53280 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

This final priority contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under the 

National Interpreter Education program 

1820–0018; this final priority does not 

affect the currently approved data 

collection. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Through this priority, training will be 

provided to working interpreters for 

English-ASL interpreter training in 

specialty areas. These activities will 

help interpreters to more effectively 

meet the communication needs of 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing and individuals who are Deafblind. The training ultimately will 

improve the quality of VR services and 

the competitive integrated employment 

outcomes achieved by individuals with 

disabilities. This priority will promote 

the efficient and effective use of Federal 

funds. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 9, 2016. 

Sue Swenson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19273 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0959; FRL–9948–11– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53281 

1Our proposal indicated that the docket number 

for this action was EPA–R09–2012–959. This final 

action corrects the docket number to ‘‘0959’’ to 

conform to numbering convention. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

revisions to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD or District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in 

the Federal Register on January 15, 

2016 and concerns the District’s 

demonstration regarding Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). Under authority of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), this action 

directs California to correct RACT 

deficiencies in the SMAQMD portion of 

the California SIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number 1 EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0959 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at 

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 www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (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: 

James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 

244–1810, shears.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action and CAA Consequences 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2136), the 

EPA proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the following 

documents that were submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP: 

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

SMAQMD ......... Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8-hour Ozone 

Standard, dated October 26, 2006 (‘‘2006 RACT SIP’’).

10/26/06 7/11/07 

SMAQMD ......... Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update as Applicable to the 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard, dated October 23, 2008 (‘‘Updated RACT SIP’’).

10/23/08 1/21/09 

We proposed to approve the 2006 

RACT SIP and Updated RACT SIP with 

the exception of Rule 455, 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and the 

municipal waste landfill category as 

satisfying the RACT requirements of 

CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f). 

Also under CAA section 110(k)(3), we 

proposed to disapprove those elements 

of the 2006 RACT SIP and Updated 

RACT SIP that pertain to Rule 455 and 

the municipal waste landfill category 

because we found that these elements 

did not meet all of the applicable CAA 

requirements. In particular, we found 

that Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals 

Manufacturing, (amended 11/29/83 and 

9/5/96) lacks test methods, 

recordkeeping, and monitoring 

requirements that are necessary to 

support enforcement of the rule. See 

CAA section 110(a). We also found that 

the California SIP did not contain any 

provisions to implement RACT for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at 

the Kiefer landfill, which is a major 

source of VOCs located within the 

Sacramento Metro area. 

SMAQMD’s submittal also included a 

number of negative declarations. CAA 

Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that 

SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above 

implement RACT for any source 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document and any 

major stationary source of VOCs or 

nitrogen oxides (NOX). If an ozone 

nonattainment area does not have any 

stationary sources covered by a 

particular CTG, then the area may 

submit a negative declaration certifying 

that there are no such sources in the 

relevant nonattainment area in lieu of 

adopting RACT requirements for that 

category. We proposed approval of 

SMAQMD’s negative declarations 

because we determined that they 

complied with relevant CAA 

requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

2006 RACT SIP and Updated RACT SIP. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received no comments. 

III. Final Action and CAA 

Consequences 

A. Final Action 

For the reasons provided in our 

January 15, 2016 proposed rule, the EPA 

is partially approving and partially 

disapproving SMAQMD’s 2006 RACT 

SIP and Updated RACT SIP under CAA 

section 110(k)(3). In particular, we are 

approving all elements of the 2006 

RACT SIP and Updated RACT SIP, with 

the exception of elements pertaining to 

Rule 455, Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing, and the municipal waste 

landfill category, as satisfying the RACT 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) 

and (f). We are disapproving those 

elements of the 2006 RACT SIP and 

Updated RACT SIP that pertain to Rule 

455 and the municipal waste landfill 

category because we have determined 

that they do not meet all of the 

applicable CAA requirements. 

B. CAA Consequences of Final Partial 

Disapproval 

The EPA is committed to working 

with the District and CARB to resolve 

the identified RACT deficiencies. We 

note that SMAQMD will not be required 

to submit a revised CAA section 182 

RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS if it submits for SIP 

approval, rules and/or permit provisions 

that implement RACT for the 

pharmaceutical manufacturing source 

category, as well as RACT for VOCs for 

the Kiefer landfill, and the EPA fully 

approves them into the SIP. On April 

28, 2016, SMAQMD repealed Rule 455 

and adopted amendments to Rule 464, 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Operations to incorporate the 

pharmaceutical manufacturing 

requirements from Rule 455 along with 

other improvements to implement 

RACT into Rule 464. SMAQMD plans, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53282 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

in July 2016, to adopt the relevant 

portions of the Kiefer landfill permit 

into the SIP to implement RACT. 

Because we are finalizing a partial 

disapproval of the 2006 RACT SIP and 

Updated RACT SIP, the EPA must 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless 

we approve subsequent SIP revisions 

that correct the rule deficiencies within 

24 months of the effective date of this 

action. In addition, sanctions will be 

imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 

CFR 52.31, unless the EPA approves 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

rule deficiencies or issues an interim 

final determination that submitted 

revisions correct the deficiencies within 

18 months of the effective date of this 

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 CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 19, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting 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 paragraphs (c)(382)(ii)(C) and 

(c)(475) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(382) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53283 

(1) Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 

8-Hour Ozone Standard, dated October 

26, 2006, as adopted October 26, 2006, 

excluding the RACT determinations for: 

(i) Pharmaceutical Products 

Manufacturing Source Category; and 

(ii) Kiefer Landfill (RACT for volatile 

organic compounds). 

* * * * * 

(475) A new plan for the following 

AQMD was submitted January 21, 2009 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1) Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Update as 

Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard, dated October 23, 2008, 

adopted October 23, 2008. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.222 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.222 Negative declarations. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) Negative declarations for 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District. 

CTG Source category Negative declaration—CTG reference document 

Submitted 

7/11/07, 

adopted 

10/26/06 

Updated 

submitted 

1/21/09, 

adopted 

10/23/08 

Aerospace Coating .......................... EPA–453/R–97–004 and 59 FR 29216 (6/06/94)—Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework Operations.

........................ X 

Automobile Coating ......................... EPA–450/2–77–008—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, 

Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.

X ........................

Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvent) ... EPA–450/3–82–009—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.

X ........................

Graphic Arts (Rotogravure) ............. EPA–450/2–78–033—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts–Rotogravure and 

Flexography.

........................ X 

Large Appliance Coating ................. EPA–450/2–77–034—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances.X ........................

Large Appliance Coating ................. EPA–453/R–07–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings......................... X 

Magnetic Wire Coating .................... EPA–450/2–77–033—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of 

Magnetic Wire.

X ........................

Metal Coil Coating ........................... EPA–450/2–77–008—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, 

Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.

X ........................

Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing ... EPA–450/2–83–007—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment 

Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants.

X ........................

Paper and Fabric Coating ............... EPA–450/2–77–008—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, 

Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.

X ........................

Resin Manufacturing (High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene).

EPA–450/3–83–008—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene Resins.

X ........................

Refineries ......................................... EPA–450/2–77–025—Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, 

Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds.

X ........................

EPA–450/2–78–036—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks 

from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.

X ........................

Rubber Tire Manufacturing .............. EPA–450/2–78–030—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires.X ........................

Ship Coating .................................... 61 FR 44050—Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Operations (Surface Coating).

X ........................

Wood Coating (Flat Wood Paneling) EPA–450/2–78–032—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat 

Wood Paneling.

X ........................

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings .......... EPA–453/R06–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings......................... X 

Paper, Film and Foil ........................ EPA–453/R–07–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, 

and Foil Coatings.

........................ X 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.237 Part D disapproval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

determinations are disapproved because 

they do not meet the requirements of 

Part D of the Clean Air Act. 

(1) Sacramento Air Quality 

Management District. 

(i) RACT Determinations for the 

Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing 

Source Category and the Kiefer Landfill 

(volatile organic compounds only), in 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53284 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In a separate action, we disapproved the portion 

of the SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to address the 

interstate transport of air pollution which will 

interfere with other states’ programs for visibility 

protection (81 FR 296, January 5, 2016). We 

proposed to approve the other portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submittal on February 8, 2016 (81 

FR 6483). 

2 In addition, the EPA cited at proposal certain 

technical information the agency had released in 

order to facilitate efforts to address interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and that this information was used to support the 

proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update) (81 FR 

21299, 21292). We noted that such information 

contradicts Texas’ conclusions that its SIP 

contained adequate provisions to meet the CAA 

interstate transport requirements with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. See Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA), 80 FR 46271, (August 4, 2015) and the 

proposed CSAPR Update, 80 FR 75706 (December 

3, 2015). We also noted at proposal that the EPA 

technical information in the NODA and the 

proposed CSAPR Update accounted for the 

emission reductions resulting from controls listed 

in the SIP, implemented within the state, and 

nonetheless showed that Texas will contribute to 

downwind air quality problems. The CSAPR 

Update, however, is outside the scope of this action, 

and is irrelevant to the question of whether the 

Texas SIP should be disapproved. 

the submittal titled ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard,’’ dated October 26, 2006, as 

adopted on October 26, 2006 and 

submitted on July 11, 2007. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2016–18900 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985; FRL–9950–50– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is disapproving the 

portion of a Texas State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to 

interstate transport of air pollution 

which will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

in other states. Disapproval establishes 

a 2-year deadline for the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for Texas to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) interstate transport 

requirements pertaining to significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, 

unless the EPA approves a SIP that 

meets these requirements. Disapproval 

does not start a mandatory sanctions 

clock for Texas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

This rulemaking addresses an 

infrastructure SIP submittal from the 

state of Texas addressing, among other 

things, the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the 

good neighbor provision (or interstate 

transport prongs 1 and 2), with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

background for this action is discussed 

in detail in our April 11, 2016 proposal 

(81 FR 21290). In that action we 

proposed to disapprove the portion of 

the December 13, 2012 Texas SIP 

submittal pertaining to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires that the 

State prohibit any emissions activity 

within the state from emitting air 

pollutants which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment (prong 1) or 

interfere with maintenance (prong 2) of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.1

In proposing to disapprove the SIP 

submittal as to prongs 1 and 2 of the 

good neighbor provision, we noted 

several deficiencies in Texas’ submittal: 

(1) Texas limited its discussion of data 

only to areas designated nonattainment 

in states that are geographically closest 

to Texas (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin); 

and (2) Texas did not give the ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ clause of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent 

significance because its analysis did not 

attempt to evaluate the potential impact 

of Texas emissions on areas that are 

currently measuring clean data, but that 

may have issues maintaining that air 

quality.2 Finally, the EPA explained that 

Texas and other states could no longer 

rely on the implementation of the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy 

emission reduction obligations with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 

FR 21290, 21294–5). The EPA is 

finalizing its proposed disapproval in 

this action. 

We received three comments during 

the comment period on our proposed 

SIP disapproval. The comments were 

submitted by the State of Texas (Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

‘‘TCEQ’’), Luminant (a Texas electricity 

producer) and a member of the public. 

A synopsis of the comments and our 

responses are provided below. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: Comments were received 

from a member of the public that was 

supportive of the EPA’s basis for its 

proposed action, but added that (1) the 

public can better understand how we 

are using the most current information 

if we clarify and explain how the 

projections and modeling discussed in 

the evaluation for our proposal are 

informed by recent ozone monitoring 

data, and (2) the commenter stated that 

the EPA took too long to propose action 

on the Texas SIP revision, noting that 

Texas would benefit from earlier review 

of its analysis by the EPA. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s conclusion that Texas’s 

SIP submittal was inadequate to address 

the statutory interstate transport 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. With respect to the 

commenter’s first concern, the 

projections and modeling released c in 

the August 4, 2015 NODA and the 

proposed CSAPR Update, which we also 

o recited in the EPA’s proposed action 

on the Texas SIP submittal. In our 

CSAPR Update proposal, we explained 

how the CSAPR Update Rule proposed 

to use recent ozone monitoring data to 

inform our evaluation of interstate 

transport (80 FR 75706, 75724). We 

proposed to identify as nonattainment 

receptors those monitoring sites that (1) 

measured ozone concentrations that 

exceed the NAAQS based on monitoring 

data from years 2012–2014, and (2) are 

projected to exceed the NAAQS in 2017 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES