Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89587 

1 88 FR 48406 (July 27, 2023). 

2 In addition to other supporting documents, the 

submittal package included the following 

documents: ‘‘San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol,’’ 

Revised: February 26, 2020; ‘‘Amended and 

Restated Memorandum of Understanding Between 

the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and 

the Sacramento Area Council of Governments,’’ 

(September 11, 2018); and a letter dated May 6, 

2021, (submitted electronically May 17, 2021), from 

Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX, Subject: San Francisco Bay Area 

State Implementation Plan Amended 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol. 

These documents are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

3 72 FR 58013 (October 12, 2007). 

4See ‘‘Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

Resolution No. 2611. Revised, MTC/Sacramento 

Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Air 

Quality Planning in Eastern Solano County’’ and 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

Resolution No. 3757, ‘‘Re: Approval of San 

Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality 

Conformity Protocol,’’ which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28294 Filed 12–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0203; FRL–10757– 

02–R9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan; 

San Francisco Bay Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

to approve a revision to the San 

Francisco Bay Area portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision consists of updated 

transportation conformity procedures 

related to the interagency coordination 

on project-level conformity and 

exchange of travel data for emissions 

inventories developed for air quality 

plans and regional transportation 

conformity analyses. This action 

updates the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the California 

SIP. 

DATES: This action is effective January 

29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0203. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. 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 https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

a disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies 

and Modeling Section (AIR–2–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3934, 

dorantes.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On July 27, 2023, the EPA proposed 

to approve a revision to the California 

SIP concerning transportation 

conformity procedures for the San 

Francisco Bay Area.1 The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

‘‘The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures’’ and 

‘‘The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Interagency Consultation 

Procedures,’’ on May 17, 2021. We refer 

to these documents together as the ‘‘San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal.’’ 2 CARB submitted a prior 

version of the San Francisco Bay Area 

conformity SIP to the EPA for approval 

on December 20, 2006. The EPA 

approved this SIP revision on October 

12, 2007.3 The agencies responsible for 

developing and updating the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP—the 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC), the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), and the Association of Bay 

Area Governments (ABAG), in 

consultation with the Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments (SACOG)— 

have since further amended the roles 

and responsibilities for implementing 

the transportation conformity 

interagency consultation process and for 

coordinating travel activity data sharing. 

The San Francisco Bay Area conformity 

SIP submittal also reflects an update to 

a memorandum of understanding that 

exists between MTC and SACOG as an 

agreement regarding federal conformity 

procedures and programming of federal 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

funds in Solano County.4

In our proposal, we evaluated the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal against the statutory and 

regulatory requirements of the CAA, 40 

CFR part 93, and 40 CFR 51.390, which 

govern state procedures for 

transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation and concluded 

that the submittal meets these 

requirements. Furthermore, the 

comment period and public hearing 

held by MTC for this SIP revision satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 110(l) 

and 40 CFR 51.102. A technical support 

document (TSD) is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. Specifically, 

in our TSD, we identify how the 

submitted procedures satisfy 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for 

interagency consultation with respect to 

the development of transportation plans 

and programs, SIPs, conformity 

determinations, the resolution of 

conflicts, the provision of adequate 

public consultation, and our 

requirements under 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for 

enforceability of control measures and 

mitigation measures. Please refer to our 

TSD and notice of proposed rulemaking 

for additional information regarding the 

content of the revised San Francisco Bay 

conformity SIP submittal and our 

review. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The 30-day public comment period 

for the notice of proposed rulemaking 

closed on August 28, 2023. During this 

period, a member of the public 

submitted two identical comments to 

the EPA in support of the proposed 

approval. The full text of these 

comments is available for viewing in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. EPA Action 

In accordance with section 110(k)(3) 

of the Act, and for the reasons discussed 

in our proposed rulemaking and 

summarized in this document, we are 

finalizing our approval of the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal as a revision to the California 

SIP. The revision will be incorporated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
89588 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

into the San Francisco Bay Area portion 

of the California SIP and thereby replace 

the previous revision approved on 

October 12, 2007. 

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 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

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, this rulemaking 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). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. If finalized, this action is 

expected to have a neutral to positive 

impact on the air quality of the affected 

area. Consideration of EJ is not required 

as part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, 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). 

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 February 26, 

2024. 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, Particulate Matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 20, 2023. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(349)(i)(A)(2) and 

(c)(608) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(349) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on October 

12, 2007, in paragraph (c)(349)(i)(A)(1) 

of this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(608)(i)(A)(1) of this section: the San 

Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air 

Quality Conformity Protocol— 

Conformity Procedures (July 26, 2006) 

and San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Interagency Consultation 

Procedures (July 26, 2006), adopted by 

BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG 

on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 

26, 2006. 

* * * * * 

(608) San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures and 

Interagency Consultation Procedures 

was submitted electronically on May 17, 

2021, by the Governor’s designee as an 

attachment to a letter dated May 6, 

2021. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) 

Association of Bay Area Governments 

(ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD), and 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC). 

(1) The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89589 

1Henceforth referred to as our ‘‘June 2023’’ 

proposal. 

2The submitted revisions also address 

amendments to Subchapter 2, and Appendix Q, 

Incorporation by Reference, and Subchapter 8, 

Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source 

Review (NSR) Sources, in the Oklahoma 

Administrative Code Title 252, Chapter 100, 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 

More information about the EPA addressing these 

other sections may be found in the text of the June 

2023 proposed action. 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures 

(February 26, 2020) and San Francisco 

Bay Area Transportation Air Quality 

Conformity Protocol—Interagency 

Consultation Procedures (February 26, 

2020), adopted by MTC on February 26, 

2020, BAAQMD on March 4, 2020, and 

by ABAG on April 23, 2020. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28494 Filed 12–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2023–0090; FRL–11014– 

02–R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; 

Revisions to Air Pollution Control 

Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is approving revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

Oklahoma, submitted to the EPA by the 

State of Oklahoma designee (‘‘the 

State’’) on January 30, 2023. The SIP 

revisions being approved address 

amendments to subchapters regarding 

Control of Emission of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) and Emission of 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in 

Nonattainment Areas and Former 

Nonattainment Areas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–R06–OAR–2023–0090. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. 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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Emad Shahin, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214– 

665–6717, shahin.emad@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our June 13, 2023, 

proposal (88 FR 38433).1 In that 

document we proposed to approve a 

portion of the revisions to the Oklahoma 

SIP submitted on January 30, 2023. Our 

June 2023 proposal addressed only the 

portion of the submittal that referred to 

the Oklahoma Administrative Code 

(OAC) Title 252, Chapter 100 (denoted 

OAC 252:100), Subchapters 37, and 39. 

The remainder of the submitted 

revisions were addressed in a separate 

rulemaking action.2

The revisions addressed in our June 

2023 proposal add clarity and 

consistency to the Oklahoma SIP. The 

revisions do not relax the current SIP 

rules and are consistent with applicable 

Federal regulations. Therefore, and 

consistent with CAA section 110(l), we 

do not expect these revisions to interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. More detail on 

these revisions is provided in the docket 

for this action. 

Our June 2023 proposal provided a 

detailed description of the revisions and 

the rationale for the EPA’s proposed 

actions, together with a discussion of 

the opportunity to comment. The public 

comment period for our June 2023 

proposal was extended to August 14, 

2023, to allow additional time for 

stakeholders to review and comment on 

the proposal. 

We received comments from the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the 

Chickasaw Nation, and two anonymous 

comments. One anonymous comment 

supported the extension of the comment 

period and the other was supportive of 

this action generally. Below are our 

responses to comments from the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the 

Chickasaw Nation. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: During Tribal Consultation, 

the Muscogee (Creek) Nation asked for 

more information regarding the number 

of compressor station facilities within 

the Muscogee Reservation. 

Response: Region 6 was able to obtain 

the number of natural gas compressor 

stations within the Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation Reservation from the ODEQ 

emission inventory database. There are 

79 compressor stations in the counties 

that make up the reservation. 

Comment: Commenter stated concern 

about the number of compressor stations 

(and therefore the amount of loading at 

relevant condensate tanks) on Muscogee 

(Creek) Reservation land, the amount of 

VOC’s, and the effects that the VOC’s 

may have on Muscogee citizens’ health 

and the environment. 

Response: EPA agrees that VOC 

emissions can be harmful to human 

health and the environment but notes 

that this action will not result in any 

increase in emissions of VOCs. EPA has 

found this revision complies with Clean 

Air Act Requirements. EPA is required 

to approve SIP revisions that comply 

with all applicable requirements. 

This action merely clarifies ODEQ’s 

long standing interpretation that the 

provisions of Subchapter 37 do not 

apply to loading operations at 

condensate tanks at compressor stations. 

As this is just a clarification, there is no 

change to how these facilities are 

regulated in practice and there is no 

increase in emissions of VOC’s. This 

type of loading, however, remains 

regulated under separate provisions 

specific to compressor station 

operations. 

A loading facility has the main 

purpose of loading/unloading VOC’s in 

relatively large quantities using 

specialized equipment. Although 

condensate loading operations occur at 

compressor stations, that is not its main 

purpose. The transfer of condensate and 

produced water from atmospheric 

storage tanks into individual tanker 

trucks at a compressor station is a 

different type of operation both in scale 

and in the equipment used than is the 

case in, for example, the bulk transfer of 

gasoline at a pipeline terminal/bulk 

gasoline distribution system. 

Condensate loading operations at 

compressor stations were not meant to 

be covered by 252:100–37–16 as they do 

not have the physical equipment 

(loading arm and pump) to conduct this 

type of loading and have much lower 

throughput and emissions. The loading 

of condensate from natural gas 

compressor station is regulated under 

other ODEQ rules such as 252:100–37– 

15(b) for submerged fill or a vapor 

recovery system which applies to most 

condensate tanks at compressor stations 

since a typical tank is about 400 barrels 

(16,800 gallons). Also, natural gas 

compressor stations are subject to 

federal New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) such as Subpart 

OOOO. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES