22194 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

establishment of a special local 

regulation and is therefore categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. An 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add § 100.35T09–0208 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.35T09–0208 Special Local 

Regulation; Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta; 

Detroit River, Trenton Channel; Wyandotte, 

MI. 

(a) Regulated area. A regulated area is 

established to encompass the following 

waterway: All waters of the Detroit 

River, Trenton Channel between the 

following two lines going from bank-tobank: The first line is drawn directly 

across the channel from position 

42°11.0′ N., 083°9.4′ W. (NAD 83); the 

second line, to the north, is drawn 

directly across the channel from 

position 42°11.7′ N., 083°8.9′ W. (NAD 

83). 

(b) Effective period. This section is 

effective and will be enforced from 7:30 

a.m. until 3 p.m. on April 30, 2016. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Vessels transiting 

through the regulated area are to 

maintain the minimum speeds for safe 

navigation. 

(2) Vessel operators desiring to 

operate in the regulated area must 

contact the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander to obtain permission to do 

so. The Captain of the Port Detroit 

(COTP) or his on-scene representative 

may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 

or at 313–568–9560. Vessel operators 

given permission to operate within the 

regulated area must comply with all 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

his on-scene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the COTP is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

or a Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP to act on his behalf. 

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

Scott B. Lemasters, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08781 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2016–0228] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Delaware River, Delair, NJ to 

Philadelphia, PA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Delair Bridge 

across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, 

between Philadelphia PA and Delair, NJ. 

The deviation is necessary to perform 

bridge repairs. This deviation allows the 

bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

5 a.m. on April 30, 2016 to 5 a.m. on 

June 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2016–0228] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Mrs. Traci 

Whitfield, Bridge Administration 

Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; 

telephone (757) 398–6629, email 

Traci.G.Whitfield@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conrail, 

owner of the Delair Bridge, has 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the current operating regulation to 

perform urgent repairs by replacing wire 

ropes connecting the counterweights 

and the lift span. The bridge is a vertical 

lift-span bridge and has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 49 

feet above mean high water. 

The current operating schedule is set 

out in 33 CFR 117.716. Under this 

temporary deviation, the bridge will 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position from 5 a.m. April 30, 2016 to 

5 a.m. May 7, 2016; from 5 a.m. May 14, 

2016 to 5 a.m. May 21, 2016; and from 

5 a.m. June 4, 2016 to 5 a.m. June 11, 

2016. The lift span will not be able to 

open since one counterweight will be 

detached until the end of the repair 

work. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed position may do so 

at anytime. The bridge will not be able 

to open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels 

unable to pass through the bridge in the 

closed position. The rope replacement 

construction schedule was developed 

through the coordination with Coast 

Guard Sector Delaware Bay and the 

Mariners’ Advisory Committee for the 

Bay and River Delaware (MAC). The 

Coast Guard will also inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessel operators can 

arrange their transits to minimize any 

impact caused by the temporary 

deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35 (e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: April 11, 2016. 

Hal R. Pitts, 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08690 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636; FRL–9944–93– 

Region 9] 

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets in Submitted PM2.5

Moderate Area Plan for San Joaquin 

Valley; California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is notifying the public 

that the Agency has found that the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs or ‘‘budgets’’) for the years 2014 

and 2017 in the San Joaquin Valley 

Moderate Area Plan, as revised in a 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 22195 

1See letter dated October 7, 2014, from Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

2 80 FR 1816 at 1841 (January 13, 2015). 

3See letter dated February 27, 2015, from Paul 

Cort and Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Wienke 

Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9. 4See 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). 

December 29, 2014 submittal, for the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

Moderate Area Plan was submitted to 

the EPA on March 4, 2013 by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

as a revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and includes 

a demonstration of reasonable further 

progress for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

CARB submitted a Supplement to the 

Moderate Area Plan on November 6, 

2014 (‘‘2014 Supplement’’) and a 

revision to the budgets on December 29, 

2014. We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’ or 

‘‘Plan.’’ Upon the effective date of this 

notice of adequacy, the San Joaquin 

Valley metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO) and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

must use these budgets for future 

transportation conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: This finding is effective May 2, 

2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air 

Division AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; (415) 

947–4192 or tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

This action is simply an 

announcement of a finding that we have 

already made. EPA Region IX sent a 

letter to CARB on April 1, 2016 stating 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the submitted 2012 PM2.5

Plan for the reasonable further progress 

(RFP) milestone years of 2014 and 2017 

are adequate. 

In response to an October 7, 2014 

request by CARB for parallel processing 

of the revised budgets in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan,1 we announced the availability of 

the revised budgets on the EPA’s 

adequacy review Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm from October 23, 

2014 to November 24, 2014. We 

received no comments on the budgets 

during this period. 

On January 13, 2015, we proposed to 

approve these budgets as part of our 

proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2014 Supplement.2 We received 

two comments on the budgets.3 We 

respond to the first of these two 

comments below. The second comment 

concerns the transportation conformity 

interpollutant trading mechanism in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan that we proposed to 

approve for use in transportation 

conformity analyses. We will respond to 

this comment when we take final action 

on the interpollutant trading mechanism 

as part of our final action on the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement. The 

interpollutant trading mechanism 

cannot be used until it is approved as 

part of the SIP. Therefore, the 

appropriate venue for responding to the 

comment on the trading mechanism is 

the final rule on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2014 Supplement. 

Transportation conformity is required 

by Clean Air Act section 176(c). The 

EPA’s conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and projects 

conform to a SIP and establishes the 

criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not they do. Conformity to 

a SIP means that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) which was 

promulgated in our August 15, 1997 

final rule (62 FR 43780 at 43781–43783). 

We have further described our process 

for determining the adequacy of 

submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 

2004 final rule (69 FR 40004 at 40038), 

and we used the information in these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determination. Please note that an 

adequacy review is separate from the 

EPA’s completeness review and should 

not be used to prejudge the EPA’s 

ultimate action on the SIP. Even if we 

find a budget adequate, the SIP could 

later be disapproved. 

Response to Comment 

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the 

EPA must disapprove the RFP 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2014 Supplement because it does 

not adequately address ammonia 

emission reductions and, therefore, does 

not provide ‘‘such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required . . . for the 

purpose of ensuring attainment . . . by 

the applicable date.’’ Earthjustice argues 

that, because the RFP demonstration is 

not approvable, the EPA cannot find 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 

Supplement are consistent with 

applicable requirements for reasonable 

further progress, as required by 40 CFR 

98.118(e)(4)(iv). 

Response: On January 13, 2015, the 

EPA proposed to approve several 

elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

2014 Supplement, which California 

submitted to address Clean Air Act 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the San Joaquin Valley.4 As part of 

this action, the EPA proposed to 

approve the Plan’s RFP demonstration 

for 2014 and 2017, based on a 

conclusion that the 2014 and 2017 

emissions projections for direct PM2.5, 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and ammonia (NH3) reflect full 

implementation of the State’s and 

District’s Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology control strategy, which 

achieves substantial reductions in 

emissions of each of these pollutants 

over the period covered by the Plan. Id. 

at 1835–37. The EPA also proposed to 

approve the direct PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for 2014 and 2017, based on a 

conclusion that these MVEBs are 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for reasonable further progress and the 

other adequacy requirements. Id. at 

1838–41. Finally, in accordance with 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the EPA proposed 

to find that on-road emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), SO2, and 

NH3 are not significant contributors to 

the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the 

SJV area, and accordingly, that 

transportation conformity requirements 

do not apply for these pollutants in this 

area. Id. at 1840. 

In PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the 

transportation conformity provisions of 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply with 

respect to emissions of VOC, SO2 and/ 

or NH3 if the EPA Regional 

Administrator or the director of the state 

air agency has made a finding that onroad emissions of any of these 

precursors within the nonattainment 

area are a significant contributor to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem and has 

so notified the MPO and DOT, or if the 

applicable implementation plan (or 

implementation plan submission) 

establishes an approved (or adequate) 

budget for such emissions as part of the 

reasonable further progress, attainment 

or maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v). With respect to VOC, 

SO2, and NH3, neither the EPA nor the 

State has made a finding that on-road 

emissions of any of these precursors are 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
22196 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

a significant contributor to the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the SJV area, 

and neither the approved California SIP 

nor the submitted 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

2014 Supplement establish adequate 

MVEBs for such emissions as part of an 

RFP, attainment or maintenance strategy 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

transportation conformity provisions of 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A, do not apply 

with respect to emissions of VOC, SO2

or NH3 for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV. 

The provisions of 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A, apply with respect to 

emissions of NOX because neither the 

EPA nor the State has made a finding 

that on-road emissions of NOX within 

the SJV nonattainment are not a 

significant contributor to the PM2.5

nonattainment problem, and because 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 

Supplement establish adequate budgets 

for such emissions as part of the Plan’s 

RFP strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv). 

The provisions of 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A, also apply with respect to 

emissions of direct PM2.5 because PM2.5

is a criteria pollutant identified in 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(1). 

In order to find an MVEB in a 

submitted control strategy 

implementation plan revision to be 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, the EPA must find, among 

other things, that the motor vehicle 

emissions budget(s), when considered 

together with all other emission sources, 

is consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to the given 

plan). 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). Because 

the provisions of 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A, apply only with respect to 

emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5 for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV area, we have evaluated the 

submitted NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs 

for consistency with our adequacy 

criteria in § 93.118(e)(4). The 

commenter’s arguments about NH3

emissions are not germane to our 

evaluation of the MVEBs under these 

adequacy criteria. 

As explained in our January 13, 2015 

proposed rule, the 2014 and 2017 

MVEBs for NOX and direct PM2.5 in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement 

are consistent with the RFP 

demonstration with respect to these 

pollutants in the submitted plan. We 

find, therefore, that these MVEBs meet 

the requirement in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

for consistency with applicable 

requirements for RFP in the submitted 

plan. We note that our adequacy review 

is a cursory review of the SIP and 

MVEBs to ensure that the minimum 

adequacy criteria are met before a 

submitted budget is used in a 

conformity determination. This 

adequacy finding should not be used to 

prejudge the EPA’s final rulemaking 

action on the SIP. 

In summary, we are announcing our 

finding that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the years 2014 and 2017 

from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

The finding is available at the EPA’s 

conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm. The adequate 

MVEBs are provided in the following 

table: 

ADEQUATE MVEBS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 STANDARDS

[Winter daily average in tons] 

County 

2014 2017 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Fresno .............................................................................................................. 1.0 31.6 0.9 25.2 

Kern (SJV) ....................................................................................................... 1.2 43.2 1.0 34.4 

Kings ................................................................................................................ 0.2 8.8 0.2 7.2 

Madera ............................................................................................................. 0.3 8.7 0.2 7.0 

Merced ............................................................................................................. 0.5 17.2 0.4 13.7 

San Joaquin ..................................................................................................... 0.7 20.0 0.6 15.9 

Stanislaus ........................................................................................................ 0.5 15.1 0.5 12.0 

Tulare ............................................................................................................... 0.5 14.3 0.4 10.7 

Total * ........................................................................................................ 4.9 159.0 4.3 126.0 

Source: Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 29, 

2014, and Staff Report, Appendix A, Table C–4. 

* Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 29, 2014, Staff Report with Attachment, revised Table C–4, 

‘‘Transportation Conformity Budgets’’ to 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 1, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08510 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES