Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 53294-53297 [2016-18898]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53294
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued
State
citation
Title/subject
State
effective
date
EPA
approval
date
796 ...........
Applicability ...................................
3/15/2002 ......................................
797 ...........
Registration for Permit by Rule ....
3/15/2002 ......................................
798 ...........
Electrical Generators ....................
3/15/2002 ......................................
799 ...........
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Plan Fugitive Dust Best Management Practice.
3/15/2002 ......................................
8/12/2016, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
8/12/2016, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
8/12/2016, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
8/12/2016, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.683 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.683
quality.
Significant deterioration of air
(a) The State of Idaho Rules for
Control of Air Pollution in Idaho,
specifically, IDAPA 58.01.01.005
through 007 (definitions), IDAPA
58.01.01.107.03.a, .b, .c (incorporations
by reference), IDAPA 58.01.01.200
through 222 (permit to construct rules);
IDAPA 58.01.01.510 through 516 (stack
height rules); and IDAPA 58.01.01.575
through 581 (standards, increments and
area designations) (except IDAPA
58.01.01.577), are approved as meeting
the requirements of title I, part C,
subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act for
preventing significant deterioration of
air quality.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–19122 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711; FRL–9949–84–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California; San
Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone
and Particulate Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve and conditionally approve
revisions to the State of California’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
Explanations
*
*
*
San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The
revisions consist of an update to the
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(‘‘budgets’’) for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
‘‘standard’’) for the SJV ozone
nonattainment area and for NOX and
coarse particulate matter (PM10) for the
1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV
PM10 maintenance area. The EPA is
approving the SJV ozone revised
budgets and conditionally approving the
PM10 budgets in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s regulations.
Table of Contents
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the western
half of Kern County. See the NAAQS-specific tables
in 40 CFR 81.305.
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31212), the
EPA proposed, under section 110(k)(3)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), to
approve a revision to the California SIP
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on November
13, 2015.1 The SIP submittal revises
budgets applicable to control strategy or
maintenance plans for the SJV for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard, and the 1987 24DATES: This rule is effective on
hour PM10 standard.2 In our May 18,
September 30, 2016.
2016 action, we proposed to approve
revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711. All PM2.5 standard. We also proposed to
conditionally approve revised budgets
documents in the docket are listed on
for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard.
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
CARB developed the revised budgets
site. Although listed in the index, some
using EMFAC2014 and the travel
information is not publicly available,
activity projections provided by the SJV
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) consistent with the 2015
restricted by statute. Certain other
Federal Transportation Improvement
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be Program (TIP). As such, the revised
budgets reflect the most recent planning
publicly available only in hard copy
forecasts and are based on the most
form. Publicly available docket
recent emission factor data and
materials are available through https://
approved calculation methods.
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
The EPA previously approved the SJV
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
standard and the 24-hour PM10
additional availability information.
standard. The ozone budgets were
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
1 Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),
CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015 with enclosures.
Region 9, (415) 972–3963,
2 For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment
ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
area includes all of seven counties, including
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
included in the EPA’s approval of the
SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan (‘‘2007
Ozone Plan’’) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1,
2012), which established NOX and
VOC 3 budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017,
2020, and 2023.4 The PM10 budgets
were included in the EPA’s approval of
the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Request for Redesignation (‘‘2007 PM10
Plan’’) at 73 FR 66759 (November 12,
2008), which established direct PM10
and NOX budgets for 2005 and 2020.5
The SJV budgets for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard were included in the
EPA’s proposed approval of the SJV
2012 PM2.5 Plan (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’) at
80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA
found the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in the SJV
2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR
22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing
direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017.
As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must
be used to determine conformity of
transportation plans and TIPs to the
control strategy plan for the SJV for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.6
In our May 18, 2016 proposed rule,
we reviewed the revised budgets for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
November 13, 2015 submittal, evaluated
them for compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements, and concluded
that they meet all applicable
53295
requirements. More specifically, under
CAA section 110(k)(3), we proposed to
approve the revised VOC and NOX
budgets in table 1 for 2017, 2020, and
2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. We determined that
replacement of the current approved
budgets with the revised VOC and NOX
budgets would not interfere with the
approved RFP and attainment
demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard in the SJV and
emissions changes in non-motor vehicle
emissions categories do not change the
overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone
Plan.
TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BUDGETS DEVELOPED FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD USING
EMFAC2014 7 8
NOX
(tons per summer day)
County subarea
2017
Fresno ......................................................
Kern (SJV) ...............................................
Kings ........................................................
Madera .....................................................
Merced .....................................................
San Joaquin .............................................
Stanislaus .................................................
Tulare .......................................................
29.9
26.8
5.5
5.5
10.3
14.1
11.3
10.3
Second, under CAA section 110(k)(4),
the EPA proposed to conditionally
approve the revised direct PM10 and
NOX budgets in table 2 for 2020 for the
24-hour PM10 standard. We determined
that, when combined with
implementation of the contingency plan
in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and
fulfillment of the commitments in the
State’s April 29, 2016 letter, the revised
direct PM10 and NOX budgets will allow
the SJV to continue to demonstrate
maintenance of the 24-hour PM10
standard. The contents of the State’s
April 29, 2016 letter are described in
detail in our proposed rule on pages
31220 and 31221. In our proposal, we
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2020
3 California plans sometimes use the term
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms
are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use
the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.
4 The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV
2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and
SJV-related portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy
(revised 2009 and 2011).
5 The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM
10
Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation,
September 20, 2007, and technical corrections by
CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 PM10
Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Wayne Nastri from
James N. Goldstene.
6 Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy
Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W.
VOC
(tons per summer day)
2023
24.3
22.4
4.7
4.5
8.5
11.3
9.2
8.1
2017
14.6
12.9
2.7
2.7
5.1
7.3
5.8
4.9
explained that if the conditional
approval is finalized, CARB must adopt
and submit the SIP revisions that it has
committed to submit by June 1, 2017.
The resulting impacts if CARB fails to
comply with this commitment are
explained below in section III of today’s
action.
TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED 2020 BUDGETS FOR THE
PM10 STANDARD DEVELOPED USING
EMFAC2014 9 10
County subarea
Direct PM10
(tons per
annual day)
Fresno .......
7.0
NOX
(tons per
annual day)
2020
8.7
6.9
1.4
2.0
2.7
6.4
4.1
4.0
2023
6.8
5.7
1.1
1.6
2.1
5.1
3.2
3.1
5.6
4.8
0.9
1.3
1.7
4.3
2.7
2.5
TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED 2020 BUDGETS FOR THE
PM10 STANDARD DEVELOPED USING
EMFAC2014 9 10—Continued
County subarea
Kern (SJV)
Kings .........
Madera ......
Merced ......
San Joaquin .......
Stanislaus
Tulare ........
Direct PM10
(tons per
annual day)
NOX
(tons per
annual day)
7.4
1.8
2.5
3.8
23.3
4.8
4.7
8.9
4.6
3.7
3.4
11.9
9.6
8.4
25.4
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, April 1, 2016 with
enclosures.
7 The county-specific budgets are set forth in
attachment A to CARB Resolution 15–50.
Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted
by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on
November 13, 2015. CARB provided information
and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff
report titled Updated Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5,
and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date
September 21, 2015.
8 CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV
plans by taking the sum of the county-by-county
emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the
SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX
and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and PM10;
then re-allocating to the individual counties based
on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the
total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to
the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional
rounding method.
9 The county-specific budgets are set forth in
attachment A to CARB Resolution 15–50.
Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted
by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on
November 13, 2015. CARB provided information
and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff
report titled Updated Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5,
and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date
September 21, 2015.
10 CARB calculated the revised budgets for the
SJV plans by taking the sum of the county-bycounty emissions results from EMFAC and
Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
53296
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Third, the EPA also proposed to
approve the revised direct PM2.5 and
NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard. We determined
that: (1) Replacement of the current
adequate budgets with the revised
budgets would be consistent with our
separate proposal finding that the 2012
PM2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year
2017; (2) emissions changes in nonmotor vehicle emissions categories do
not change the overall conclusion of the
2012 PM2.5 Plan; and (3) the revised
budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)–(vi). Because the
EPA has yet to finalize its approval of
2012 PM2.5 Plan, we are not able to
finalize, in today’s action, our approval
of the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX
budgets for 2017 in CARB’s submittal
dated November 13, 2015 for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard. The EPA
expects to take final action on the
revised PM2.5 budgets for 2017 as part of
its final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
Lastly, on the effective date of today’s
action, the previously-approved budgets
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and
the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard would
no longer be applicable for
transportation conformity purposes, and
the SJV MPOs and the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) must use the
revised budgets for future transportation
conformity determinations.
Please see our May 18, 2016 proposed
rule for more information concerning
the background for this action and for a
more detailed discussion of the
rationale for approval of the revised
budgets.
II. Public Comments
Our May 18, 2016 proposed rule
provided a 30-day public comment
period, which closed on June 17, 2016.
We received no comments on our
proposal during this period.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in the May
18, 2016 proposed rule and summarized
above, the EPA is approving, or
conditionally approving, revised motor
vehicle emissions budgets submitted on
November 13, 2015 by CARB for the SJV
area as a revision to the California SIP.
More specifically, the EPA is approving,
under CAA section 110(k)(3), revised
VOC and NOX budgets shown in table
1 above for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the
rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole
ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for
VOC and PM10; then re-allocating to the individual
counties based on the ratio of each county’s
contribution to the total; and then rounding each
county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton
using the conventional rounding method.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
1997 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA is
conditionally approving, under CAA
section 110(k)(4), the revised direct
PM10 and NOX budgets shown in table
2 above for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10
standard. CARB must adopt and submit
the SIP revisions that it has committed
to submit by June 1, 2017, as described
in their April 29, 2016 letter. If CARB
fails to comply with this commitment,
the conditional approval will convert to
a disapproval. Disapproval of the
revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan
would reinstate the existing approved
budgets as the budgets that must be
used in transportation plan and TIP
conformity determinations after the
effective date of the disapproval. See 40
CFR 93.109(c)(1).11
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 revisions to motor
vehicle emission budgets as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
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
11 Because the submittal of the revised budgets is
not a required submittal, disapproval would not
trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but
would nonetheless trigger a two-year clock for a
federal implementation plan under CAA section
110(c). Disapproval would not trigger a
transportation conformity freeze because the
disapproval does not affect a control strategy
implementation plan as defined in the
transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101
and 93.120(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 SJV air quality
planning area for the 1997 8-hours
ozone standard and 24-hour PM10
standard: 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 into the SIP of the
SJV revised budgets submitted by CARB
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
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 SJV 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 October 11, 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–52–
Region 5]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
Jkt 238001
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s
Order
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(476) to read as
follows:
AGENCY:
§ 52.220
SUMMARY:
■
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(476) The following revision was
submitted on November 13, 2015 by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Attachment A to Resolution 15–50,
‘‘Updates to the Transportation
Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin
Valley 2007 PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012
PM2.5 SIPs,’’ Table A–1 (Updated
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer
day) and Table A–3 (Updated
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the 2008 PM10 Maintenance Plan (Tons
per annual day)).
*
*
*
*
*
3. Subpart F is amended by adding
§ 52.248 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional
approval.
The EPA is conditionally approving a
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted on November
13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10
standard for the San Joaquin Valley
PM10 maintenance area. The conditional
approval is based on a commitment
from the State to submit a SIP revision
that demonstrates full implementation
of the contingency provisions of the
2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Request for Redesignation (September
20, 2007). If the State fails to meets its
commitment by June 1, 2017, the
approval is treated as a disapproval.
[FR Doc. 2016–18898 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
40 CFR Part 52
■
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
53297
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) on October 16,
2015. The submittal consists of an order
issued by the Commissioner of IDEM
(Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01)
approving alternative control
technology requirements for Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These
requirements include the use of a
carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system
with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from the ethanol loading racks at
Abengoa. A continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) must be used
to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery
system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions. For the reasons discussed
below, EPA is approving this submittal
as a revision to Indiana’s SIP.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 11, 2016, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 12, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0724, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, 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
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53294-53297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711; FRL-9949-84-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California;
San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Ozone and Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the State of
California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley
(SJV) area. The revisions consist of an update to the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (``budgets'') for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for the
SJV ozone nonattainment area and for NOX and coarse
particulate matter (PM10) for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 standard for the SJV PM10 maintenance area.
The EPA is approving the SJV ozone revised budgets and conditionally
approving the PM10 budgets in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and the EPA's
regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 30, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
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 May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31212), the EPA proposed, under section
110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), to approve a revision
to the California SIP submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) on November 13, 2015.\1\ The SIP submittal revises budgets
applicable to control strategy or maintenance plans for the SJV for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and
the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard.\2\ In our May 18, 2016
action, we proposed to approve revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. We also
proposed to conditionally approve revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 standard. CARB developed the revised budgets using
EMFAC2014 and the travel activity projections provided by the SJV
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) consistent with the 2015
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). As such, the revised
budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the
most recent emission factor data and approved calculation methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015
with enclosures.
\2\ For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment area
includes all of seven counties, including Fresno, Kings, Madera,
Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the
western half of Kern County. See the NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR
81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The ozone
budgets were
[[Page 53295]]
included in the EPA's approval of the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan
(``2007 Ozone Plan'') at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012), which established
NOX and VOC \3\ budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and
2023.\4\ The PM10 budgets were included in the EPA's
approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for
Redesignation (``2007 PM10 Plan'') at 73 FR 66759 (November
12, 2008), which established direct PM10 and NOX
budgets for 2005 and 2020.\5\ The SJV budgets for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard were included in the EPA's proposed approval
of the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'')
at 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017
PM2.5 budgets in the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan to be
adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing direct
PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017. As of May 2,
2016, these budgets must be used to determine conformity of
transportation plans and TIPs to the control strategy plan for the SJV
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For
simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.
\4\ The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 2007 Ozone
Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV-related portions of CARB's
2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011).
\5\ The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10
Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, September 20, 2007,
and technical corrections by CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced,
San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007
PM10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Wayne Nastri from
James N. Goldstene.
\6\ Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air
Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, April 1, 2016 with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our May 18, 2016 proposed rule, we reviewed the revised budgets
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the November 13, 2015 submittal,
evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, and concluded that they meet all applicable requirements.
More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), we proposed to approve
the revised VOC and NOX budgets in table 1 for 2017, 2020,
and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We determined that
replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised VOC and
NOX budgets would not interfere with the approved RFP and
attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV
and emissions changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not
change the overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Using EMFAC2014 \7\ \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (tons per summer day) VOC (tons per summer day)
County subarea -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.................................................. 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6
Kern (SJV).............................................. 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8
Kings................................................... 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9
Madera.................................................. 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3
Merced.................................................. 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7
San Joaquin............................................. 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3
Stanislaus.............................................. 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7
Tulare.................................................. 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The county-specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to
CARB Resolution 15-50. Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision
adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13,
2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP
revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and
PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September
21, 2015.
\8\ CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by
taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC
and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for
NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and
PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based
on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then
rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using
the conventional rounding method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA proposed to
conditionally approve the revised direct PM10 and
NOX budgets in table 2 for 2020 for the 24-hour
PM10 standard. We determined that, when combined with
implementation of the contingency plan in the SIP-approved 2007
PM10 Plan and fulfillment of the commitments in the State's
April 29, 2016 letter, the revised direct PM10 and
NOX budgets will allow the SJV to continue to demonstrate
maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 standard. The contents of
the State's April 29, 2016 letter are described in detail in our
proposed rule on pages 31220 and 31221. In our proposal, we explained
that if the conditional approval is finalized, CARB must adopt and
submit the SIP revisions that it has committed to submit by June 1,
2017. The resulting impacts if CARB fails to comply with this
commitment are explained below in section III of today's action.
Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Revised 2020 Budgets for the PM10 Standard
Developed Using EMFAC2014 \9\ \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM10
County subarea (tons per NOX (tons per
annual day) annual day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.................................. 7.0 25.4
Kern (SJV).............................. 7.4 23.3
Kings................................... 1.8 4.8
Madera.................................. 2.5 4.7
Merced.................................. 3.8 8.9
San Joaquin............................. 4.6 11.9
Stanislaus.............................. 3.7 9.6
Tulare.................................. 3.4 8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The county-specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to
CARB Resolution 15-50. Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision
adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13,
2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP
revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and
PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September
21, 2015.
\10\ CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by
taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC
and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for
NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and
PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based
on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then
rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using
the conventional rounding method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53296]]
Third, the EPA also proposed to approve the revised direct
PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. We determined that: (1) Replacement of
the current adequate budgets with the revised budgets would be
consistent with our separate proposal finding that the 2012
PM2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year 2017; (2) emissions
changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the
overall conclusion of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan; and (3) the
revised budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-
(vi). Because the EPA has yet to finalize its approval of 2012
PM2.5 Plan, we are not able to finalize, in today's action,
our approval of the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX
budgets for 2017 in CARB's submittal dated November 13, 2015 for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The EPA expects to take final
action on the revised PM2.5 budgets for 2017 as part of its
final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
Lastly, on the effective date of today's action, the previously-
approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 1987 24-
hour PM10 standard would no longer be applicable for
transportation conformity purposes, and the SJV MPOs and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) must use the revised budgets for
future transportation conformity determinations.
Please see our May 18, 2016 proposed rule for more information
concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed
discussion of the rationale for approval of the revised budgets.
II. Public Comments
Our May 18, 2016 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period, which closed on June 17, 2016. We received no comments on our
proposal during this period.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in the May 18, 2016 proposed rule and
summarized above, the EPA is approving, or conditionally approving,
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on November 13, 2015
by CARB for the SJV area as a revision to the California SIP. More
specifically, the EPA is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3),
revised VOC and NOX budgets shown in table 1 above for 2017,
2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA is
conditionally approving, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the revised
direct PM10 and NOX budgets shown in table 2
above for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10 standard. CARB must
adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has committed to submit by
June 1, 2017, as described in their April 29, 2016 letter. If CARB
fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will
convert to a disapproval. Disapproval of the revised budgets for the
2007 PM10 Plan would reinstate the existing approved budgets
as the budgets that must be used in transportation plan and TIP
conformity determinations after the effective date of the disapproval.
See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Because the submittal of the revised budgets is not a
required submittal, disapproval would not trigger sanctions under
CAA section 179(a)(2) but would nonetheless trigger a two-year clock
for a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c).
Disapproval would not trigger a transportation conformity freeze
because the disapproval does not affect a control strategy
implementation plan as defined in the transportation conformity
rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 revisions to motor vehicle emission budgets as
meeting Federal requirements and does not 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 SJV
air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hours ozone standard and 24-
hour PM10 standard: 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 into the SIP of the SJV revised budgets
submitted by CARB 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
[[Page 53297]]
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 SJV 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 October 11, 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting 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 adding paragraph (c)(476) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(476) The following revision was submitted on November 13, 2015 by
the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Attachment A to Resolution 15-50, ``Updates to the
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 2007
PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 PM2.5 SIPs,'' Table A-1
(Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone Plan
(Tons per summer day) and Table A-3 (Updated Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the 2008 PM10 Maintenance Plan (Tons per annual
day)).
* * * * *
0
3. Subpart F is amended by adding Sec. 52.248 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.248 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
The EPA is conditionally approving a California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on November 13, 2015
updating the motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and coarse particulate matter (PM10) for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the San Joaquin Valley
PM10 maintenance area. The conditional approval is based on
a commitment from the State to submit a SIP revision that demonstrates
full implementation of the contingency provisions of the 2007
PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation
(September 20, 2007). If the State fails to meets its commitment by
June 1, 2017, the approval is treated as a disapproval.
[FR Doc. 2016-18898 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
