[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22025-22032]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08039]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9944-16-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Moderate Area Plan for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part
and disapproving in part State implementation plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by California to address moderate area Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for the 2006 fine particulate (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles--South Coast
air basin (South Coast) PM2.5 nonattainment area. These SIP
revisions are the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, submitted February 13,
2013, and the 2015 Supplement, submitted March 4, 2015. We are
disapproving the Reasonably Available Control Measure, Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT), and Reasonable Further
Progress elements of the SIP revisions because of new information
indicating that the 2010 RECLAIM program does not meet the RACM/RACT
requirement for certain sources of emissions. The EPA is prepared to
work with the State to correct this deficiency. We are not finalizing
our proposed action on the District's ports-related commitment at this
time.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-
4192<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information

    On October 20, 2015, we proposed to approve state implementation
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in
the Los Angeles-South Coast air basin (South Coast) Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area. See 80 FR 63640 (October 20,
2015). The SIP revisions that we proposed to approve are those portions
of the ``Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)'' that address
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (2012 PM2.5
Plan), submitted February 13, 2013, and the ``Supplement to the 24-Hour
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin'' (2015 Supplement), submitted March 4, 2015. We refer to these
submissions collectively herein as ``the Plan.'' The EPA proposed to
approve the following elements of the Plan as satisfying applicable CAA
requirements: (1) The 2008 base year emissions inventories; (2) the
reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control
technology demonstration; (3) the reasonable further progress
demonstration; (4) the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate
area attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable; (5) the
District's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and
measures on a specific schedule; and (6) the general conformity budgets
for NOX and VOC for years 2013-2030 in the Plan.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015) at 63660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also proposed to reclassify the South Coast area, including
Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the EPA's determination that the area
could not practicably attain this standard by the applicable Moderate
area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
    On December 22, 2015, we finalized our proposal to reclassify the
South Coast area from Moderate to Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\2\ As a result of that action, California is required to submit,
by August 14, 2017, additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory
requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of
the Act. The Serious area plan must provide for attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than December 31, 2019, in accordance with
the requirements of part D of title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our December 22, 2015 final action to reclassify the South Coast
area as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, we summarized
and responded to public comments pertaining to the reclassification and
its consequences and stated that we would, in a separate rulemaking,
respond to comments pertaining to our proposed action on the submitted
plan.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on our proposed
rule. During this comment period, which ended on November 19, 2015, we
received ten sets of public comments on our proposal. Comment letters
were submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better
Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and the
Sierra Club (``Earthjustice''); the San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, or ``the Ports''); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP,
the Commercial Real Estate Development Association; the Los Angeles
Area Chamber of Commerce; Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union
Pacific Railroads; the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; the
California Trucking Association; BizFed, the Los Angeles County
Business Federation; and the Public Solar Power Coalition.\4\ Copies of
these comment letters can be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All comment letters are in the docket for today's action at
www.regulations.gov, docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of these comment letters address only our proposal to approve
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or District)
commitment to adopt a backstop measure related to ports and port-
related facilities in 2015, as part of our action on the 2012
PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement.\5\ Specifically, the
comments from the following entities focus entirely on this ports-
related commitment: The San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, or ``the Ports''); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP, the Commercial
Real Estate Development Association; the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce; Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads; the
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; the California Trucking
Association; and BizFed, the Los Angeles County Business Federation.
Given the volume of these comments on the District's ports-related
commitment, and the need for the EPA to further evaluate the

issues these comments raise, we are not finalizing our proposed action
on the commitment at this time and will respond to all comments
pertaining to this commitment in a separate rulemaking.\6\ We summarize
and respond below to all other comments pertaining to our proposed
action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and the 2015 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 80 FR at 63651 (October 20, 2015) (discussing District
commitment to ``adopt backstop measures related to ports and port-
related facilities in 2015,'' also referred to as control measure
IND-01, ``Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from
Ports and Port-related Facilities'').
    \6\ The District's ports-related commitment is not a component
of the February 13, 2013 plan submission that is the subject of a
consent decree in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, No. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW
(ASx) (C.D. CA.). See letter dated February 13, 2013, from James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments, and CARB Resolution
15-2, February 19, 2015; see also 80 FR 79338 (December 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding RACM/RACT

    Comment 1. Earthjustice asserts that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
fails to meet minimum requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) because some sources covered under South Coast's
NOX Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program
have not installed control technologies that are economically feasible
and readily available. Citing recent rulemaking documents from the
District's December 4, 2015 amendments to the RECLAIM program,\7\
Earthjustice argues that the District itself has found that the current
cap on NOX RECLAIM emissions is far above the level of
emissions that would be generated if cost-effective and readily
available technologies were implemented in the South Coast air basin.
Earthjustice also argues that the 2 ton per day (tpd) reduction in the
NOX RECLAIM cap (referred to as the NOX
``shave'') included in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan falls short of
what is actually feasible for certain sectors, where ``readily
available technologies simply have not been installed because of too
many credits in the NOX RECLAIM program.'' For example,
Earthjustice quotes the District's statements in the ``Draft Final
Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX--Regional
Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM''
(hereafter ``RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report'') indicating that the
NOX RECLAIM program, as amended in 2005, has allowed
numerous refineries to delay installation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) controls that the District had identified as best
available retrofit control technology (BARCT).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On December 4, 2015, the SCAQMD adopted amendments to the
RECLAIM program to implement BARCT for NOX emissions from
various equipment by establishing RTC reduction targets and RTC
adjustment factors for year 2016 and beyond (See SCAQMD Governing
Board Resolution 15-25, December 4, 2015).
    \8\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice acknowledges the EPA's policies allowing for cap and
trade programs to satisfy RACT by ensuring emission reductions equal,
in the aggregate, to the reductions expected from direct application of
RACT on individual affected sources but asserts that, in this case,
``EPA cannot simply conclude that a 2 tpd shave to the NOX
RECLAIM program satisfies RACT because `RECLAIM [must] achieve[ ]
reductions of NOX emissions from covered sources that are
equivalent in the aggregate, to the reductions achieved by RACT-level
controls.' '' At a minimum, according to Earthjustice, ``RACM requires
an assessment of the NOX RECLAIM program in light of new
information that the NOX RECLAIM program is woefully far
from achieving reductions commensurate with `RACT-level controls.' ''
Earthjustice concludes that the District can either amend its
NOX RECLAIM program to make it equivalent to RACT-level
controls or adopt direct controls to ensure that readily available and
cost-effective pollution control equipment is installed on many sources
that have not installed these controls.
    Response 1: The EPA has reevaluated the RACM/RACT demonstration in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan in light of the commenter's arguments
and agrees that the Plan does not adequately address RACM/RACT for
certain NOX emission sources covered by the RECLAIM program.
    The SCAQMD adopted the RECLAIM program in 1993 to reduce emissions
from the largest stationary sources of NOX and
SOX emissions through a market-based trading program that
establishes annually declining NOX and SOX
allocations (also called ``facility caps'') and allows covered
facilities to comply with their facility caps by installing pollution
control equipment, changing operations, or purchasing ``RECLAIM trading
credits'' (RTCs) from the RECLAIM market.\9\ Section 40440 of the
California Health and Safety Code requires the District to monitor
advances in BARCT and periodically to reassess the overall facility
caps to ensure that the facility caps are equivalent, in the aggregate,
to BARCT emission levels imposed on affected sources. Facilities
electing to enter RECLAIM are exempted from a number of SCAQMD
prohibitory rules that otherwise apply to sources of NOX and
SOX emissions in the South Coast.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (``Stationary
Source Control Measures'') at p. IV-A-13 (discussing CMB-01: Further
NOX Reductions from RECLAIM--Phase I [NOX]).
    \10\ SCAQMD Rule 2001, as amended May 6, 2005, at section (j)
(``Rule Applicability'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based
cap and trade program may satisfy RACT requirements by ensuring that
the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the
program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected
from the direct application of RACT on all affected sources within the
nonattainment area.\11\ The EPA approved the RECLAIM program into the
California SIP in June 1998 based in part on a conclusion that the
NOX emission caps in the program satisfied the RACT
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered
NOX emission sources in the aggregate.\12\ In 2005 and 2010,
the District adopted revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program,
which the EPA approved on August 29, 2006 and August 12, 2011,
respectively, based in part on conclusions that the revisions continued
to satisfy NOX RACT requirements.\13\ We refer to the
NOX RECLAIM program as approved into the SIP as the ``2010
RECLAIM program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and U.S. EPA, ``Improving Air
Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA-452/R-01-001
(January 2001), at Section 16.7.
    \12\ 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 (June 15,
1998).
    \13\ 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 (August 12,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recent SCAQMD rulemaking documents that Earthjustice cites call
into question the efficacy of the 2010 RECLAIM program in ensuring
NOX emission reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls on
all affected sources. Specifically, according to a November 4, 2015
draft staff report by the SCAQMD entitled ``Proposed Amendments to
Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM),
NOX RECLAIM'' (hereafter ``Draft RECLAIM Staff Report''),
between 2009 and 2013, the RECLAIM market contained 5-8 tons per day
(tpd) of ``surplus'' RTCs that created a dampening effect on RTC
prices, bringing average RTC prices down to a range of $1,162-$5,491
per ton compared to the average cost-effectiveness of control range,
which is $8,300-$13,000 per ton.\14\ As a result,

according to the District, RECLAIM facilities opted to purchase these
low cost ``surplus'' RTCs to reconcile their emissions at the end of
the compliance year instead of installing controls to reduce
pollution.\15\ For example, refineries did not install any SCR control
technologies in response to the 2005 NOX RECLAIM amendment
even though SCAQMD staff had estimated about 51 SCRs would be installed
by 2011.\16\ The Draft RECLAIM Staff Report indicates that SCR has been
used successfully to control NOX emissions from various
refinery operations and is considered a mature, commercially available,
and cost-effective control technique for this source category.\17\ The
District concluded in the Draft RECLAIM Staff Report that ``[r]emoving
surplus RTCs is therefore critically important to ensure the
effectiveness of the RECLAIM program and meet state law requirements to
require the use of BARCT for existing sources.'' Likewise, in the
RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report, the District stated that many of these
unused ``excess'' RTCs were sold to operating RECLAIM facilities as a
result of facility shutdowns and that ``[t]hese excess RTCs have been
artificially depressing RTC prices and have induced RECLAIM facilities
to delay the installation of cost-effective controls.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, ``Proposed
Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM'' (``Draft RECLAIM Staff
Report''), November 4, 2015, at pp. 262-264.
    \15\ Id. at 264.
    \16\ Id. The RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report further states that
despite a 7.7 tpd NOX RTC shave implemented during 2007-
2011 through the District's 2005 amendments to RECLAIM, only 4 tpd
of actual NOX emission reductions resulted from this
shave, most of which were due to facility shut-downs and not
measures taken to reduce actual emissions by facilities in the
program. South Coast Air Quality Management District, ``Draft Final
Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX--
Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) NOX
RECLAIM'' (``RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report''), December 4, 2015, at
pp. 1-2.
    \17\ See, e.g., Draft RECLAIM Staff Report at Appendix A,
Appendix B, and Appendix C (discussing technical feasibility and
cost-effectiveness estimates for SCR and other NOX
control techniques at refinery fluid catalytic cracking units,
refinery boilers and process heaters, and refinery gas turbines).
    \18\ RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report at pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 PM2.5 Plan cites the 2010 RECLAIM program as
the basis for the District's RACM/RACT determination for several
NOX emission source categories, including cement kilns,
boilers and process heaters at petroleum refineries, and other
stationary combustion installations (e.g., steam generators and natural
gas and/or oil-fired industrial/commercial/institutional boilers).\19\
The Plan also indicates that, for several source categories for which
the District identified more stringent NOX controls
implemented in other nonattainment areas,\20\ the District intended to
reduce NOX emissions or conduct further study through
``Control Measure CMB-01--Further NOX Reductions from
RECLAIM,'' \21\ a measure that commits the District to achieve an
additional 2 tpd of NOX emission reductions through a 2 tpd
``shave'' to the RECLAIM NOX emission caps in 2015 if the
South Coast area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
then.\22\ The 2012 PM2.5 Plan does not explain how either
the 2010 RECLAIM program or the additional 2 tpd reduction (``shave'')
to the NOX emission cap described in Control Measure CMB-01
ensures that the level of NOX emission reductions resulting
from implementation of the RECLAIM program is equal, in the aggregate,
to those NOX emission reductions expected from the direct
application of RACT on covered sources within the South Coast
nonattainment area. The Plan does, however, state that there are
approximately 8 tpd of ``excess'' NOX RTCs in the RECLAIM
market, consistent with the District's findings in the Draft RECLAIM
Staff Report and RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix VI (``Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration'') at pp. VI-13 to
VI-17 and Table VI-5.
    \20\ For example, with respect to boilers and process heaters at
refineries, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan indicates that
NOX control measures implemented in the San Francisco Bay
Area are more stringent than regulations implemented in the South
Coast area. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix VI (``Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration'') at pp. VI-13.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (``Stationary
Source Control Measures'') at pp. IV-A-13 to IV-A-16 (discussing
CMB-01: Further NOX Reductions from RECLAIM--Phase I
[NOX]), as amended by 2015 Supplement at Table F-1.
    \23\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (``Stationary
Source Control Measures'') at p. IV-A-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the information in the Plan about ``excess'' NOX
RTCs in the 2010 RECLAIM program and the new information submitted by
the commenters indicating that these excess RTCs have artificially
depressed NOX RTC prices during the 2009-2013 period covered
by the Plan, thus allowing RECLAIM facilities to avoid installing
technically feasible and cost-effective NOX pollution
control equipment during this period, and given the absence of a
demonstration in the Plan to support a conclusion that the 2010 RECLAIM
program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission reductions
equivalent to RACT-level controls for these sources, we are
disapproving the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan.
    Our proposal to find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015
Supplement satisfy the requirement for RFP in CAA section 172(c)(2) was
based primarily on a conclusion that the Plan ``demonstrates that all
RACM/RACT are being implemented as expeditiously as practicable and
identifies projected emission levels for 2014 that reflect full
implementation of the State's and District's RACM/RACT control strategy
for the area.'' \24\ Our evaluation of whether the RACM/RACT measures
would result in emissions reductions consistent with meeting the RFP
requirement of the statute was thus dependent upon the approval of the
Plan with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement. Because we are now
disapproving the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan, we must also find
that the Plan does not satisfy the statutory requirement for RFP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 80 FR at 63654 (October 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of our December 22, 2015 final action reclassifying the
South Coast area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, California is required to submit by August 14, 2017 a Serious
Area plan for the South Coast area, including provisions to assure that
the best available control measures (BACM) and best available control
technology (BACT) for the control of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 years
after the area is reclassified.\25\ We note that, to the extent the
State and District intend to rely on the NOX RECLAIM program
as part of the BACM demonstration in this new plan, the plan must
include documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the NOX
RECLAIM program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission
reductions equivalent to BACT-level controls for covered facilities. If
the State and District intend to the correct the deficiency in advance
of the BACM submission due August 14, 2017, they may do so by
submitting revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program together
with documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the revised program
ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission reductions
equivalent to RACT-level controls for covered facilities. Either type
of SIP submission would, upon EPA approval, cure the deficiency in the
Plan's RACM/RACT demonstration for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
South Coast area that California is required to submit by August 14,
2017 must also include plan provisions that provide for RFP

consistent with the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2). A Serious
area plan that satisfies the statutory RFP requirement for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast would, upon EPA approval,
cure the deficiency in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan's RFP provisions.
    Comment 2. Earthjustice argues that the RACM demonstration in the
Plan impermissibly relies on mobile source measures that are not
approved into the SIP and that the EPA continues to attempt to
``illegally credit'' waiver measures even though these measures had not
been proposed for SIP approval by the time of the EPA's proposed rule
on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. Earthjustice further asserts that
these waiver measures have never been reviewed for compliance with SIP-
related requirements, and that the public has no ability to review and
offer comment on the EPA's assessment of how these mobile source
measures satisfy the CAA's RACM requirements. Citing Committee for a
Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (hereafter ``CBA''),
Earthjustice argues that the EPA's prior approvals of PM2.5
plans for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas
were remanded for failure to include the mobile source control measures
upon which the plans relied and that it is, therefore, premature to
conclude that the RACM requirement has been satisfied.
    Response 2. As we explained in our proposed rule, in response to
the Ninth Circuit's decision in CBA, CARB adopted the necessary waiver
measures as revisions to the California SIP and submitted them to the
EPA on August 14, 2015.\26\ Our proposed rule for this action stated
that the EPA intended to propose action on these waiver measures in a
separate rulemaking and that, ``[o]nce approved as part of the SIP, the
measures will be enforceable by the EPA or private citizens under the
CAA.'' \27\ Our proposed rule also stated that the EPA was ``proposing
to approve certain elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015
Supplement in part based on our expectation that these waiver measures
will soon become federally enforceable as a result of our approval of
the measures as part of the SIP.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 80 FR 63640 at 63652, n. 48 (citing letter dated August 14,
2015, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air
Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9).
    \27\ 80 FR at 63652.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted
waiver measures into the California SIP and provided a 30-day period
for public comment on its proposal.\29\ As part of this proposed rule,
the EPA evaluated the necessary waiver measures for compliance with
SIP-related requirements and proposed to find that they fulfill all
applicable CAA requirements. The EPA expects to finalize this action in
the near term, at which point the waiver measures will become federally
enforceable under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the meantime, we agree with Earthjustice that the RACM/RACT
demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan remains deficient
pending the EPA's final action to approve the waiver measures on which
it relies. Because we are disapproving the RACM/RACT demonstration in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on other grounds, however (see Response
1), this conclusion does not alter our action.

Comments Regarding Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Comment 3. Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's decision to not act
on the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the 2012
PM2.5 plan is arbitrary and capricious. According to
Earthjustice, the revised budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
(2015 MVEBs) are significantly strengthened compared to the MVEBs for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS that the EPA approved in 2011 (2011
MVEBs), which are ``outdated and less protective.'' For example,
Earthjustice asserts that the 2015 MVEBs reflect more accurate
emissions data as they are based on EMFAC2011 and transportation
activity data from the Southern California Association of Governments'
(SCAG's) adopted 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, whereas the 2011
MVEBs relied on EMFAC2007, the prior transportation plan, and other
outdated information. Additionally, Earthjustice claims that the 2011
MVEBs were ``not sufficiently stringent because evidence shows the
South Coast air basin has not attained the 1997 PM2.5
standard'' and ``certainly are not sufficiently strong to meet the 2006
PM2.5 standard and interim milestones to ensure attainment
of this standard.''
    Earthjustice contends that it is arbitrary to allow the 2011 MVEBs
to remain in place for the next transportation plan when revised
budgets are available, especially in the South Coast where
transportation emissions account for such a large amount of the
PM2.5 and ozone pollution problems. Earthjustice further
argues that it is critically important to have these revised budgets in
place given the imminent 2016 transportation plan being prepared by
SCAG.
    Response 3. We disagree with these comments.
    As we explained in our proposed rule, the 2015 Supplement, which
CARB submitted in March 2015, revised the attainment demonstration in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to identify December 31, 2015 as the
applicable attainment date and included revised motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 for direct PM2.5, NOX,
and VOC.\30\ In July 2015, however, the District submitted preliminary
air quality monitoring data that indicated that attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date (December
31, 2015) was impracticable.\31\ Based on these air quality data, the
District requested that the EPA treat the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
and 2015 Supplement as a demonstration that attainment by the Moderate
area attainment date is impracticable and that the EPA reclassify the
South Coast air basin as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\32\ We therefore evaluated the 2012
PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement as a demonstration of
impracticability under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii) and proposed to
approve it based on a conclusion that it satisfies the statutory
requirements for such demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 80 FR 63640 at 63655 (October 20, 2015) (citing 2015
Supplement, Attachment C at Table C-1).
    \31\ Id. at 63645 and 63652-53.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 93.118(e)(4) of the conformity rule states that the EPA
will not find a motor vehicle emissions budget in a submitted control
strategy SIP to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes
unless specific criteria are satisfied, including the requirement in
paragraph (e)(4)(iv) that the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when
considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent
with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress,
attainment, or maintenance, whichever is relevant to the SIP
submission. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement contain
MVEBs only for the 2015 attainment year.\33\ The Plan does not
demonstrate timely attainment and does not contain an approvable RFP
demonstration or any RFP budgets. Because the Plan does not contain a
control strategy that satisfies the requirements for RFP, attainment,
or maintenance, the EPA cannot find that the MVEBs included with this
plan meet the specific requirement in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)

that the budgets, when considered together with all other emissions
sources, be consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable
further progress, attainment, or maintenance. Therefore, we cannot find
these MVEBs adequate for conformity purposes or approve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 2015 Supplement, Attachment C, at Table C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2), in a nonattainment area that has no SIP-
approved or adequate MVEBs but does have approved or adequate MVEBs in
an approved SIP or SIP submission for another NAAQS of the same
pollutant, conformity determinations must satisfy the budget test as
required by Sec.  93.118 using the approved or adequate MVEBs for that
other NAAQS. The South Coast air basin has no SIP-approved or adequate
MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS but does have approved MVEBs
in an approved SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which is
another NAAQS of the same pollutant (PM2.5). Therefore,
until the EPA finds that a MVEB in a submitted control strategy SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, conformity determinations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area must satisfy the budget
test as required by Sec.  93.118 using the approved MVEBs for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Upon the effective date of the EPA's finding
that a MVEB in a submitted control strategy SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for transportation conformity
purposes, or upon the publication date of the EPA's approval of such a
budget in the Federal Register, conformity determinations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area will have to satisfy the
budget test in Sec.  93.118 using such approved MVEBs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement
do not contain a control strategy that satisfies the requirements for
RFP, attainment, or maintenance, the EPA cannot find that the MVEBs
included in the Plan are adequate for conformity purposes and cannot
approve these budgets. Accordingly, we are taking no action on the 2015
MVEBs included in the Plan. Because the South Coast air basin has no
SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS but
does have approved MVEBs in an approved SIP for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, conformity determinations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area must satisfy the budget
test as required by Sec.  93.118 using the approved MVEBs for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, until the EPA finds that a MVEB in a submitted
control strategy SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate
for transportation conformity purposes in the South Coast air basin.
    The EPA recently approved an updated version of the California
EMFAC model (EMFAC2014) for use in SIP development and transportation
conformity in California.\35\ Upon conclusion of the two-year grace
period on December 14, 2017, EMFAC2014 will become the only approved
motor vehicle emissions model for all new PM2.5 regional and
hot-spot transportation conformity analyses across California.\36\
Although CARB has until August 14, 2017 to submit a Serious area plan
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area,\37\ we
encourage the State to submit this plan and revised MVEBs using
EMFAC2014 before that date to ensure that conformity analyses for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast air basin use the latest
emission estimation model available consistent with the requirements of
40 CFR 93.111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
    \36\ Id. at 77339.
    \37\ 81 FR 1514 at 1520 (January 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Comments

    Comment 4. We received three comments from Harvey Eder on behalf of
the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC). The commenter states his
intent to incorporate by reference material submitted to the EPA on
behalf of PSPC in several prior EPA rulemaking actions, EPA and
presidential statements concerning solar power, and several unspecified
magazine and newspaper articles, but does not identify the purpose for
which he intends to incorporate these materials by reference. The
commenter suggests that EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) and
Alternative Control Techniques documents (ACTs) ``do not exist'' and
that these would need to be developed ``before[] solar can be used as
RACT/RACM.'' The commenter asserts that NOX is a precursor
to both PM10 and PM2.5 as well as fine and ultra-
fine particulates.
    Additionally, the commenter asserts that it is reasonable to
include solar power as a NOX control measure, and that the
South Coast area needs a ``100% ITSC Immediate Total Solar Conversion
Plan by 2020-2023.''
    Response 4: These comments fail to identify any specific issue that
is germane to the EPA's proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5
Plan and 2015 Supplement. To the extent the commenter intended to
encourage additional evaluation of potential solar power installations
that may reduce pollution in the South Coast area, the EPA encourages
the commenter to participate in the regulatory processes carried out by
the SCAQMD, CARB, and other State/local agencies involved in the
development of air quality management plans in the South Coast. The EPA
finds no basis in these comments to change its proposed action on the
Plan.
    With respect to the commenter's request to incorporate material by
reference, the EPA generally will not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file-sharing system). For the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve and disapprove SIP
revisions submitted by the State of California to address attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area. These SIP revisions are the 2012 p.m.2.5
Plan, submitted February 13, 2013, and the 2015 Supplement, submitted
March 4, 2015.
    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the following
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement:
    1. The 2008 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    2. the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii);
    3. SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and
measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the
2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in Attachment F to
the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the emissions reductions shown therein,
and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of
adoption for transmittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated
on pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 12-19 and modified by
SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-3, excluding all commitments
pertaining to control measure IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect
Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities); and
    4. the general conformity budgets for years 2013-2030 listed in
Appendix III, p. III-2-53 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as

meeting the requirements of the CAA and the general conformity rule.
    Simultaneously, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is
disapproving the following elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
and 2015 Supplement:
    1. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration for failure to meet the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); and
    2. the reasonable further progress demonstration for failure to
meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2).
    As a result of this disapproval, the offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) will apply in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment
area 18 months after the effective date of this action and the highway
funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area 6
months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will
apply if California submits and the EPA approves, prior to the
implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the
deficiencies identified in this final action. Additionally, this
disapproval action triggers an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a
federal implementation plan unless California corrects the
deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan revisions, within
two years of this final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://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 section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 13, 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 15, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    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)(439)(ii)(B)(5)
and (c)(471) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (439) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (5) The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management
Plan (December 2012): PM2.5-related portions of chapter 4
(``Control Strategy and Implementation''); Appendix III (``Base and
Future Year Emissions Inventory''); Appendix IV-A (``District's
Stationary Source Control Measures''); and Appendix V (``Modeling and
Attainment Demonstrations''). SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and
implement specific rules and measures in accordance with the schedule
provided in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by
Table F-1 in Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the
emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these rules and
measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a
revision to the SIP, as stated on pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board
Resolution 12-19 and modified by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-
3, excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure IND-01
(Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and
Port-Related Facilities).
* * * * *
    (471) The following plan was submitted on March 4, 2015, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) ``2015 Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin'' (February 2015),
excluding Attachment C (``New Transportation Conformity Budgets for
2015''). SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and
measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the
2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in Attachment F to
the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the emissions reductions shown therein,
and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of
adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on
pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 12-19 and modified by
SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-3, excluding all commitments
pertaining to control measure IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect
Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities).
    (2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 15-3, dated February 6,
2015.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Resolution 15-2, dated February 19, 2015, ``Minor Revision
to the South Coast Air Basin 2012 PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan.''

0
3. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.237  Part D disapproval.

    (a) * * *
    (7) The PM2.5-related portions of Appendix VI
(``Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration'') of the
Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012), and Attachment
D (``Updated RACM/RACT Analysis'') to the 2015 Supplement to the 24-
Hour PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin (January 2015).

[FR Doc. 2016-08039 Filed 4-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 61146-61147]
[DOCID:fr23no09-55]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0401; FRL-8983-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1969.04, OMB Control
Number 2060-0533

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 23,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0401, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information

Center, mail code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0401, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov and in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1969.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0533.
    ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on December 31, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF were proposed on April 4, 2002, and promulgated on
November 10, 2003. These regulations apply to new and existing
facilities that manufacture a miscellaneous organic chemical and are
located at, or are part of, major sources of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions. New facilities include those that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This
information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFF.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. Semiannual reports are also
required.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at
least five years following the collection of such measurements,
maintenance reports, and records.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, as
authorized in sections 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that has been determined to be private.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information estimated to average 254 hour
per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 257.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 416,830.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $41,436,793, which includes
$35,303,884 in labor costs, $670,256 capital/startup costs and
$5,462,653 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR as compared to the previous one. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or
nonexistent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.
Some insignificant reporting errors were corrected in this ICR.

    Dated: November 16, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-28055 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18143]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-33]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0045; FRL-9124-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from operations associated
with graphic arts coating, can coating, degreasing, and wood products
coating. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0045], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: SMAQMD Rule 450 Graphic Arts, SMAQMD Rule 452 Can Coating,
SMAQMD Rule 454 Degreasing Operations, and SMAQMD Rule 463 Wood
Products Coating. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not
controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish
a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments
in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: February 5, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-8001 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 51253-51255]
[DOCID:fr06se07-90]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020]

Standard on Manlifts; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
its Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0020, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0020). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard specifies two paperwork requirements. The following
sections describe who uses the information collected under each
requirement as well as how they use it. The purpose of the requirements
is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring
that manlifts are in safe operating condition.
    Periodic Inspections and Records (paragraph (e)). This provision
requires that each manlift be inspected at least once every 30 days.
The manlift inspection is to cover at least the following items: Steps;
step fastenings; rails; rail supports and fastenings; rollers and
slides; belt and belt tension; handholds and fastenings; floor
landings; guardrails; lubrication; limit switches; warning signs and
lights; illumination; drive pulley; bottom (boot) pulley and clearance;
pulley supports; motor; driving mechanism; brake; electrical switches;
vibration and misalignment; and any ``skip'' on the up or down run when
mounting a step (indicating worn gears). A certification record of the
inspection must be made upon completion of the inspection. The record
must contain the date of the inspection, the signature of the person
who performed the inspection, and the serial number or other identifier
of the inspected manlift.
    Disclosure of Inspection Certification Records. Employers are to
maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA
compliance officers. This record provides assurance to employers,
employees, and compliance officers that manlifts were inspected as
required by the Standard. The inspections are made to keep equipment in
safe operating condition, thereby preventing manlift failure while
carrying employees to elevated worksites. These records also provide
the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that
an employer is complying with the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR
1910.68(e)). The Agency is requesting to retain its current burden hour
total of 37,801 associated with this Standard. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)).
    OMB Number: 1218-0226.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Frequency: On occasion; Monthly.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) for an
employer to disclose the inspection certification record to 1 hour to
inspect a manlift.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 37,801.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0020). You
may supplement electronic

submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to
mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile
submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the
section of this notice titled ``Addresses''). The additional materials
must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and
the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 21, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-17569 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P