82 FR 13086 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Western Mojave Desert, Rate of Progress Demonstration
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 45 (March 9, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 45 (March 9, 2017)
| Page Range | 13086-13088 | |
| FR Document | 2017-04692 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 13086-13088] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-04692] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0028; FRL-9958-81-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Western Mojave Desert, Rate of Progress Demonstration AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act requirements applicable to the Western Mojave Desert (WMD) ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is proposing to approve the initial six-year 15 percent rate of progress demonstration to address requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 10, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2017-0028 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, by phone at (415) 972-3856 or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. The State's SIP Submittal A. Documents Comprising the SIP Submittal B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. Requirements for the ROP Demonstration B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 SIP Update C. The EPA's Evaluation of the ROP Demonstration and Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In the ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air [[Page 13087]] Quality Standard--Phase 1,'' (``Phase 1 Rule''), we designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). The designations and classifications for the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS for California areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. In the Phase 1 Rule, the EPA classified the WMD as Moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an attainment date no later than June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23858, 23884. On February 14, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested that the EPA reclassify three California areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ For the WMD, CARB requested reclassification from Moderate to Severe-17.\2\ On March 14, 2012, CARB submitted a clarification requesting that the EPA reclassify the WMD from Moderate to Severe-15.\3\ Consistent with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA, we granted the State's request and reclassified the WMD area from Moderate to Severe-15 nonattainment for the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS, with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2019. See 77 FR 26950 (May 8, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See letter dated February 14, 2008, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. In addition to the WMD, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify the Ventura County and Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181(b)(3) to higher classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to this request, the EPA reclassified the Ventura County area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment effective June 19, 2008, 73 FR 29073 (May 20, 2008), and reclassified the Sacramento Metro area from Serious to Severe-15 nonattainment effective June 4, 2010, 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). \2\ CARB subsequently submitted a SIP revision for this area to address the attainment demonstration and related requirements for severe-17 ozone nonattainment areas. See July 22, 2008, letter and enclosures from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. \3\ See letter dated March 14, 2012, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Director, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The WMD is located in northeast Los Angeles County and southwest San Bernardino County. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The Los Angeles County portion of the WMD area is under the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), and the San Bernardino County portion of the area is under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). The districts and State are responsible for adopting and submitting plans to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for their areas. Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to the EPA a state implementation plan (SIP) providing for attainment of the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS areas designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 2004, this attainment SIP was due by June 15, 2007. See CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910. II. The State's SIP Submittal A. Documents Comprising the SIP Submittal California has made several SIP submittals to address the CAA planning requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the WMD. In today's proposal, we are proposing to take action only on the 15 percent volatile organic compound (VOC) rate of progress (ROP) determination for the WMD. This demonstration is contained in the 2014 CARB staff report entitled ``Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' (``2014 SIP Update'').\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ CARB, Staff Report, ``Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' September 22, 2014. Other elements of CARB's SIP submittal include: AVAQMD, ``Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non- attainment Area),'' May 20, 2008; MDAQMD, ``Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area),'' June 9, 2008; CARB, ``2007 State Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,'' April 26, 2007, and Appendices A-G, Release Date May 7, 2007. See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, US. EPA dated November 6, 2014, with enclosures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) of the CAA require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided, consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. For the 2014 SIP Update, CARB provided a public comment period from September 22, 2014, to October 24, 2014, and held a public hearing, on October 24, 2014. CARB formally adopted the 2014 SIP Update in Board Resolution 14-29 on October 24, 2014. Therefore, we find the submittals meet the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). Section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that the EPA determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the date of submittal by operation of law. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The 2014 SIP Update was submitted to the EPA on November 6, 2014, and became complete by operation of law on May 6, 2015. III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. Requirements for the ROP Demonstration For areas classified as Moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(1) requires a SIP revision providing for ROP, defined as a one time, 15 percent actual VOC emission reduction during the six years following the baseline year 1990, for an average reduction of 3 percent per year. For areas designated Serious nonattainment or above, no further action is necessary if the area fulfilled its ROP requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS (from 1990-1996). As the EPA explained in the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule,\5\ for areas that did not meet the 15 percent VOC ROP reduction for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, a state may notify the EPA that it wishes to rely on a previously submitted SIP (for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS), or it may elect to submit a new or revised SIP addressing the 15 percent VOC ROP reduction (for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The ROP demonstration requirement is a continuing applicable requirement for the WMD under the EPA's anti-backsliding rules that apply once a NAAQS has been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 69 FR 23980 (October 27, 2004). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the method for calculating the requirements for the 1990-1996 period. Section 182(b)(1) requires that reductions: (1) Be in addition to those needed to offset any growth in emissions between the base year and the milestone year; (2) exclude emission reductions from four prescribed federal programs (i.e., the federal motor vehicle control program, the federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements, any RACT corrections previously specified by the EPA, and any inspection and maintenance (I/ M) program corrections necessary to meet the basic I/M level); [[Page 13088]] and (3) be calculated from an ``adjusted'' baseline relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable. The adjusted base year inventory excludes emission reductions from fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 and from federal RVP regulations that were promulgated by November 15, 1990, or required under section 211(h) of the Act. The effect of these adjustments is that states are not able to take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet turnover of current federal standard cars and trucks, or from already existing federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can take full credit for the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions standards, as well as any other new federal or state motor vehicle or fuel program that will be implemented in the nonattainment area, such as Tier 1 exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low emissions vehicle program, and transportation control measures. The Southeast Desert, which includes the WMD, has attained the 1- hour ozone NAAQS,\6\ but we have not approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the area. Per 40 CFR 51.1118, our determination that the area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS means that the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement (including the 15 percent ROP requirement for VOCs) no longer applies to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert area. The ROP demonstration requirement remains in effect for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the WMD must therefore demonstrate a six-year, 15 percent VOC ROP reduction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 80 FR 20166 (April 15, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 SIP Update The 2014 SIP Update incorporates the 15 percent VOC ROP demonstration as an element of the RFP demonstration, contained in Appendix C and discussed on page 10. For today's notice, we are acting only on the ROP emissions demonstration. Table C-2 in the 2014 SIP Update was used to create Table 1 below. The revised 15 percent ROP demonstration compares milestone year average summer weekday emissions of VOC \7\ with a 2002 base year inventory. Based on the progress of the VOC emissions reductions from 2002 to 2008, the State concluded that the WMD did not meet the ROP demonstration requirement in 2008, but found that it met the requirement in the subsequent reporting milestone, in 2011. See 2014 SIP Update at 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The 2014 SIP Update uses the term Reactive Organic Gasses, or ROG, instead of VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC in this notice to mean either VOC or ROG. Table 1--15 Percent Rate of Progress Demonstration for VOC Emissions in the WMD \a\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VOC VOC emissions emissions (tpd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 2002 baseline inventory................................... 71.5 2. 2008 remaining emissions.................................. 63.1 3. 2008 goal (remaining emissions after 15% ROP Reduction 58.2 required from 2002 baseline)................................ 4. ROP reduction achieved by 2008 (Compare Line 3 to Line 2)? No 5. 2011 remaining emissions.................................. 56.1 6. ROP reduction achieved by 2011 (compare Line 5 to Line 2)? Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \a\ Source: 2014 SIP Update, Table C-2. C. The EPA's Evaluation of the ROP Demonstration and Proposed Action The 2014 SIP Update demonstrates that the WMD achieved the 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions required by CAA section 182(b)(1). Although the state did not demonstrate these reductions within the six- year period set out in this section, it has shown that all necessary reductions were achieved in the earliest subsequent reporting period. The EPA has previously approved ROP demonstrations with a demonstration date more than six years from a baseline year.\8\ We therefore propose to approve the ROP demonstration for the WMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See, e.g., 65 FR 31485 (May 18, 2000). This approach was upheld in Sierra Club v. EPA, 252 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 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). In addition, 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 rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 13, 2017. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017-04692 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![13086 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 45 / Thursday, March 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
IV. Proposed Action Technology Transfer and Advancement DATES: Any comments must arrive by
The EPA is proposing to approve the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because April 10, 2017.
Arizona SIP revisions removing ADEQ application of those requirements would ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
R18–2–310 and MCAQD Rule 140 from be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
the ADEQ and MCAQD portions of the and OAR–2017–0028 at http://
Arizona SIP. The EPA is proposing • Does not provide the EPA with the www.regulations.gov, or via email to
approval of the SIP revisions because discretionary authority to address kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. For comments
the Agency has determined that they are disproportionate human health or submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
in accordance with the requirements for environmental effects with practical, online instructions for submitting
SIP provisions under the CAA. The EPA appropriate, and legally permissible comments. Once submitted, comments
is not reopening the SSM SIP Action in methods under Executive Order 12898 cannot be removed or edited from
this action and is only taking comment (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Regulations.gov. For either manner of
on whether this SIP revision is In addition, the SIP is not approved to submission, the EPA may publish any
consistent with CAA requirements and apply on any Indian reservation land or comment received to its public docket.
whether it addresses the identified in any other area where the EPA or an Do not submit electronically any
substantial inadequacy in the specific Indian tribe has demonstrated that a information you consider to be
Arizona SIP provisions identified in the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Confidential Business Information (CBI)
SSM SIP Action. Indian country, the rule does not have or other information whose disclosure is
tribal implications and will not impose restricted by statute. Multimedia
V. Statutory and Executive Order submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
substantial direct costs on tribal
Reviews accompanied by a written comment.
governments or preempt tribal law as
Under the Clean Air Act, the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 The written comment is considered the
Administrator is required to approve FR 67249, November 9, 2000). official comment and should include
SIP submissions that comply with the discussion of all points you wish to
provisions of the Act and applicable List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 make. The EPA will generally not
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air consider comments or comment
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Carbon monoxide, contents located outside of the primary
submissions, the EPA’s role is to Incorporation by reference, submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
approve state choices, provided that Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen other file sharing system). For
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, additional submission methods, please
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action Reporting and recordkeeping contact the person identified in the FOR
merely proposes to approve state requirements, Volatile organic FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
requests as meeting federal compounds. For the full EPA public comment policy,
requirements and does not impose Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
information about CBI or multimedia
additional requirements beyond those submissions, and general guidance on
imposed by state law. For that reason, Dated: January 18, 2017. making effective comments, please visit
this proposed action: Alexis Strauss, http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. commenting-epa-dockets.
action’’ subject to review by the Office [FR Doc. 2017–04683 Filed 3–8–17; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
of Management and Budget under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Kelly, EPA Region IX, by phone at (415)
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 972–3856 or by email at kelly.thomasp@
October 4, 1993); epa.gov.
• Does not impose an information ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
collection burden under the provisions AGENCY Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 52
• Is certified as not having a Table of Contents
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0028; FRL–9958–81–
significant economic impact on a Region 9] I. Background
substantial number of small entities II. The State’s SIP Submittal
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Approval of California Air Plan A. Documents Comprising the SIP
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Revisions, Western Mojave Desert, Submittal
• Does not contain any unfunded Rate of Progress Demonstration B. CAA Procedural and Administrative
mandate or significantly or uniquely Requirements for SIP Submittals
affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection III. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency (EPA). A. Requirements for the ROP
Demonstration
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule.
B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 SIP
• Does not have Federalism Update
implications as specified in Executive SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the ROP
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Demonstration and Proposed Action
1999); state implementation plan revision IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
• Is not an economically significant submitted by the State of California to
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
meet Clean Air Act requirements I. Background
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order applicable to the Western Mojave Desert Following promulgation of a new or
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (WMD) ozone nonattainment area. The revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by
• Is not a significant regulatory action EPA is proposing to approve the initial the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) to
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR six-year 15 percent rate of progress designate areas throughout the nation as
28355, May 22, 2001); demonstration to address requirements attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In
• Is not subject to requirements of for the 1997 8-hour ozone national the ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-
section 12(d) of the National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Mar 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_13131/page/1.svg)
![13088 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 45 / Thursday, March 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
and (3) be calculated from an ‘‘adjusted’’ the State concluded that the WMD did of Management and Budget under
baseline relative to the year for which not meet the ROP demonstration Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
the reduction is applicable. requirement in 2008, but found that it October 4, 1993);
The adjusted base year inventory met the requirement in the subsequent • Does not impose an information
excludes emission reductions from fleet reporting milestone, in 2011. See 2014 collection burden under the provisions
turnover between 1990 and 1996 and SIP Update at 10. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
from federal RVP regulations that were U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
promulgated by November 15, 1990, or TABLE 1—15 PERCENT RATE OF • Is certified as not having a
required under section 211(h) of the PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION FOR significant economic impact on a
Act. The effect of these adjustments is VOC EMISSIONS IN THE WMD a substantial number of small entities
that states are not able to take credit for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
emissions reductions that would result VOC U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
from fleet turnover of current federal VOC emissions emissions • Does not contain any unfunded
standard cars and trucks, or from (tpd)
mandate or significantly or uniquely
already existing federal fuel regulations. affect small governments, as described
1. 2002 baseline inventory ........... 71.5
However, the SIP can take full credit for 2. 2008 remaining emissions ....... 63.1 in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) 3. 2008 goal (remaining emis- of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
vehicle emissions standards, as well as sions after 15% ROP Reduction • Does not have Federalism
any other new federal or state motor required from 2002 baseline) .... 58.2 implications as specified in Executive
vehicle or fuel program that will be 4. ROP reduction achieved by
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
implemented in the nonattainment area, 2008 (Compare Line 3 to Line
2)? No 1999);
such as Tier 1 exhaust standards, new
evaporative emissions standards, 5. 2011 remaining emissions ....... 56.1 • Is not an economically significant
reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, 6. ROP reduction achieved by regulatory action based on health or
California low emissions vehicle
2011 (compare Line 5 to Line safety risks subject to Executive Order
2)? Yes 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
program, and transportation control
measures. a Source: 2014 SIP Update, Table C–2. • Is not a significant regulatory action
The Southeast Desert, which includes subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the ROP 28355, May 22, 2001);
the WMD, has attained the 1-hour ozone Demonstration and Proposed Action
NAAQS,6 but we have not approved a • Is not subject to requirements of
15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour The 2014 SIP Update demonstrates section 12(d) of the National
ozone NAAQS in the area. Per 40 CFR that the WMD achieved the 15 percent Technology Transfer and Advancement
51.1118, our determination that the area reduction in VOC emissions required by Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS CAA section 182(b)(1). Although the application of those requirements would
means that the Reasonable Further state did not demonstrate these be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
Progress (RFP) requirement (including reductions within the six-year period set and
the 15 percent ROP requirement for out in this section, it has shown that all • Does not provide the EPA with the
VOCs) no longer applies to the 1-hour necessary reductions were achieved in discretionary authority to address
ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert the earliest subsequent reporting period. disproportionate human health or
area. The ROP demonstration The EPA has previously approved ROP environmental effects with practical,
requirement remains in effect for the demonstrations with a demonstration appropriate, and legally permissible
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the date more than six years from a baseline methods under Executive Order 12898
WMD must therefore demonstrate a six- year.8 We therefore propose to approve (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
year, 15 percent VOC ROP reduction. the ROP demonstration for the WMD. In addition, the SIP is not approved
IV. Statutory and Executive Order to apply on any Indian reservation land
B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 or in any other area where the EPA or
SIP Update Reviews
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
The 2014 SIP Update incorporates the Under the Clean Air Act, the
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
15 percent VOC ROP demonstration as Administrator is required to approve a
Indian country, the rule does not have
an element of the RFP demonstration, SIP submission that complies with the
tribal implications and will not impose
provisions of the Act and applicable
contained in Appendix C and discussed substantial direct costs on tribal
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
on page 10. For today’s notice, we are governments or preempt tribal law as
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
acting only on the ROP emissions specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
demonstration. Table C–2 in the 2014 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
approve State choices, provided that
SIP Update was used to create Table 1
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
below. The revised 15 percent ROP
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
demonstration compares milestone year Environmental protection, Air
proposes to approve State law as
average summer weekday emissions of pollution control, Incorporation by
meeting federal requirements and does
VOC 7 with a 2002 base year inventory. reference, Intergovernmental relations,
not impose additional requirements
Based on the progress of the VOC Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
beyond those imposed by State law. For
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2008, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
that reason, this proposed action:
6 See
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Dated: January 13, 2017.
80 FR 20166 (April 15, 2015).
7 The 2014 SIP Update uses the term Reactive
action’’ subject to review by the Office Deborah Jordan,
Organic Gasses, or ROG, instead of VOC. These Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
terms are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, 8 See, e.g., 65 FR 31485 (May 18, 2000). This
we use the term VOC in this notice to mean either approach was upheld in Sierra Club v. EPA, 252 [FR Doc. 2017–04692 Filed 3–8–17; 8:45 am]
VOC or ROG. F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001). BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Mar 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM 09MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_13131/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-03-09 04:59:14
Document Modified: 2017-03-09 04:59:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by April 10, 2017. | |
| Contact | Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, by phone at (415) 972-3856 or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 13086 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR