
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22194-22196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08510]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636; FRL-9944-93-Region 9]


Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted 
PM2.5 Moderate Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the 
public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') for the years 2014 and 2017 in the San 
Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan, as revised in a

[[Page 22195]]

December 29, 2014 submittal, for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The Moderate Area Plan 
was submitted to the EPA on March 4, 2013 by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) and includes a demonstration of reasonable 
further progress for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CARB submitted a 
Supplement to the Moderate Area Plan on November 6, 2014 (``2014 
Supplement'') and a revision to the budgets on December 29, 2014. We 
refer to these submittals collectively as the ``2012 PM2.5 
Plan'' or ``Plan.'' Upon the effective date of this notice of adequacy, 
the San Joaquin Valley metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and 
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must use these budgets for 
future transportation conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective May 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air 
Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; 
(415) 947-4192 or tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    This action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have 
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on April 1, 2016 
stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted 2012 
PM2.5 Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP) 
milestone years of 2014 and 2017 are adequate.
    In response to an October 7, 2014 request by CARB for parallel 
processing of the revised budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,\1\ 
we announced the availability of the revised budgets on the EPA's 
adequacy review Web page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm from October 23, 2014 to November 24, 2014. We 
received no comments on the budgets during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See letter dated October 7, 2014, from Richard Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2015, we proposed to approve these budgets as part 
of our proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 
Supplement.\2\ We received two comments on the budgets.\3\ We respond 
to the first of these two comments below. The second comment concerns 
the transportation conformity interpollutant trading mechanism in the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan that we proposed to approve for use in 
transportation conformity analyses. We will respond to this comment 
when we take final action on the interpollutant trading mechanism as 
part of our final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 
Supplement. The interpollutant trading mechanism cannot be used until 
it is approved as part of the SIP. Therefore, the appropriate venue for 
responding to the comment on the trading mechanism is the final rule on 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 80 FR 1816 at 1841 (January 13, 2015).
    \3\ See letter dated February 27, 2015, from Paul Cort and 
Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, 
EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 
176(c). The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, 
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to a SIP and 
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will 
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are 
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 
which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR 43780 at 
43781-43783). We have further described our process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 
40004 at 40038), and we used the information in these resources in 
making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review 
is separate from the EPA's completeness review and should not be used 
to prejudge the EPA's ultimate action on the SIP. Even if we find a 
budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

Response to Comment

    Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA must disapprove the RFP 
demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement 
because it does not adequately address ammonia emission reductions and, 
therefore, does not provide ``such annual incremental reductions in 
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required . . . for the 
purpose of ensuring attainment . . . by the applicable date.'' 
Earthjustice argues that, because the RFP demonstration is not 
approvable, the EPA cannot find that the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement are 
consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further 
progress, as required by 40 CFR 98.118(e)(4)(iv).
    Response: On January 13, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve several 
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement, which 
California submitted to address Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\4\ As part of this 
action, the EPA proposed to approve the Plan's RFP demonstration for 
2014 and 2017, based on a conclusion that the 2014 and 2017 emissions 
projections for direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia 
(NH3) reflect full implementation of the State's and 
District's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 
Control Technology control strategy, which achieves substantial 
reductions in emissions of each of these pollutants over the period 
covered by the Plan. Id. at 1835-37. The EPA also proposed to approve 
the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2014 and 2017, 
based on a conclusion that these MVEBs are consistent with applicable 
requirements for reasonable further progress and the other adequacy 
requirements. Id. at 1838-41. Finally, in accordance with 40 CFR 
93.102(b)(2)(v), the EPA proposed to find that on-road emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC), SO2, and NH3 
are not significant contributors to the PM2.5 nonattainment 
problem in the SJV area, and accordingly, that transportation 
conformity requirements do not apply for these pollutants in this area. 
Id. at 1840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the transportation 
conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply with respect 
to emissions of VOC, SO2 and/or NH3 if the EPA 
Regional Administrator or the director of the state air agency has made 
a finding that on-road emissions of any of these precursors within the 
nonattainment area are a significant contributor to the 
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and 
DOT, or if the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan 
submission) establishes an approved (or adequate) budget for such 
emissions as part of the reasonable further progress, attainment or 
maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v). With respect to VOC, 
SO2, and NH3, neither the EPA nor the State has 
made a finding that on-road emissions of any of these precursors are

[[Page 22196]]

a significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem 
in the SJV area, and neither the approved California SIP nor the 
submitted 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement establish 
adequate MVEBs for such emissions as part of an RFP, attainment or 
maintenance strategy for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, do 
not apply with respect to emissions of VOC, SO2 or 
NH3 for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
SJV.
    The provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply with respect to 
emissions of NOX because neither the EPA nor the State has 
made a finding that on-road emissions of NOX within the SJV 
nonattainment are not a significant contributor to the PM2.5 
nonattainment problem, and because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 
2014 Supplement establish adequate budgets for such emissions as part 
of the Plan's RFP strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv). The provisions of 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, also apply with respect to emissions of 
direct PM2.5 because PM2.5 is a criteria 
pollutant identified in 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1).
    In order to find an MVEB in a submitted control strategy 
implementation plan revision to be adequate for transportation 
conformity purposes, the EPA must find, among other things, that the 
motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all 
other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for 
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is 
relevant to the given plan). 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). Because the 
provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply only with respect to 
emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5 for purposes of 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, we have evaluated the 
submitted NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for 
consistency with our adequacy criteria in Sec.  93.118(e)(4). The 
commenter's arguments about NH3 emissions are not germane to 
our evaluation of the MVEBs under these adequacy criteria.
    As explained in our January 13, 2015 proposed rule, the 2014 and 
2017 MVEBs for NOX and direct PM2.5 in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement are consistent with the RFP 
demonstration with respect to these pollutants in the submitted plan. 
We find, therefore, that these MVEBs meet the requirement in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4) for consistency with applicable requirements for RFP in 
the submitted plan. We note that our adequacy review is a cursory 
review of the SIP and MVEBs to ensure that the minimum adequacy 
criteria are met before a submitted budget is used in a conformity 
determination. This adequacy finding should not be used to prejudge the 
EPA's final rulemaking action on the SIP.
    In summary, we are announcing our finding that the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for the years 2014 and 2017 from the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan are adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes. The finding is available at the EPA's conformity Web site: 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The 
adequate MVEBs are provided in the following table:

                  Adequate MVEBs in the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards
                                         [Winter daily average in tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014                            2017
                     County                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................................             1.0            31.6             0.9            25.2
Kern (SJV)......................................             1.2            43.2             1.0            34.4
Kings...........................................             0.2             8.8             0.2             7.2
Madera..........................................             0.3             8.7             0.2             7.0
Merced..........................................             0.5            17.2             0.4            13.7
San Joaquin.....................................             0.7            20.0             0.6            15.9
Stanislaus......................................             0.5            15.1             0.5            12.0
Tulare..........................................             0.5            14.3             0.4            10.7
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total *.....................................             4.9           159.0             4.3           126.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
  9, dated December 29, 2014, and Staff Report, Appendix A, Table C-4.
* Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. Letter, Richard
  Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 29,
  2014, Staff Report with Attachment, revised Table C-4, ``Transportation Conformity Budgets'' to 2012 PM2.5
  Plan.


    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

     Dated: April 1, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-08510 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


