual emissions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season * * * * * limitation or if the owner or operator of allowances. If CSAPR NOX Ozone such unit chooses to report on an Season allowances were transferred to § 97.531 [Amended] annual basis under this subpart, then such assurance account from more than ■ 45. Section 97.531 is amended by: the designated representative shall meet one account, the tonnage equivalent of ■ a. Italicizing the headings of the requirements of subpart H of part 75 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) of this chapter (concerning monitoring recorded in each such transferor through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), of NOX mass emissions) for such unit account will be in proportion to the and (d)(3)(v); for the entire year and report the NOX percentage of the total tonnage ■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory mass emissions data and heat input data equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in for such unit for the entire year. Season allowances transferred to such its place ‘‘§ ’’; and (ii) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season assurance account for such control ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs unit is not subject to the Acid Rain period from such transferor account. (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5) as paragraphs Program or a CSAPR NOX Annual (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5). * * * * * emissions limitation, then the ■ 46. Section 97.534 is amended by: designated representative shall either: § 97.528 [Amended] ■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’ (A) Meet the requirements of subpart ■ 43. Section 97.528 is amended in before ‘‘requirements’’; H of part 75 of this chapter for such unit ■ paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); for the entire year and report the NOX ■ (a)(1)’’ and adding in its place c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(6) as mass emissions data and heat input data ‘‘paragraph (a)’’. paragraph (d)(5)(ii); and for such unit for the entire year in ■ ■ 44. Section 97.530 is amended by: d. In paragraph (e)(3), by removing accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) ‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)’’ and adding in its this section; or introductory text and (b)(1) through (3); place ‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B)’’. (B) Meet the requirements of subpart ■ b. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory The revisions read as follows: H of part 75 of this chapter (including text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in § 97.534 Recordkeeping and reporting. the requirements in § 75.74(c) of this its place ‘‘§ ’’; and chapter) for such unit for the control * * * * * ■ c. In paragraph (b)(4)(iii), by adding period and report the NOX mass after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this (d) * * * emissions data and heat input data chapter’’. (1) The designated representative (including the data described in The revisions read as follows: shall report the NOX mass emissions § 75.74(c)(6) of this chapter) for such data and heat input data for a CSAPR unit only for the control period of each § 97.530 General monitoring, NOX Ozone Season unit, in an year. recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. electronic quarterly report in a format * * * * * prescribed by the Administrator, for * * * * * (b) Compliance deadlines. Except as each calendar quarter indicated under Subpart CCCCC—CSAPR SO2 Group 1 provided in paragraph (e) of this paragraph (d)(2) of this section Trading Program section, the owner or operator of a beginning with the latest of: CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit shall (i)(A) For a unit other than a unit ■ 47. The heading of subpart CCCCC of meet the monitoring system certification described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of part 97 is revised to read as set forth and other requirements of paragraphs this section, the calendar quarter above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75776 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

§ 97.602 [Amended] removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever it and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph ■ 48. Section 97.602 is amended by: appears and adding in its place ‘‘set- (b)(1)(ii)’’; and ■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning aside’’. ■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ § 97.611 [Amended] locations in the list of definitions; before ‘‘any adjustments’’. ■ ■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 52. Section 97.611 is amended by: ■ § 97.628 [Amended] system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); ■ 56. Section 97.628 is amended in generator’’ and adding in its place ■ ‘‘generator’’; b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence (a)(1)’’ and adding in its place of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) ‘‘paragraph (a)’’. ■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing introductory text, by adding after ‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and adding in its § 97.630 [Amended] ‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; ■ 57. Section 97.630 is amended by: ■ place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by ■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding ■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of § ’’; and a CSAPR SO2 Group 1 unit’’, by adding ■ this chapter’’; e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use ■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory ‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ dates’’ each time it appears, and by after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; removing the final period and adding in § 97.604 [Amended] ■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding its place a colon; after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of ■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and ■ 49. Section 97.604 is amended by: this chapter’’; and (b)(2) introductory text; ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing ■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its ‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and place ‘‘of this section’’. ■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph ■ b. Italicizing the headings of (b)(2), by removing the final semicolon paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). § 97.612 [Amended] and adding in its place a period; ■ ■ § 97.606 [Amended] 53. Section 97.612 is amended by: e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory ■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in ■ 50. Section 97.606 is amended by: ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; its place ‘‘§ ’’; and ■ a. Italicizing the headings of ■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this through (7); adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) chapter’’. ■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), through (iii)’’; by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 1’’ before ■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding § 97.631 [Amended] ‘‘allowances’’; and after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of ■ 58. Section 97.631 is amended by: ■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing this section’’; ■ a. Italicizing the headings of ‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place ■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) ‘‘subpart B’’. after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), ■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding and (d)(3)(v); § 97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading ■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of country new unit set-asides, and variability this section’’; text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in limits. ■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding its place ‘‘§ ’’; and ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs ■ 51. Section 97.610 is amended by: after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; ■ ■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs a. Revising the heading as set forth (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3). above; removing ‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and by adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; ■ b. Removing ‘‘SO2 trading budget’’ § 97.634 [Amended] wherever it appears and adding in its and ■ ■ h. In paragraph (b)(11), by adding after 59. Section 97.634 is amended by: place ‘‘SO2 Group 1 trading budget’’; ■ a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’ ‘‘paragraphs (b)(9), (10) and (12)’’ the ■ c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’ before ‘‘requirements’’; words ‘‘of this section’’. wherever it appears and adding in its ■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; § 97.621 [Amended] text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and ■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new ■ 54. Section 97.621 is amended by: adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and ■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its colon; unit set-aside’’; place ‘‘periods’’; ■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing ■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’ ■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial wherever it appears and adding in its removing ‘‘§ 52.39(e) and (f)’’ and operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and place ‘‘variability limit’’; adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and ■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, and ■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing by adding ‘‘Group 1’’ before ‘‘trading ■ c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unit- date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ set aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new 15 days after the date’’. and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by unit set-aside’’; removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the ■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs § 97.625 [Amended] third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which (a)(2)(vi) and (a)(11)(vi); and ■ 55. Section 97.625 is amended by: case reporting shall commence in the ■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory quarter covering January 1, 2015 ‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, and by text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ through March 31, 2015’’.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75777

■ Subpart DDDDD—CSAPR SO2 Group 2 set aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the Trading Program unit set-aside’’; and date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date ■ g. In paragraph (c), by adding after 15 days after the date’’, and by removing ■ 60. The heading of subpart DDDDD of ‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing the comma before ‘‘described’’. part 97 is revised to read as set forth ‘‘identified under’’ and adding in its § 97.725 [Amended] above. place ‘‘in’’, by removing ‘‘excludes’’ and adding in its place ‘‘does not include’’, ■ 68. Section 97.725 is amended by: § 97.702 [Amended] ■ and by removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory ■ 61. Section 97.702 is amended by: it appears and adding in its place ‘‘set- text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ ■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning aside’’. and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical (b)(1)(ii)’’; locations in the list of definitions; § 97.711 [Amended] ■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by ■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration ■ 65. Section 97.711 is amended by: adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine ■ a. Italicizing the headings of before ‘‘any adjustments’’; and ■ generator’’ and adding in its place paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); c. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by ‘‘generator’’; ■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence (b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 ‘‘at’’. commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; § 97.728 [Amended] introductory text, by adding after ■ c. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory ■ 69. Section 97.728 is amended in ‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; text, by adding after ‘‘approved’’ each ■ paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by time it appears the word ‘‘under’’; removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place (a)(1)’’ and adding in its place ■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ‘‘paragraph (a)’’. ‘‘§ ’’; and ‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and adding in its ■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’; § 97.730 [Amended] of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding ■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding ■ 70. Section 97.730 is amended by: after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of ■ a. Italicizing the heading of paragraph § 97.704 [Amended] this chapter’’; (a); ■ ■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, ■ 62. Section 97.704 is amended by: f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of ■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ a CSAPR SO Group 2 unit’’, by adding ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; 2 ■ ‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding dates’’ each time it appears, and by ■ b. Italicizing the headings of after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of removing the final period and adding in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). this chapter’’; and ■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing its place a colon; § 97.706 [Amended] ‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its ■ c. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and ■ place ‘‘of this section’’. (b)(2) introductory text; 63. Section 97.706 is amended by: ■ ■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) a. Italicizing the headings of § 97.712 [Amended] paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); ■ ■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph through (7); 66. Section 97.712 is amended by: ■ (b)(2), by removing the final semicolon ■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; and adding in its place a period; by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2’’ before ■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ■ f. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory ‘‘allowances’’; and text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in ■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing ‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) its place ‘‘§ ’’; and ‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place ■ g. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding ‘‘subpart B’’. through (iii)’’; ■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this § 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of chapter’’. budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian this section’’; § 97.731 [Amended] country new unit set-asides, and variability ■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding limits. ■ 71. Section 97.731 is amended by: after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; ■ a. Italicizing the headings of ■ 64. Section 97.710 is amended by: ■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) ■ a. Revising the heading as set forth after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), above; this section’’; and (d)(3)(v); ■ b. Removing ‘‘SO trading budget’’ ■ 2 f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding ■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory wherever it appears and adding in its after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in place ‘‘SO2 Group 2 trading budget’’; and ■ its place ‘‘§ ’’; and c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’ ■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs wherever it appears and adding in its removing ‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and by (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’. (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3). ■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and § 97.721 [Amended] § 97.734 [Amended] adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new ■ 67. Section 97.721 is amended by: ■ 72. Section 97.734 is amended by: unit set-aside’’; ■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by ■ a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’ ■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’ removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its before ‘‘requirements’’; wherever it appears and adding in its place ‘‘periods’’’; ■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory place ‘‘variability limit’’; ■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and ■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, removing ‘‘§ 52.39(h) and (i)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by by adding ‘‘Group 2’’ before ‘‘trading adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’; adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unit- and colon;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 75778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ quarter covering January 1, 2015 ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by through March 31, 2015’’. operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the [FR Doc. 2015–29796 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing case reporting shall commence in the ‘‘For a unit that commences commercial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM 03DEP2 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 232 December 3, 2015

Part III

The President

Proclamation 9373—National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, 2015 Proclamation 9374—World AIDS Day, 2015

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03DED0.SGM 03DED0 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03DED0.SGM 03DED0 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS 75781

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 80, No. 232

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Title 3— Proclamation 9373 of November 30, 2015

The President National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, 2015

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation No person should suffer the tragedy of losing someone as a result of drunk, drugged, or distracted driving, but for far too long the danger of impaired driving has robbed people of the comfort of knowing that when they or a loved one leaves home they will return safely. Impaired driving puts drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at risk, and each year it claims the lives of thousands of Americans. During National Impaired Driving Preven- tion Month, we recommit to preventing these incidents by acting responsibly and by promoting responsible behavior in those around us. Together, we can enhance public safety and work to ensure a happy, healthy life for all our people. During the holidays—a season that includes a spike in travel and celebrations that may include alcohol—and throughout the year, we must remain vigilant and aware of drivers that are distracted or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Drunk drivers kill more than 10,000 people annually, and about one-third of traffic deaths in the United States involve a driver with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Driving under the influence of drugs, an increasingly common occurrence, carries the same risks as drunk driving and is just as avoidable. And driving distracted, including while using a cell phone, can lead to tragic outcomes that are also prevent- able. Every American can play a role in reducing the frequency of these incidents by speaking out and warning others of the dangers associated with impaired driving, taking away the keys of would-be drivers they know to be intoxicated, and reminding drivers they are riding with to stay focused on the road and to limit distractions. It is also critical for drivers and passengers alike to wear seatbelts regardless of how far they are traveling. Across our Nation, State and local law enforcement agencies are working tirelessly to prevent and respond to impaired driving. The Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over campaign, occurring from December 16, 2015, through January 1, 2016, seeks to raise awareness of the dangers associated with drunk and drugged driving and aims to prevent as many of these tragedies from occurring as possible. At the Federal level, my Administration remains committed to doing our part. This year, we released an updated National Drug Control Strategy, which aims to reduce drugged driving by encouraging States to enact drugged driving laws and improve efforts to identify these impaired drivers. We also continue to support the efforts of the tireless advocates working to stop drunk driving, and we will keep pushing to equip law enforcement with the tools needed to end and prevent incidents of impaired driving. For more information, visit www.Distraction.gov, www.NHTSA.gov/DriveSober, and www.WhiteHouse.gov/ONDCP/ DruggedDriving. As we gather with friends and loved ones this month, I encourage all Americans to enjoy their time together responsibly. It is important to the health and safety of us all to plan ahead by designating a non-drinking driver, staying in place if impaired, and arranging for alternative means of transportation. During National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, let us pledge to always drive sober and alert and to avoid distractions behind

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\03DED0.SGM 03DED0 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS 75782 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Presidential Documents

the wheel. Together, we can help ensure all our people are able to enjoy the holiday spirit and make memories with those they care about while safeguarding the well-being of everyone on the road. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 2015 as National Impaired Driving Prevention Month. I urge all Americans to make responsible decisions and take appropriate measures to prevent im- paired driving. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.

[FR Doc. 2015–30740 Filed 12–2–15; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F6–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\03DED0.SGM 03DED0 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Presidential Documents 75783 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 9374 of November 30, 2015

World AIDS Day, 2015

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation More than three decades ago, the first known cases of HIV/AIDS sparked an epidemic in the United States—ushering in a time defined by how little we knew about it and in which those affected by it faced fear and stigmatization. We have made extraordinary progress in the fight against HIV since that time, but much work remains to be done. On World AIDS Day, we remember those who we have lost to HIV/AIDS, celebrate the triumphs earned through the efforts of scores of advocates and providers, pledge our support for those at risk for or living with HIV, and rededicate our talents and efforts to achieving our goal of an AIDS-free generation. Today, more people are receiving life-saving treatment for HIV than ever before, and millions of HIV infections have been prevented. Still, more than 36 million people around the world live with HIV—including nearly 3 million children. My Administration is committed to ending the spread of HIV and improving the lives of all who live with it. In the United States, the Affordable Care Act has allowed more people to access coverage for preventive services like HIV testing, and new health plans are now required to offer HIV screening with no cost sharing. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against individuals living with HIV/AIDS or any other pre-existing condition. Additionally, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Ryan White CARE Act, which established the Ryan White Program—a program that helps provide needed care to the most vulnerable individuals and touches over half of all people living with HIV in America. To further our fight to end the HIV epidemic, my Administration released our country’s first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy in 2010. The Strategy provided a clear framework for changing the way we talk about HIV, and it offered a critical roadmap that prioritizes our Nation’s response to this epidemic and organizes the ways we deliver HIV services. Earlier this year, I signed an Executive Order to update the Strategy through 2020, focusing on expanding HIV testing and care, widening support for those living with HIV to stay in comprehensive care, promoting universal viral suppression among individuals infected with HIV, and increasing access to preventive measures, including pre-exposure prophylaxis for people at substantial risk of acquiring HIV. Additionally, the primary aims of the Strategy include reducing HIV-related disparities and health inequities, because HIV still affects specific populations disproportionately across our country. Certain individuals—including gay and bisexual men, Black women and men, Latinos and Latinas, people who inject drugs, transgender women, young people, and people in the Southern United States—are at greater risk for HIV, and we must target our efforts to reduce HIV-related health disparities and focus increased atten- tion on highly vulnerable populations. My most recent Federal budget pro- posal includes more than $31 billion in funding for HIV/AIDS treatment, care, prevention, and research. We are also making great progress toward achieving a greater viral suppression rate among those diagnosed with HIV, and in the last 5 years, we have made critical funding increases to ensure more Americans have access to life-saving treatment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\03DED1.SGM 03DED1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS 75784 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Presidential Documents

We cannot achieve an AIDS-free generation without addressing the pervasive presence of HIV throughout the world, which is why our Nation is committed to achieving the goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- ment to reach more people living with HIV, promote global health, and end the AIDS epidemic. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has helped save lives across the globe and has made significant impacts on the number of new HIV infections by strengthening international partnerships and expanding essential services for preventing and treating HIV. This year, I announced new targets for PEPFAR that aim to provide almost 13 million people with life-saving treatment by the end of 2017. The United States is also committing resources to support PEPFAR’s work to achieve a 40 percent decrease in HIV incidence among young women and girls in the most vulnerable areas of sub-Saharan Africa. This is a shared responsibility, and America will remain a leader in the effort to end HIV/AIDS while continuing to work with the international community to address this challenge and secure a healthier future for all people. Working with private industry, faith communities, philanthropic organiza- tions, the scientific and medical communities, networks of people living with HIV and affected populations, and governments worldwide, we can accomplish our goals of reducing new HIV infections, increasing access to care, improving health outcomes for patients, reducing HIV-related dispari- ties, and building a cohesive, coordinated response to HIV. On this day, let us pay tribute to those whom HIV/AIDS took from us too soon, and let us recognize those who continue to fight for a world free from AIDS. Let us also recognize researchers, providers, and advocates, who work each day on behalf of people living with HIV, and in honor of the precious lives we have lost to HIV. Together, we can forge a future in which no person—here in America or anywhere in our world—knows the pain or stigma caused by HIV/AIDS. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 1, 2015, as World AIDS Day. I urge the Governors of the States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, officials of the other territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the American people to join me in appropriate activities to remember those who have lost their lives to AIDS and to provide support and compassion to those living with HIV. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.

[FR Doc. 2015–30741 Filed 12–2–15; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F6–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\03DED1.SGM 03DED1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS OB#1.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 232 Thursday, December 3, 2015

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING DECEMBER

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 63...... 74974 Presidential Documents 2 CFR 70...... 74974 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 802...... 74965 71...... 74974 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 3 CFR 72...... 74974 Other Services 73...... 74974 Proclamations: 74...... 74974 741–6020 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 9373...... 75781 76...... 74974 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 9374...... 75783 81...... 74974 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 95...... 74974 7 CFR 100...... 74974 504...... 74966 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 110...... 74974 761...... 74966 140...... 74974 World Wide Web 769...... 74966 150...... 74974 170...... 74974 8 CFR Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 171...... 74974 is located at: www.fdsys.gov. 100...... 75631 Proposed Rules: Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 9 CFR 50...... 75009 Inspection List, indexes, and Code of Federal Regulations are located at: www.ofr.gov. 300...... 75590 12 CFR 441...... 75590 225...... 75419 E-mail 530...... 75590 252...... 75419 531...... 75590 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is Proposed Rules: 532...... 75590 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 249...... 75010 533...... 75590 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 534...... 75590 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 14 CFR 537...... 75590 PDF links to the full text of each document. 39...... 74982 539...... 75590 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 540...... 75590 15 CFR Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 541...... 75590 738...... 75633 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 544...... 75590 740...... 75633 548...... 75590 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 743...... 75633 550...... 75590 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 772...... 75633 552...... 75590 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 774...... 75633 555...... 75590 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 922...... 74985 557...... 75590 the instructions. 559...... 75590 Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 560...... 75590 701...... 75438 respond to specific inquiries. 561...... 75590 16 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 10 CFR Proposed Rules: Federal Register system to: [email protected] 1...... 74974 433...... 75018 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 2...... 74974 1028...... 75020 regulations. 4...... 74974 1408...... 75639 CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 7...... 74974 29 CFR longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 9...... 74974 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 11...... 74974 4044...... 74986 15...... 74974 32 CFR FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, DECEMBER 19...... 74974 20...... 74974 505...... 74987 74965–75418...... 1 21...... 74974 33 CFR 75419–75630...... 2 25...... 74974 117...... 75636 75631–75784...... 3 26...... 74974 30...... 74974 Proposed Rules: 32...... 74974 110...... 75020 37...... 74974 36 CFR 40...... 74974 50...... 74974 7...... 74988 51...... 74974 Proposed Rules: 52...... 74974 7...... 75022 55...... 74974 60...... 74974 38 CFR 61...... 74974 17...... 74991 62...... 74974 41...... 74965

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:56 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\03DECU.LOC 03DECU tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with CU ii Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Reader Aids

43...... 74965 63...... 75025 154...... 75488 49 CFR 78...... 75024, 75706 155...... 75488 Proposed Rules: 97...... 75024, 75706 156...... 75488 40 CFR 672...... 75639 180...... 75442, 75449 158...... 75488 52...... 75636 60...... 75178 45 CFR 47 CFR 50 CFR 63...... 75178 Proposed Rules: 622...... 75432 180...... 75426 75430 144...... 75488 1...... 75431 Proposed Rules: 146...... 75488 73...... 75431 635 ...... 74997, 74999, 75436 52 ...... 75024, 75442, 75444, 147...... 75488 Proposed Rules: 648...... 75008 75706 153...... 75488 20...... 75042 665...... 75437

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:56 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\03DECU.LOC 03DECU tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with CU Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Reader Aids iii

in today’s List of Public enacted public laws. To Laws. subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Public Laws Electronic listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Last List December 2, 2015 Notification Service publaws-l.html (PENS) Note: No public bills which Note: This service is strictly have become law were for E-mail notification of new received by the Office of the PENS is a free electronic mail laws. The text of laws is not Federal Register for inclusion notification service of newly available through this service. PENS cannot respond to specific inquiries sent to this address.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:56 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\03DECU.LOC 03DECU tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with CU