17390 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Commenting on EPA Dockets—Rules and 

Restrictions.’’ Last updated December 21, 2015. 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0552; FRL–9943–40– 

Region9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District and South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) and the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from fan-driven naturalgas-fired central furnaces for residences 

and businesses. We are approving local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

April 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0552 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 94105–3901. 

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, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be 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: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 

3073, Gong.Kevin@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. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On November 7, 2015 in 80 FR 68484, 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

following rules into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4905 Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces .................... 01/22/15 04/07/15 

SCAQMD ................................ 1111 Reduction of NOX Emissions From Natural-Gas-Fired, FanType Central Furnaces.09/05/14 04/07/15 

We proposed to approve these rule 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. On 

December 7, 2015, we received two 

emails from Harvey Eder representing 

the Public Solar Power Coalition 

(PSPC). One email included the subject 

line, ‘‘FW: docket ID EPA–R09–2015– 

0552, Can,t Email You Again All of The 

Record from me HE/PSPC inc. into 

record by reference from 6/2014 etc. to 

today SC PM 2.5 SC SIP EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0204 to Extreme.’’ The 

second email included the subject line, 

‘‘FW: Part 3 of 3 there may be a Part 4/ 

This isDocut ID EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0552, emissions of NOX from fan-driven 

natural-gas-firedd furnaces for res & 

business SCD R1111/SJV 4905 +FRL– 

9936–70–Region 9 (pt 1 & 2 also Inc 

This etc. Incorporate allfrom . . .’’ We 

received an additional email from PSPC 

on December 9, 2015 labeled as ‘‘part 1 

of 3,’’ after the close of the comment 

period. We have summarized below the 

substance of the emailed comments 

from PSPC to the extent possible. The 

comments and our responses are as 

follows: 

Comment #1: PSPC listed several 

external sources in reference to our 

proposal. These included the following: 

Documents attributed to a California 

Superior Court case where PSPC was a 

plaintiff against the SCAQMD; 

references to information attributed to 

the International Energy Agency and the 

California Governor’s Office of Planning 

and Research; documents previously 

submitted for comment in other EPA 

dockets (including EPA–R09–OAR– 

2015–0204); communications with local 

and federal officials; and Santa Cruz 

County and Los Angeles County 

planning documents. None of these 

documents were summarized or 

provided as attachments to comments 

on docket EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0552. 

Response #1: In PSPC’s emails to the 

EPA, PSPC did not provide attachments 

or provide source materials supporting 

its claims. The emails attempted to 

incorporate by reference various news 

articles, reports, and other documents in 

support of PSPC’s stated claims and 

assertions (see additional discussion in 

Comments #2 and #3). However, such a 

practice is in violation of EPA’s 

commenting guidelines, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets#rules. In 

particular, the comments do not comply 

with the restriction that ‘‘EPA will not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system).’’ 1

Moreover, submitting general 

documents on a topic fails to raise any 

particular issue with reasonable 

specificity as required by the Clean Air 

Act and the Administrative Procedures 

Act. See generally Mossville Envtl. 

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 

1238 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (‘‘Petitioners also 

point to a sentence in the letter 

requesting the EPA to use ‘all 

reasonably available data, including the 

data provided under Subpart F.’ 

Petitioners’ argument that, because 

Subpart F contains data for both the ten 

and 400 ppm standards, the EPA was on 

notice fails for the same reasons as 

articulated above.’’) Therefore, EPA is 

not making any changes to our proposed 

approval on the basis of this comment. 

Comment #2: PSPC commented that a 

range of solar-related technologies, 

including solar seasonal heating, 

concentrating solar, and photovoltaicpowered heating and cooling systems 

are an alternative to natural gas-fired 

home furnaces that are subject to this 

rule. PSPC claims that the EPA should 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 17391 

consider such technologies as RACT for 

space heating applications that are 

currently being fulfilled by furnaces. 

Response #2: The EPA can identify no 

CAA requirement in PSPC’s comment 

emails that would require the 

consideration of solar-based 

technologies as RACT in this context, as 

all natural gas-fired fan-driven furnaces 

subject to these rules do not meet the 

major source threshold triggering a 

RACT requirement for ozone. The SIP 

must still implement all RACM/RACT 

for NOX, but these requirements are 

generally evaluated in the context of a 

broader RACM/RACT assessment. 

Furthermore, the revisions to South 

Coast Rule 1111 that are the subject of 

this action do not include any 

substantive revisions concerning control 

technologies or emission limits that 

PSPC’s comment would be germane to. 

Comment #3: PSPC made several 

additional claims including: The solar 

technologies as described would be 

RACT for other source categories, 

including boilers and heaters not subject 

to the rules in this action; and water 

tank-based solar seasonal storage 

heating has secondary use in firefighting 

and public safety applications following 

earthquakes. 

Response #3: These claims are not 

relevant to our analysis of the approval 

of the rules and we are finalizing our 

proposed approval without change. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully 

approving these rules into the California 

SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

SCAQMD and SJVUAPCD rules 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 31, 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 relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 4, 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 paragraphs (c)(344)(i)(C)(2), 

(c)(379)(i)(A)(6), (c)(461)(i)(C)(2) and 

(c)(461)(i)(D) to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

17392 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(344) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on May 30, 

2007 in paragraph (c)(344)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(461)(i)(D)(1), Rule 4905, ‘‘NaturalGas-Fired Fan-Type Central Furnaces,’’ 

adopted on October 20, 2005. 

* * * * * 

(379) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(6) Previously approved on August 4, 

2010 in paragraph (c)(379)(i)(A)(3) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(461)(i)(C)(2), Rule 1111, ‘‘Reduction 

of NOX Emissions from Natural-GasFired Fan-Type Central Furnaces,’’ 

amended on November 6, 2009. 

* * * * * 

(461) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Rule 1111, ‘‘Reduction of NOX

Emissions From Natural-Gas-Fired, FanType Central Furnaces,’’ amended 

September 5, 2014. 

(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 4905, ‘‘Natural-Gas-Fired, 

Fan-Type Central Furnaces,’’ amended 

January 22, 2015. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–06962 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 711 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0809; FRL–9941–19] 

Partial Exemption of Certain Chemical 

Substances From Reporting Additional 

Chemical Data 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the list of 

chemical substances that are partially 

exempt from reporting additional 

information under the Chemical Data 

Reporting (CDR) rule. EPA has 

determined that, based on the totality of 

information available on the chemical 

substances listed in this final rule, there 

is a low current interest in their CDR 

processing and use information. EPA 

reached this conclusion after 

considering a number of factors, 

including the risk of adverse human 

health or environmental effects, 

information needs for CDR processing 

and use information, and the 

availability of other sources of 

comparable processing and use 

information. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0809, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Christina 

Thompson, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–0983; email address: 

thompson.christina@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture (defined 

by statute at 15 U.S.C. 2602(7) to 

include import) the chemical substances 

contained in this rule. The North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) codes provided here 

are not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provide a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include chemical 

manufacturers subject to CDR reporting 

of one or more subject chemical 

substances (NAICS codes 325 and 

324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing 

and petroleum refineries. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

This partial exemption eliminates an 

existing reporting requirement under 40 

CFR 711.6(b)(2). EPA is adding the 

following chemical substances to the list 

of chemical substances that are exempt 

from reporting the information 

described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4): Fatty 

acids, C14–18 and C16–18 unsaturated, 

methyl esters (Chemical Abstract 

Services Registry Number (CASRN) 

67762–26–9); fatty acids, C16–18 and C– 

18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 

67762–38–3); fatty acids, canola oil, 

methyl esters (CASRN 129828–16–6); 

fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters 

(CASRN 515152–40–6); fatty acids, 

tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788– 

61–2); and soybean oil, methyl esters 

(CASRN 67784–80–9). However, by 

existing terms at 40 CFR 711.6, this 

partial exemption will become 

inapplicable to a subject chemical 

substance in the event that the chemical 

substance later becomes the subject of a 

rule proposed or promulgated under 

section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); 

an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) 

developed under the procedures of 40 

CFR part 790; an order issued under 

TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f); or relief that 

has been granted under a civil action 

under TSCA section 5 or 7. 

In the January 27, 2015 Federal 

Register (80 FR 4482)(FRL–9921–56), 

EPA published a direct final rule to add 

these six chemical substances to the list 

of chemical substances that are partially 

exempt from reporting additional 

information under the CDR rule. EPA 

received one adverse comment that was 

pertinent to all six of the chemical 

substances that were the subject of that 

direct final rule. In accordance with the 

procedures described in the January 27, 

2015 Federal Register document, EPA 

withdrew the direct final rule, and 

subsequently proposed to add the six 

chemical substances to the list of 

chemical substances that are partially 

exempt from reporting additional 

information under the CDR rule in the 

July 22, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 

43383) (FRL–9928–99). EPA received 

one comment on the proposed rule. 

Before taking final action, EPA 

considered both the comment it 

received in response to the direct final 

rule and the comment it received in 

response to the proposed rule. A full 

discussion of EPA’s responses to these 

comments is included in Unit V. of this 

document. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES