Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 14412-14415 [2024-03894]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14412
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Combination
in grams/ton
Chlortetracycline amount
Indications for use
*
*
(xxi) 400 to 2,000 g/ton ....................... Monensin, 15
to 84.
*
*
Replacement beef and dairy heifers:
For treatment of bacterial enteritis
caused by Escherichia coli and
bacterial pneumonia caused by
Pasteurella multocida susceptible
to chlortetracycline; and for the
prevention and control of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria bovis and
Eimeria zuernii.
(xxii) 400 to 2,000 g/ton ......................
Replacement beef and dairy heifers:
For treatment of bacterial enteritis
caused by Escherichia coli and
bacterial pneumonia caused by
Pasteurella multocida susceptible
to chlortetracycline; and for increased rate of weight gain.
*
§ 558.600
■
Monensin, 15
to 400.
*
[Removed]
*
Limitations
*
*
*
For replacement beef and dairy heifers not currently
being fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not
more than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline
per pound of body weight per day and 0.14 to 0.42
mg monensin per pound of body weight per day, depending upon severity of challenge, to provide 50 to
100 mg monensin per head per day in a minimum of
1 pound of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone
to provide 50 to 200 mg monensin per head per day
in a minimum of 1 pound of Type C medicated feed.
For replacement beef and dairy heifers currently being
fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not more
than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline per
pound of body weight per day and 0.14 to 0.42 mg
monensin per pound of body weight per day, depending upon severity of challenge, to provide 50 to 200
mg monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1
pound of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone.
This drug is not approved for use in female dairy cattle
20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows.
Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk
and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
Monensin as provided by No. 058198, chlortetracycline
by No. 069254 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
For replacement beef and dairy heifers not currently
being fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not
more than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline
per pound of body weight per day and 50 to 100 mg
monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1 pound
of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to
feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone to provide 50 to 200 mg monensin per head per day in a
minimum of 1 pound of Type C medicated feed.
For replacement beef and dairy heifers currently being
fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not more
than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline per
pound of body weight per day and 50 to 200 mg
monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1 pound
of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to
feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone.
This drug is not approved for use in female dairy cattle
20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows.
Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk
and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
Monensin as provided by No. 058198, chlortetracycline
by No. 069254 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
25. Remove § 558.600.
Dated: February 20, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0604; FRL–10574–
02–R9]
[FR Doc. 2024–03765 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 am]
Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Feb 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Sponsor
*
069254
069254
*
(SJVAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB),
on behalf of SJVAPCD, in response to
the EPA’s May 22, 2015 finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP call for
certain provisions in the SIP related to
exemptions and affirmative defenses
applicable to excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing
approval of the SIP revisions because
the Agency has determined that they are
in accordance with the requirements for
SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) and correct
E:\FR\FM\27FER1.SGM
27FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
deficiencies identified in the May 22,
2015, SIP call.
DATES: This rule is effective March 28,
2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0604. 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 (CBI) 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:
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by
email at vineyard.christine@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 February 22, 2013, the EPA issued
a Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking outlining EPA’s policy at
the time with respect to SIP provisions
related to periods of SSM. The EPA
analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions
and explained how each one either did
or did not comply with the CAA with
regard to excess emission events.1 For
each SIP provision that the EPA
determined to be inconsistent with the
CAA, the EPA proposed to find that the
existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements
and thus proposed to issue a SIP call
under CAA section 110(k)(5). On
September 17, 2014, the EPA issued a
document supplementing and revising
what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light
of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes
authority of the EPA to create
affirmative defense provisions
applicable to private civil suits. The
EPA outlined its updated policy that
affirmative defense SIP provisions are
not consistent with CAA requirements.
The EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the CAA to specific
affirmative defense SIP provisions and
proposed SIP calls for those provisions
where appropriate (79 FR 55920,
September 17, 2014).
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5), the EPA finalized
‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response
to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP
Action.’’ 2 The 2015 SSM SIP Action
clarified, restated, and updated the
EPA’s interpretation that SSM
exemptions and affirmative defense SIP
provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action
found that certain SIP provisions in 36
states were substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements and issued a
SIP call to those states to submit SIP
revisions to address the inadequacies.
The EPA established an 18-month
deadline by which the affected states
had to submit such SIP revisions. States
were required to submit corrective
revisions to their SIPs in response to the
SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
The EPA issued a Memorandum in
October 2020 (2020 Memorandum),
which stated that certain provisions
governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
District
Rule No.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Fresno County APCD) .................................
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Stanislaus County APCD) ............................
1 State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460
(February 22, 2013).
2 80 FR 33839.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Feb 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
Equipment Breakdown .......
Equipment Breakdown .......
3 October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of
Provisions Governing Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
4 September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal
of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
viewed as consistent with CAA
requirements.3 Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ‘‘did not
alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that
identified specific state SIP provisions
that were substantially inadequate to
meet the requirements of the Act.’’
Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum
had no direct impact on the SIP call
issued to SJVAPCD in 2015. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate
the EPA’s intent at the time to review
SIP calls that were issued in the 2015
SSM SIP Action to determine whether
the EPA should maintain, modify, or
withdraw particular SIP calls through
future agency actions.
On September 30, 2021, the EPA’s
Deputy Administrator withdrew the
2020 Memorandum and announced the
EPA’s return to the policy articulated in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021
Memorandum).4 As articulated in the
2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that
contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent
with CAA requirements and, therefore,
generally are not approvable if
contained in a SIP submission. This
policy approach is intended to ensure
that all communities and populations,
including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and
environmental protections provided by
the CAA.5 The 2021 Memorandum also
retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans to
review and potentially modify or
withdraw particular SIP calls. That
statement no longer reflects the EPA’s
intent. The EPA intends to implement
the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action as the Agency takes action
on SIP submissions, including
SJVAPCD’s SIP submittal, provided in
response to the 2015 SIP call.
With regards to SJVAPCD, the SIP call
identified Rules 110, 111, and 113
because the rules contained improper
affirmative defenses for excess
emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction events. On August 10,
2023 (88 FR 54257), the EPA proposed
to approve removal of the rules in the
following table from the California SIP.
Rule title
110
110
14413
Adopted
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
Submitted
4/14/2022
4/14/2022
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans and Implementation of the
Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy
Administrator.
5 80 FR 33985.
E:\FR\FM\27FER1.SGM
27FER1
14414
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
District
San
San
San
San
Joaquin
Joaquin
Joaquin
Joaquin
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Rule No.
APCD (Kern County APCD) .....................................
APCD (Kings County APCD) ...................................
(Tulare County APCD) .............................................
APCD (Madera County APCD) ................................
As discussed in the proposal, the EPA
proposed to approve the removal of
these rules from the SJVAPCD portions
of the California SIP because such
removal is consistent with CAA
requirements and would correct the
deficiencies identified by the Agency in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action. SJVAPCD is
retaining the affirmative defenses solely
for state law purposes, outside of the
EPA approved SIP. Removal of the
affirmative defenses from the SIP is also
consistent with the EPA policy for
exclusion of ‘‘state law only’’ provisions
from SIPs and will serve to minimize
any potential confusion about the
inapplicability of the affirmative
defense provisions in Federal court
enforcement actions.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received one comment
from the Sierra Club and Environmental
Integrity Project in support of the
proposed rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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, and for the reasons
identified in the August 22, 2023
proposal, the EPA is fully approving the
removal of these rules from the
SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP.
The Agency’s final approval of this
submission fully corrects the
inadequacies in the SJVAPCD portion of
the California SIP that were identified in
the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described
in section I of the preamble and as set
forth below in the amendments to 40
CFR part 52, the EPA is removing
provisions from the Fresno County,
Kern County, Kings County, Madera
County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare
County portions of the California SIP,
which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Feb 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
Rule title
111
111
111
113
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Breakdown
Breakdown
Breakdown
Breakdown
Adopted
.......
.......
.......
.......
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
2/17/2022
Submitted
4/14/2022
4/14/2022
4/14/2022
4/14/2022
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).
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. 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
Executive Order 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
E:\FR\FM\27FER1.SGM
27FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 29, 2024.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of the 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 oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: February 5, 2024.
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:
a. Adding paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(C);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(C);
and
■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(47)(iii)(D),
(c)(51)(ix)(E) and (F), (c)(51)(x)(D) and
(E), (c)(52)(iv)(H) and (I), (c)(126)(iii)(D),
and (c)(138)(v)(F).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(47) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October
24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(A) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 110, ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
(iii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October
24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(A) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement for implementation in the
Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Feb 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
District: Rule 111, ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
(D) Previously approved on October
24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(A) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement for implementation in the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District: Rule 111,
‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(51) * * *
(ix) * * *
(E) Previously approved on December
9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(51)(ix)(B) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 110 (A), (B), and (D)–
(I), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’
(F) Previously approved on June 18,
1982, in paragraph (c)(51)(ix)(C) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 110 (C), ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
(x) * * *
(D) Previously approved on December
9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(51)(x)(B) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 111 (a), (b), and (d)–
(i), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’
(E) Previously approved on June 18,
1982, in paragraph (c)(51)(x)(C) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 111(c), ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(52) * * *
(iv) * * *
(H) Previously approved on December
9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(52)(iv)(B) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 111 (A), (B), and (D)–
(I), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’
(I) Previously approved on June 18,
1982, in paragraph (c)(52)(iv)(C) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 111(C), ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(126) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Previously approved on June 1,
1983, in paragraph (c)(126)(iii)(A) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 110, ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(138) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) Previously approved on November
18, 1983, in paragraph (c)(138)(v)(A) of
this section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 113, ‘‘Equipment
Breakdown.’’
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–03894 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14415
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 231101–0256; RTID 0648–
XD672]
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2024
Recreational Closure for Golden
Tilefish in the South Atlantic
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the 2024
recreational fishing season for golden
tilefish in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) of the South Atlantic.
Announcing the length of the
recreational season is the accountability
measure (AM) for the recreational
sector. NMFS estimates that recreational
landings of golden tilefish will reach the
recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for
the 2024 fishing year by February 29,
2024. Accordingly, NMFS announces
the closure date for the recreational
harvest of golden tilefish in the South
Atlantic EEZ to protect the golden
tilefish resource.
DATES: This temporary rule is effective
from March 1, 2024, through December
31, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
karla.gore@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is
managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared
by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and NMFS, and is
implemented by NMFS under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by
regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2)
specify the 2024 recreational ACL for
golden tilefish of 2,635 fish, and the
recreational AM. The recreational AM
states that NMFS will project the length
of the recreational fishing season for
golden tilefish based on catch rates from
the previous fishing year and announce
the end date of the recreational season
(50 CFR 622.193(a)(2)). The recreational
season for golden tilefish started on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27FER1.SGM
27FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14412-14415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03894]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0604; FRL-10574-02-R9]
Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
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 Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), on behalf of SJVAPCD, in
response to the EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy
and SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to exemptions
and affirmative defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing approval
of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in
accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act) and correct
[[Page 14413]]
deficiencies identified in the May 22, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0604. 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 (CBI) 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: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4125 or by
email at [email protected].
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 February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. The EPA analyzed specific SSM
SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply
with the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP
provision that the EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, the
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, the EPA issued
a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. The EPA outlined
its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not
consistent with CAA requirements. The EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to
specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for
those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA
finalized ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' hereafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM SIP
Action.'' \2\ The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated
the EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions and affirmative defense
SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP
Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call
to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies.
The EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states
had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit
corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by
November 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 80 FR 33839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum),
which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs
could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\3\ Importantly,
the 2020 Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the
determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific
state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the
requirements of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no
direct impact on the SIP call issued to SJVAPCD in 2015. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to
review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to
determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw
particular SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, the EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the
2020 Memorandum and announced the EPA's return to the policy
articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\4\ As
articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain
exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with
CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if
contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach is intended to
ensure that all communities and populations, including overburdened
communities, receive the full health and environmental protections
provided by the CAA.\5\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior
statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and
potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no
longer reflects the EPA's intent. The EPA intends to implement the
principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency takes
action on SIP submissions, including SJVAPCD's SIP submittal, provided
in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\5\ 80 FR 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to SJVAPCD, the SIP call identified Rules 110, 111,
and 113 because the rules contained improper affirmative defenses for
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. On
August 10, 2023 (88 FR 54257), the EPA proposed to approve removal of
the rules in the following table from the California SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Fresno 110 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD 110 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
(Stanislaus County APCD).
[[Page 14414]]
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kern 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kings 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley (Tulare County 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Madera 113 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the proposal, the EPA proposed to approve the
removal of these rules from the SJVAPCD portions of the California SIP
because such removal is consistent with CAA requirements and would
correct the deficiencies identified by the Agency in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. SJVAPCD is retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state
law purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the
affirmative defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA
policy for exclusion of ``state law only'' provisions from SIPs and
will serve to minimize any potential confusion about the
inapplicability of the affirmative defense provisions in Federal court
enforcement actions.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment from the Sierra Club and
Environmental Integrity Project in support of the proposed rulemaking.
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, and for the reasons identified in the
August 22, 2023 proposal, the EPA is fully approving the removal of
these rules from the SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP. The
Agency's final approval of this submission fully corrects the
inadequacies in the SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP that were
identified in the EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in section I of the preamble
and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52, the EPA is
removing provisions from the Fresno County, Kern County, Kings County,
Madera County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare County portions of the
California SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with
the requirements of 1 CFR 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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 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, 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).
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.
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
Executive Order 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
[[Page 14415]]
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2024.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of the 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 oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 5, 2024.
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
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:
0
a. Adding paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(C);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(C); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(47)(iii)(D), (c)(51)(ix)(E) and (F),
(c)(51)(x)(D) and (E), (c)(52)(iv)(H) and (I), (c)(126)(iii)(D), and
(c)(138)(v)(F).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(47) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(ii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(iii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District: Rule
111, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(D) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District: Rule 111, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(51) * * *
(ix) * * *
(E) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(51)(ix)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110 (A), (B), and (D)-(I), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(F) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(51)(ix)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110 (C), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(x) * * *
(D) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(51)(x)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule
111 (a), (b), and (d)-(i), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(E) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(51)(x)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule
111(c), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(52) * * *
(iv) * * *
(H) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(52)(iv)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 111 (A), (B), and (D)-(I), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(I) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(52)(iv)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 111(C), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(126) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Previously approved on June 1, 1983, in paragraph
(c)(126)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(138) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) Previously approved on November 18, 1983, in paragraph
(c)(138)(v)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 113, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-03894 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
