Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California, 19492-19495 [2016-07668]
Download as PDF
19492
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,
11023, 11048.
2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by
revising the undesignated center
heading ‘‘Lead-Based Paint Poisioning
Prevention in Certain Residential
Structures’’ to read ‘‘Lead-Based Paint
Poisoning Prevention in Certain
Residential Structures’’ and revising the
following entries underneath it:
■ a. Part 745, subpart E;
■ b. Part 745, subpart L; and
■ c. Part 745, subpart Q.
The revisions read as follows:
■
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
*
*
*
*
*
OMB control
No.
40 CFR citation
*
*
*
*
*
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in
Certain Residential Structures
Part 745, subpart E ................
2070–0195
*
*
*
*
*
Part 745, subpart L ................ 2070–0195
Part 745, subpart Q ................ 2070–0195
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–07797 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0048; FRL–9943–78–
Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley,
California
Table of Contents
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:15 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 8hour 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,
ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
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 1Hour Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2013 Ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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).
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.
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.
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.
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’’).
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:15 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19493
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:
• 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 8hour 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
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 (1hour 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.
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19494
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:15 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 8hours 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(371); and
■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(470) to read
as follows:
■
■
§ 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 1Hour 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,
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
excluding section 4.4 (‘‘Contingency
Reductions’’).
[FR Doc. 2016–07668 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9944–56–
Region 9]
Approval of Air Plan Revisions;
Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Partial withdrawal of direct
final rule.
AGENCY:
Due to the receipt of adverse
comments, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing
a portion of the February 11, 2016 direct
final rule approving certain revisions to
the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and correcting certain errors. The
adverse comments relate to a particular
test method and thus the EPA is
withdrawing the portion of the direct
final rule that relates to the test methods
that include the test method for which
the adverse comments were received.
DATES: The addition of paragraph
(c)(29)(i)(B) published on February 11,
2016 at 81 FR 7214 is withdrawn,
effective April 5, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 11, 2016, the EPA published a
direct final rule approving a SIP
revision submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ). In the February 11, 2016 direct
final rule, the EPA also corrected certain
errors in previous actions on prior
revisions to the Arizona SIP and to
make certain other corrections. In the
direct final rule, the EPA stated that if
adverse comments were received by
March 14, 2016, the EPA would publish
a timely withdrawal and address the
comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule also
published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR
7259). The February 11, 2016 proposed
rule indicated that if the EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of the direct final
rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
the EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the
subject of an adverse comment.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:15 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
In this instance, the EPA received
adverse comments on a certain test
method for which the EPA had
approved rescission. The relevant test
method was included in a SIP revision
submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 1979
that also included a number of other test
methods and certain performance test
specifications, all of which were
approved by the EPA at 47 FR 17483
(April 23, 1982). The EPA’s approval of
the test methods and performance test
specifications submitted on January 23,
1979 and approved on April 23, 1982
was codified at 40 CFR
52.120(c)(29)(i)(A).
The EPA’s action on the rescission of
the test methods and performance test
specifications submitted on January 23,
1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 is
severable from the rest of the direct final
rule. Thus, the EPA is withdrawing only
the portion of the direct final rule
related to those test methods and
performance test specifications. The
EPA will address the comments in a
separate final action covering the state’s
rescission of the test methods and
performance test specifications
submitted on January 23, 1979 (and
approved on April 23, 1982) based on
the proposed action published on
February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259). The
EPA will not open a second comment
period for the action on the state’s
rescissions of the test methods and
performance test specifications. The
other actions in the February 11, 2016
Federal Register direct final rule are not
affected.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Accordingly, the addition of
paragraph (c)(29)(i)(B) which was
published in the Federal Register on
February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7209) on page
7214 is withdrawn as of April 5, 2016.
[FR Doc. 2016–07666 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19495
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0696; FRL–9944–55Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina;
Transportation Conformity Update
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the South
Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted on October 13, 2015,
through the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control
(SC DHEC). This revision consists of
transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency
consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation-related control
measures and mitigation measures. The
intended effect of this approval is to
update the transportation conformity
criteria and procedures in the South
Carolina SIP to reorganize previous
exhibits into a single Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) document as well as
updating signatories to add the newly
established Lowcountry Area
Transportation Study (LATS) to the list
of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), created to represent a new
urbanized area designated as a result of
the 2010 Census. EPA has determined
that this revision is consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
June 6, 2016 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by May 5, 2016. If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2015–0696 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
Agencies
[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, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
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