53294 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015 with enclosures. 

2For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment 

area includes all of seven counties, including 

Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the western 

half of Kern County. See the NAAQS-specific tables 

in 40 CFR 81.305. 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State 

citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Explanations 

796 ........... Applicability ................................... 3/15/2002 ...................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert

Federal Register 

citation].

797 ........... Registration for Permit by Rule .... 3/15/2002 ...................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

798 ........... Electrical Generators .................... 3/15/2002 ...................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

799 ........... Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 

Plan Fugitive Dust Best Management Practice.

3/15/2002 ...................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.683 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 52.683 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) The State of Idaho Rules for 

Control of Air Pollution in Idaho, 

specifically, IDAPA 58.01.01.005 

through 007 (definitions), IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03.a, .b, .c (incorporations 

by reference), IDAPA 58.01.01.200 

through 222 (permit to construct rules); 

IDAPA 58.01.01.510 through 516 (stack 

height rules); and IDAPA 58.01.01.575 

through 581 (standards, increments and 

area designations) (except IDAPA 

58.01.01.577), are approved as meeting 

the requirements of title I, part C, 

subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act for 

preventing significant deterioration of 

air quality. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19122 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711; FRL–9949–84– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone 

and Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve and conditionally approve 

revisions to the State of California’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The 

revisions consist of an update to the 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(‘‘budgets’’) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) for the SJV ozone 

nonattainment area and for NOX and 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) for the 

1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV 

PM10 maintenance area. The EPA is 

approving the SJV ozone revised 

budgets and conditionally approving the 

PM10 budgets in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s regulations. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711. 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 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31212), the 

EPA proposed, under section 110(k)(3) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), to 

approve a revision to the California SIP 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) on November 

13, 2015.1 The SIP submittal revises 

budgets applicable to control strategy or 

maintenance plans for the SJV for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, and the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 standard.2 In our May 18, 

2016 action, we proposed to approve 

revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. We also proposed to 

conditionally approve revised budgets 

for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. 

CARB developed the revised budgets 

using EMFAC2014 and the travel 

activity projections provided by the SJV 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) consistent with the 2015 

Federal Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP). As such, the revised 

budgets reflect the most recent planning 

forecasts and are based on the most 

recent emission factor data and 

approved calculation methods. 

The EPA previously approved the SJV 

budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and the 24-hour PM10

standard. The ozone budgets were 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53295 

3California plans sometimes use the term 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms 

are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use 

the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG. 

4The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and 

SJV-related portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy 

(revised 2009 and 2011). 

5The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, 

September 20, 2007, and technical corrections by 

CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 PM10

Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Wayne Nastri from 

James N. Goldstene. 

6Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, April 1, 2016 with 

enclosures. 7The county-specific budgets are set forth in 

attachment A to CARB Resolution 15–50. 

Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted 

by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on 

November 13, 2015. CARB provided information 

and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff 

report titled Updated Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, 

and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date 

September 21, 2015. 8CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV 

plans by taking the sum of the county-by-county 

emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the 

SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX

and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and PM10; 

then re-allocating to the individual counties based 

on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the 

total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to 

the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional 

rounding method. 

9The county-specific budgets are set forth in 

attachment A to CARB Resolution 15–50. 

Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted 

by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on 

November 13, 2015. CARB provided information 

and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff 

report titled Updated Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, 

and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date 

September 21, 2015. 

10CARB calculated the revised budgets for the 

SJV plans by taking the sum of the county-bycounty emissions results from EMFAC and 

Continued 

included in the EPA’s approval of the 

SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan (‘‘2007 

Ozone Plan’’) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 

2012), which established NOX and 

VOC 3 budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 

2020, and 2023.4 The PM10 budgets 

were included in the EPA’s approval of 

the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation (‘‘2007 PM10

Plan’’) at 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 

2008), which established direct PM10

and NOX budgets for 2005 and 2020.5

The SJV budgets for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard were included in the 

EPA’s proposed approval of the SJV 

2012 PM2.5 Plan (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’) at 

80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA 

found the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in the SJV 

2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 

22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing 

direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017. 

As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must 

be used to determine conformity of 

transportation plans and TIPs to the 

control strategy plan for the SJV for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.6

In our May 18, 2016 proposed rule, 

we reviewed the revised budgets for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

November 13, 2015 submittal, evaluated 

them for compliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements, and concluded 

that they meet all applicable 

requirements. More specifically, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3), we proposed to 

approve the revised VOC and NOX

budgets in table 1 for 2017, 2020, and 

2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. We determined that 

replacement of the current approved 

budgets with the revised VOC and NOX

budgets would not interfere with the 

approved RFP and attainment 

demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV and 

emissions changes in non-motor vehicle 

emissions categories do not change the 

overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BUDGETS DEVELOPED FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD USING

EMFAC2014 7 8

County subarea 

NOX

(tons per summer day) 

VOC 

(tons per summer day) 

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 

Fresno ...................................................... 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6 

Kern (SJV) ............................................... 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8 

Kings ........................................................ 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 

Madera ..................................................... 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 

Merced ..................................................... 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 

San Joaquin ............................................. 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3 

Stanislaus ................................................. 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7 

Tulare ....................................................... 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5 

Second, under CAA section 110(k)(4), 

the EPA proposed to conditionally 

approve the revised direct PM10 and 

NOX budgets in table 2 for 2020 for the 

24-hour PM10 standard. We determined 

that, when combined with 

implementation of the contingency plan 

in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and 

fulfillment of the commitments in the 

State’s April 29, 2016 letter, the revised 

direct PM10 and NOX budgets will allow 

the SJV to continue to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

standard. The contents of the State’s 

April 29, 2016 letter are described in 

detail in our proposed rule on pages 

31220 and 31221. In our proposal, we 

explained that if the conditional 

approval is finalized, CARB must adopt 

and submit the SIP revisions that it has 

committed to submit by June 1, 2017. 

The resulting impacts if CARB fails to 

comply with this commitment are 

explained below in section III of today’s 

action. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED 2020 BUDGETS FOR THE

PM10 STANDARD DEVELOPED USING

EMFAC2014 9 10

County subarea 

Direct PM10

(tons per 

annual day) 

NOX

(tons per 

annual day) 

Fresno ....... 7.0 25.4 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED 2020 BUDGETS FOR THE

PM10 STANDARD DEVELOPED USING

EMFAC2014 9 10—Continued 

County subarea 

Direct PM10

(tons per 

annual day) 

NOX

(tons per 

annual day) 

Kern (SJV) 7.4 23.3 

Kings ......... 1.8 4.8 

Madera ...... 2.5 4.7 

Merced ...... 3.8 8.9 

San Joaquin ....... 4.6 11.9 

Stanislaus 3.7 9.6 

Tulare ........ 3.4 8.4 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53296 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole 

ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for 

VOC and PM10; then re-allocating to the individual 

counties based on the ratio of each county’s 

contribution to the total; and then rounding each 

county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton 

using the conventional rounding method. 

11Because the submittal of the revised budgets is 

not a required submittal, disapproval would not 

trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but 

would nonetheless trigger a two-year clock for a 

federal implementation plan under CAA section 

110(c). Disapproval would not trigger a 

transportation conformity freeze because the 

disapproval does not affect a control strategy 

implementation plan as defined in the 

transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 

and 93.120(a). 

Third, the EPA also proposed to 

approve the revised direct PM2.5 and 

NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. We determined 

that: (1) Replacement of the current 

adequate budgets with the revised 

budgets would be consistent with our 

separate proposal finding that the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year 

2017; (2) emissions changes in nonmotor vehicle emissions categories do 

not change the overall conclusion of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan; and (3) the revised 

budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)–(vi). Because the 

EPA has yet to finalize its approval of 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, we are not able to 

finalize, in today’s action, our approval 

of the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX

budgets for 2017 in CARB’s submittal 

dated November 13, 2015 for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. The EPA 

expects to take final action on the 

revised PM2.5 budgets for 2017 as part of 

its final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

Lastly, on the effective date of today’s 

action, the previously-approved budgets 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard would 

no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes, and 

the SJV MPOs and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) must use the 

revised budgets for future transportation 

conformity determinations. 

Please see our May 18, 2016 proposed 

rule for more information concerning 

the background for this action and for a 

more detailed discussion of the 

rationale for approval of the revised 

budgets. 

II. Public Comments 

Our May 18, 2016 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period, which closed on June 17, 2016. 

We received no comments on our 

proposal during this period. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons discussed in the May 

18, 2016 proposed rule and summarized 

above, the EPA is approving, or 

conditionally approving, revised motor 

vehicle emissions budgets submitted on 

November 13, 2015 by CARB for the SJV 

area as a revision to the California SIP. 

More specifically, the EPA is approving, 

under CAA section 110(k)(3), revised 

VOC and NOX budgets shown in table 

1 above for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA is 

conditionally approving, under CAA 

section 110(k)(4), the revised direct 

PM10 and NOX budgets shown in table 

2 above for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10

standard. CARB must adopt and submit 

the SIP revisions that it has committed 

to submit by June 1, 2017, as described 

in their April 29, 2016 letter. If CARB 

fails to comply with this commitment, 

the conditional approval will convert to 

a disapproval. Disapproval of the 

revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan 

would reinstate the existing approved 

budgets as the budgets that must be 

used in transportation plan and TIP 

conformity determinations after the 

effective date of the disapproval. See 40 

CFR 93.109(c)(1).11

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves revisions to motor 

vehicle emission budgets 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the SJV air quality 

planning area for the 1997 8-hours 

ozone standard and 24-hour PM10

standard: The Big Sandy Rancheria of 

Mono Indians of California, the Cold 

Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the North Fork Rancheria of 

Mono Indians of California, the 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians of California, the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the 

Table Mountain Rancheria of California, 

the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule 

River Indian Tribe of the Tule River 

Reservation. 

The EPA’s approval into the SIP of the 

SJV revised budgets submitted by CARB 

would not have tribal implications 

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. In those areas of Indian 

country, the SIP approvals do 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53297 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that 

the action will not have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, and will not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law. 

We note that none of the tribes located 

in the SJV has requested eligibility to 

administer programs under the CAA. 

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 October 11, 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. 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 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

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)(476) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(476) The following revision was 

submitted on November 13, 2015 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Attachment A to Resolution 15–50, 

‘‘Updates to the Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin 

Valley 2007 PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 

PM2.5 SIPs,’’ Table A–1 (Updated 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer 

day) and Table A–3 (Updated 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 2008 PM10 Maintenance Plan (Tons 

per annual day)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Subpart F is amended by adding 

§ 52.248 to read as follows: 

§ 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional 

approval. 

The EPA is conditionally approving a 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted on November 

13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and coarse particulate matter 

(PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10

standard for the San Joaquin Valley 

PM10 maintenance area. The conditional 

approval is based on a commitment 

from the State to submit a SIP revision 

that demonstrates full implementation 

of the contingency provisions of the 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation (September 

20, 2007). If the State fails to meets its 

commitment by June 1, 2017, the 

approval is treated as a disapproval. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18898 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–52– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s 

Order 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Indiana State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) on October 16, 

2015. The submittal consists of an order 

issued by the Commissioner of IDEM 

(Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01) 

approving alternative control 

technology requirements for Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These 

requirements include the use of a 

carbon adsorption/absorption 

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system 

with a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98% to control volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from the ethanol loading racks at 

Abengoa. A continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) must be used 

to monitor the carbon adsorption/

absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery 

system for breakthrough of VOC 

emissions. For the reasons discussed 

below, EPA is approving this submittal 

as a revision to Indiana’s SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 11, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 12, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0724, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@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, 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES