29498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0215 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0215 Security Zone; Port of New 

York, moving Security Zone; Canadian 

Naval Vessels. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters within a 100 

yard radius of Canadian Naval Vessels, 

from surface to bottom while transiting 

from Ambrose Channel to Pier 92 within 

the Port of New York, while moored at 

Pier 92 and upon departure transiting 

back to Ambrose Channel. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port New York (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the security zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

security zone regulations in subpart D of 

this part, you may not enter the security 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative via VHF channel 16 or by 

phone at (718) 354–4353 (Sector New 

York Command Center). Those in the 

security zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from May 25, 2016 

through May 31, 2016, unless 

terminated sooner by the COTP. 

Dated: April 12, 2016. 

M.H. Day, 

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

Port, New York. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11251 Filed 5–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2016–0304] 

Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival 

on Willamette River 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the security zone for the Portland Rose 

Festival on the Willamette River in 

Portland, OR from 11 a.m. on June 9, 

2016, through noon on June 13, 2016. 

This action is necessary to ensure the 

security of vessels participating in the 

2016 Portland Rose Festival on the 

Willamette River during the event. Our 

regulation for the Security Zone 

Portland Rose Festival on Willamette 

River identifies the regulated area. 

During the enforcement period, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the security zone without permission 

from the Sector Columbia River Captain 

of the Port. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.1312 will be enforced from 11 a.m. 

on June 9, 2016, through noon on June 

13, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice of 

enforcement, call or email Mr. Kenneth 

Lawrenson, Waterways Management 

Division, MSU Portland, Oregon, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 503–240–9319, 

email MSUPDXWWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the security zone for 

the Portland Rose Festival detailed in 33 

CFR 165.1312 from 11 a.m. on June 9, 

2016, through noon on June 13, 2016. 

This action is necessary to ensure the 

security of vessels participating in the 

2016 Portland Rose Festival on the 

Willamette River during the event. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.1312 and 33 CFR 165 subpart D, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the security zone, consisting of all 

waters of the Willamette River, from 

surface to bottom, encompassed by the 

Hawthorne and Steel Bridges, without 

permission from the Sector Columbia 

River Captain of the Port. Persons or 

vessels wishing to enter the security 

zone may request permission to do so 

from the on scene Captain of the Port 

representative via VHF Channel 16 or 

13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by 

other Federal, State, or local 

enforcement agencies in enforcing this 

regulation. 

This notice of enforcement is issued 

under authority 33 CFR 165.1312 and 5 

U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice 

of enforcement in the Federal Register, 

the Coast Guard plans to provide 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners and 

marine information broadcasts. 

Dated: April 12, 2016. 

D. F. Berliner, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port, Sector Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11231 Filed 5–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0534; FRL–9946–29– 

Region 9] 

Withdrawal of Approval and 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures 

for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a May 22, 

2014 final action approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 

address contingency measure 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Simultaneously, EPA is disapproving 

this SIP submission. These final actions 

are in response to a decision issued by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 29499 

1 80 FR 49190 (August 17, 2015). 

2 Id. at 49192. 

3 Id. 

Circuit (Committee for a Better Arvin v. 

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

remanding EPA’s approval of a related 

SIP submission and rejecting EPA’s 

rationale for approving plan 

submissions that rely on California 

mobile source control measures to meet 

SIP requirements such as contingency 

measures, which was a necessary basis 

for the May 22, 2014 final rule. Finally, 

EPA is issuing a protective finding for 

transportation conformity 

determinations for the disapproval. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 13, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0534 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 94015–3901. 

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), 

and some may not be publicly available 

in either location (e.g., 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: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 17, 2015, EPA proposed to 

withdraw its May 22, 2014 final action 

approving California’s July 3, 2013 

submission to address contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the San Joaquin Valley (2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal).1

Simultaneously, EPA proposed to 

disapprove this SIP submission. These 

proposed actions were in response to a 

decision issued by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanding 

EPA’s approval of a related SIP 

submission and rejecting EPA’s 

rationale for approving SIP submissions 

that rely on California mobile source 

control measures not actually part of the 

EPA-approved SIP in order to meet SIP 

requirements (Committee for a Better 

Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 

2015)), which was a necessary basis for 

the May 22, 2014 final rule. EPA’s May 

22, 2014, approval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal 

likewise relied on the same California 

mobile source control measures. 

EPA proposed to determine that the 

disapproval of the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal would not start a 

mandatory sanctions clock or Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) clock 

because the specific type of contingency 

measure at issue in that submittal was 

no longer a required attainment plan 

element for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 

area. The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) had submitted the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal to 

address the contingency measure 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) as 

applied to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which 

provided for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by April 5, 

2015, the latest permissible attainment 

date for this area under subpart 1 of part 

D, title I of the Act. EPA stated in the 

proposed rule that, as a consequence of 

EPA’s March 27, 2015 reclassification of 

the SJV area from ‘‘Moderate’’ to 

‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the specific requirement 

for contingency measures for failure to 

attain as a Moderate area plan 

requirement had been eliminated and 

superseded by different planning 

obligations under subpart 4 of part D, 

title I of the Act.2 Because the State had 

submitted the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal to address a 

contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain by a statutory 

attainment date that no longer applied 

to the area (April 5, 2015), EPA 

proposed to find that this SIP submittal 

no longer addressed an applicable 

requirement of part D, title I of the Act, 

and that the disapproval of it therefore 

would not trigger sanctions. For the 

same reason, EPA proposed to find that 

disapproval of the submission would 

not create any deficiency in a 

mandatory component of the SIP for the 

area and, therefore, would not trigger 

the obligation on EPA to promulgate a 

FIP under section 110(c) of the Act.3

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA received one comment on the 

proposed action, submitted by 

Earthjustice. EPA summarizes and 

responds to the comment below. 

Comment: Earthjustice argues that 

EPA has no legal basis for proposing to 

determine that the disapproval of the 

2013 Contingency Measure Submittal 

would not start a mandatory sanctions 

clock or FIP clock. According to 

Earthjustice, section 179(a)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act provides that sanctions 

‘‘shall apply’’ if EPA disapproves a 

submission based on its failure to meet 

one or more CAA requirements 

applicable to nonattainment areas, and 

section 110(c) provides that EPA ‘‘shall 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan at any time within 2 years after 

[EPA] . . . disapproves a State 

implementation plan in whole or in part 

. . . .’’ Earthjustice asserts that 

contingency measures under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) are required elements 

for all attainment plans for 

nonattainment areas and must provide 

for the implementation of specific 

measures that will be undertaken if the 

area fails to attain, regardless of the 

applicable attainment date. Although 

EPA has some flexibility to establish a 

schedule for submitting a plan meeting 

the requirements of section 172(c), 

according to Earthjustice, that schedule 

may not be extended beyond three years 

from the date of the nonattainment 

designation, a date that has passed for 

the San Joaquin Valley. Earthjustice 

argues that the contingency measure 

requirement was not a ‘‘Moderate area’’ 

requirement and is not reset or 

eliminated with reclassification under 

subpart 4, and that although 

reclassification as a ‘‘Serious area’’ may 

affect the tonnage of reductions that 

must be achieved, it does not eliminate 

the section 172(c)(9) requirement that 

the District was required to meet years 

ago. For all of these reasons, Earthjustice 

argues that the disapproval of this 

submittal triggers a sanctions clock 

under CAA section 179 and a FIP clock 

under section 110(c). 

Response: Upon further consideration 

of these issues, EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the disapproval of the 

2013 Contingency Measure Submittal 

triggers a mandatory sanctions clock 

under CAA section 179 and a FIP clock 

under section 110(c). 

Section 179(a) of the Act provides 

that, for any SIP revision required under 

part D of title I of the Act or required 

in response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in section 

110(k), if EPA disapproves a submission 

for a nonattainment area based on the 

state’s failure to meet one or more of the 

CAA requirements applicable to the 

area, mandatory sanctions under section 

179(b) shall apply. The 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal was a 

plan revision required under part D of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

4 Id. at 49192 (August 17, 2015). 

5 81 FR 6936 at 6938 (February 9, 2016). 

6 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). 7 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). 

title I of the Act for the purposes of 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area. As 

explained in the proposed action, EPA 

is disapproving the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal based on the failure 

to meet the contingency measure 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) 

for the area—i.e., because of the reliance 

on California waiver measures that EPA 

has not approved into the California 

SIP. This disapproval triggers a 

mandatory sanctions clock under 

section 179. 

Section 110(c) of the Act states that 

EPA ‘‘shall promulgate a Federal 

implementation plan at any time within 

2 years after the Administrator—. . . (B) 

disapproves a State implementation 

plan submission in whole or in part,’’ 

unless the State corrects the deficiency 

and EPA approves the plan or plan 

revision before promulgating such FIP. 

As a consequence of our disapproval of 

the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal, the California SIP does not 

contain any contingency measures to be 

triggered if the SJV area fails to attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the Serious 

area attainment date, which is currently 

December 31, 2015. Because this 

disapproval creates a deficiency in the 

SIP, the disapproval triggers the 

obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP 

under section 110(c), unless the State 

submits and EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiency 

within two years of the disapproval. 

As explained in the proposed action, 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain by the Moderate area attainment 

date are no longer required in the SJV 

as the requirement for such measures 

has been superseded by the requirement 

for contingency measures as part of a 

Serious area plan for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in this area.4 Thus, the State is 

no longer required to adopt contingency 

measures for failure to attain by April 5, 

2015. Because the SJV area is currently 

classified as a Serious nonattainment 

area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

however, the State must satisfy the 

contingency measure requirement in 

section 172(c)(9) as applied to a Serious 

area attainment plan to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV no later than the applicable 

attainment date, which is currently 

December 31, 2015. 

California submitted a Serious area 

plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV on June 25, 2015, together with 

requests for extension of the Serious 

area attainment date under CAA section 

188(e) to December 31, 2018 and 

December 31, 2020 for the 1997 24-hour 

and annual standards, respectively, and 

EPA has proposed to grant these 

requests for extension of the attainment 

date.5 If EPA takes final action to extend 

the Serious area attainment date for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, the State 

will be obligated to adopt and submit 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the SJV area fails to 

make reasonable further progress or to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

extended attainment date(s) approved 

by EPA in that action. We encourage the 

State and District to consult with EPA 

during their development of a corrective 

SIP submission to ensure that it fully 

satisfies the section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measure requirement for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area 

and thereby corrects the current 

deficiency in the SIP. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is withdrawing its May 22, 2014 

final action approving the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal. 

Simultaneously, under section 110(k)(3) 

of the Act, EPA is disapproving this SIP 

submission for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, a 

final disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D of title 

I of the CAA or is required in response 

to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

Call), triggers a sanction clock under 

CAA section 179(b) that runs from the 

effective date of the final action. The 

first sanction, the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2), will apply in the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months 

after June 13, 2016. The second 

sanction, highway funding sanctions in 

CAA section 179(b)(1), will apply in the 

area six months after the offset sanction 

is imposed. Neither sanction will be 

imposed under the CAA if California 

submits and we approve, prior to the 

implementation of the sanctions, a SIP 

submission that corrects the deficiencies 

identified in this final action. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA 

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) addressing 

the deficiency at any time within two 

years after June 13, 2016, the effective 

date of this rule, unless the state makes 

a SIP submission to correct the 

deficiency and EPA approves such 

submission before promulgating a FIP. 

Because we previously approved the 

RFP and attainment demonstrations and 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets,6

we are issuing a protective finding 

under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the 

disapproval of the contingency 

measures. Without a protective finding, 

the final disapproval would result in a 

conformity freeze, under which only 

projects in the first four years of the 

most recent conforming Regional 

Transportation Plan and Transportation 

Improvement Programs can proceed. 

During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or 

RTP/TIP amendments can be found to 

conform.7 Under this protective finding, 

the final disapproval of the contingency 

measures does not result in a 

transportation conformity freeze in the 

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. 

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 SIP disapproval does 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens, but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion in the SIP. 

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. This SIP disapproval does not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

in the SIP. 

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 disapproves 

pre-existing requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 29501 

governments, or to the private sector, 

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 revision 

that the EPA is disapproving would not 

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 this SIP disapproval does not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations, but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

in the SIP. 

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 July 11, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: April 29, 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—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(438)(ii)(C) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(438) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Previously approved in paragraphs 

(c)(438)(ii)(A)(1), (c)(438)(ii)(A)(2), 

(c)(438)(ii)(A)(3), and (c)(438)(ii)(B)(1) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: ‘‘Quantifying Contingency 

Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’’ 

(dated June 20, 2013), SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 13–6– 

18 (dated June 20, 2013), Electronic mail 

(dated July 24, 2013) from Samir Sheikh 

to Kerry Drake, and California Air 

Resources Board Executive Order 13–30 

(dated June 27, 2013). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.237 Part D disapproval. 

(a) * * * 

(8) The contingency measure portion 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley (June 2013). 

[FR Doc. 2016–11125 Filed 5–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 150121066–5717–02] 

RIN 0648–XE579 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

General category retention limit 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 

Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General 

category daily retention limit from the 

default limit of one large medium or 

giant BFT to five large medium or giant 

BFT for June 1 through August 31, 2016. 

This action is based on consideration of 

the regulatory determination criteria 

regarding inseason adjustments, and 

applies to Atlantic Tunas General 

category (commercial) permitted vessels 

and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 

Charter/Headboat category permitted 

vessels when fishing commercially for 

BFT. 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2016, through 

August 31, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 

978–281–9260. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES