Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted PM2.5, 22194-22196 [2016-08510]

Download as PDF 22194 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation and is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule. 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: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Delair, NJ to Philadelphia, PA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation. AGENCY: ACTION: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Delair Bridge across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, between Philadelphia PA and Delair, NJ. The deviation is necessary to perform bridge repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position. DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on April 30, 2016 to 5 a.m. on June 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0228] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mrs. Traci Whitfield, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398–6629, email Traci.G.Whitfield@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conrail, owner of the Delair Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation to perform urgent repairs by replacing wire ropes connecting the counterweights and the lift span. The bridge is a vertical lift-span bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 49 feet above mean high water. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.716. Under this SUMMARY: 2. Add § 100.35T09–0208 to read as follows: ■ § 100.35T09–0208 Special Local Regulation; Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta; Detroit River, Trenton Channel; Wyandotte, MI. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 9110–04–P [Docket No. USCG–2016–0228] 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: (a) Regulated area. A regulated area is established to encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-tobank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N., 083°9.4′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N., 083°8.9′ W. (NAD 83). (b) Effective period. This section is effective and will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on April 30, 2016. (c) Regulations. (1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation. (2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313–568–9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative. Jkt 238001 [FR Doc. 2016–08781 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] 33 CFR Part 117 ■ 14:40 Apr 14, 2016 Dated: March 25, 2016. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit. Coast Guard PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS VerDate Sep<11>2014 (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the COTP to act on his behalf. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. April 30, 2016 to 5 a.m. May 7, 2016; from 5 a.m. May 14, 2016 to 5 a.m. May 21, 2016; and from 5 a.m. June 4, 2016 to 5 a.m. June 11, 2016. The lift span will not be able to open since one counterweight will be detached until the end of the repair work. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The rope replacement construction schedule was developed through the coordination with Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay and the Mariners’ Advisory Committee for the Bay and River Delaware (MAC). The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35 (e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: April 11, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–08690 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM 15APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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: jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Wienke Tax, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air Division AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; (415) 947–4192 or tax.wienke@epa.gov. 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. 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 1 See letter dated October 7, 2014, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 2 80 FR 1816 at 1841 (January 13, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 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. 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 3 See letter dated February 27, 2015, from Paul Cort and Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22195 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. 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 onroad 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 4 See E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). 15APR1 22196 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 .............................................................................................................. Kern (SJV) ....................................................................................................... Kings ................................................................................................................ Madera ............................................................................................................. Merced ............................................................................................................. San Joaquin ..................................................................................................... Stanislaus ........................................................................................................ Tulare ............................................................................................................... 1.0 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 31.6 43.2 8.8 8.7 17.2 20.0 15.1 14.3 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 25.2 34.4 7.2 7.0 13.7 15.9 12.0 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] jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM 15APR1

Agencies

[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 tax.wienke@epa.gov.

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