[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19492-19495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07668]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048; FRL-9943-78-Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the
State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley,
California ozone nonattainment area and to meet other Clean Air Act
requirements. Specifically, with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard,
the EPA is taking final action to find the emissions inventories to be
acceptable and to approve the reasonably available control measures
demonstration, the rate of progress demonstrations, the attainment
demonstration, contingency measures for failure to meet rate of
progress milestones, the provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels
for boilers, and the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient
transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions
increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking final action to approve the
demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control
strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases
in motor vehicle activity.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are 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 at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material,
large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information or ``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: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-
3963, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2140), the EPA proposed, under section
110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), to approve a revision
to the California state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) on December 20, 2013. The SIP
submittal consists of the San Joaquin Valley's ``2013 Plan for the
Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2013 Ozone Plan'') and related
documentation.\1\ More specifically, we proposed to approve all of the
elements contained in the 2013 Ozone Plan, with the exception of the
attainment contingency provisions for which the EPA is deferring
action, based on the documentation contained in or submitted with the
plan itself and supplemental documentation provided by CARB on June 19,
2014 related to the vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. The 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour
period (``1-hour ozone standard''). See 40 CFR 50.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in more detail in our proposed rule, the 2013 Ozone
Plan was prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUACPD or ``District'') and CARB in response to the
EPA's regulatory responses to two specific court decisions issued by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit''),\2\ one of which
remanded to the EPA the approval of the previous San Joaquin Valley 1-
hour ozone plan. Although the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard has been revoked, certain SIP requirements that had applied to
1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, at
the time of revocation continue to apply under ``anti-backsliding''
regulations that the EPA promulgated to govern the transition from the
1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The two cases are Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.
2012)(Remand of the EPA's approval of previous San Joaquin Valley 1-
hour ozone plan)(``Sierra Club''); and Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d. 584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011),
reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further
amended February 13, 2012 (Remand of the EPA's approval of the
state's VMT emissions offset demonstration for the South
Coast)(``Association of Irritated Residents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we also discussed the implications on our
action on the 2013 Ozone Plan of a third Ninth Circuit decision,
Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.
2015)(``Committee for a Better Arvin''), and indicated that, in
response to the decision in Committee for a Better Arvin, the EPA had
proposed in a separate rulemaking (i.e., 80 FR 69915 (November 12,
2015)) to approve (as a revision to the California SIP) a number of
CARB mobile source regulations for which the EPA has issued waivers or
authorizations under CAA section 209 (referred to herein as ``waiver
measures.'') See our January 15, 2016 proposed rule at 81 FR 2141-2144.
[[Page 19493]]
In our January 15, 2016 proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP
elements contained in the 2013 Ozone Plan (except for the attainment
contingency provisions), and evaluated them for compliance with
statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they meet all
applicable requirements. More specifically, we determined that:
The 2007 base year emission inventory in the 2013 Ozone
Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current and that this inventory as
well as the 2013, 2016, and 2017 projected inventories have been
prepared consistent with EPA guidance and provide an appropriate basis
for the various other elements of the 2013 Ozone Plan, including the
reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration, and the
Rate-of-Progress (ROP) and attainment demonstrations (see 81 FR 2144-
2145 from the proposed rule);
There are no additional RACM that would advance attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley to 2016, and
thus the 2013 Ozone Plan provides for the implementation of all RACM as
required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(17) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2145-2148 from
the proposed rule);
The ROP demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR
51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81
FR 2148-2149 from the proposed rule);
The air quality modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan is
adequate to support the attainment demonstration and that the plan's
demonstration of attainment by November 26, 2017 meets the requirements
of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(12) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2149-2153 from
the proposed rule);
The 2013 Ozone Plan provides sufficient excess reductions
of NOX in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet
the next ROP percent reduction requirement to provide the 3 percent of
adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the ROP
contingency measure requirement for 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017 and
thereby meets the ROP contingency measure requirements in CAA section
182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13) for the 1-hour
ozone standard (see 81 FR 2153-2154 from the proposed rule);
Through EPA-approved District rules 2201, 4306, and 4352,
the 2013 Ozone Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced control
technology for boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR
40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6) for the 1-hour ozone standard
(see 81 FR 2154 from the proposed rule); and
The 2013 Ozone Plan (particularly, appendix D and the
related technical supplement submitted by CARB on June 19, 2014)
demonstrates that the State has adopted sufficient transportation
control strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to
offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in
the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards and thereby complies with the VMT emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(10) for those standards (see 81 FR 2154-2158 from the
proposed rule).
Lastly, we indicated in our proposed rule that, given that the 2013
Ozone Plan is based in part on the permanence and enforceability of the
waiver measures, the EPA would not finalize approval of the 2013 Ozone
Plan until the Agency takes final action to approve the waiver measures
as part of the California SIP. The comment period for our proposed
approval of the waiver measures SIP revision has closed, but the Agency
has yet to issue a final rule. However, given that the statutory
deadline for final action by the EPA on CARB's December 20, 2013
submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan has passed and given that we expect
that the EPA will take final action on the waiver measures SIP revision
in the near term, we believe that taking action on the 2013 Ozone Plan
at this time is reasonable and appropriate. If, however, final action
on the waiver measures SIP revision is delayed beyond the near term, we
will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the
2013 Ozone Plan is fully supportable or we will reconsider this action
in light of changed circumstances.
Please see our January 15, 2016 proposed rule and the related
Technical Support Document for more information concerning the
background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the
rationale for approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan.
II. Public Comments
Our January 15, 2016 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period, which closed on February 16, 2016. We received no comments on
our proposal during this period.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in the January 15, 2016 proposed rule and
summarized above, the EPA is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3),
CARB's submittal dated December 20, 2013 of the San Joaquin Valley 2013
Ozone Plan as a revision to the California SIP.\3\ In so doing, the EPA
is approving the following elements of the plan as meeting the
specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In withdrawing our approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan,
as revised and clarified, in the wake of the remand in the Sierra
Club case, 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012), we inadvertently failed
to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which codified our March 8, 2010
final approval of the ``2008 Clarifications'' for the 2004 San
Joaquin Valley (1-hour ozone) plan. In this final action, we are
correcting this error by removing paragraph (c)(371) from the
``Identification of Plan'' section of 40 CFR part 52 for the State
of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17);
ROP demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(4);
Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12);
ROP contingency measures as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and
Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).
The EPA is also approving the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the
specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard and the
revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
VMT emissions offset demonstrations as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(10).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves a state plan as meeting Federal requirements and
does not
[[Page 19494]]
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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 CAA; 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).
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1-hour ozone and 1997
8-hours ozone standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of
California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California,
the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune
Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria
of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California,
the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule
River Reservation.
The EPA's approval of the various SIP elements submitted by CARB to
address the 1-hour ozone standard and 1997 8-hours ozone standard in
the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications 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. In those areas of Indian country, the SIP
approvals do 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).
Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the action will not have tribal
implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and will not
impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor will it preempt
Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin
Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 25, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
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:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(371); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(470) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(371) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(470) The following plan was submitted on December 20, 2013 by the
Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated June 19, 2014, providing
supplemental information related to Appendix D (``VMT Emissions Offset
Demonstration'') of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-
Hour Ozone Standard, excluding EMFAC2011 output files.
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, adopted by the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on September
19, 2013 and approved by the California Air Resources Board on November
21, 2013,
[[Page 19495]]
excluding section 4.4 (``Contingency Reductions'').
[FR Doc. 2016-07668 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P