Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 53280-53284 [2016-18900]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
53281
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ACTION:
Final rule.
This rule is effective on
September 30, 2016.
DATES:
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.
SUMMARY:
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
ADDRESSES:
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
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.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
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
SMAQMD .........
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8-hour Ozone
Standard, dated October 26, 2006 (‘‘2006 RACT SIP’’).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update as Applicable to the 8-Hour
Ozone Standard, dated October 23, 2008 (‘‘Updated RACT SIP’’).
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SMAQMD .........
Adopted
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.
1 Our 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Submitted
10/26/06
7/11/07
10/23/08
1/21/09
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 8hour 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,
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
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 https://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.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
53283
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
Submitted
7/11/07,
adopted
10/26/06
CTG Source category
Negative declaration—CTG reference document
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.
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.
EPA–450/3–82–009—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
EPA–450/2–78–033—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts–Rotogravure and
Flexography.
EPA–450/2–77–034—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
EPA–453/R–07–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings.
EPA–450/2–77–033—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of
Magnetic Wire.
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.
EPA–450/2–83–007—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment
Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants.
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.
EPA–450/3–83–008—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
Polystyrene Resins.
EPA–450/2–77–025—Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds.
EPA–450/2–78–036—Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
EPA–450/2–78–030—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires.
61 FR 44050—Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Operations (Surface Coating).
EPA–450/2–78–032—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat
Wood Paneling.
EPA–453/R06–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings.
EPA–453/R–07–004—Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film,
and Foil Coatings.
Automobile Coating .........................
Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvent) ...
Graphic Arts (Rotogravure) .............
Large Appliance Coating .................
Large Appliance Coating .................
Magnetic Wire Coating ....................
Metal Coil Coating ...........................
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing ...
Paper and Fabric Coating ...............
Resin Manufacturing (High-Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
Polystyrene).
Refineries .........................................
Rubber Tire Manufacturing ..............
Ship Coating ....................................
Wood Coating (Flat Wood Paneling)
Flat Wood Paneling Coatings ..........
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Paper, Film and Foil ........................
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 52.237 is amended by
adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.237
*
*
Part D disapproval.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
(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.
*
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Updated
submitted
1/21/09,
adopted
10/23/08
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
X
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
X
(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
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
53284
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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 https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53280-53284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18900]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
[[Page 53281]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our 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.
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 10/26/06 7/11/07
(RACT) as Applicable to the 8-hour
Ozone Standard, dated October 26, 2006
(``2006 RACT SIP'').
SMAQMD................................. Reasonably Available Control Technology 10/23/08 1/21/09
(RACT) Update as Applicable to the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard, dated October 23,
2008 (``Updated RACT SIP'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 53282]]
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 https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(382)(ii)(C) and
(c)(475) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(382) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
[[Page 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.222 Negative declarations.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Negative declarations for Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated
Negative declaration--CTG Submitted 7/11/ submitted 1/21/
CTG Source category reference document 07, adopted 10/ 09, adopted 10/
26/06 23/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Coating......................... EPA-453/R-97-004 and 59 FR 29216 ............... X
(6/06/94)--Control of Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions from
Coating Operations at Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework
Operations.
Automobile Coating........................ EPA-450/2-77-008--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty
Trucks.
Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvent).......... EPA-450/3-82-009--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Large Petroleum
Dry Cleaners.
Graphic Arts (Rotogravure)................ EPA-450/2-78-033--Control of ............... X
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-
Rotogravure and Flexography.
Large Appliance Coating................... EPA-450/2-77-034--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume V: Surface Coating of
Large Appliances.
Large Appliance Coating................... EPA-453/R-07-004--Control ............... X
Techniques Guidelines for Large
Appliance Coatings.
Magnetic Wire Coating..................... EPA-450/2-77-033--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume IV: Surface Coating for
Insulation of Magnetic Wire.
Metal Coil Coating........................ EPA-450/2-77-008--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty
Trucks.
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing........... EPA-450/2-83-007--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants.
Paper and Fabric Coating.................. EPA-450/2-77-008--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty
Trucks.
Resin Manufacturing (High-Density EPA-450/3-83-008--Control of X ...............
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Volatile Organic Compound
Polystyrene). Emissions from Manufacture of
High-Density Polyethylene,
Polypropylene, and Polystyrene
Resins.
Refineries................................ EPA-450/2-77-025--Control of X ...............
Refinery Vacuum Producing
Systems, Wastewater Separators
and Process Unit Turnarounds.
EPA-450/2-78-036--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
Rubber Tire Manufacturing................. EPA-450/2-78-030--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
Tires.
Ship Coating.............................. 61 FR 44050--Control Techniques X ...............
Guidelines for Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair Operations (Surface
Coating).
Wood Coating (Flat Wood Paneling)......... EPA-450/2-78-032--Control of X ...............
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume VII: Factory Surface
Coating of Flat Wood Paneling.
Flat Wood Paneling Coatings............... EPA-453/R06-004--Control ............... X
Techniques Guidelines for Flat
Wood Paneling Coatings.
Paper, Film and Foil...................... EPA-453/R-07-004--Control ............... X
Techniques Guidelines for Paper,
Film, and Foil Coatings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
4. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 53284]]
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
