81 FR 19492 - Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 65 (April 5, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 65 (April 5, 2016)
| Page Range | 19492-19495 | |
| FR Document | 2016-07668 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 19492-19495] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-07668] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048; FRL-9943-78-Region 9] Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area and to meet other Clean Air Act requirements. Specifically, with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking final action to find the emissions inventories to be acceptable and to approve the reasonably available control measures demonstration, the rate of progress demonstrations, the attainment demonstration, contingency measures for failure to meet rate of progress milestones, the provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, and the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8- hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking final action to approve the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity. DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 2016. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048. 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., confidential business information or ``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: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972- 3963, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2140), the EPA proposed, under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), to approve a revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on December 20, 2013. The SIP submittal consists of the San Joaquin Valley's ``2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2013 Ozone Plan'') and related documentation.\1\ More specifically, we proposed to approve all of the elements contained in the 2013 Ozone Plan, with the exception of the attainment contingency provisions for which the EPA is deferring action, based on the documentation contained in or submitted with the plan itself and supplemental documentation provided by CARB on June 19, 2014 related to the vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. The 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (``1-hour ozone standard''). See 40 CFR 50.9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As explained in more detail in our proposed rule, the 2013 Ozone Plan was prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUACPD or ``District'') and CARB in response to the EPA's regulatory responses to two specific court decisions issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit''),\2\ one of which remanded to the EPA the approval of the previous San Joaquin Valley 1- hour ozone plan. Although the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard has been revoked, certain SIP requirements that had applied to 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, at the time of revocation continue to apply under ``anti-backsliding'' regulations that the EPA promulgated to govern the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The two cases are Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012)(Remand of the EPA's approval of previous San Joaquin Valley 1- hour ozone plan)(``Sierra Club''); and Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d. 584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (Remand of the EPA's approval of the state's VMT emissions offset demonstration for the South Coast)(``Association of Irritated Residents''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In our proposed rule, we also discussed the implications on our action on the 2013 Ozone Plan of a third Ninth Circuit decision, Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)(``Committee for a Better Arvin''), and indicated that, in response to the decision in Committee for a Better Arvin, the EPA had proposed in a separate rulemaking (i.e., 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015)) to approve (as a revision to the California SIP) a number of CARB mobile source regulations for which the EPA has issued waivers or authorizations under CAA section 209 (referred to herein as ``waiver measures.'') See our January 15, 2016 proposed rule at 81 FR 2141-2144. [[Page 19493]] In our January 15, 2016 proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements contained in the 2013 Ozone Plan (except for the attainment contingency provisions), and evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they meet all applicable requirements. More specifically, we determined that:The 2007 base year emission inventory in the 2013 Ozone Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current and that this inventory as well as the 2013, 2016, and 2017 projected inventories have been prepared consistent with EPA guidance and provide an appropriate basis for the various other elements of the 2013 Ozone Plan, including the reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration, and the Rate-of-Progress (ROP) and attainment demonstrations (see 81 FR 2144- 2145 from the proposed rule); There are no additional RACM that would advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley to 2016, and thus the 2013 Ozone Plan provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2145-2148 from the proposed rule); The ROP demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2148-2149 from the proposed rule); The air quality modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan is adequate to support the attainment demonstration and that the plan's demonstration of attainment by November 26, 2017 meets the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2149-2153 from the proposed rule); The 2013 Ozone Plan provides sufficient excess reductions of NO X in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the next ROP percent reduction requirement to provide the 3 percent of adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the ROP contingency measure requirement for 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017 and thereby meets the ROP contingency measure requirements in CAA section 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2153-2154 from the proposed rule);Through EPA-approved District rules 2201, 4306, and 4352, the 2013 Ozone Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced control technology for boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2154 from the proposed rule); and The 2013 Ozone Plan (particularly, appendix D and the related technical supplement submitted by CARB on June 19, 2014) demonstrates that the State has adopted sufficient transportation control strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8- hour ozone standards and thereby complies with the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10) for those standards (see 81 FR 2154-2158 from the proposed rule). Lastly, we indicated in our proposed rule that, given that the 2013 Ozone Plan is based in part on the permanence and enforceability of the waiver measures, the EPA would not finalize approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan until the Agency takes final action to approve the waiver measures as part of the California SIP. The comment period for our proposed approval of the waiver measures SIP revision has closed, but the Agency has yet to issue a final rule. However, given that the statutory deadline for final action by the EPA on CARB's December 20, 2013 submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan has passed and given that we expect that the EPA will take final action on the waiver measures SIP revision in the near term, we believe that taking action on the 2013 Ozone Plan at this time is reasonable and appropriate. If, however, final action on the waiver measures SIP revision is delayed beyond the near term, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the 2013 Ozone Plan is fully supportable or we will reconsider this action in light of changed circumstances. Please see our January 15, 2016 proposed rule and the related Technical Support Document for more information concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan. II. Public Comments Our January 15, 2016 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on February 16, 2016. We received no comments on our proposal during this period. III. Final Action For the reasons discussed in the January 15, 2016 proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB's submittal dated December 20, 2013 of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan as a revision to the California SIP.\3\ In so doing, the EPA is approving the following elements of the plan as meeting the specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ In withdrawing our approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan, as revised and clarified, in the wake of the remand in the Sierra Club case, 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012), we inadvertently failed to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which codified our March 8, 2010 final approval of the ``2008 Clarifications'' for the 2004 San Joaquin Valley (1-hour ozone) plan. In this final action, we are correcting this error by removing paragraph (c)(371) from the ``Identification of Plan'' section of 40 CFR part 52 for the State of California. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17); ROP demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4); Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12); ROP contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6). The EPA is also approving the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard and the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard: VMT emissions offset demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves a state plan as meeting Federal requirements and does not [[Page 19494]] impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action: Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.'' Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. The EPA's approval of the various SIP elements submitted by CARB to address the 1-hour ozone standard and 1997 8-hours ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the SIP approvals do not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the action will not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and will not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 25, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F--California 0 2. Section 52.220 is amended by: 0 a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(371); and 0 b. Adding paragraph (c)(470) to read as follows: Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (371) [Reserved] * * * * * (470) The following plan was submitted on December 20, 2013 by the Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board. (1) Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated June 19, 2014, providing supplemental information related to Appendix D (``VMT Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1- Hour Ozone Standard, excluding EMFAC2011 output files. (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on September 19, 2013 and approved by the California Air Resources Board on November 21, 2013, [[Page 19495]] excluding section 4.4 (``Contingency Reductions''). [FR Doc. 2016-07668 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![19492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, emissions inventories to be acceptable Plan’’) and related documentation.1
11023, 11048. and to approve the reasonably available More specifically, we proposed to
■ 2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by control measures demonstration, the approve all of the elements contained in
revising the undesignated center rate of progress demonstrations, the the 2013 Ozone Plan, with the exception
heading ‘‘Lead-Based Paint Poisioning attainment demonstration, contingency of the attainment contingency
Prevention in Certain Residential measures for failure to meet rate of provisions for which the EPA is
Structures’’ to read ‘‘Lead-Based Paint progress milestones, the provisions for deferring action, based on the
Poisoning Prevention in Certain advanced technology/clean fuels for documentation contained in or
Residential Structures’’ and revising the boilers, and the demonstration that the submitted with the plan itself and
following entries underneath it: plan provides sufficient transportation supplemental documentation provided
■ a. Part 745, subpart E; control strategies and measures to offset by CARB on June 19, 2014 related to the
■ b. Part 745, subpart L; and emissions increases due to increases in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) emissions
■ c. Part 745, subpart Q. motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8- offset requirement in CAA section
The revisions read as follows: hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking 182(d)(1)(A).
final action to approve the As explained in more detail in our
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork demonstration that the plan provides proposed rule, the 2013 Ozone Plan was
Reduction Act. sufficient transportation control prepared by the San Joaquin Valley
* * * * * strategies and measures to offset Unified Air Pollution Control District
emissions increases due to increases in (SJVUACPD or ‘‘District’’) and CARB in
motor vehicle activity. response to the EPA’s regulatory
DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, responses to two specific court
OMB control decisions issued by the Ninth Circuit
40 CFR citation No. 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Court of Appeals (‘‘Ninth Circuit’’),2 one
docket for this action under Docket ID of which remanded to the EPA the
* * * * * Number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0048. approval of the previous San Joaquin
Generally, documents in the docket for Valley 1-hour ozone plan. Although the
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in 1-hour ozone national ambient air
Certain Residential Structures
this action are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy quality standard has been revoked,
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, certain SIP requirements that had
Part 745, subpart E ................ 2070–0195
San Francisco, California. While all applied to 1-hour ozone nonattainment
* * * * * documents in the docket are listed at areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, at
Part 745, subpart L ................ 2070–0195 www.regulations.gov, some information the time of revocation continue to apply
Part 745, subpart Q ................ 2070–0195 may be publicly available only at the under ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ regulations
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted that the EPA promulgated to govern the
* * * * *
material, large maps), and some may not transition from the 1-hour ozone
be publicly available in either location standard to the 8-hour ozone standard.
* * * * * In our proposed rule, we also
[FR Doc. 2016–07797 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
(e.g., confidential business information
or ‘‘CBI’’). To inspect the hard copy discussed the implications on our action
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
materials, please schedule an on the 2013 Ozone Plan of a third Ninth
appointment during normal business Circuit decision, Committee for a Better
hours with the contact listed in the FOR Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2015)(‘‘Committee for a Better Arvin’’),
AGENCY FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
and indicated that, in response to the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
decision in Committee for a Better
40 CFR Part 52 Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),
Arvin, the EPA had proposed in a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0048; FRL–9943–78– separate rulemaking (i.e., 80 FR 69915
Region 9] Region 9, (415) 972–3963,
(November 12, 2015)) to approve (as a
ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
revision to the California SIP) a number
Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of CARB mobile source regulations for
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ which the EPA has issued waivers or
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. authorizations under CAA section 209
California (referred to herein as ‘‘waiver
Table of Contents
AGENCY: Environmental Protection measures.’’) See our January 15, 2016
I. Proposed Action proposed rule at 81 FR 2141–2144.
Agency (EPA). II. Public Comments
ACTION: Final rule. III. Final Action
1 Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to I. Proposed Action (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. The 1-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard is 0.12
approve a state implementation plan On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2140), the parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour
revision submitted by the State of EPA proposed, under section 110(k)(3) period (‘‘1-hour ozone standard’’). See 40 CFR 50.9.
California to provide for attainment of of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), to 2 The two cases are Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air 955 (9th Cir. 2012)(Remand of the EPA’s approval
approve a revision to the California state
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
of previous San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone
quality standard in the San Joaquin implementation plan (SIP) submitted by plan)(‘‘Sierra Club’’); and Association of Irritated
Valley, California ozone nonattainment the California Air Resources Board Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d. 584, at 596–597 (9th
area and to meet other Clean Air Act (CARB) on December 20, 2013. The SIP Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27,
requirements. Specifically, with respect 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13,
submittal consists of the San Joaquin 2012 (Remand of the EPA’s approval of the state’s
to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA Valley’s ‘‘2013 Plan for the Revoked 1- VMT emissions offset demonstration for the South
is taking final action to find the Hour Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2013 Ozone Coast)(‘‘Association of Irritated Residents’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:15 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19557/page/1.svg)
![19494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
impose additional requirements beyond Mono Indians of California, the Cold petition for judicial review may be filed,
those imposed by State law. For that Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of and shall not postpone the effectiveness
reason, this action: California, the North Fork Rancheria of of such rule or action. This action may
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Mono Indians of California, the not be challenged later in proceedings to
action’’ subject to review by the Office Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi enforce its requirements. (See section
of Management and Budget under Indians of California, the Santa Rosa 307(b)(2)).
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the
October 4, 1993); Table Mountain Rancheria of California, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
• Does not impose an information the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule Environmental protection, Air
collection burden under the provisions River Indian Tribe of the Tule River pollution control, Incorporation by
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Reservation. reference, Intergovernmental
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); The EPA’s approval of the various SIP regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
• Is certified as not having a elements submitted by CARB to address Reporting and recordkeeping
significant economic impact on a the 1-hour ozone standard and 1997 8- requirements, Volatile organic
substantial number of small entities hours ozone standard in the San Joaquin compounds.
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Valley would not have tribal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); implications because the SIP is not
• Does not contain any unfunded approved to apply on any Indian Dated: February 25, 2016.
mandate or significantly or uniquely reservation land or in any other area Jared Blumenfeld,
affect small governments, as described where the EPA or an Indian tribe has Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act demonstrated that a tribe has Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Federal Regulations is amended as
• Does not have Federalism country, the SIP approvals do not have follows:
implications as specified in Executive tribal implications and will not impose
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, substantial direct costs on tribal PART 52—APPROVAL AND
1999); governments or preempt tribal law as PROMULGATION OF
• Is not an economically significant specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
regulatory action based on health or FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
safety risks subject to Executive Order Therefore, the EPA has concluded that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); the action will not have tribal continues to read as follows:
• Is not a significant regulatory action implications for the purposes of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Executive Order 13175, and will not
28355, May 22, 2001); impose substantial direct costs upon the Subpart F—California
• Is not subject to requirements of tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law.
Section 12(d) of the National We note that none of the tribes located ■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
Technology Transfer and Advancement in the San Joaquin Valley has requested ■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because eligibility to administer programs under (c)(371); and
application of those requirements would the CAA. ■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(470) to read
be inconsistent with the CAA; and The Congressional Review Act, 5 as follows:
• Does not provide the EPA with the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
discretionary authority to address § 52.220 Identification of plan.
Business Regulatory Enforcement
disproportionate human health or Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides * * * * *
environmental effects with practical, that before a rule may take effect, the (c) * * *
appropriate, and legally permissible agency promulgating the rule must (371) [Reserved]
methods under Executive Order 12898 submit a rule report, which includes a * * * * *
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). copy of the rule, to each House of the (470) The following plan was
Executive Order 13175, entitled Congress and to the Comptroller General submitted on December 20, 2013 by the
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with of the United States. The EPA will Governor’s designee.
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR submit a report containing this action (i) [Reserved]
67249, November 9, 2000), requires the and other required information to the (ii) Additional materials.
EPA to develop an accountable process U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of (A) California Air Resources Board.
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input Representatives, and the Comptroller (1) Letter and enclosures from Lynn
by tribal officials in the development of General of the United States prior to Terry, Deputy Executive Officer,
regulatory policies that have tribal publication of the rule in the Federal California Air Resources Board, dated
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal Register. A major rule cannot take effect June 19, 2014, providing supplemental
implications’’ is defined in the until 60 days after it is published in the information related to Appendix D
Executive Order to include regulations Federal Register. This action is not a (‘‘VMT Emissions Offset
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. Demonstration’’) of the San Joaquin
one or more Indian tribes, on the 804(2). Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-
relationship between the Federal Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Hour Ozone Standard, excluding
government and the Indian tribes, or on Air Act, petitions for judicial review of EMFAC2011 output files.
the distribution of power and this action must be filed in the United (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
responsibilities between the Federal States Court of Appeals for the Pollution Control District.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
government and Indian Tribes.’’ appropriate circuit by June 6, 2016. (1) 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour
Eight Indian tribes are located within Filing a petition for reconsideration by Ozone Standard, adopted by the San
the boundaries of the San Joaquin the Administrator of this final rule does Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Valley air quality planning area for the not affect the finality of this action for Control District on September 19, 2013
1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone the purposes of judicial review nor does and approved by the California Air
standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of it extend the time within which a Resources Board on November 21, 2013,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:15 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19557/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 19495
excluding section 4.4 (‘‘Contingency In this instance, the EPA received ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Reductions’’). adverse comments on a certain test AGENCY
[FR Doc. 2016–07668 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
method for which the EPA had
approved rescission. The relevant test 40 CFR Part 52
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
method was included in a SIP revision [EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0696; FRL–9944–55-
submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 1979 Region 4]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION that also included a number of other test
methods and certain performance test Air Plan Approval; South Carolina;
AGENCY
specifications, all of which were Transportation Conformity Update
40 CFR Part 52 approved by the EPA at 47 FR 17483 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(April 23, 1982). The EPA’s approval of Agency (EPA).
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9944–56– the test methods and performance test ACTION: Direct final rule.
Region 9] specifications submitted on January 23,
1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Approval of Air Plan Revisions; Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
was codified at 40 CFR
Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections action to approve a revision to the South
52.120(c)(29)(i)(A).
Carolina State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection The EPA’s action on the rescission of (SIP) submitted on October 13, 2015,
Agency (EPA). the test methods and performance test through the South Carolina Department
ACTION: Partial withdrawal of direct specifications submitted on January 23, of Health and Environmental Control
final rule. 1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 is (SC DHEC). This revision consists of
severable from the rest of the direct final transportation conformity criteria and
SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse
rule. Thus, the EPA is withdrawing only procedures related to interagency
comments, the Environmental
the portion of the direct final rule consultation and enforceability of
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing
related to those test methods and certain transportation-related control
a portion of the February 11, 2016 direct
performance test specifications. The measures and mitigation measures. The
final rule approving certain revisions to
EPA will address the comments in a intended effect of this approval is to
the Arizona State Implementation Plan
separate final action covering the state’s update the transportation conformity
(SIP) and correcting certain errors. The
rescission of the test methods and criteria and procedures in the South
adverse comments relate to a particular
performance test specifications Carolina SIP to reorganize previous
test method and thus the EPA is
submitted on January 23, 1979 (and exhibits into a single Memorandum of
withdrawing the portion of the direct Agreement (MOA) document as well as
final rule that relates to the test methods approved on April 23, 1982) based on
updating signatories to add the newly
that include the test method for which the proposed action published on
established Lowcountry Area
the adverse comments were received. February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259). The Transportation Study (LATS) to the list
DATES: The addition of paragraph EPA will not open a second comment of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(c)(29)(i)(B) published on February 11, period for the action on the state’s (MPOs), created to represent a new
2016 at 81 FR 7214 is withdrawn, rescissions of the test methods and urbanized area designated as a result of
effective April 5, 2016. performance test specifications. The the 2010 Census. EPA has determined
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: other actions in the February 11, 2016 that this revision is consistent with the
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) Federal Register direct final rule are not Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. affected. DATES: This direct final rule is effective
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 June 6, 2016 without further notice,
February 11, 2016, the EPA published a unless EPA receives adverse comment
direct final rule approving a SIP Environmental protection, Air by May 5, 2016. If EPA receives such
revision submitted by the Arizona pollution control, Incorporation by comments, it will publish a timely
Department of Environmental Quality reference, Intergovernmental relations, withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
(ADEQ). In the February 11, 2016 direct Particulate matter, Reporting and Federal Register and inform the public
final rule, the EPA also corrected certain recordkeeping requirements. that the rule will not take effect.
errors in previous actions on prior ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Dated: March 24, 2016.
revisions to the Arizona SIP and to identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
make certain other corrections. In the Jared Blumenfeld, OAR–2015–0696 at http://
direct final rule, the EPA stated that if Regional Administrator, Region IX. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
adverse comments were received by instructions for submitting comments.
March 14, 2016, the EPA would publish Accordingly, the addition of Once submitted, comments cannot be
a timely withdrawal and address the paragraph (c)(29)(i)(B) which was edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
comments in a subsequent final rule published in the Federal Register on EPA may publish any comment received
based on the proposed rule also February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7209) on page to its public docket. Do not submit
published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214 is withdrawn as of April 5, 2016. electronically any information you
[FR Doc. 2016–07666 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
7259). The February 11, 2016 proposed consider to be Confidential Business
rule indicated that if the EPA receives BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Information (CBI) or other information
adverse comment on an amendment, whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
paragraph, or section of the direct final Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
rule and if that provision may be etc.) must be accompanied by a written
severed from the remainder of the rule, comment. The written comment is
the EPA may adopt as final those considered the official comment and
provisions of the rule that are not the should include discussion of all points
subject of an adverse comment. you wish to make. EPA will generally
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:15 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19557/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-07 13:53:44
Document Modified: 2018-02-07 13:53:44
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on May 5, 2016. | |
| Contact | John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972- 3963, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 19492 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Regulations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR