Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted PM2.5, 22194-22196 [2016-08510]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://
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: https://
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 https://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:
https://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
