19492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

2The 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’’). 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

■ 2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by 

revising the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘Lead-Based Paint Poisioning 

Prevention in Certain Residential 

Structures’’ to read ‘‘Lead-Based Paint 

Poisoning Prevention in Certain 

Residential Structures’’ and revising the 

following entries underneath it: 

■ a. Part 745, subpart E; 

■ b. Part 745, subpart L; and 

■ c. Part 745, subpart Q. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in 

Certain Residential Structures 

Part 745, subpart E ................ 2070–0195 

* * * * * 

Part 745, subpart L ................ 2070–0195 

Part 745, subpart Q ................ 2070–0195 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–07797 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

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). 

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. 

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. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 19493 

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. 

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 NOX 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: 

• 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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 52.220 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(371); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(470) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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, 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 19495 

excluding section 4.4 (‘‘Contingency 

Reductions’’). 

[FR Doc. 2016–07668 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9944–56– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Partial withdrawal of direct 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse 

comments, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing 

a portion of the February 11, 2016 direct 

final rule approving certain revisions to 

the Arizona State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) and correcting certain errors. The 

adverse comments relate to a particular 

test method and thus the EPA is 

withdrawing the portion of the direct 

final rule that relates to the test methods 

that include the test method for which 

the adverse comments were received. 

DATES: The addition of paragraph 

(c)(29)(i)(B) published on February 11, 

2016 at 81 FR 7214 is withdrawn, 

effective April 5, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 11, 2016, the EPA published a 

direct final rule approving a SIP 

revision submitted by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ). In the February 11, 2016 direct 

final rule, the EPA also corrected certain 

errors in previous actions on prior 

revisions to the Arizona SIP and to 

make certain other corrections. In the 

direct final rule, the EPA stated that if 

adverse comments were received by 

March 14, 2016, the EPA would publish 

a timely withdrawal and address the 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule also 

published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 

7259). The February 11, 2016 proposed 

rule indicated that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of the direct final 

rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

In this instance, the EPA received 

adverse comments on a certain test 

method for which the EPA had 

approved rescission. The relevant test 

method was included in a SIP revision 

submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 1979 

that also included a number of other test 

methods and certain performance test 

specifications, all of which were 

approved by the EPA at 47 FR 17483 

(April 23, 1982). The EPA’s approval of 

the test methods and performance test 

specifications submitted on January 23, 

1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 

was codified at 40 CFR 

52.120(c)(29)(i)(A). 

The EPA’s action on the rescission of 

the test methods and performance test 

specifications submitted on January 23, 

1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 is 

severable from the rest of the direct final 

rule. Thus, the EPA is withdrawing only 

the portion of the direct final rule 

related to those test methods and 

performance test specifications. The 

EPA will address the comments in a 

separate final action covering the state’s 

rescission of the test methods and 

performance test specifications 

submitted on January 23, 1979 (and 

approved on April 23, 1982) based on 

the proposed action published on 

February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259). The 

EPA will not open a second comment 

period for the action on the state’s 

rescissions of the test methods and 

performance test specifications. The 

other actions in the February 11, 2016 

Federal Register direct final rule are not 

affected. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 24, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Accordingly, the addition of 

paragraph (c)(29)(i)(B) which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7209) on page 

7214 is withdrawn as of April 5, 2016. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07666 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0696; FRL–9944–55- 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 

Transportation Conformity Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the South 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted on October 13, 2015, 

through the South Carolina Department 

of Health and Environmental Control 

(SC DHEC). This revision consists of 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation-related control 

measures and mitigation measures. The 

intended effect of this approval is to 

update the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the South 

Carolina SIP to reorganize previous 

exhibits into a single Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) document as well as 

updating signatories to add the newly 

established Lowcountry Area 

Transportation Study (LATS) to the list 

of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs), created to represent a new 

urbanized area designated as a result of 

the 2010 Census. EPA has determined 

that this revision is consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

June 6, 2016 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by May 5, 2016. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0696 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES