80 FR 73156 - Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 226 (November 24, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 226 (November 24, 2015)
| Page Range | 73156-73160 | |
| FR Document | 2015-29802 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 73156-73160] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-29802] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0545; FRL-9937-27-Region 9] Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning Vehicle Scrapping, Employee Trip Reduction, and procedures for the hearing board concerning variances and subpoenas. [[Page 73157]] We are proposing action on local rules that regulate these activities under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 24, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR- 2015-0545, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on- line instructions. 2. Email: [email protected]. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3248, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. What are the identified rule deficiencies? D. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules proposed for disapproval with the date that they were adopted or amended and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table 1--Submitted Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adopted or Local agency Rule No. Rule title amended Submitted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCAQMD............................. 1610 Old-Vehicle Scrapping...... 05/09/97 06/03/97 SCAQMD............................. 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle 10/09/98 06/03/99 Mitigation Options. SCAQMD............................. 503.1 Ex Parte Petitions for 02/05/88 02/07/89 Variances. SCAQMD............................. 504 Rules from which Variances 01/05/90 05/13/91 Are Not Allowed. SCAQMD............................. 511.1 Subpoenas.................. 02/05/88 02/07/89 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 3, 1997, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1610 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On December 3, 1999, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 2202 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria. On May 5, 1989, the EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rules 503.1 and 511.1 met the completeness criteria. On July 10, 1991, the EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 504 met the completeness. B. Are there other versions of these rules? There are no previous versions of Rule 1610 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted earlier versions of this rule on 02/11/94, 10/13/95, 02/08/96 and 04/11/97, and CARB submitted them to us on 07/13/94, 10/ 18/96, 10/18/96 and 06/03/97 respectively. There are no previous versions of Rule 2202 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted earlier versions of this rule on 12/08/95, 03/08/96 and 11/08/96, and CARB submitted them to us on 11/26/96, 11/26/96 and 12/19/97 respectively. There are no previous versions of Rules 503.1 and 511.1. There are no previous versions of Rule 504 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on 02/05/88. While we can only act on the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? Nitrogen oxides (NOX ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and NOX emissions. Rule 1610 is a voluntary rule with the goal of reducing motor vehicle exhaust emissions of VOC, NOX , carbon monoxide (CO), and PM by issuing mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) in exchange for the scrapping of old, high emitting vehicles. Rule 2202 requires employers with 250 or more full or part-time employees at a worksite to reduce mobile source emissions of VOC, NOX and CO generated from employee commutes. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about rules 1610 and 2202. Rules 503.1 describes procedures for how sources can apply for ex parte variances. Rule 504 specifies rules for which the SCAQMD hearing board will not grant variances. Rule 511.1 [[Page 73158]] describes procedures for the hearing board regarding subpoenas. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules? SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). In addition, pursuant to CAA section 110(i), neither EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by issuing an ``order, suspension, plan revision, or other action modifying any requirement of an applicable implementation plan'' without a plan promulgation or revision. Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs and NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards (40 CFR 51.305). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as moderate for the annual and 24-hour standards (40 CFR 51.312). A RACM evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following: 1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' EPA from J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake, September 23, 1987. 5. ``Guidance an Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec. 112 Rules and General Permits'' EPA from Kathie A. Stein, January 25, 1995. B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? EPA supports SCAQMD efforts to implement nontraditional and innovative strategies for reducing air pollutant emissions, including commuter programs to reduce the frequency that employees drive alone to work, and programs to incentivize early adoption and turnover to cleaner, less-polluting mobile sources.\1\ Nonetheless, we have identified several provisions in these rules that do not meet the evaluation criteria. These deficiencies are summarized below and discussed further in the TSDs. Because these deficiencies are significant enough to prevent our approval of these rules, we have not attempted to identify all other potential approvability issues, and are not providing a detailed analysis of all the evaluation criteria listed above. While we cannot propose to approve SCAQMD Rules 1610 and 2202 at this time, we commend SCAQMD's leadership in developing and implementing creative programs like these for many years and we commit to continued collaboration to address SCAQMD's air quality challenges. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Commuter Programs: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity'' (February 2014) and Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, re: ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)'' (October 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA and California have long recognized that a state-issued variance, though binding as a matter of state law, does not prevent EPA from enforcing the underlying SIP provisions unless and until EPA approves that variance as a SIP revision. The variance provisions in Rules 503.1 and 504 are deficient for various reasons, including their failure to address the fact that a state- or district-issued variance has no effect on enforcing the underlying federal requirement unless the variance is submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, the inclusion of these rules in the SIP is inconsistent with the Act and may be confusing to regulated industry and the general public. States and Districts can adopt various provisions describing local agency investigative or enforcement authority, including the authority to issue subpoenas such as in Rule 511.1, to demonstrate adequate enforcement authority under section 110(a)(2) of the Act. These rules should not be approved into the applicable SIP, however, to avoid potential conflict with EPA's independent authorities provided in CAA section 113, section 114 and elsewhere. C. What are the identified rule deficiencies? The deficiencies listed below are some of the provisions that of the submitted rules that do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of Title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP submittals. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 1610 based at least in part on the following deficiencies: 1. The Section (e)(2) requirement that engines of scrapped vehicles be destroyed is insufficiently federally enforceable for various reasons. 2. The Section (f)(2)(A) requirement that the vehicle be registered for two years within SCAQMD is not fully enforceable by allowing the Executive Officer to approve different documentation. 3. The Section (g) requirement of a visual and functional inspection of the vehicle has no recordkeeping requirements. 4. There is no recordkeeping requirement to demonstrate compliance with the Section (g)(1) requirement that vehicles be driven under their own power to the scrapping site. 5. There is no requirement to maintain records for the life of the MSERCs. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 2202 based at least in part on the following deficiencies: 1. Per Section (f)(1), the rule relies on Regulation XVI, which is not currently in the SIP. 2. Per Section (f)(3), the rule relies on AQIP (Rule 2501), which is not currently in the SIP. 3. Per Section (f)(4), the rule relies on emission reduction strategies approved on a case-by-case basis by the Executive Officer. 4. Per Section (g)(4), the rule relies on vehicle miles travelled reduction programs approved on a case-by-case basis by the Executive Officer. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rules 503.1 and 504 because they conflict with CAA sections 110(a) and (i) and fail to address that a state- or district-issued variance has no effect on enforcing the underlying federal requirement unless the variance is submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP revision. [[Page 73159]] We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 511.1 to avoid potential conflict with EPA's independent authorities provided in CAA section 113, section 114 and elsewhere. D. Proposed Action and Public Comment As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing full disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rules 1610, 2202, 503.1, 504, and 511.1. There are no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) implications should EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the submittal of Rules 1610 and 2202 is discretionary (i.e., not required to be included in the SIP). A FIP would not be imposed under CAA section 110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP that such a FIP must correct. Specifically: (1) Rule 1610 is voluntary and only serves to provide for an alternative method of compliance for stationary and other emission sources subject to other District regulations that allow the use of credits as a compliance option; and (2) Rule 2202 is not a required CAA submittal because the CAA gives state and local agencies discretion, but does not require, employers ``to implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees'' (see CAA section 182(d)(1)(B)). Additionally, at this time, we have not credited emission reductions from Rules 1610 or 2202 in an approved SIP and we are not aware of a SCAQMD plan submitted to EPA that relies on emission reductions from these rules to fulfill a CAA requirement. Accordingly, the failure of the SCAQMD to adopt revisions to Rules 1610 and 2202 would not adversely affect the SIP's compliance with the CAA's requirements, such as the requirements for section 182 ozone RACT, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations. Rules 503.1, 504 and 511.1 regulate hearing board procedures and do not control emission sources or otherwise generate emission reductions nor are they required elements of the SIP. Thus, EPA does not need to impose sanctions or promulgate a FIP upon their disapproval. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the SCAQMD, and a final disapproval by the EPA would not prevent the local agency from enforcing them or the revised versions of these rules subsequently adopted by SCAQMD as a matter of State law. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. [[Page 73160]] F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP rules EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in- and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: October 30, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2015-29802 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![73156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
■ 2. Amend § 549.12 by revising DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and Automatic Identification System.
paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read as SECURITY This rule contains an exemption, at 33
follows: CFR 160.204(a)(3), for any vessel
Coast Guard required to report its movements, its
§ 549.12 Testing. cargo, or the cargo in barges it is towing
(a) Human Immunodeficiency Virus 33 CFR Part 165 under 33 CFR 165.830 after December
(HIV)—(1) Testing. All inmates who [Docket No. USCG–2013–0760] 31, 2015.
have sentences of six months or more II. Discussion
RIN 1625–AA11
will be informed upon admission either
The Coast Guard intends to allow the
orally or in writing that HIV testing will Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting suspension of certain reporting
be performed unless they refuse testing. Requirements for Barges Loaded With requirements under 33 CFR 165.830 to
If the inmate refuses testing and the Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland expire as scheduled. The Coast Guard
inmate has risk factors for HIV infection Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District; does not intend to reinstate reporting,
as defined by the Centers for Disease Stay (Suspension) Expiring 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, at
Control and Prevention, staff will 90 plus reporting points under the RNA
provide pre-test counseling, and if the AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of intent. as currently published. Rather, we
inmate continues to refuse testing, staff anticipate reporting will be required in
may initiate an incident report for SUMMARY: The stay of reporting response to specific concerns, under a
refusing to obey an order. Any inmate requirements under the Regulated limited form of the RNA currently in the
may request HIV testing during the pre- Navigation Area (RNA) applicable to CFR.
release process. barges loaded with certain dangerous Specifically, the Coast Guard is
(2) Exposure incidents. The Bureau cargoes on the inland rivers in the considering whether existing
tests an inmate, regardless of the length Eighth District area of responsibility § 165.830(d)(1)(ix), (d)(2)(iv), (f)(9),
of sentence or pretrial status, when (AOR) is scheduled to expire on (g)(4), and (h) of the existing RNA may
there is a well-founded reason to believe December 31, 2015. The Coast Guard take effect on January 1, 2016, with
that the inmate has been the source of intends to allow the stay to expire in revisions to the references to IRVMC.
a percutaneous or mucous membrane part. Once the stay partially expires, Although we have not yet developed
blood exposure, via an altercation or RNA reporting requirements in a limited revisions to the existing regulation, we
accident or other means to Bureau form will resume under the existing are publishing this document to inform
employees, other non-inmates who are regulation. The Coast Guard is members of the public who are aware of,
lawfully present in a Bureau institution, developing an amendment to the and may have questions about, the
or other inmates, regardless of whether existing regulation. upcoming expiration of the suspension.
DATES: November 24, 2015. This document is issued under
the exposure was intentional or
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
unintentional. Exposure incident testing
does not require the inmate’s consent. information about this document call or Dated: November 9, 2015.
email Shelley Miller, Coast Guard; D.R. Callahan,
(3) Surveillance testing. The Bureau
telephone 504–671–2330, email Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
conducts HIV testing for surveillance
Shelley.R.Miller@uscg.mil. Eighth Coast Guard District.
purposes as needed. If the inmate
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2015–29714 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am]
refuses testing, staff will offer pre-test
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
counseling, and if the inmate continues I. Background and Regulatory History
to refuse testing, staff may initiate an The reporting requirements under 33
incident report for refusing to obey an CFR 165.830, ‘‘Regulated Navigation
order. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges AGENCY
(4) Inmate request. An inmate may Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes,
request to be tested. The Bureau limits Inland Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard 40 CFR Part 52
such testing to no more than one per 12- District,’’ were initially suspended in
month period unless the Bureau January 2011 due to the expiration of [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0545; FRL–9937–27–
the contract for the reporting system at Region 9]
determines that additional testing is
warranted. the Inland River Vessel Movement Disapproval of California Air Plan
Center (IRVMC). This suspension was Revisions, South Coast Air Quality
(5) Counseling. Inmates testing
published in the Federal Register on Management District
positive for HIV will receive post-test
January 10, 2011 and was due to expire
counseling.
on January 15, 2013 (76 FR 1360). On AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(b) * * * January 2, 2013, the Coast Guard Agency (EPA).
* * * * * extended this suspension through ACTION: Proposed rule.
(4) An inmate who refuses TB September 30, 2013 (78 FR 25) and on
October 1, 2013, the Coast Guard SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
screening may be subject to an incident
extended the suspension again through Agency (EPA) is proposing to
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
report for refusing to obey an order. If
December 31, 2015 (78 FR 60216). The disapprove revisions to the South Coast
an inmate refuses testing for TB
suspension of reporting requirements is Air Quality Management District
infection, and there is no
scheduled to expire on December 31, (SCAQMD) portion of the California
contraindication to testing, then, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
2015.
institution medical staff will test the Additionally, the Coast Guard concerning Vehicle Scrapping,
inmate involuntarily. published a final rule in January 2015 Employee Trip Reduction, and
[FR Doc. 2015–29790 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am] (80 FR 5282), titled Vessel Requirements procedures for the hearing board
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P for Notices of Arrival and Departure, concerning variances and subpoenas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Nov 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_73382/page/1.svg)
![73160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination The EPA believes that this action is ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
With Indian Tribal Governments not subject to requirements of Section identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
This action does not have tribal 12(d) of NTTAA because application of OAR–2015–0593 by one of the following
implications, as specified in Executive those requirements would be methods:
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
the on-line instructions for submitting
2000), because the SIP rules EPA is J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
comments.
proposing to disapprove would not Actions To Address Environmental 2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
apply on any Indian reservation land or Justice in Minority Populations and 3. Fax: (617) 918–0047
in any other area where EPA or an Low-Income Population 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2015–
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 0593’’, Anne Arnold, U.S.
tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
that it will not impose substantial direct executive policy on environmental New England Regional Office, 5 Post
costs on tribal governments or preempt justice. Its main provision directs Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code
tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 federal agencies, to the greatest extent OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912.
does not apply to this action. practicable and permitted by law, to 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of make environmental justice part of their your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Children From Environmental Health mission by identifying and addressing, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Risks and Safety Risks as appropriate, disproportionately high Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
and adverse human health or Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR New England Regional Office, 5 Post
environmental effects of their programs,
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code
policies, and activities on minority
to those regulatory actions that concern OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912.
populations and low-income
health or safety risks, such that the Such deliveries are only accepted
populations in the United States.
analysis required under section 5–501 of during the Regional Office’s normal
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
the E.O. has the potential to influence hours of operation. The Regional
to address environmental justice in this
the regulation. This action is not subject Office’s official hours of business are
rulemaking.
to E.O. 13045 because it is not an Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
economically significant regulatory List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
action based on health or safety risks Environmental protection, Air Please see the direct final rule which
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR pollution control, Incorporation by is located in the Rules Section of this
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed reference, Intergovernmental relations, Federal Register for detailed
SIP disapproval under section 110 and Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate instructions on how to submit
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act matter, Reporting and recordkeeping comments.
will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements, Volatile organic
regulations but simply disapproves FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
compounds. Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Unit, U.S.
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Dated: October 30, 2015. New England Regional Office, 5 Post
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code
Jared Blumenfeld,
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912,
Distribution, or Use Regional Administrator, Region IX.
telephone number (617) 918–1660, fax
[FR Doc. 2015–29802 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am]
This proposed rule is not subject to number (617) 918–0660, email
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, garcia.ariel@epa.gov .
May 22, 2001) because it is not a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
significant regulatory action under ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Final Rules Section of this Federal
Executive Order 12866. AGENCY Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
I. National Technology Transfer and without prior proposal because the
Advancement Act 40 CFR Part 52
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
Section 12(d) of the National [EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0593; A–1–FRL– submittal and anticipates no adverse
9939–23–Region 1]
Technology Transfer and Advancement comments. A detailed rationale for the
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law Air Plan Approval; ME; Repeal of the approval is set forth in the direct final
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) Maine’s General Conformity Provision rule. If no adverse comments are
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus received in response to this action rule,
standards in its regulatory activities AGENCY: Environmental Protection no further activity is contemplated. If
unless to do so would be inconsistent Agency (EPA). EPA receives adverse comments, the
with applicable law or otherwise ACTION: Proposed rule. direct final rule will be withdrawn and
impractical. Voluntary consensus all public comments received will be
standards are technical standards (e.g., SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection addressed in a subsequent final rule
materials specifications, test methods, Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a based on this proposed rule. EPA will
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
sampling procedures, and business State Implementation Plan (SIP) not institute a second comment period.
practices) that are developed or adopted revision submitted by the State of Any parties interested in commenting
by voluntary consensus standards Maine. This revision removes State on this action should do so at this time.
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Regulation Chapter 141 Conformity of Please note that if EPA receives adverse
Congress, through OMB, explanations General Federal Actions from the SIP. comment on an amendment, paragraph,
when the Agency decides not to use DATES: Written comments must be or section of this rule and if that
available and applicable voluntary received on or before December 24, provision may be severed from the
consensus standards. 2015. remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Nov 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM 24NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_73382/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 14:09:11
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 14:09:11
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by December 24, 2015. | |
| Contact | Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3248, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 73156 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR