Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 84481 

[FR Doc. 2016–28098 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0494; FRL–9955–53– 

Region 9] 

Findings of Failure To Attain the 1997 

PM2.5 Standards; California; San 

Joaquin Valley 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has determined that the 

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

by the December 31, 2015 ‘‘Serious’’ 

area attainment date. As a result of this 

determination, the State of California is 

required to submit a revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

that, among other elements, provides for 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards and for a five percent 

annual reduction in the emissions of 

direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor 

pollutant in the San Joaquin Valley. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

23, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2016– 

0494 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69448), the 

EPA proposed to determine that the San 

Joaquin Valley Serious nonattainment 

area failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015, based on complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

data for the 2013 to 2015 monitoring 

period. The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area (or ‘‘the Valley’’) 

covers San Joaquin County, Stanislaus 

County, Merced County, Madera 

County, Fresno County, Tulare County, 

Kings County, and the valley portion of 

Kern County (see 40 CFR 81.305 for the 

precise boundaries of the PM2.5

nonattainment area). 

As discussed further in our October 6, 

2016 proposed rule, in 1997, the EPA 

established annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) and 65 mg/m3, 

respectively (see 40 CFR 50.7). Since 

promulgation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the EPA has established more stringent 

PM2.5 NAAQS but, for reasons given in 

the proposed rule, the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS remain in effect in the San 

Joaquin Valley and represent the 

standards for which today’s 

determinations are made. See pages 

69448–69449 of the proposed rule. 

Our proposed rule provided 

background information on: The effects 

of exposure to elevated levels of PM2.5; 

the designations and classifications of 

the San Joaquin Valley under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS; the plans developed by 

California to address nonattainment area 

requirements for San Joaquin Valley; the 

reclassification of the San Joaquin 

Valley from ‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious’’ for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the related 

extension of the applicable attainment 

date to December 31, 2015; the request 

by California to extend the December 

31, 2015 attainment date for San Joaquin 

Valley under CAA section 188(e); and 

the denial of that request by the EPA. 

The EPA published its final denial of 

the State’s attainment date extension 

request on October 6, 2016 at 81 FR 

69396. 

In our October 6, 2016 proposed rule, 

we also described the following: The 

statutory basis (i.e., CAA sections 

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2)) for the 

obligation on the EPA to determine 

whether an area’s air quality meets the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; the EPA regulations 

establishing the specific methods and 

procedures to determine whether an 

area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; and the PM2.5 monitoring 

networks operated in the Valley by the 

California Air Resources Board and the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District and related 

monitoring network plans. We also 

documented our previous review of the 

networks and network plans, the 

agencies’ annual certifications of 

ambient air monitoring data, and our 

determination that 15 of the 17 

monitoring sites within the Valley 

produced valid design values for 

purposes of comparison with the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.7 and in accordance with 

Appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5

standards are met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/ 

m3, and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

standards are met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 65 mg/m3. 

More specifically, the design value for 

the annual PM2.5 standards is the 3-year 

average of annual mean concentration, 

and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are 

met when the design value for the 

annual PM2.5 standards at each eligible 

monitoring site is less than or equal to 

15.0 mg/m3. With respect to the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards, the design value is the 

3-year average of annual 98th percentile 

24-hour average values recorded at each 

eligible monitoring site, and the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 

design value for the 24-hour standards 

at each such monitoring site is less than 

or equal to 65 mg/m3. 

In our proposed rule, to evaluate 

whether the San Joaquin Valley attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 

31, 2015 attainment date, we 

determined the 2013–2015 design 

values at each of the 17 PM2.5

monitoring sites for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 standards. See Tables 1 

and 2 of our October 6, 2016 proposed 

rule. Based on the design values at the 

various sites, we found that eight sites, 

all in the central and southern San 

Joaquin Valley, did not meet the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3, 

and that four sites, all in southwestern 

San Joaquin Valley, did not meet the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 mg/m3

by the December 31, 2015 attainment 

date. The 2015 annual design value site, 

i.e., the site with the highest design 

value based on 2013–2015 data, is the 

Corcoran site with a 2015 annual PM2.5

design value of 22.2 mg/m3 and a 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value of 79 mg/m3. 

For the San Joaquin Valley to attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 

2015, the 2015 design value (reflecting 

data from 2013–2015) at each eligible 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

84482 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 81 FR 58010 at 58100, 58158 (August 24, 2016). 

The EPA defines PM2.5 plan precursor as those 

PM2.5 precursors required to be regulated in the 

applicable attainment plan and/or nonattainment 

new source review program. 81 FR 58010 at 58152. 

monitoring site in the Valley must be 

equal to or less than 15.0 mg/m3 for the 

annual standards and 65 mg/m3 for the 

24-hour standards. Since several sites 

for each averaging period had 2015 

design values greater than those values, 

based on quality-assured and certified 

data for 2013–2015, we proposed to 

determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards by the December 

31, 2015 attainment date. With today’s 

action, we finalize this determination. 

Finally, in our proposed rule, we 

described the CAA requirements that 

would apply if the EPA were to finalize 

the proposed finding of failure to attain. 

See our October 6, 2016 proposed rule 

for more information about the topics 

summarized above. 

II. Public Comments and Responses 

Our October 6, 2016 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period. 

During this period, we received no 

comments. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 

188(b)(2), and based on reasons set forth 

in our proposed rule and summarized 

above, the EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

Serious nonattainment area failed to 

attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 

attainment date. This determination is 

based upon monitored air quality data 

from 2013 through 2015. 

As a result of this final determination, 

the State of California is required under 

CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) to 

submit, by December 31, 2016, a 

revision to the SIP for the San Joaquin 

Valley. The SIP revision must, among 

other elements, demonstrate expeditious 

attainment of the standards within the 

time period provided under CAA 

section 179(d), provide for annual 

reduction in the emissions of PM2.5 or 

a PM2.5 plan precursor pollutant within 

the area of not less than five percent 

until attainment,1 demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, and include 

contingency measures. The requirement 

for a new attainment demonstration 

under CAA section 189(d) also triggers 

the requirement for the SIP revision for 

quantitative milestones under section 

189(c) that are to be achieved every 

three years until redesignation to 

attainment. 

The new attainment date is set by 

CAA section 179(d)(3), which relies 

upon section 172(a)(2) to establish a 

new attainment date but with a different 

starting point than provided in section 

172(a)(2). Under section 179(d)(3), the 

new attainment date is the date by 

which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the publication date 

of the final determination of failure to 

attain. The EPA may extend the 

attainment date for a period no greater 

than 10 years from the final 

determination, considering the severity 

of nonattainment and the availability 

and feasibility of pollution control 

measures. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final action in and of itself 

establishes no new requirements; it 

merely documents that air quality in the 

San Joaquin Valley did not meet the 

1997 PM2.5 standards by the CAA 

deadline. For that reason, this final 

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). 

In addition, this final action does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

obligations discussed herein do not 

apply to Indian tribes and thus this 

action will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. Nonetheless, the EPA has 

notified the tribes within the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment 

area of this final action. 

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 January 23, 2017. 

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, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 14, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 84483 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.247 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 52.247 Control strategy and regulations: 

Fine Particle Matter. 

* * * * * 

(h) Determination of Failure to Attain: 

Effective December 23, 2016, the EPA 

has determined that the San Joaquin 

Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area 

failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

This determination triggers the 

requirements of CAA sections 179(d) 

and 189(d) for the State of California to 

submit a revision to the California SIP 

for the San Joaquin Valley to the EPA 

by December 31, 2016. The SIP revision 

must, among other elements, 

demonstrate expeditious attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS within the time 

period provided under CAA section 

179(d) and that provides for annual 

reduction in the emissions of direct 

PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor 

pollutant within the area of not less 

than five percent until attainment. 

[FR Doc. 2016–28100 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 62 

[Docket ID: FEMA–2016–0012] 

RIN 1660–AA86 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP): Financial Assistance/Subsidy 

Arrangement 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing 

this final rule to remove the copy of the 

Financial Assistance/Subsidy 

Arrangement (Arrangement) and the 

summary of the Financial Control Plan 

from the appendices of the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

regulations. It is no longer necessary or 

appropriate to retain a contract, 

agreement, or any other arrangement 

between FEMA and private insurance 

companies in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 23, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Murphy, Director, Policyholder 

Services Division, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 400 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2775. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Regulatory History 

The National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968 (NFIA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq.), authorizes the 

Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) to 

establish and carry out a National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) to enable 

interested persons to purchase 

insurance against loss resulting from 

physical damage to or loss of real or 

personal property arising from flood in 

the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 4011(a). 

Under the NFIA, FEMA has the 

authority to undertake arrangements to 

carry out the NFIP through the facilities 

of the Federal government, utilizing, for 

the purposes of providing flood 

insurance coverage, insurance 

companies and other insurers, insurance 

agents and brokers, and insurance 

adjustment organizations, as fiscal 

agents of the United States. See 42 

U.S.C. 4071. To this end, FEMA is 

authorized to ‘‘enter into any contracts, 

agreements, or other arrangements’’ 

with private insurance companies to 

utilize their facilities and services in 

administering the NFIP, and on such 

terms and conditions as may be agreed 

upon. See 42 U.S.C. 4081(a). 

Pursuant to this authority, FEMA 

enters into a standard Financial 

Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement 

(Arrangement) with private sector 

property insurers, also known as Write 

Your Own (WYO) companies, to sell 

NFIP flood insurance policies under 

their own names and adjust and pay 

claims arising under the Standard Flood 

Insurance Policy (SFIP). Each 

Arrangement entered into by a WYO 

company must be in the form and 

substance of the standard Arrangement, 

a copy of which is in Title 44 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

62, Appendix A. See 44 CFR 62.23(a). 

Since the primary relationship between 

the Federal government and WYO 

companies is one of a fiduciary nature 

(that is, to ensure that any taxpayer 

funds are appropriately expended), 

FEMA established ‘‘A Plan to Maintain 

Financial Control for Business Written 

Under the Write Your Own Program,’’ 

also known as the ‘‘Financial Control 

Plan.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 4071; 44 CFR 

62.23(f), Part 62, App. B. To ensure 

financial and statistical control over the 

NFIP, as part of the Arrangement, WYO 

companies agree to adhere to the 

standards and requirements in the 

Financial Control Plan. 

On May 23, 2016, FEMA published a 

proposed rule (81 FR 32261) proposing 

to remove the copy of the Arrangement 

in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, and the 

summary of the Financial Control Plan 

in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. In 

addition, FEMA proposed to make 

conforming amendments to remove 

citations to these appendices in 44 CFR 

62.23. 

FEMA proposed to remove the 

Arrangement from the NFIP regulations 

because it is no longer necessary to 

include a copy of the Arrangement in 

the CFR. FEMA originally included the 

Arrangement in the CFR to inform the 

public of the procedural details of the 

WYO Program. See 50 FR 16236 (April 

25, 1985). There are now more efficient 

ways to inform the public of the 

procedural details of the WYO Program, 

and after more than 30 years of 

operation, the public is more familiar 

with the procedural details of the WYO 

Program and the flood insurance 

provided through WYO companies. 

Further, the NFIA does not require 

FEMA to include a copy of the 

Arrangement in the CFR. See 42 U.S.C. 

4081. Finally, it is inappropriate to 

codify in regulation a contract, 

agreement, or other arrangement 

between FEMA and private insurance 

companies. 

With the removal of the copy of the 

Arrangement from the NFIP regulations, 

FEMA and its industry partners can 

have flexibility to make operational 

adjustments and corrections to the 

Arrangement more quickly and 

efficiently. Although the rulemaking 

process plays an important role in 

agency policymaking, when this process 

is not required or necessary, the 

requirement to undergo rulemaking can 

unnecessarily slow down the operation 

of the NFIP by FEMA and its industry 

partners and can result in the use of 

alternate, less than ideal measures that 

result in business and operational 

inefficiencies. 

FEMA also proposed to remove the 

summary of the Financial Control Plan 

in Appendix B, because this information 

is contained in either FEMA’s Financial 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES