Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 22025 

Executive Order 13175 

This action does not have tribal 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Order 13175. The action 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) applies to rules that 

are subject to notice and comment 

under section 553(b) of the APA or any 

other law. As explained above, the CSA 

exempts this final order from notice and 

comment. Consequently, the RFA does 

not apply to this action. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This action does not impose a new 

collection of information requirement 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Congressional Review Act 

This action is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional 

Review Act). However, the DEA has 

submitted a copy of this final order to 

both Houses of Congress and to the 

Comptroller General. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Narcotics, Prescription drugs. 

For the reasons set out above, the DEA 

amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1308.11 by redesignating 

paragraphs (b)(3) through (55) as (b)(4) 

through (56) and adding a new (b)(3)to 

read as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) AH-7921 (3,4-dichloro-N-[(1- 

dimethylamino) 

cyclohexylmethyl]benzamide ......... 9551 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 8, 2016 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08566 Filed 4–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0098; FRL–9944–88– 

OAR] 

Findings of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plans Required for 

Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS); Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule 

that appeared in the Federal Register on 

March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14736). The 

document included a listing of areas for 

which states had not submitted State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) addressing 

nonattainment area SIP requirements for 

the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS. This action corrects that 

listing to clarify that the Indiana, 

Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS consists of the 

entirety of Indiana County and part of 

Armstrong County. 

DATES: The effective date of this 

document is April 18, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding this correction, 

contact Dr. Larry Wallace, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Mail Code C539–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

phone number (919) 541-0906 or by 

email at wallace.larry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The EPA issued the final rule, in FR 

Doc 2016–06063 on March 18, 2016 (81 

FR 14736). That final rule establishes 

certain Clean Air Act deadlines for the 

EPA to impose sanctions if a state does 

not submit a SIP addressing 

nonattainment area SIP requirements to 

bring the affected areas into attainment 

of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS 

and for the EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan to address any 

outstanding SIP requirements. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final preamble 

contains an error in a table identifying 

areas subject to the findings of failure to 

submit related to the Indiana, 

Pennsylvania nonattainment area. The 

Indiana, Pennsylvania nonattainment 

area consists of the entirety of Indiana 

County and part of Armstrong County. 

See 78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013 

codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 

The preamble table mistakenly lists 

Indiana County as a ‘‘partial’’ county 

that is part of the Indiana, Pennsylvania 

nonattainment area subject to a finding 

of failure to submit, when the full 

county should have been listed as 

subject to the finding. Additional notice 

and comment for this minor technical 

correction is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), and the EPA finds that 

good cause exists for this minor 

technical correction to become effective 

at the same time as the final rule. 

Accordingly, this correction is 

incorporated into the final rule and also 

becomes effective on April 18, 2016. 

Correction of Publication 

In FR Doc 2016–06063 appearing on 

page 14736 in the Federal Register of 

Friday, March 18, 2016, the following 

correction is made: 

On page 14737, table entitled 

‘‘STATES AND SO2

NONATTAINMENT AREAS AFFECTED 

BY THESE FINDINGS OF FAILURE TO 

SUBMIT,’’ remove from the end of the 

fourth entry, under the column titled 

‘‘Nonattainment area’’ the text ‘‘(p)’’. 

Dated: April 4, 2016. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08509 Filed 4–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0204; FRL–9944–16– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; California; 

South Coast; Moderate Area Plan for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving in part and 

disapproving in part State 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22026 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015) at 63660. 

2 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016). 

3 Id. 

4All comment letters are in the docket for today’s 

action at www.regulations.gov, docket ID EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0204. 

5See 80 FR at 63651 (October 20, 2015) 

(discussing District commitment to ‘‘adopt backstop 

measures related to ports and port-related facilities 

in 2015,’’ also referred to as control measure IND– 

01, ‘‘Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of 

Emissions from Ports and Port-related Facilities’’). 

submitted by California to address 

moderate area Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for the 2006 fine 

particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the 

Los Angeles—South Coast air basin 

(South Coast) PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

These SIP revisions are the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, submitted February 13, 2013, and 

the 2015 Supplement, submitted March 

4, 2015. We are disapproving the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure, 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT), and 

Reasonable Further Progress elements of 

the SIP revisions because of new 

information indicating that the 2010 

RECLAIM program does not meet the 

RACM/RACT requirement for certain 

sources of emissions. The EPA is 

prepared to work with the State to 

correct this deficiency. We are not 

finalizing our proposed action on the 

District’s ports-related commitment at 

this time. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 16, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0204 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: 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, (415) 947– 

4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background Information 

On October 20, 2015, we proposed to 

approve state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by California to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

in the Los Angeles-South Coast air basin 

(South Coast) Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area. See 80 FR 63640 

(October 20, 2015). The SIP revisions 

that we proposed to approve are those 

portions of the ‘‘Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP)’’ that address 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(2012 PM2.5 Plan), submitted February 

13, 2013, and the ‘‘Supplement to the 

24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan for the South Coast Air Basin’’ 

(2015 Supplement), submitted March 4, 

2015. We refer to these submissions 

collectively herein as ‘‘the Plan.’’ The 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

elements of the Plan as satisfying 

applicable CAA requirements: (1) The 

2008 base year emissions inventories; 

(2) the reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration; (3) the 

reasonable further progress 

demonstration; (4) the demonstration 

that attainment by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 is 

impracticable; (5) the District’s 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific rules and measures on a 

specific schedule; and (6) the general 

conformity budgets for NOX and VOC 

for years 2013–2030 in the Plan.1

The EPA also proposed to reclassify 

the South Coast area, including Indian 

country within it, as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, based on the EPA’s 

determination that the area could not 

practicably attain this standard by the 

applicable Moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. 

On December 22, 2015, we finalized 

our proposal to reclassify the South 

Coast area from Moderate to Serious for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.2 As a result of 

that action, California is required to 

submit, by August 14, 2017, additional 

SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory 

requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas, including the 

requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title 

I of the Act. The Serious area plan must 

provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast area as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2019, in accordance 

with the requirements of part D of title 

I of the Act. 

In our December 22, 2015 final action 

to reclassify the South Coast area as a 

Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, we 

summarized and responded to public 

comments pertaining to the 

reclassification and its consequences 

and stated that we would, in a separate 

rulemaking, respond to comments 

pertaining to our proposed action on the 

submitted plan.3

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA provided a 30-day period for 

public comment on our proposed rule. 

During this comment period, which 

ended on November 19, 2015, we 

received ten sets of public comments on 

our proposal. Comment letters were 

submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of 

the Center for Biological Diversity, 

Coalition for Clean Air, Communities 

for a Better Environment, East Yard 

Communities for Environmental Justice, 

and the Sierra Club (‘‘Earthjustice’’); the 

San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach, or ‘‘the 

Ports’’); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP, 

the Commercial Real Estate 

Development Association; the Los 

Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe and 

Union Pacific Railroads; the Pacific 

Merchant Shipping Association; the 

California Trucking Association; 

BizFed, the Los Angeles County 

Business Federation; and the Public 

Solar Power Coalition.4 Copies of these 

comment letters can be found in the 

docket. 

Many of these comment letters 

address only our proposal to approve 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s (SCAQMD or 

District) commitment to adopt a 

backstop measure related to ports and 

port-related facilities in 2015, as part of 

our action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

2015 Supplement.5 Specifically, the 

comments from the following entities 

focus entirely on this ports-related 

commitment: The San Pedro Bay Ports 

(Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

or ‘‘the Ports’’); Maersk Agency USA; 

NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate 

Development Association; the Los 

Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe and 

Union Pacific Railroads; the Pacific 

Merchant Shipping Association; the 

California Trucking Association; and 

BizFed, the Los Angeles County 

Business Federation. Given the volume 

of these comments on the District’s 

ports-related commitment, and the need 

for the EPA to further evaluate the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 22027 

6The District’s ports-related commitment is not a 

component of the February 13, 2013 plan 

submission that is the subject of a consent decree 

in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, No. 2:15–cv–3798– 

ODW (ASx) (C.D. CA.). See letter dated February 13, 

2013, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments, 

and CARB Resolution 15–2, February 19, 2015; see 

also 80 FR 79338 (December 21, 2015). 

7On December 4, 2015, the SCAQMD adopted 

amendments to the RECLAIM program to 

implement BARCT for NOX emissions from various 

equipment by establishing RTC reduction targets 

and RTC adjustment factors for year 2016 and 

beyond (See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 

15–25, December 4, 2015). 

8BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation 

that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of source.’’ California Health & Safety Code 

Section 40406. 

9 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV–A (‘‘Stationary 

Source Control Measures’’) at p. IV–A–13 

(discussing CMB–01: Further NOX Reductions from 

RECLAIM—Phase I [NOX]). 

10SCAQMD Rule 2001, as amended May 6, 2005, 

at section (j) (‘‘Rule Applicability’’). 

11 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and U.S. EPA, 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01–001 (January 2001), at 

Section 16.7. 

12 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 

32621 (June 15, 1998). 

13 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 

50128 (August 12, 2011). 

14South Coast Air Quality Management District, 

‘‘Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional 

Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX

Continued 

issues these comments raise, we are not 

finalizing our proposed action on the 

commitment at this time and will 

respond to all comments pertaining to 

this commitment in a separate 

rulemaking.6 We summarize and 

respond below to all other comments 

pertaining to our proposed action on the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and the 2015 

Supplement. 

Comments Regarding RACM/RACT 

Comment 1. Earthjustice asserts that 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan fails to meet 

minimum requirements for Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

because some sources covered under 

South Coast’s NOX Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program 

have not installed control technologies 

that are economically feasible and 

readily available. Citing recent 

rulemaking documents from the 

District’s December 4, 2015 

amendments to the RECLAIM program,7

Earthjustice argues that the District itself 

has found that the current cap on NOX

RECLAIM emissions is far above the 

level of emissions that would be 

generated if cost-effective and readily 

available technologies were 

implemented in the South Coast air 

basin. Earthjustice also argues that the 2 

ton per day (tpd) reduction in the NOX

RECLAIM cap (referred to as the NOX

‘‘shave’’) included in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan falls short of what is actually 

feasible for certain sectors, where 

‘‘readily available technologies simply 

have not been installed because of too 

many credits in the NOX RECLAIM 

program.’’ For example, Earthjustice 

quotes the District’s statements in the 

‘‘Draft Final Socioeconomic Report For 

Proposed Amendments to Regulation 

XX—Regional Clean Air Incentive 

Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM’’ 

(hereafter ‘‘RECLAIM Socioeconomic 

Report’’) indicating that the NOX

RECLAIM program, as amended in 

2005, has allowed numerous refineries 

to delay installation of selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) controls that 

the District had identified as best 

available retrofit control technology 

(BARCT).8

Earthjustice acknowledges the EPA’s 

policies allowing for cap and trade 

programs to satisfy RACT by ensuring 

emission reductions equal, in the 

aggregate, to the reductions expected 

from direct application of RACT on 

individual affected sources but asserts 

that, in this case, ‘‘EPA cannot simply 

conclude that a 2 tpd shave to the NOX

RECLAIM program satisfies RACT 

because ‘RECLAIM [must] achieve[ ] 

reductions of NOX emissions from 

covered sources that are equivalent in 

the aggregate, to the reductions achieved 

by RACT-level controls.’ ’’ At a 

minimum, according to Earthjustice, 

‘‘RACM requires an assessment of the 

NOX RECLAIM program in light of new 

information that the NOX RECLAIM 

program is woefully far from achieving 

reductions commensurate with ‘RACTlevel controls.’ ’’ Earthjustice concludes 

that the District can either amend its 

NOX RECLAIM program to make it 

equivalent to RACT-level controls or 

adopt direct controls to ensure that 

readily available and cost-effective 

pollution control equipment is installed 

on many sources that have not installed 

these controls. 

Response 1: The EPA has reevaluated 

the RACM/RACT demonstration in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan in light of the 

commenter’s arguments and agrees that 

the Plan does not adequately address 

RACM/RACT for certain NOX emission 

sources covered by the RECLAIM 

program. 

The SCAQMD adopted the RECLAIM 

program in 1993 to reduce emissions 

from the largest stationary sources of 

NOX and SOX emissions through a 

market-based trading program that 

establishes annually declining NOX and 

SOX allocations (also called ‘‘facility 

caps’’) and allows covered facilities to 

comply with their facility caps by 

installing pollution control equipment, 

changing operations, or purchasing 

‘‘RECLAIM trading credits’’ (RTCs) from 

the RECLAIM market.9 Section 40440 of 

the California Health and Safety Code 

requires the District to monitor 

advances in BARCT and periodically to 

reassess the overall facility caps to 

ensure that the facility caps are 

equivalent, in the aggregate, to BARCT 

emission levels imposed on affected 

sources. Facilities electing to enter 

RECLAIM are exempted from a number 

of SCAQMD prohibitory rules that 

otherwise apply to sources of NOX and 

SOX emissions in the South Coast.10

Under longstanding EPA 

interpretation of the CAA, a marketbased cap and trade program may satisfy 

RACT requirements by ensuring that the 

level of emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of the program 

will be equal, in the aggregate, to those 

reductions expected from the direct 

application of RACT on all affected 

sources within the nonattainment 

area.11 The EPA approved the RECLAIM 

program into the California SIP in June 

1998 based in part on a conclusion that 

the NOX emission caps in the program 

satisfied the RACT requirements of CAA 

section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered 

NOX emission sources in the 

aggregate.12 In 2005 and 2010, the 

District adopted revisions to the NOX

RECLAIM program, which the EPA 

approved on August 29, 2006 and 

August 12, 2011, respectively, based in 

part on conclusions that the revisions 

continued to satisfy NOX RACT 

requirements.13 We refer to the NOX

RECLAIM program as approved into the 

SIP as the ‘‘2010 RECLAIM program.’’ 

The recent SCAQMD rulemaking 

documents that Earthjustice cites call 

into question the efficacy of the 2010 

RECLAIM program in ensuring NOX

emission reductions equivalent to 

RACT-level controls on all affected 

sources. Specifically, according to a 

November 4, 2015 draft staff report by 

the SCAQMD entitled ‘‘Proposed 

Amendments to Regulation XX, 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Draft RECLAIM Staff Report’’), 

between 2009 and 2013, the RECLAIM 

market contained 5–8 tons per day (tpd) 

of ‘‘surplus’’ RTCs that created a 

dampening effect on RTC prices, 

bringing average RTC prices down to a 

range of $1,162–$5,491 per ton 

compared to the average costeffectiveness of control range, which is 

$8,300–$13,000 per ton.14 As a result, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22028 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

RECLAIM’’ (‘‘Draft RECLAIM Staff Report’’), 

November 4, 2015, at pp. 262–264. 

15 Id. at 264. 

16 Id. The RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report 

further states that despite a 7.7 tpd NOX RTC shave 

implemented during 2007–2011 through the 

District’s 2005 amendments to RECLAIM, only 4 

tpd of actual NOX emission reductions resulted 

from this shave, most of which were due to facility 

shut-downs and not measures taken to reduce 

actual emissions by facilities in the program. South 

Coast Air Quality Management District, ‘‘Draft Final 

Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Amendments 

to Regulation XX—Regional Clean Air Incentive 

Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM’’ (‘‘RECLAIM 

Socioeconomic Report’’), December 4, 2015, at pp. 

1–2. 

17See, e.g., Draft RECLAIM Staff Report at 

Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C 

(discussing technical feasibility and costeffectiveness estimates for SCR and other NOX

control techniques at refinery fluid catalytic 

cracking units, refinery boilers and process heaters, 

and refinery gas turbines). 

18RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report at pp. 1–2. 

19 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix VI (‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration’’) at pp. VI–13 to VI–17 and Table 

VI–5. 

20For example, with respect to boilers and 

process heaters at refineries, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

indicates that NOX control measures implemented 

in the San Francisco Bay Area are more stringent 

than regulations implemented in the South Coast 

area. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix VI (‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration’’) at pp. VI–13. 

21 Id. 

22 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV–A (‘‘Stationary 

Source Control Measures’’) at pp. IV–A–13 to IV– 

A–16 (discussing CMB–01: Further NOX Reductions 

from RECLAIM—Phase I [NOX]), as amended by 

2015 Supplement at Table F–1. 

23 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV–A (‘‘Stationary 

Source Control Measures’’) at p. IV–A–14. 

24 80 FR at 63654 (October 20, 2015). 

25 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016). 

according to the District, RECLAIM 

facilities opted to purchase these low 

cost ‘‘surplus’’ RTCs to reconcile their 

emissions at the end of the compliance 

year instead of installing controls to 

reduce pollution.15 For example, 

refineries did not install any SCR 

control technologies in response to the 

2005 NOX RECLAIM amendment even 

though SCAQMD staff had estimated 

about 51 SCRs would be installed by 

2011.16 The Draft RECLAIM Staff Report 

indicates that SCR has been used 

successfully to control NOX emissions 

from various refinery operations and is 

considered a mature, commercially 

available, and cost-effective control 

technique for this source category.17

The District concluded in the Draft 

RECLAIM Staff Report that ‘‘[r]emoving 

surplus RTCs is therefore critically 

important to ensure the effectiveness of 

the RECLAIM program and meet state 

law requirements to require the use of 

BARCT for existing sources.’’ Likewise, 

in the RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report, 

the District stated that many of these 

unused ‘‘excess’’ RTCs were sold to 

operating RECLAIM facilities as a result 

of facility shutdowns and that ‘‘[t]hese 

excess RTCs have been artificially 

depressing RTC prices and have 

induced RECLAIM facilities to delay the 

installation of cost-effective controls.’’ 18

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan cites the 2010 

RECLAIM program as the basis for the 

District’s RACM/RACT determination 

for several NOX emission source 

categories, including cement kilns, 

boilers and process heaters at petroleum 

refineries, and other stationary 

combustion installations (e.g., steam 

generators and natural gas and/or oilfired industrial/commercial/

institutional boilers).19 The Plan also 

indicates that, for several source 

categories for which the District 

identified more stringent NOX controls 

implemented in other nonattainment 

areas,20 the District intended to reduce 

NOX emissions or conduct further study 

through ‘‘Control Measure CMB–01— 

Further NOX Reductions from 

RECLAIM,’’ 21 a measure that commits 

the District to achieve an additional 2 

tpd of NOX emission reductions through 

a 2 tpd ‘‘shave’’ to the RECLAIM NOX

emission caps in 2015 if the South Coast 

area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS by then.22 The 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

does not explain how either the 2010 

RECLAIM program or the additional 2 

tpd reduction (‘‘shave’’) to the NOX

emission cap described in Control 

Measure CMB–01 ensures that the level 

of NOX emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of the RECLAIM 

program is equal, in the aggregate, to 

those NOX emission reductions 

expected from the direct application of 

RACT on covered sources within the 

South Coast nonattainment area. The 

Plan does, however, state that there are 

approximately 8 tpd of ‘‘excess’’ NOX

RTCs in the RECLAIM market, 

consistent with the District’s findings in 

the Draft RECLAIM Staff Report and 

RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report.23

Given the information in the Plan 

about ‘‘excess’’ NOX RTCs in the 2010 

RECLAIM program and the new 

information submitted by the 

commenters indicating that these excess 

RTCs have artificially depressed NOX

RTC prices during the 2009–2013 period 

covered by the Plan, thus allowing 

RECLAIM facilities to avoid installing 

technically feasible and cost-effective 

NOX pollution control equipment 

during this period, and given the 

absence of a demonstration in the Plan 

to support a conclusion that the 2010 

RECLAIM program ensures, in the 

aggregate, NOX emission reductions 

equivalent to RACT-level controls for 

these sources, we are disapproving the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the 

Plan. 

Our proposal to find that the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement satisfy 

the requirement for RFP in CAA section 

172(c)(2) was based primarily on a 

conclusion that the Plan ‘‘demonstrates 

that all RACM/RACT are being 

implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable and identifies projected 

emission levels for 2014 that reflect full 

implementation of the State’s and 

District’s RACM/RACT control strategy 

for the area.’’ 24 Our evaluation of 

whether the RACM/RACT measures 

would result in emissions reductions 

consistent with meeting the RFP 

requirement of the statute was thus 

dependent upon the approval of the 

Plan with respect to the RACM/RACT 

requirement. Because we are now 

disapproving the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the Plan, we must also 

find that the Plan does not satisfy the 

statutory requirement for RFP for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As a result of our December 22, 2015 

final action reclassifying the South 

Coast area as Serious nonattainment for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is 

required to submit by August 14, 2017 

a Serious Area plan for the South Coast 

area, including provisions to assure that 

the best available control measures 

(BACM) and best available control 

technology (BACT) for the control of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall 

be implemented no later than 4 years 

after the area is reclassified.25 We note 

that, to the extent the State and District 

intend to rely on the NOX RECLAIM 

program as part of the BACM 

demonstration in this new plan, the 

plan must include documentation 

sufficient to demonstrate that the NOX

RECLAIM program ensures, in the 

aggregate, NOX emission reductions 

equivalent to BACT-level controls for 

covered facilities. If the State and 

District intend to the correct the 

deficiency in advance of the BACM 

submission due August 14, 2017, they 

may do so by submitting revisions to the 

NOX RECLAIM program together with 

documentation sufficient to demonstrate 

that the revised program ensures, in the 

aggregate, NOX emission reductions 

equivalent to RACT-level controls for 

covered facilities. Either type of SIP 

submission would, upon EPA approval, 

cure the deficiency in the Plan’s RACM/ 

RACT demonstration for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The Serious area plan for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area 

that California is required to submit by 

August 14, 2017 must also include plan 

provisions that provide for RFP 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 22029 

26 80 FR 63640 at 63652, n. 48 (citing letter dated 

August 14, 2015, from Richard W. Corey, Executive 

Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9). 

27 80 FR at 63652. 

28 Id. 29 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). 

30 80 FR 63640 at 63655 (October 20, 2015) (citing 

2015 Supplement, Attachment C at Table C–1). 

31 Id. at 63645 and 63652–53. 

32 Id. 

33 2015 Supplement, Attachment C, at Table C– 

1. 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(2). A Serious area 

plan that satisfies the statutory RFP 

requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the South Coast would, upon EPA 

approval, cure the deficiency in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP provisions. 

Comment 2. Earthjustice argues that 

the RACM demonstration in the Plan 

impermissibly relies on mobile source 

measures that are not approved into the 

SIP and that the EPA continues to 

attempt to ‘‘illegally credit’’ waiver 

measures even though these measures 

had not been proposed for SIP approval 

by the time of the EPA’s proposed rule 

on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. Earthjustice 

further asserts that these waiver 

measures have never been reviewed for 

compliance with SIP-related 

requirements, and that the public has no 

ability to review and offer comment on 

the EPA’s assessment of how these 

mobile source measures satisfy the 

CAA’s RACM requirements. Citing 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 

786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (hereafter 

‘‘CBA’’), Earthjustice argues that the 

EPA’s prior approvals of PM2.5 plans for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment areas were remanded for 

failure to include the mobile source 

control measures upon which the plans 

relied and that it is, therefore, premature 

to conclude that the RACM requirement 

has been satisfied. 

Response 2. As we explained in our 

proposed rule, in response to the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision in CBA, CARB 

adopted the necessary waiver measures 

as revisions to the California SIP and 

submitted them to the EPA on August 

14, 2015.26 Our proposed rule for this 

action stated that the EPA intended to 

propose action on these waiver 

measures in a separate rulemaking and 

that, ‘‘[o]nce approved as part of the SIP, 

the measures will be enforceable by the 

EPA or private citizens under the 

CAA.’’ 27 Our proposed rule also stated 

that the EPA was ‘‘proposing to approve 

certain elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2015 Supplement in part based on 

our expectation that these waiver 

measures will soon become federally 

enforceable as a result of our approval 

of the measures as part of the SIP.’’ 28

On November 12, 2015, the EPA 

proposed to approve the submitted 

waiver measures into the California SIP 

and provided a 30-day period for public 

comment on its proposal.29 As part of 

this proposed rule, the EPA evaluated 

the necessary waiver measures for 

compliance with SIP-related 

requirements and proposed to find that 

they fulfill all applicable CAA 

requirements. The EPA expects to 

finalize this action in the near term, at 

which point the waiver measures will 

become federally enforceable under the 

CAA. 

In the meantime, we agree with 

Earthjustice that the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

remains deficient pending the EPA’s 

final action to approve the waiver 

measures on which it relies. Because we 

are disapproving the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on 

other grounds, however (see Response 

1), this conclusion does not alter our 

action. 

Comments Regarding Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

Comment 3. Earthjustice asserts that 

the EPA’s decision to not act on the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) in the 2012 PM2.5 plan is 

arbitrary and capricious. According to 

Earthjustice, the revised budgets in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan (2015 MVEBs) are 

significantly strengthened compared to 

the MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

that the EPA approved in 2011 (2011 

MVEBs), which are ‘‘outdated and less 

protective.’’ For example, Earthjustice 

asserts that the 2015 MVEBs reflect 

more accurate emissions data as they are 

based on EMFAC2011 and 

transportation activity data from the 

Southern California Association of 

Governments’ (SCAG’s) adopted 2012 

Regional Transportation Plan, whereas 

the 2011 MVEBs relied on EMFAC2007, 

the prior transportation plan, and other 

outdated information. Additionally, 

Earthjustice claims that the 2011 MVEBs 

were ‘‘not sufficiently stringent because 

evidence shows the South Coast air 

basin has not attained the 1997 PM2.5

standard’’ and ‘‘certainly are not 

sufficiently strong to meet the 2006 

PM2.5 standard and interim milestones 

to ensure attainment of this standard.’’ 

Earthjustice contends that it is 

arbitrary to allow the 2011 MVEBs to 

remain in place for the next 

transportation plan when revised 

budgets are available, especially in the 

South Coast where transportation 

emissions account for such a large 

amount of the PM2.5 and ozone 

pollution problems. Earthjustice further 

argues that it is critically important to 

have these revised budgets in place 

given the imminent 2016 transportation 

plan being prepared by SCAG. 

Response 3. We disagree with these 

comments. 

As we explained in our proposed rule, 

the 2015 Supplement, which CARB 

submitted in March 2015, revised the 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan to identify December 31, 

2015 as the applicable attainment date 

and included revised motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC.30 In July 

2015, however, the District submitted 

preliminary air quality monitoring data 

that indicated that attainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate 

area attainment date (December 31, 

2015) was impracticable.31 Based on 

these air quality data, the District 

requested that the EPA treat the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement as a 

demonstration that attainment by the 

Moderate area attainment date is 

impracticable and that the EPA 

reclassify the South Coast air basin as a 

Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.32 We therefore evaluated 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 

Supplement as a demonstration of 

impracticability under CAA section 

189(a)(1)(B)(ii) and proposed to approve 

it based on a conclusion that it satisfies 

the statutory requirements for such 

demonstrations. 

Section 93.118(e)(4) of the conformity 

rule states that the EPA will not find a 

motor vehicle emissions budget in a 

submitted control strategy SIP to be 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes unless specific criteria are 

satisfied, including the requirement in 

paragraph (e)(4)(iv) that the motor 

vehicle emissions budget(s), when 

considered together with all other 

emissions sources, is consistent with 

applicable requirements for reasonable 

further progress, attainment, or 

maintenance, whichever is relevant to 

the SIP submission. The 2012 PM2.5

Plan and 2015 Supplement contain 

MVEBs only for the 2015 attainment 

year.33 The Plan does not demonstrate 

timely attainment and does not contain 

an approvable RFP demonstration or 

any RFP budgets. Because the Plan does 

not contain a control strategy that 

satisfies the requirements for RFP, 

attainment, or maintenance, the EPA 

cannot find that the MVEBs included 

with this plan meet the specific 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

34 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1). 

35 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). 

36 Id. at 77339. 

37 81 FR 1514 at 1520 (January 13, 2016). 

that the budgets, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, be consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance. 

Therefore, we cannot find these MVEBs 

adequate for conformity purposes or 

approve them. 

Under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2), in a 

nonattainment area that has no SIPapproved or adequate MVEBs but does 

have approved or adequate MVEBs in an 

approved SIP or SIP submission for 

another NAAQS of the same pollutant, 

conformity determinations must satisfy 

the budget test as required by § 93.118 

using the approved or adequate MVEBs 

for that other NAAQS. The South Coast 

air basin has no SIP-approved or 

adequate MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS but does have approved MVEBs 

in an approved SIP for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which is another NAAQS of 

the same pollutant (PM2.5). Therefore, 

until the EPA finds that a MVEB in a 

submitted control strategy SIP for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, 

conformity determinations for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area 

must satisfy the budget test as required 

by § 93.118 using the approved MVEBs 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Upon the 

effective date of the EPA’s finding that 

a MVEB in a submitted control strategy 

SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, or upon the publication date 

of the EPA’s approval of such a budget 

in the Federal Register, conformity 

determinations for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast area will 

have to satisfy the budget test in 

§ 93.118 using such approved MVEBs 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.34

In sum, because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2015 Supplement do not contain a 

control strategy that satisfies the 

requirements for RFP, attainment, or 

maintenance, the EPA cannot find that 

the MVEBs included in the Plan are 

adequate for conformity purposes and 

cannot approve these budgets. 

Accordingly, we are taking no action on 

the 2015 MVEBs included in the Plan. 

Because the South Coast air basin has 

no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS but does have 

approved MVEBs in an approved SIP for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, conformity 

determinations for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast area must 

satisfy the budget test as required by 

§ 93.118 using the approved MVEBs for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, until the EPA 

finds that a MVEB in a submitted 

control strategy SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes in the South Coast 

air basin. 

The EPA recently approved an 

updated version of the California 

EMFAC model (EMFAC2014) for use in 

SIP development and transportation 

conformity in California.35 Upon 

conclusion of the two-year grace period 

on December 14, 2017, EMFAC2014 will 

become the only approved motor 

vehicle emissions model for all new 

PM2.5 regional and hot-spot 

transportation conformity analyses 

across California.36 Although CARB has 

until August 14, 2017 to submit a 

Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast area,37 we 

encourage the State to submit this plan 

and revised MVEBs using EMFAC2014 

before that date to ensure that 

conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast air basin use 

the latest emission estimation model 

available consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.111. 

Other Comments 

Comment 4. We received three 

comments from Harvey Eder on behalf 

of the Public Solar Power Coalition 

(PSPC). The commenter states his intent 

to incorporate by reference material 

submitted to the EPA on behalf of PSPC 

in several prior EPA rulemaking actions, 

EPA and presidential statements 

concerning solar power, and several 

unspecified magazine and newspaper 

articles, but does not identify the 

purpose for which he intends to 

incorporate these materials by reference. 

The commenter suggests that EPA 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) 

and Alternative Control Techniques 

documents (ACTs) ‘‘do not exist’’ and 

that these would need to be developed 

‘‘before[] solar can be used as RACT/

RACM.’’ The commenter asserts that 

NOX is a precursor to both PM10 and 

PM2.5 as well as fine and ultra-fine 

particulates. 

Additionally, the commenter asserts 

that it is reasonable to include solar 

power as a NOX control measure, and 

that the South Coast area needs a ‘‘100% 

ITSC Immediate Total Solar Conversion 

Plan by 2020–2023.’’ 

Response 4: These comments fail to 

identify any specific issue that is 

germane to the EPA’s proposed action 

on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 

Supplement. To the extent the 

commenter intended to encourage 

additional evaluation of potential solar 

power installations that may reduce 

pollution in the South Coast area, the 

EPA encourages the commenter to 

participate in the regulatory processes 

carried out by the SCAQMD, CARB, and 

other State/local agencies involved in 

the development of air quality 

management plans in the South Coast. 

The EPA finds no basis in these 

comments to change its proposed action 

on the Plan. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

request to incorporate material by 

reference, the EPA generally will not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file-sharing system). For the full 

EPA public comment policy, and 

general guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

approve and disapprove SIP revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

address attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast PM2.5

nonattainment area. These SIP revisions 

are the 2012 p.m.2.5 Plan, submitted 

February 13, 2013, and the 2015 

Supplement, submitted March 4, 2015. 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA 

is approving the following elements of 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 

Supplement: 

1. The 2008 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

2. the demonstration that attainment 

by the Moderate area attainment date of 

December 31, 2015 is impracticable as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii); 

3. SCAQMD’s commitments to adopt 

and implement specific rules and 

measures in accordance with the 

schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F– 

1 in Attachment F to the 2015 

Supplement, to achieve the emissions 

reductions shown therein, and to submit 

these rules and measures to CARB 

within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to the EPA as a revision to 

the SIP, as stated on pp. 7–8 of 

SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 

12–19 and modified by SCAQMD 

Governing Board Resolution 15–3, 

excluding all commitments pertaining 

to control measure IND–01 (Backstop 

Measures for Indirect Sources of 

Emissions from Ports and Port-Related 

Facilities); and 

4. the general conformity budgets for 

years 2013–2030 listed in Appendix III, 

p. III–2–53 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 22031 

meeting the requirements of the CAA 

and the general conformity rule. 

Simultaneously, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), the EPA is disapproving the 

following elements of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan and 2015 Supplement: 

1. The reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology (RACM/RACT) 

demonstration for failure to meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) 

and 189(a)(1)(C); and 

2. the reasonable further progress 

demonstration for failure to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2). 

As a result of this disapproval, the 

offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 

will apply in the South Coast PM2.5

nonattainment area 18 months after the 

effective date of this action and the 

highway funding sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area 

6 months after the offset sanction is 

imposed. Neither sanction will apply if 

California submits and the EPA 

approves, prior to the implementation of 

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct 

the deficiencies identified in this final 

action. Additionally, this disapproval 

action triggers an obligation on the EPA 

to promulgate a federal implementation 

plan unless California corrects the 

deficiencies, and the EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of this final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 13, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule 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 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 15, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

Part 52, 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(439)(ii)(B)(5) and 

(c)(471) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(439) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(5) The following portions of the Final 

2012 Air Quality Management Plan 

(December 2012): PM2.5-related portions 

of chapter 4 (‘‘Control Strategy and 

Implementation’’); Appendix III (‘‘Base 

and Future Year Emissions Inventory’’); 

Appendix IV–A (‘‘District’s Stationary 

Source Control Measures’’); and 

Appendix V (‘‘Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstrations’’). SCAQMD’s 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific rules and measures in 

accordance with the schedule provided 

in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as 

modified by Table F–1 in Attachment F 

to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown therein, 

and to submit these rules and measures 

to CARB within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to EPA as a revision to the 

SIP, as stated on pp. 7–8 of SCAQMD 

Governing Board Resolution 12–19 and 

modified by SCAQMD Governing Board 

Resolution 15–3, excluding all 

commitments pertaining to control 

measure IND–01 (Backstop Measures for 

Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports 

and Port-Related Facilities). 

* * * * * 

(471) The following plan was 

submitted on March 4, 2015, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) ‘‘2015 Supplement to the 24-Hour 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the 

South Coast Air Basin’’ (February 2015), 

excluding Attachment C (‘‘New 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

2015’’). SCAQMD’s commitments to 

adopt and implement specific rules and 

measures in accordance with the 

schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F– 

1 in Attachment F to the 2015 

Supplement, to achieve the emissions 

reductions shown therein, and to submit 

these rules and measures to CARB 

within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to EPA as a revision to the 

SIP, as stated on pp. 7–8 of SCAQMD 

Governing Board Resolution 12–19 and 

modified by SCAQMD Governing Board 

Resolution 15–3, excluding all 

commitments pertaining to control 

measure IND–01 (Backstop Measures for 

Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports 

and Port-Related Facilities). 

(2) SCAQMD Governing Board 

Resolution No. 15–3, dated February 6, 

2015. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) CARB Resolution 15–2, dated 

February 19, 2015, ‘‘Minor Revision to 

the South Coast Air Basin 2012 PM2.5

State Implementation Plan.’’ 

■ 3. Section 52.237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.237 Part D disapproval. 

(a) * * * 

(7) The PM2.5-related portions of 

Appendix VI (‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration’’) of the Final 2012 Air 

Quality Management Plan (December 

2012), and Attachment D (‘‘Updated 

RACM/RACT Analysis’’) to the 2015 

Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan for the South 

Coast Air Basin (January 2015). 

[FR Doc. 2016–08039 Filed 4–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 150903814–5999–02] 

RIN 0648–XE499 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring a 

portion of its 2016 commercial summer 

flounder quota to the State of New 

Jersey and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. These quota adjustments 

are necessary to comply with the 

Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea 

Bass Fishery Management Plan quota 

transfer provision. This announcement 

informs the public of the revised 

commercial quota for each state 

involved. 

DATES: Effective April 13, 2016, through 

December 31, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Scheimer, Fishery 

Management Specialist, (978)-281–9236. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 

648.100 through 648.110. The 

regulations require annual specification 

of a commercial quota that is 

apportioned among the coastal states 

from Maine through North Carolina. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state are described in § 648.102. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder 

Fishery Management Plan, as published 

in the Federal Register on December 17, 

1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a 

mechanism for transferring summer 

flounder commercial quota from one 

state to another. Two or more states, 

under mutual agreement and with the 

concurrence of the NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Regional Administrator, can 

transfer or combine summer flounder 

commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). 

The Regional Administrator is required 

to consider the criteria in 

§ 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the 

evaluation of requests for quota transfers 

or combinations. 

North Carolina is transferring 9,935 lb 

(4,506 kg) of summer flounder 

commercial quota to New Jersey and 

7,350 lb (3,333 kg) of summer flounder 

commercial quota to Massachusetts. 

These transfers were requested by the 

State of North Carolina to repay 

landings by North Carolina permitted 

vessels that landed in other states under 

safe harbor agreements. 

The revised summer flounder quotas 

for calendar year 2016 are now: North 

Carolina, 2,147,446 lb (974,065 kg); New 

Jersey, 1,381,879 lb (626,809 kg); and 

Massachusetts, 571,252 lb (259,115 kg) 

based on the initial quotas published in 

the 2016–2018 Summer Flounder, Scup 

and Black Sea Bass Specifications, 

(December 28, 2015, 80 FR 80689) and 

previous 2016 quota transfers (March 8, 

2016, 81 FR 12030). 

Classification 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

part 648 and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 11, 2016. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08616 Filed 4–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES