Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 39211 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2012 Particulate 

Matter NAAQS.

Statewide ....... 7/16/15 6/16/16, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Docket #2015–0838. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)(PSD), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2016–14181 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0124; FRL–9946–38– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution 

Control District and Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the YoloSolano Air Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air 

Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern, respectively, the 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and emissions of 

VOCs from the surface coating 

operations of wood products. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

15, 2016 without further notice, unless 

the EPA receives adverse comments by 

July 18, 2016. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0124 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the 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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule and rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this action with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title 

Adopted/

amended/ 

revised 

Submitted 

EKAPCD ......... 410.9 Wood Products Surface Coating Operations ................................................. 3/13/2014 7/25/2014 

YSAQMD ........ 1.1 General Provisions and Definitions ................................................................ 7/08/2015 11/13/2015 

On September 11, 2014, and January 

19, 2016, the EPA determined that the 

submittals for EKAPCD Rule 410.9 and 

YSAQMD Rule 1.1 respectively met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 410.9 in the SIP. We approved an 

earlier version of Rule 1.1 into the SIP 

on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23449). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule and rule revision? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and PM, which harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
39212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

VOC emissions. Rule 410.9 limits and 

controls VOC emission from surface 

coating operations of wood products. 

The revisions to Rule 1.1 do not have a 

direct effect on air pollution emissions; 

they amend the definition of VOC that 

is used in other YSAQMD rules to 

exempt certain substances that have 

been determined to have negligible 

photochemical reactivity and which are 

excluded from the definition applied by 

the EPA. The EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSDs) have more 

information about these rules. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

Generally, SIP rules must require 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for each category of 

sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source of VOCs in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above (see CAA sections 

182(b)(2)). The EKAPCD and the 

YSAQMD regulate ozone areas 

classified as Marginal Nonattainment 

and Severe Nonattainment respectively 

for the federal 8-hour 2008 Ozone 

Standard. 40 CFR 81.305. The TSDs 

have more information about these 

requirements as they relate to the 

submitted rules. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ 

(‘‘the Bluebook,’’ U.S. EPA, May 25, 

1988; revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies’’ (‘‘the Little Bluebook’’, 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). 

4. Control Techniques Guidelines, 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations’’ (EPA–453/

R–96–007, April 1996). 

5. Control Techniques Guidelines, 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat 

Wood Paneling Coatings’’ (EPA–453/R– 

06–004, September 2006). 

6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

40, Chapter C, Part 51, Subpart F, 

Section 51.100, ‘‘Definitions’’ (40 CFR 

51.100). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, stringency and 

SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules but which are not currently the 

basis for rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this issue 

of the Federal Register, we are 

simultaneously proposing approval of 

the same submitted rules. If we receive 

adverse comments by July 18, 2016, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on August 15, 

2016. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this 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. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

EKAPCD and YSAQMD rules described 

in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 39213 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 rule does 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). 

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 August 15, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

the EPA can withdraw this direct final 

rule and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 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 relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 3, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 

adding paragraphs (c)(442)(i)(F)(3), 

(c)(447)(i)(D)(4), and (c)(472) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(442) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(F) * * * 

(3) Previously approved on April 28, 

2015 in paragraph (442)(i)(F)(1) of this 

section and now deleted with 

replacement in (472)(i)(A)(1), Rule 1.1, 

‘‘General Provisions and Definitions,’’ 

revised on May 8, 2013. 

* * * * * 

(447) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(4) Rule 410.9, ‘‘Wood Products 

Surface Coating Operations,’’ adopted 

on March 13, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(472) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on November 13, 2015, 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1.1, General Provisions and 

Definitions, revised July 8, 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14098 Filed 6–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

RIN 0648–XD344 

Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean; Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of decision on petition. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its decision 

on a petition for rulemaking submitted 

by the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD). In their petition, CBD requested 

that NMFS implement additional 

domestic regulations to address the 

relative impacts of the U.S. fleet on the 

Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) stock, which 

is overfished and subject to overfishing. 

Outside of the scope of their petition for 

rulemaking, CBD also requested that 

NMFS develop recommendations for 

international fishery management 

organizations to take actions to end 

overfishing of PBF. In light of public 

comments, NMFS is responding to each 

element of the petition but referring the 

specific requests for rulemaking under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) to the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Pacific Council) 

for further consideration. The decision 

was made on June 9, 2016. 

DATES: June 16, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 562–980–4039. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

received a letter from CBD, an 

environmental non-governmental 

organization, on April 9, 2014. In the 

letter, CBD asserted that PBF (Thunnus 

orientalis) are not adequately protected 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS FMP) and that 

the Pacific Council failed to meet its 

statutory duty to develop 

recommendations for domestic 

regulations in response to NMFS’ 

determination that the PBF stock is 

overfished and subject to overfishing (78 

FR 41033, July 9, 2013). Specifically, 

CBD petitioned NMFS to amend the 

HMS FMP or initiate a rulemaking 

under the authority of the MSA, 16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq., to include PBF as 

a prohibited species until the stock is 

rebuilt, thereby placing a moratorium on 

retention of PBF by U.S. fishing vessels. 

As an alternative, CBD proposed that 

NMFS establish annual catch limits and 

a permanent minimum size requirement 

to protect PBF of age classes 1 and 2 and 

that NMFS amend the HMS FMP to 

establish specific reference points for 

PBF to guide science-based management 

of the stock. Outside of the scope of the 

petition for rulemaking, CBD requested 

that NMFS develop recommendations to 

the Secretary of State and Congress to 

end PBF overfishing at the international 

level. 

Public Input on the Petition 

NMFS published a Federal Register 

document on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES