technology for boilers in CAA section 182(e)(3). We find that the
emission limitations in the District's rules continue to meet the clean
fuel or advanced control technology for boilers requirement in CAA
section 182(e)(3), and thus, we propose to approve the Clean Fuels for
Boilers portion of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's
regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from

existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') contained
in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally established for
specific years and specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone plans
should identify budgets for on-road emissions of ozone precursors
(NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP milestone year and
the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates attainment.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See 40 CFR 93.12(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must
meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and (5)) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. To
meet these requirements, the MVEBs must be consistent with the
approvable attainment and RFP demonstrations and reflect all of the
motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP
demonstrations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the
MVEB during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of
adequacy or inadequacy.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ozone Plan includes budgets for the 2018, 2021, 2024,
2027, and 2030 RFP milestone years, and the 2031 attainment year. The
budgets were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB's latest approved version
of the EMFAC model for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles
operating in California, and reflect average summer weekday emissions
consistent with the RFP milestone years and the 2031 attainment year
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\111\ The conformity budgets for
NOX and VOC for each county in the nonattainment area are
provided in table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014 model
for use in SIP development and transportation conformity in
California on December 14, 2015 (80 FR 77337). The EPA's approval of
the EMFAC2014 emissions model for SIP and conformity purposes was
effective on the date of publication of the notice in the Federal
Register.

                                                         Table 4--Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018             2021             2024             2027             2030             2031
                      County                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................     8.0     27.7     6.4     22.2     5.4     14.1     4.9     13.2     4.5     12.6     4.3     12.5
Kern (SJV)........................................     6.6     25.4     5.5     20.4     4.8     12.6     4.5     11.7     4.2     10.9     4.1     10.8
Kings.............................................     1.3      5.1     1.1      4.2     0.9      2.6     0.9      2.5     0.8      2.3     0.8      2.3
Madera............................................     1.9      5.1     1.5      4.1     1.2      2.6     1.1      2.3     0.9      2.0     0.9      2.0
Merced............................................     2.5      9.4     2.0      7.8     1.6      4.8     1.5      4.4     1.3      4.2     1.3      4.1
San Joaquin.......................................     5.9     13.0     4.9     10.3     4.2      6.9     3.8      6.2     3.5      5.7     3.3      5.5
Stanislaus........................................     3.8     10.5     3.0      8.3     2.6      5.6     2.3      5.1     2.1      4.7     2.0      4.7
Tulare............................................     3.7      9.5     2.9      7.2     2.4      4.7     2.2      4.1     1.9      3.8     1.9      3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tables D-4 through D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As discussed above, the MVEBs for 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027 and 2030
derive from the RFP baseline year and the associated RFP milestone
years. As such, the budgets are affected by the South Coast decision,
and therefore, the EPA is not taking action at this time on the budgets
for these years. We plan to propose action for these MVEBs in a future
rulemaking. However, in today's notice we are proposing to approve the
budgets for the 2031 attainment year for transportation conformity
purposes.
    The EPA has previously determined that the 2031 budgets in 2016
Ozone Plan are adequate for use for transportation conformity purposes.
On February 23, 2017, the EPA announced the availability of the 2016
Ozone Plan and budgets, which were available for a 30-day public
comment period that ended on March 27, 2017.\112\ The EPA received no
comments from the public. On June 13, 2017, the EPA determined the
2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2030 and 2031 MVEBs were adequate.\113\ On June
29, 2017, the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal
Register.\114\ The new budgets became effective on July 14, 2017. After
the effective date of the adequacy finding, the new budgets must be
used in future transportation conformity determinations in the San
Joaquin Valley area. The EPA is not required under its transportation
conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of
them, but in this instance, we have completed the adequacy review of
these budgets prior to our final action on the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
    \113\ See June 13, 2017 letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB.
    \114\ See 82 FR 29547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's notice, the EPA is proposing to approve only the 2031
budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for transportation conformity purposes.
The EPA has determined through its review of the submitted 2016 Ozone
Plan that the 2031 budgets are consistent with emission control
measures in the SIP and attainment in 2031 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. For the reasons discussed in section III.D of this proposed
rule, we are proposing to approve the attainment demonstration in the
2016 Ozone Plan. The 2031 budgets, as given in table 5, are consistent
with the attainment demonstration, are clearly identified and precisely
quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, including the adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the budgets in table 5.

Table 5--2031 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for
                                  2031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         County                            VOC     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.................................................     4.3     12.5
Kern (SJV).............................................     4.1     10.8
Kings..................................................     0.8      2.3
Madera.................................................     0.9      2.0
Merced.................................................     1.3      4.1
San Joaquin............................................     3.3      5.5
Stanislaus.............................................     2.0      4.7
Tulare.................................................     1.9      3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.

    CARB has requested that we limit the duration of our approval of
the budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\115\ The transportation
conformity rule allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\116\
However, we will consider a state's request to limit an approval of its
MVEB only if the request includes the following elements: \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, August 24, 2016.
    \116\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
    \117\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
    Because CARB's request does not include a commitment to update the
budgets or an explanation of why the budgets have become outdated or
deficient, we cannot at this time propose to limit the duration of our
approval of the submitted budgets until new budgets have been found
adequate. In order to limit the approval, we would need the information
described above to determine whether such limitation is reasonable and
appropriate in this case. Once CARB has adequately addressed that
information, we intend to review it and take appropriate action. If we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the 2016
Ozone Plan, we will provide the public an opportunity to comment. The
duration of the approval of the budgets, however, would not be limited
until we complete such a rulemaking.

J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas

    In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D
of the CAA includes other provisions applicable to Extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We describe these
provisions and their current status below for informational purposes
only.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to
implement an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in those areas. The
requirements for those programs are provided in CAA section 182(c)(3)
and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
    Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, the 2016 Ozone Plan states that
no new I/M programs are currently required for nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone standards.\118\ The EPA has previously approved
California's I/M program in the San Joaquin Valley as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA regulations for enhanced I/M
programs.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12283 (March 6, 2015),
and section 3.6 of Chapter 3 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
    \119\ See 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program
    In accordance with CAA section 211, the federal reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program requires certain areas to use gasoline that has
been reformulated to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. As an
Extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the San
Joaquin Valley was included in the federal RFG program.\120\ As a
nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, the San
Joaquin Valley continues to be included in the program.\121\ California
also has its own RFG program (i.e., California Phase III RFG, or
CaRFG3), which applies within the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA approved
CaRFG3 into the SIP on May 12, 2010.\122\ In our action proposing
approval of CaRFG3, we noted that the EPA had previously determined
that emissions reductions from CaRFG3 would be equal to or greater than
the emissions reductions from the corresponding federal RFG
program.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).
    \121\ See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685 (November 29,
2005).
    \122\ See 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
    \123\ See 74 FR 33196, at 33198 (July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New Source Review Rules
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop SIP
revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary
source for VOC and NOX anywhere in the nonattainment
area.\124\ The 2008 Ozone SRR includes provisions and guidance for
nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs.\125\ The EPA has
previously approved the District's NSR rules into the SIP based in part
on a conclusion that the rules adequately addressed the NSR
requirements specific to extreme areas.\126\ On June 19, 2018, CARB
submitted on behalf of the District a certification that the NSR
program previously approved into the SIP is adequate to meet the
requirements for the 2008 ozone standards.\127\ The EPA is proposing to
approve the District's NSR certification in a separate rulemaking.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See also CAA sections 182(e).
    \125\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \126\ See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).
    \127\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
June 19, 2018.
    \128\ See EPA, ``Revisions to California State Implementation
Plan; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' pre-publication final rule signed
August 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
    Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to
submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP measures to implement a
Clean Fuels Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows
states to opt-out of the federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by
submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will
result in at least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors
and toxic air emissions.
    In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt-out of the
federal clean-fuel fleet program, and included a demonstration that
California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved emissions
reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the federal
program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt-out of the federal

program on August 27, 1999.\129\ There have been no changes to the
federal Clean Fuels Fleet program since the EPA approved the California
SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, and thus, no
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Thus, we find that the
California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, as approved
in 1999, meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246
for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP
revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13514 (April 16,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202(a)(6) requires the EPA to promulgate standards
requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first set of ORVR
system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on vehicle
manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new gasoline-
powered light and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.\131\ Section
202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the SIP requirement under
CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage II vapor recovery
systems after such time as the EPA determines that ORVR systems are in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Effective May 16,
2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section 182(b)(3) for Stage
II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification. See 40 CFR 51.126(b). Thus, a SIP submittal meeting CAA
section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required
for the 2008 ozone standards, under California State law (i.e., Health
and Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures
and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from
gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and storage
operations. State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local
air districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective
equipment and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous
revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations and continues to
rely on its vapor recovery program to achieve emissions reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas in California.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See e.g., Chapter 5, table 5-4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-
certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by District
Rules 4621 (``Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers,
Delivery Vessels and Bulk Plants'') and 4622 (``Gasoline Transfer into
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks''). The most recent versions of Rules 4621 and
4622, amended on December 19, 2013, have been approved into the
California SIP.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 80 FR 7345 (February 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
    Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX,
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and
VOC. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network. The EPA
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in
California, including the San Joaquin Valley, to meet the enhanced
monitoring requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The EPA determined
that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements for enhanced
monitoring and the EPA PAMS regulations and approved the PAMS submittal
into the California SIP.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses compliance with the EPA's enhanced
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58, and concludes that, based on
the EPA's approval of the District's air monitoring network plan, the
San Joaquin Valley meets all federal ambient monitoring
requirements.\136\ Chapter 4 (section 4.2.2) of the 2016 Ozone Plan
describes the San Joaquin Valley's PAMS network. The District's PAMS
network is composed of two smaller networks located in the Fresno and
Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Each network in the
MSA consists of three PAMS sites. The District's July 2017 Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Network Plan (ANP) also provides more detail about
the PAMS network.\137\ The EPA has approved the District's PAMS network
as part of our annual approval of the District's ANP.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See section 3.12 (Ambient Monitoring Requirements) of the
2016 Ozone Plan.
    \137\ See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2017
Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 28, 2017).
    \138\ See letter from Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX to Sheraz
Gill, SJVAPCD, dated October 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan reports that the Arvin-Bear Mountain PAMS
monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA was closed in 2010, and would
resume once a permanent air monitoring site in the area was
established. The closed monitoring site at Arvin-Bear Mountain was
relocated to a new site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school.
CARB's staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan includes, for approval by
the EPA, provisions to address ambient ozone monitoring in the
Bakersfield MSA.\139\ The EPA approved the relocation of the monitoring
site and approved into the SIP these provisions of the 2016 Ozone Plan
for ozone monitoring in Bakersfield.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See section V-H of the ARB Review of the San Joaquin
Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, July 21, 2016.
    \140\ See 82 FR 47145 (October 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\141\ Under
revised 40 CFR part 58 SIP revisions are no longer required; rather,
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\142\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\143\ As such, based on our
review and approval of the most recent ANP for San Joaquin Valley, we
find that the 2016 Ozone Plan adequately addresses the enhanced
monitoring requirements under CAA section 182(c)(1), and we propose to
approve that portion of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
    \142\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides: The requirements pertaining
to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in the SIP are
contained in this part.
    \143\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at
80 FR 12264, at 12291, (March 6, 2015).

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

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
    Section 185 of the CAA requires that the SIP for each Severe and
Extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area fails to
attain by its applicable attainment date, each major stationary source
of VOC and NOX located in the area shall pay a fee to the
state as a penalty for such failure for each calendar year beginning
after the attainment date, until the area is redesignated as an
attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to submit a SIP
revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 185 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See 40 CFR 51.1117. For San Joaquin Valley, a section 185
SIP revision for the 2008 ozone standards will be due on July 20,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Commitments To Reduce Emissions

    The 2016 Ozone Plan relies on control measures, such as state and
district rules and regulations, that have been adopted and are being
implemented to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2031.
However, in the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District also notes that newer
NAAQS, e.g., the ozone NAAQS established in 2015, would require the
development and submission of new plans with additional emissions
reductions. In anticipation of these future requirements, the District
included in the 2016 Ozone Plan commitments to amend two existing
measures for flares and wine fermentation and storage tanks.\145\ As
summarized in table 6, the District committed to implement emission
reduction technologies to the extent those controls are technologically
achievable and economically feasible; therefore, any emissions
reductions resulting from these evaluations, to the extent those
evaluations have not yet been completed, are uncertain. Because of this
uncertainty, and because these amended measures are not required to
meet RACM or other plan requirements, the District did not project
emissions reductions or implementation dates for these amended
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See Chapter 5, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone
Plan.

                             Table 6--District Committal Measures in 2016 Ozone Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule                Rule title            District commitment                     Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4311................  Flares................  1. Amend Rule 4311 to        By December 31, 2017.
                                               include additional ultra-
                                               low NOX flare emissions
                                               limitations for existing
                                               and new flaring activities
                                               to the extent that such
                                               controls are
                                               technologically achievable
                                               and economically feasible.
                                              2. Amend Rule 4311 to
                                               include additional flare
                                               minimization requirements
                                               to the extent such
                                               controls are
                                               technologically achievable
                                               and economically feasible.
4694................  Wine Fermentation and   1. Evaluate the              By December 31, 2018.
                       Storage Tanks.          technological
                                               achievability and economic
                                               feasibility of
                                               implementing emissions
                                               control technologies to
                                               reduce VOC emissions and
                                               potential benefits to help
                                               reduce ozone
                                               concentrations.
                                              2. Upon completion of (1),
                                               amend Rule 4694 to include
                                               additional requirements to
                                               further reduce emissions
                                               from wine fermentation as
                                               appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-3 and sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.

    The District has committed to amend Rule 4311 for flares and Rule
4694 for wine fermentation and storage tanks to include additional
requirements to reduce emissions to the extent those controls are
technologically achievable or economically feasible; however, these
commitments were made in the context of attainment of future ozone and
PM2.5 standards. Although these commitments are not needed
to meet any requirements for the 2008 ozone standards, the EPA is
proposing to approve the commitments described in table 6 above, to
further strengthen the San Joaquin Valley's portion of the California
SIP.
    The 2016 Ozone Plan references additional reductions anticipated
from CARB's mobile source state strategy, a draft of which was released
in October 2015.\146\ The State Strategy was adopted by CARB in 2017,
and in its resolution adopting the 2016 State Strategy, CARB adopted a
commitment to bring to the Board for consideration a list of regulatory
measures included as Attachment A to the resolution of adoption (i.e.,
Resolution 17-7), according to the schedule set forth in Attachment A,
and a commitment to achieve an aggregate emission reduction of 8 tpd of
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley by 2031 to accelerate progress
toward the 2008 ozone standards.\147\ The 2016 State Strategy
anticipates reducing emissions to meet the aggregate commitment through
such measures as new California low-NOX standards for on-
road heavy-duty engines and more stringent diesel fuel requirements for
off-road equipment.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.
    \147\ See page 7, CARB Resolution 17-7, March 23, 2017.
    \148\ See table 5 (on page 34) of the 2016 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the attainment demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan
relies on adopted measures, rather than committal measures. Thus,
CARB's regulatory initiative commitment and aggregate emission
reduction commitment for San Joaquin Valley are not needed as part of
the control strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley.
However, the commitments by CARB for San Joaquin Valley in the 2016
State Strategy will strengthen the SIP by providing emissions
reductions that supplement the reductions from the adopted controls;
therefore, we are proposing to approve the San Joaquin Valley portions
of the 2016 State Strategy into the SIP.

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the
EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the California SIP the
following portions of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan \149\
submitted by CARB on August 24, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ As noted previously, the EPA has already approved the
portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan (section 3.4 (``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration'') and Appendix C
(``Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations'')) that
relate to the RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40
CFR 51.1112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);
     ROP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(b)(1);
     Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     Enhanced monitoring as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
     Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs as
meeting the

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
     Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1102;
     VMT emissions offset demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102; and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of
2031 (see table 5, above) because they are consistent with the
attainment demonstration proposed for approval herein and meet the
other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    In addition, we are proposing to approve District Rule 1160 titled
``Emission Statements'' submitted by CARB on January 11, 1993, as a
revision to the California SIP because it meets all the applicable
requirements for emission statements and to approve the Emission
Statement section of the 2016 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102.
    Finally, we are proposing to approve, as additional measures that
strengthen the SIP, the San Joaquin Valley portions of the 2016 State
Strategy and CARB's aggregate emission reduction commitment of 8 tpd of
NOX by 2031 submitted on April 27, 2017, as a revision to
the California SIP and the two commitments by the District in the 2016
Ozone Plan to amend Rules 4311 (Flares) and 4694 (Wine Fermentation and
Storage).
    We are not taking action at this time on the base year emissions
inventory, the RFP demonstration, the motor vehicle emissions budgets
for RFP milestone years, and contingency measures portions of the 2016
Ozone Plan. We intend to propose action on these elements at a later
time.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final
action.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference District Rule 1160 as described in section III.B of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
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).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans and an air district rule as meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 20, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-19017 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5615-5616]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-775-000]

All American Power and Gas, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
All American Power and Gas, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 22, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02528 Filed 2-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5619-5620]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP18-37-000; CP18-38-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC Sierrita Compressor Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Sierrita Compressor Expansion
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Sierrita
Gas Pipeline LLC (Sierrita) in Pima County, Arizona. The Commission
will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether
the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 5, 2018.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on December 21, 2017, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP18-37-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Sierrita provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow
these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
eRegister. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please
select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-37-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Sierrita proposes to construct and operate new natural gas
compression, metering, and pipeline facilities on its existing Line No.
2177 in Pima County, Arizona. Sierrita is also requesting approval to
amend its existing Natural Gas Act Section 3 authorization and
Presidential Permit for the project's increased capacity. Specifically,
the project would increase Sierrita's authorized capacity of its
existing international border crossing near Sasabe, Arizona from
approximately 200,846 Dekatherms per day to 631,389 Dekatherms per day
(627,000,000 cubic feet per day).
    The Sierrita Compressor Expansion Project would consist of the
following facilities, all in Pima County:
     One new 15,900 horsepower compressor station (Sierrita
Compressor Station);
     suction and discharge piping and various station yard
auxiliary facilities to connect the Sierrita Compressor Station with
Line No. 2177;
     one new 10-inch Ultrasonic meter at the existing San
Joaquin Meter Station on Line No. 2177; and
     the relocation of the existing ``Mainline Valve 2'' and an
associated inspection tool launcher and receiver from milepost 1.2 to
milepost 6.5 on Line No. 2177.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 18.7
acres of land for the aboveground and auxiliary facilities. Following
construction, Sierrita would maintain about 15.7 acres for permanent
operation of the compressor station including station piping and
auxiliary facilities, and about 1.1 acres for operation of the mainline
valve. The remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former
uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This

process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process
is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental
issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed
comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We, us, and our refer to the environmental staff of the
Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources (including floodplains), fisheries, and
wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     socioeconomics;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the Document-
less Intervention Guide under the e-filing link on the Commission's
website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP18-
37). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02527 Filed 2-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44273-44275]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0545]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Great South Bay, Brightwaters, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation of certain navigable waters of Great South Bay, from Gilbert
Park, Brightwaters, NY to Fire Island Lighthouse, NY for the Maggie
Fischer Memorial Cross Bay Swim event. This action is necessary to
provide the safety of life on these navigable waters during the swim
event on Thursday, August 12, 2021. This rulemaking will prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on
Thursday, August 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0545 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Chris Gibson, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Long Island Sound
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. We must establish the temporary special local
regulation by August 12, 2021 and insufficient time exists to execute
the full NPRM process. Further, the expeditious implementation of this
rule is in the public interest because it will help ensure the safety
of those involved in the swim event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because the temporary special local regulation must be established on
August 12, 2021 to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during
the swim event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Long Island
Sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Maggie Fischer Memorial Cross Bay Swim marine event for any persons or
vessels operating within certain waters of the Great South Bay, NY.
This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the special local regulated
area during the Maggie Fischer Memorial Cross Bay Swim marine event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The COTP is establishing a temporary special local regulation to
restrict vessel traffic for the safety of persons and property. The
special local regulation will cover certain navigable waters of Great
South Bay, from Gilbert Park, Brightwaters, NY to Fire Island
Lighthouse, NY, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on August 12, 2021. The
temporary special local regulation will cover Waters of the Great South
Bay, NY, within 100 yards of the race course. Starting Point at the
Fire Island Lighthouse Dock in position at 40[deg]38'01'' N,
073[deg]13'07'' W; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at
40[deg]38'52'' N, 073[deg]13'09'' W; then north-by-northwest to a point
in position at 40[deg]39'40'' N, 073[deg]13'30'' W; then north-by-
northwest to a point in position at 40[deg]40'30'' N, 073[deg]14'00''
W; and then north-by-northwest, finishing at Gilbert Park,
Brightwaters, NY at position 40[deg]42'25'' N, 073[deg]14'52'' W (NAD
83).
    The duration of the regulated area is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters for the duration of the Maggie Fischer Memorial Cross Bay Swim
marine event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
regulated area without obtaining permission from COTP or the designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration and time-of-day of the special local regulation. This rule
involves a special local regulation lasting approximately 4.5 hours and
impacting a limited area of the Great South Bay. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the area. Vessel traffic would also
be able to request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative to enter the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
establishing a temporary special local regulation lasting from 8 a.m.
through 12:30 p.m. on August 12, 2021 that will limit access to the
Great South Bay for the duration of the swim event. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T01-0545 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T01-0545  Special Local Regulation; Maggie Fischer Memorial
Cross Bay Swim, Great South Bay, Brightwaters, NY.

    (a) Regulated Area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: Waters of the Great South Bay, NY, within 100 yards of
the race course. Starting Point at the Fire Island Lighthouse Dock in
position at 40[deg]38'01'' N, 073[deg]13'07'' W; then north-by-
northwest to a point in position at 40[deg]38'52'' N, 073[deg]13'09''
W; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at 40[deg]39'40'' N,
073[deg]13'30'' W; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at
40[deg]40'30'' N, 073[deg]14'00'' W; and then north-by-northwest,
finishing at Gilbert Park, Brightwaters, NY at position 40[deg]42'25''
N, 073[deg]14'52'' W. These coordinates are approximate and are based
on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, Designated Representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Long Island Sound (COTP) in the enforcement of the
regulations in this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP or the Designated Representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the Designated
Representative via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by contacting the Coast
Guard Sector Long Island Sound Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those
in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or the Designated Representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 12:30 p.m. on August 12, 2021.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
S.A. Koch,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Long Island
Sound.
[FR Doc. 2021-17285 Filed 8-10-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83566-83567]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3600-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Louisiana; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3600-EM), dated September
27, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 27, 2023, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Louisiana resulting from seawater intrusion
beginning on September 20, 2023, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures,

authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to
protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or
avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas.
Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program limited to temporary
measures that address reduced water treatment capability due to
saltwater intrusion resulting from low water levels of the
Mississippi River for no more than 90 days from the date of
declaration.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benjamin
Abbott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, and St. Bernard Parishes for
emergency protective measures, including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program limited to temporary measures
that address reduced water treatment capability due to saltwater
intrusion resulting from low water levels of the Mississippi River
for no more than 90 days from the date of declaration.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-26286 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Tobacco Products Processing Wastewater Characterization Sampling Telephone Interview Form Date June 21, 2005 Facility Name RJR Hanmer Division Facility Contacts Bill Murphy Facility Contact Information Tel: 804 751 7806, e mail murphyb@ rjrt. com Interview Questions:

1. Does the facility have process wastewater treatment or pre treatment? The Hanmer site has a 2.1 MGD BNR Activated Sludge Treatment plant Facilities with pre treatment or treatment 2. Briefly describe the treatment processes. Are there aerobic or anaerobic zones, pH adjustments, chemical additions? Process wastewater is pumped to a primary clarifier. Solids are removed along with Waste Activated Sludge and stored in a holding tank for dewatering. Clarifier effluent is mixed with Return Activated Sludge ( RAS) and flows to the Bardenpho BNR process. During the flowing from the clarifier to the Bardenpho, nitrates remaining in the RAS are broken down by the organisms to release the bonded oxygen molecules. Once the wastewater is inside the Bardenpho process, it undergoes 5 zones of treatment for phosphorus and nitrogen reduction. The zones are Anaerobic ( for phosphorus treatment), Anoxic ( for nitrate reduction), Aeration ( for Ammonia to Nitrate reduction, CBOD reduction, and phosphorus uptake), 2ns Anoxic ( for nitrate and CBOD polishing), and Re aeration ( to raise DO levels to prevent phosphorus release) After the re aeration zone there is a rapid mix chamber where ferric chloride is added as needed when phosphorus levels after biological treatment are still above VPDES discharge permit limits. Also a cationic polymer is sometimes used instead of or in addition to ferric chloride to reduce phosphorus levels when suspended solids are higher than normal.

The wastewater then flows to a secondary clarifier. Solids that settle out are pumped back to mix with the primary clarifier effluent or wasted and mix with the primary clarifier solids prior to dewatering. The secondary clarifier effluent flows to a parshall flume where the volume of effluent flow is measured. A compost sampler is located in the flume where flow proportional samples are collected per VPDES discharge permit requirements.

3. What waste streams enter the treatment system? Process wastewater from the reconstituted tobacco process, backwash from the water treatment process and rainwater that flows into two holding ponds are the only waste streams that enter the treatment system.

4. Is the treatment plant outfitted with a single influent, where all plant process waters are combined prior to treatment, or are there multiple influents discharging wastewaters from different plant processes? If multiple influents, what waste streams comprise each influent?

All influent into the treatment process is pumped from a single pump house location. The pump house has the ability to allow excess flow to overflow to a storage pond used for flow equalization. Water is then withdrawn from the pond when needed to maintain treatment plant flows.

5. Describe the influent to treatment wastewater characteristics. Is it viscous, highly aerated, odorous, colored, opaque, acidic or basic, etc.?

Wastewater characteristics prior to treatment: pH is 6.5 to 7.5, Ammonia levels vary from 10 mg/ l to 30 mg/ l., CBOD varies from 700 to 1400 kg/ d, total phosphorus varies from 7 to 30 mg/ l. The water looks similar to a cup of coffee with cream. No foaming, Has slight tobacco odor, and enters treatment system between 20 and 35 degrees C.

6. How is the effluent routed from the treatment system ( through a single stream or multiple streams)? If multiple streams, what comprises each stream?

Effluent from the last stage of treatment ( secondary clarifier) free flows approximately 500 feet through a 15 inch concrete pipe through the parshall flume then over some rocks for final aeration and into a discharge stream approximately 100 feet from entry into the James River. 7. Describe the effluent from treatment wastewater characteristics.

Treated wastewater characteristics: pH is 6.5 to 7.5, Ammonia 0 to 2 mg/ l, Total N 7 to 19 mg/ l ( 15 to 30 kg/ d), Total Phosphorus 1.1 to 1.4 mg/ l ( 2.6 to 4.3 kg/ d), TSS from 14 to 41 kg/ d and CBOD between 9 to 21 kg/ d . The effluent has a tea color tint, no odor and fairly clear to look though as compared to river water.

Facilities without pre treatment or treatment 8. What process wastewaters are discharged from the facility?

9. Describe each process wastewater stream and other waste streams ( e. g., domestic or processing cooling water) that are discharged ( direct or indirect). How are the process wastewaters commingled? What processes or parts of the facility discharge to each waste stream? 10. What are the characteristics of each waste stream? Approximately what percent of the waste stream is process wastewater?

General Sampling Questions 11. Where do you currently collect samples? What is your sample collection methodology ( sample tap on a pipe, automatic sampling machine)?

VPDES required sampling: Daily pH, DO, Weekly CBOD, TSS, Ammonia, Total Phosphorus, and Monthly Total Nitrogen ( TKN+ Nitrate Nitrite + Ammonia+ Nitrogen). Daily samples are grab samples. Weekly and Monthly are 24 hour composites. We also do operational testing based on grab samples for phosphorus, Ammonia, TSS, pH, COD at different times through out each day when we are discharging. Sample pumps have been installed at various stages of the Bardenpho process, primary clarifier and secondary clarifiers for sample collection. Nitrogen samples ( Ammonia, TKN, Total N, Nitrate Nitrite) are sent off to a contract laboratory for analysis. All other testing in done in our on site lab.

12. Briefly describe each sampling point. What waste streams comprise each sampling point. What are the typical flow and wastewater characteristics? Primary Clarifier: pH ( 6.8 to 7.1), COD ( 700 1600 mg/ l), TSS ( 180 300 mg/ l), TP ( 7.5  29 mg/ l), Ammonia ( 12 56 mg/ l)

Anaerobic tank: pH 7.1 7.3, phosphorus 8 56 mg/ l Anoxic pH 7.3 7.6 Re aeration: phosphorus .3   17 mg/ l Secondary Clarifier : COD 125 256 mg/ l, pH:, phosphorus: .17   17 Outfall: DO, pH, TSS, CBOD, COD, Ammonia, Nitrogen,( values listed earlier) 13. Do you collect flow data from any plant process waste streams or from treatment system influents or effluents?

The only flow data collected is through the Parshall flume measuring the effluent to the James River.

14. Do you have sampling points that are only accessible through a manhole? If a pump is needed, what head would the pump need to be able to pull?

No. Hand pumps are lifting the sample about 10 feet to the discharge point.

15. For facilities without treatment, is there a point prior to commingling with any stormwater where we can collect samples? Sampling Logistics 16. How far apart are the sampling locations? If far apart, what is the best means of transporting sampling equipment to and from the sampling locations? ( Sampling equipment would include several coolers with ice and up to 46 sample bottles.)

Sample collection points are several yards apart. We use a pickup truck to drive to sample points. Samples are returned to the lab within the approved sample method times. Or are collected and preserved or placed in a refrigerator for those samples which we do not test here on site.. Samples to outside lab are preserved, refrigerated and transported via cooler to the laboratory for testing. Chain of custody paperwork follows the samples.

17. Can you provide us with a staging area where we can perform sample preservation, field tests, and sample packaging? Where would this staging area be and how much room could you provide? Is it indoors? Air conditioned? Ventilated? Will it be far from the influent and effluent sampling locations?

Our laboratory can provide a staging area and sample preservation area. We have done this many time in the past as part of VA DEQ site inspections.

18. Is your facility interested in collecting split samples? We have done split samples in the past with VA DEQ. We are also participants every year in the EPA DMR QA program. If requested, our site would participate in a split sample study.

Facility Health and Safety Information 19. Does the plant staff want to provide an on site health and safety briefing prior to the start of sampling? A short overview can be provided, but since site personnel will be accompanying your party, it will not be necessary to go into a lot of detail. 20. Will we be escorted to and from the sampling locations? If not, what is the best way for communicating with facility personnel in case of an emergency?

Yes 21. Are there on site emergency medical facilities ( nurses office, EMTs?) If so, where are they located and how can we reach them? What is the name and location of the nearest hospital?

Our site has first responders available in case of an emergency. The guards are trained to call 911. The nearest Hospital is John Randolph Medical Center, Hopewell, VA approximately 5 miles away.

22. Are there general health and safety concerns ( physical, chemical or thermal hazards) associated with the facility? Can you provide us with MSDS's or tell us the location for which these documents can be obtained for chemicals that we have the potential to come into contact with. The only hazard's associated with the wastewater process are exposure to Ferric Chloride and Acetic Acid used for phosphorus reduction and for COD supplement during periods of shutdown twice a year. MSDS information is available via computer in the lab or hard copies can also be made available.

23. What are the sample point specific health and safety concerns?

During summer months snakes ( copperhead, water moccasin and black snake) are present in the discharge area. Agents have been sprayed to kill the grass and weeds in the area to keep the snakes away. The other sampling sites have no specific safety requirements other than safety glasses 24. What are the health and safety concerns associated with the staging areas? Safety glasses or face shield required when adding acid for sample preparation.

25. What PPE is required by your facility, and specifically for the sampling/ site visit areas? Same as detailed above, Safety glasses, safety shield, rubber gloves for handling chemicals for sample testing.

26. Do you require any special identification information for sampling personnel?

Personnel will be accompanied by site employees. Only a visitor badge will be required and that will be issued at the guard station when checking in.

Request for Additional Information  wastewater treatment system diagrams   see attached PPT slides  monitoring data from wastewater treatment plant ( influent and effluent) ( including chemistry and flows) See attached XLS 2005 summary file.  directions to the facility From North   I95 south to Exit 61A ( Hopewell). Go approximately 6 miles East ( will go under I 295). At 1st traffic light after I 295 turn left ( Enon Church Road). There will be an BP Amoco station on your left. Go approximately 1.5 miles on Enon Church Road till you see Brown & Williamson Tobacco sign on you right just before a wooded area. Turn right just in front of the sign. Go straight till fenced gate, and turn left and follow the road to guard station. You can park in front of the building on your right. ( Main Office).