[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22194-22196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08510]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636; FRL-9944-93-Region 9]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted
PM2.5 Moderate Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley; California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the
public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') for the years 2014 and 2017 in the San
Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan, as revised in a
[[Page 22195]]
December 29, 2014 submittal, for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The Moderate Area Plan
was submitted to the EPA on March 4, 2013 by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and includes a demonstration of reasonable
further progress for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CARB submitted a
Supplement to the Moderate Area Plan on November 6, 2014 (``2014
Supplement'') and a revision to the budgets on December 29, 2014. We
refer to these submittals collectively as the ``2012 PM2.5
Plan'' or ``Plan.'' Upon the effective date of this notice of adequacy,
the San Joaquin Valley metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must use these budgets for
future transportation conformity determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective May 2, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air
Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415) 947-4192 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
This action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on April 1, 2016
stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted 2012
PM2.5 Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone years of 2014 and 2017 are adequate.
In response to an October 7, 2014 request by CARB for parallel
processing of the revised budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,\1\
we announced the availability of the revised budgets on the EPA's
adequacy review Web page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm from October 23, 2014 to November 24, 2014. We
received no comments on the budgets during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See letter dated October 7, 2014, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2015, we proposed to approve these budgets as part
of our proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014
Supplement.\2\ We received two comments on the budgets.\3\ We respond
to the first of these two comments below. The second comment concerns
the transportation conformity interpollutant trading mechanism in the
2012 PM2.5 Plan that we proposed to approve for use in
transportation conformity analyses. We will respond to this comment
when we take final action on the interpollutant trading mechanism as
part of our final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014
Supplement. The interpollutant trading mechanism cannot be used until
it is approved as part of the SIP. Therefore, the appropriate venue for
responding to the comment on the trading mechanism is the final rule on
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 80 FR 1816 at 1841 (January 13, 2015).
\3\ See letter dated February 27, 2015, from Paul Cort and
Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office,
EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section
176(c). The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to a SIP and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR 43780 at
43781-43783). We have further described our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR
40004 at 40038), and we used the information in these resources in
making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review
is separate from the EPA's completeness review and should not be used
to prejudge the EPA's ultimate action on the SIP. Even if we find a
budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
Response to Comment
Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA must disapprove the RFP
demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement
because it does not adequately address ammonia emission reductions and,
therefore, does not provide ``such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required . . . for the
purpose of ensuring attainment . . . by the applicable date.''
Earthjustice argues that, because the RFP demonstration is not
approvable, the EPA cannot find that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement are
consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further
progress, as required by 40 CFR 98.118(e)(4)(iv).
Response: On January 13, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve several
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement, which
California submitted to address Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\4\ As part of this
action, the EPA proposed to approve the Plan's RFP demonstration for
2014 and 2017, based on a conclusion that the 2014 and 2017 emissions
projections for direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia
(NH3) reflect full implementation of the State's and
District's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available
Control Technology control strategy, which achieves substantial
reductions in emissions of each of these pollutants over the period
covered by the Plan. Id. at 1835-37. The EPA also proposed to approve
the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2014 and 2017,
based on a conclusion that these MVEBs are consistent with applicable
requirements for reasonable further progress and the other adequacy
requirements. Id. at 1838-41. Finally, in accordance with 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(v), the EPA proposed to find that on-road emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC), SO2, and NH3
are not significant contributors to the PM2.5 nonattainment
problem in the SJV area, and accordingly, that transportation
conformity requirements do not apply for these pollutants in this area.
Id. at 1840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the transportation
conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply with respect
to emissions of VOC, SO2 and/or NH3 if the EPA
Regional Administrator or the director of the state air agency has made
a finding that on-road emissions of any of these precursors within the
nonattainment area are a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and
DOT, or if the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan
submission) establishes an approved (or adequate) budget for such
emissions as part of the reasonable further progress, attainment or
maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v). With respect to VOC,
SO2, and NH3, neither the EPA nor the State has
made a finding that on-road emissions of any of these precursors are
[[Page 22196]]
a significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem
in the SJV area, and neither the approved California SIP nor the
submitted 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement establish
adequate MVEBs for such emissions as part of an RFP, attainment or
maintenance strategy for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, do
not apply with respect to emissions of VOC, SO2 or
NH3 for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.
The provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply with respect to
emissions of NOX because neither the EPA nor the State has
made a finding that on-road emissions of NOX within the SJV
nonattainment are not a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem, and because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
2014 Supplement establish adequate budgets for such emissions as part
of the Plan's RFP strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv). The provisions of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, also apply with respect to emissions of
direct PM2.5 because PM2.5 is a criteria
pollutant identified in 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
In order to find an MVEB in a submitted control strategy
implementation plan revision to be adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA must find, among other things, that the
motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all
other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is
relevant to the given plan). 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). Because the
provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply only with respect to
emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5 for purposes of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, we have evaluated the
submitted NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for
consistency with our adequacy criteria in Sec. 93.118(e)(4). The
commenter's arguments about NH3 emissions are not germane to
our evaluation of the MVEBs under these adequacy criteria.
As explained in our January 13, 2015 proposed rule, the 2014 and
2017 MVEBs for NOX and direct PM2.5 in the 2012
PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement are consistent with the RFP
demonstration with respect to these pollutants in the submitted plan.
We find, therefore, that these MVEBs meet the requirement in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) for consistency with applicable requirements for RFP in
the submitted plan. We note that our adequacy review is a cursory
review of the SIP and MVEBs to ensure that the minimum adequacy
criteria are met before a submitted budget is used in a conformity
determination. This adequacy finding should not be used to prejudge the
EPA's final rulemaking action on the SIP.
In summary, we are announcing our finding that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the years 2014 and 2017 from the 2012
PM2.5 Plan are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. The finding is available at the EPA's conformity Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The
adequate MVEBs are provided in the following table:
Adequate MVEBs in the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards
[Winter daily average in tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2017
County ---------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.......................................... 1.0 31.6 0.9 25.2
Kern (SJV)...................................... 1.2 43.2 1.0 34.4
Kings........................................... 0.2 8.8 0.2 7.2
Madera.......................................... 0.3 8.7 0.2 7.0
Merced.......................................... 0.5 17.2 0.4 13.7
San Joaquin..................................... 0.7 20.0 0.6 15.9
Stanislaus...................................... 0.5 15.1 0.5 12.0
Tulare.......................................... 0.5 14.3 0.4 10.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total *..................................... 4.9 159.0 4.3 126.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, dated December 29, 2014, and Staff Report, Appendix A, Table C-4.
* Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. Letter, Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 29,
2014, Staff Report with Attachment, revised Table C-4, ``Transportation Conformity Budgets'' to 2012 PM2.5
Plan.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-08510 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P