[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17327-17331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07232]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0586; FRL-9924-64-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the California Regional Haze (RH) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
documenting that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress
to achieve visibility goals by 2018. The revision consists of the
California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report that addresses the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
describe progress in achieving visibility goals in Federally designated
Class I areas in California and nearby states. EPA is taking final
action to approve California's determination that the existing RH SIP
is adequate to meet these visibility goals and requires no substantive
revision at this time.
DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective May 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0586 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed directly below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
EPA proposed on September 29, 2014, to approve the California
Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report'') as a revision to the California RH SIP.\1\ CARB submitted
the Progress Report to EPA on June 16, 2014, to address the RHR
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in our
proposal, CARB demonstrated that the emission control measures in the
existing California RH SIP are sufficient to enable California, as well
as other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from sources
in California, to meet all established visibility goals (known as
reasonable progress goals or RPGs) for 2018. Based on our evaluation of
the Report, we proposed to approve CARB's determination that the
California RH SIP requires no substantive revision at this time. We
also proposed to find that CARB fulfilled the requirements in
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with
an opportunity to consult on the RH SIP revision, describe how CARB
addressed the FLMs' comments, and provide procedures for continuing the
consultation. Please refer to our proposed rule for background
information on the RHR, the California RH SIP, and the specific
requirements for Progress Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 79 FR 58302-58309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided for a public comment period that,
upon request, was extended to 60 days ending on November 28, 2014.\2\
We received one set of comments from the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA).\3\ NPCA's comments and our responses are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 79 FR 64160.
\3\ Letter from Nathan Miller (NPCA) to Thomas Webb (EPA) dated
November 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17328]]
A. General Comments
Comment: In a number of its comments, NPCA requested that EPA
provide information or analysis that is not included in CARB's Progress
Report. In several instances, NPCA requested that EPA include such
information by revising the CARB's Progress Report itself. For example,
NPCA requested that EPA revise the Report to include emissions from
natural sources, impacts of pollutant species, estimates of emission
trends from sources outside the State, and reduced RPGs that reflect
progress to date,
Response: EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are
submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove them based
on a comparison of their content to the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule. EPA is not able to revise a state's progress report, and we
are not obligated to develop a progress report ourselves if we approve
the state's progress report. In the case of California's Progress
Report, EPA's proposed approval is based on our determination that CARB
has adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h)
through the information provided in its Report. CARB provided an
opportunity for public comment before submitting its Report to EPA,
which would have been the opportune time to address the contents.
Otherwise, the State is under no obligation to provide information
beyond what is required by Rule. While additional information or
different types of analysis would potentially add value, we must
evaluate the State's Progress Report based on its contents in relation
to the statutory and regulatory requirements. As explained in our
responses to specific comments below, the commenter has not identified
any such requirements which the Progress Report fails to meet, nor has
the commenter identified any shortcomings in the data or analysis upon
which the Report relies. Accordingly, EPA has no obligation to
supplement the Progress Report's contents or to disapprove the Report.
Comment: NPCA encouraged EPA and California to begin identifying
potential sources of emission reductions for the 2018 SIP revision,
including any gaps in monitoring and emission inventories. Two types of
sources mentioned are those that were not subject to Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) due to low effects on visibility and non-
BART point sources.
Response: We agree that additional source analysis is needed in the
next phase of the program.
B. Emission Reductions Achieved
Comment: NPCA argued that while the Progress Report accounts for
emission reductions, it does not distinguish between emission
reductions achieved as a result of the California RH SIP versus
reductions achieved as a result of other enforceable measures and
voluntary programs. NPCA requested that EPA require the State to revise
the Report to quantify the emission reductions achieved specifically by
the RH SIP.
Response: We disagree that the CARB has not properly reported on
the emission reductions achieved by implementing the measures in the
California RH SIP, as required under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). Nothing in
this provision of the Rule requires a detailed, causal analysis linking
specific emission reductions to specific regional haze SIP measures.
The RHR is explicitly designed to facilitate the coordination of
emissions management strategies for regional haze with those needed to
implement national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).\4\ In fact,
the RHR prohibits states from adopting RPGs that represent less
visibility improvement than is expected to result from the
implementation of other CAA requirements during the planning period.\5\
Given this requirement, California and other states include in their RH
SIPs a number of Federal and State regulations that were in effect or
were expected to come into effect during the period covered by the
Progress Report that were anticipated to result in reductions of
visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 64 FR 33713, 35719-35720 (July 1, 1999).
\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California RH SIP is based on a number of air quality programs
that represent some of the most stringent air pollution controls in the
country. These measures include those to achieve ozone, fine
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Emission reductions also
are achieved by installing and operating BART controls on the Valero
refinery as required by the RHR. Other measures, for example, are
related to innovative programs to reduce mobile source emissions or
conserve energy. In essence, the State's plan to improve visibility in
its Class I areas is inextricably linked to emission reductions from a
variety of programs. Given the plan's reliance on a range of control
measures, CARB's Progress Report appropriately summarizes all the
emission reductions that the RH SIP encompasses.
Comment: NPCA particularly encouraged EPA to include emission
reductions from California's only BART source, the Valero refinery in
Benicia, California.
Response: CARB states in its Progress Report \6\ that BART controls
were installed and operating at the main stack of the Valero refinery
as of February 2011. These controls include an amine scrubber to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2), a pre-scrubber to remove
SO2 and particulate matter of ten microns or less
(PM10), and selective catalytic reduction and low-nitrogen
oxide (NOX) burners to remove NOX. CARB states
that these improvements have resulted in reductions equivalent to 5,731
tons per year (tpy) of SOX, 237 tpy of NOX, and
22 tpy of PM10. These emission reductions, included in the
State's plan and in its Progress Report, primarily benefit visibility
at the Point Reyes National Seashore. Thus, the State has provided the
information that NPCA requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report, CARB,
May 22, 2014, pages 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPCA also encouraged EPA to include a direct comparison of
the emission projections used by the WRAP in its model relied upon by
California to establish its RPGs versus the most recent emission
inventory, to explain any discrepancies and projected changes to 2018.
Response: The RHR does not require a direct comparison of the
emission projections used to establish the RPGs in 2018 for the
California RH SIP, with the most recent emission inventory used in the
Progress Report to summarize emission reductions achieved. To
understand better the difficulty of relying on emission inventories to
evaluate visibility conditions at individual Class I areas, please
refer to the WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document.\7\ The Rule does require a state to use updated emission
inventories and other data for the comprehensive revision to the RH SIP
due in 2018 that establishes new RPGs for 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document, Emissions Inventories, page 3-11 to 3-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Changes in Visibility Conditions
Comment: NPCA requested that EPA revise the Progress Report to
include ``natural conditions and the uniform rate of progress (URP)
milestones'' since these are ``the goals by which visibility progress
is measured.'' NPCA included a table focusing on visibility improvement
on worst days, the salient component of which is comparing the
[[Page 17329]]
five-year period from 2008-2012 to the URP milestone in 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NPCA letter to EPA dated November 29, 2014, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The RHR in 51.308(g)(3) requires a state to assess
visibility for most impaired and least impaired days based on five-year
averages at each Class I area for current conditions, current compared
to baseline conditions, and over the past five years. As stated in the
title of 40 CFR 51.308(g), these are ``[r]equirements for periodic
reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals.''
While the URP to natural conditions, and the resulting URP milestone
for 2018, is an important frame of reference, a state is required to
report progress toward its RPG for 2018, not the URP milestone. CARB
used the five-year period from 2007-2011 as the basis of comparison to
the RPGs,\9\ which was the most current data available at the time of
the analysis. CARB also included data on visibility conditions at each
Class I area in 2012 in the appendices \10\ to indicate further
progress, even though this year is outside the time frame of the
State's review. We do not agree that the Progress Report needs
revision, because CARB has adequately addressed this particular
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Progress Report, Statewide 2018 Reasonable Progress
Goals Summary, Table 3, page 12.
\10\ See Progress Report, Deciview Record (2000-2012), Appendix
C, Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NPCA requested that EPA include the five-year rolling
averages of species extinction in graphical and tabular form for each
Class I area to illustrate more clearly the impact associated with each
pollutant species. Further, NPCA suggested that EPA clearly include
estimates of emission trends from relevant sources outside the State
that impact California's Class I areas.
Response: The data on species extinction, while potentially
informative, is not required by the Rule. As to emission trends of
sources outside of California, this information is required in the
progress reports from states in which those Class I areas are located.
It is worth noting that CARB is required to address any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that
have impeded progress at its Class I areas under 51.308(g)(5), which is
addressed further below.
D. Changes in Emissions
Comment: NPCA stated that the emissions inventory in the Report
does not include natural sources, which are particularly important due
to the role of wildfire in visibility impairment. NPCA requested that
EPA include emissions from natural sources in the State's emissions
inventory, including projected future values. NPCA further stated that
it is unclear whether the emission inventory includes several other
growing sources of anthropogenic emissions, including emissions from
increased oil and gas production (e.g., from fracking and
transportation of crude oil through California by rail). NPCA also
noted that the Report did not discuss emissions of ammonia, a precursor
to ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, which impair visibility.
Response: CARB provides statewide emission inventories by source
category and pollutant in five-year increments from 2000 to 2020 in the
Emission Inventory 2013 Almanac (Appendix B of the Progress Report)
that is used as the basis for reporting on emission inventories and
trends, including the period from 2005 to 2010. In the context of
reducing man-made impairment of visibility, EPA does not expect states
to include wildfires in addressing this requirement. While developing
an inventory of past wildfire emissions is possible, using this
information to project future emissions is highly problematic given the
variation in time and place as well as the inherent unpredictability of
wildfire events. That said, CARB includes in its Progress Report \11\
three case studies that provide a detailed analysis of the impact of
documented wildfire events on specific Class I areas. While not
appropriate for a trend analysis, this type of information is critical
to understanding the effect of wildfires on visibility, especially in
Class I areas where wildfires have limited progress toward achieving
the RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Progress Report, Technical Analyses of Factors Impeding
Progress, Appendix D, pages 1-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB did include emissions from oil and gas production. Two source
categories are listed for each of the four pollutants (NOX,
SOX, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate
matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5)) in the Emission
Inventory 2013 Almanac.\12\ The first category, ``Oil and Gas
Production (Combustion),'' is largely emissions from oil field
equipment, which are mostly point sources. The second category, ``Oil
and Gas Production,'' consists of evaporative emissions from sources
like tanks and leaking valves, which are usually area sources. Another
category, listed as ``Off-Road Equipment,'' includes emissions from
drilling rigs. CARB's interactive emission inventory that was used for
the Progress Report is available online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2013.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Progress Report, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to determine whether the limited, minor increases
in the Oil and Gas inventory are attributable to any increase in
production. We consider any potential growth in this sector a
prospective issue for the State to address in its next RH SIP revision
due in 2018. Nonetheless, according to the Emission Inventory 2013
Almanac (Appendix B), the following trends are discernable:
Oil and Gas Production (Combustion): For this category of
oil and gas stationary sources, NOX emissions constitute the
largest annual total (3,723 tpy in 2010) of the four pollutants listed
in the State's inventory. However, these emissions are projected to
decline from 2000 to 2020. SOX emissions from this category
increased from 2005 to 2010 (475 to 767 tpy), but overall are projected
to decline from 2000 to 2020. VOC emissions are relatively flat (949
tpy in 2005 and 2010). PM2.5, while also relatively flat
from 2000 to a projected 2020, increased slightly from 2005 to 2010
(657 to 767 tpy).
Oil and Gas Production: For this category of oil and gas
area sources, VOCs constitute the largest annual total (13,615 tpy in
2010), but are projected to decline from 2000 to 2020. For the five-
year period from 2005 to 2010, emissions of VOCs decreased about 11
percent from 15,367 to 13,615 tpy. These oil and gas area sources also
emit NOX emissions, but at a lower level. Emissions of
NOX are expected to decline from 2000 to 2020, including
from 986 tpy in 2005 to 803 tpy in 2010. SOX emissions are
consistently flat from 2000 to 2020 at about 36 tpy. PM2.5
emissions were 36 tpy in 2005 and are reportedly zero for 2010 and the
inventory years thereafter.
Regarding ammonia, the RHR does not require the inclusion of
ammonia in the emission inventory. In EPA's General Principles for
developing the progress reports, we explained that ``[b]ecause nearly
all of the initial regional haze SIPs . . . considered only
SO2, NOX, and PM as visibility impairing
pollutants, the first five-year reports are usually not required to
identify or quantify emission reductions for other pollutants, such as
ammonia or VOC.'' \13\ Although not required, information exists
regarding whether emissions of ammonia are an issue in California. For
example, research by
[[Page 17330]]
CARB \14\ indicates that, due to the relative abundance of ammonia,
reducing ammonia emissions are not as effective at reducing ammonium
nitrate and ammonium sulfate as directly reducing NOX and
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports, USEPA, April 2013, page 7.
\14\ Proposed Revision to the PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, Weight of Evidence
Analysis, Appendix B, CARB, January 11, 2013, at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sjvpm25/24hrsjvpm25.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress
Comment: NPCA acknowledged that California discusses the impacts of
wildfire, off-shore shipping, and Asian dust, which have impeded
progress in some of California's Class I areas. NPCA suggested that EPA
do more research in these areas to develop nationally consistent
methods to account for emissions from these types of sources. For
example, the distinction between prescribed fires and wildfires is
confusing in regard to what is natural versus anthropogenic and what is
controllable versus uncontrollable given the interconnection between
these two categories of fire. Similarly, NPCA encouraged EPA to address
emissions from federally regulated sources and to consult with other
countries on international sources of haze. NPCA restated its concern
regarding the potential for increased emissions related to oil and gas
development and production, as well as the importation of crude oil by
rail. NPCA also addressed the indirect impacts of climate change on
regional haze as warmer temperatures contribute to higher ground level
ozone and PM2.5 concentrations.
Response: EPA acknowledges that more research and consistent
methods are needed to understand and measure the effects of
anthropogenic emissions from sources outside a state's control (e.g.,
emissions from Asia, Mexico, and Canada). Further research also is
needed concerning the anthropogenic component of wildfires and
prescribed fires, which is subject to interpretation, and varies over
time and place. It is worth noting that the Federal government
continues to regulate emissions from mobile and off-shore shipping, for
example, which are credited in the RH SIPs. Moreover, we understand and
share concerns about the potential effects of climate change on human
health and the environment. We continually work with CARB and other air
quality agencies in California to update and improve emission
inventories in order to evaluate more accurately our progress in
improving human health and the environment.
F. Meeting the Reasonable Progress Goals
Comment: NPCA is concerned that the progress that California
appears to be making in most Class I areas may not be enforceable or
permanent. NPCA encouraged EPA to revise downward the RPGs for 2018 to
reflect the progress to date, noting that California has previously
committed to reevaluating the RPGs to determine if they should be
adjusted to better reflect achievable improvement.
Response: The purpose of the Progress Report is to evaluate whether
the State's existing plan is making sufficient progress in achieving
the established RPGs for 2018 in its 29 Class I areas, and is not
interfering with the ability of other States to make similar progress
in nearby Class I areas. The Rule does not make any provision for EPA
to require a state to lower its RPGs where it appears from a progress
report that they will be achieved.
G. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
Comment: NPCA encouraged EPA to maintain, and consider increasing,
funding for the IMPROVE monitoring network, given that a number of
California's Class I areas share monitors.
Response: EPA acknowledges NPCA's support for the IMPROVE
monitoring network.
H. Determination of Adequacy
Comment: NPCA requested that EPA not approve California's
determination of adequacy. NPCA cited the fact that the LAVO \15\
monitoring data shows degradation of visibility on the worst days, and
is therefore not on track to meet its RPG. This means that the SIP is
not sufficient to meet the established visibility goals. NPCA also
mentioned California's identification of wildfires, shipping emissions,
and Asian dust as relatively significant factors, particularly in
relation to the LAVO monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ LAVO is an IMPROVE monitor collecting air quality data for
Lassen Volcanic National Park, Caribou Wilderness Area, and Thousand
Lakes Wilderness Area in northern California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA disagrees with NPCA's request to disapprove the
State's determination of adequacy. The requested disapproval is based
on the commenter's interpretation that the LAVO monitoring data,
representing three Class I areas in northern California, indicate that
these Class I areas will not achieve the RPG by 2018. As we noted in
our proposal,\16\ LAVO is the only monitor, based on the most recent
five-year average (2008-2012), which shows worse visibility conditions
(15.6 dv) compared to its baseline (14.1 dv). However, this situation
in 2008-2012 does not necessarily mean that the SIP is not adequate to
achieve the RPG by 2018, because wildfire smoke, a key contributor to
haze in this period, should not be assumed to be the same in 2018 as
during 2008-2012. We explained that ``CARB provides technical analyses
of how wildfire smoke can elevate the deciview value on a sufficient
number of the 20 percent worst days to increase the annual average
deciview as well as skew the five-year average deciview at a given
monitor.'' \17\ In fact, CARB provides a technical analysis of the
factors impeding progress at LAVO in its Progress Report.\18\ In
particular, CARB establishes a positive correlation between documented
wildfires in southern Oregon and northern California in 2008 and 2009
with exceptionally high readings of organic carbon at the LAVO monitor
on worst days in those same years.\19\ CARB goes on to document that
the worst day averages at the LAVO monitor for 2010 (12.8 dv), 2011
(11.7 dv), and 2012 (14.3 dv) were below or near the baseline average
of 14.1 dv.\20\ Taking this evidence of wildfire impacts into
consideration, the LAVO monitor establishes a trend toward meeting the
RPG for 2018 of 13.3 dv. It is EPA's determination that CARB adequately
demonstrates that no substantive revisions are needed at this time to
achieve the established RPGs at the Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 79 FR 58307, September 29, 2014.
\17\ Ibid.
\18\ Technical Analyses of Factors Impeding Progress, Appendix
D, pages D8-D16.
\19\ See Figure D-7, Relative Contributions to Total Light
Extinction at LAVO, Progress Report, page D-9.
\20\ Progress Report, page D-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve the California Regional Haze
Plan 2014 Progress Report submitted to EPA on June 16, 2014, as meeting
the applicable RHR requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h),
and (i). With 29 Class I areas in California, we commend CARB on the
Progress Report, and in particular, the development of the case studies
in Appendix D that provide an analysis of wildfire impacts at three of
the IMPROVE monitors. The comprehensive evaluation of the California RH
SIP due in 2018 for the next ten-year planning period is the next
opportunity to reassess progress and make any necessary adjustments.
[[Page 17331]]
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.\21\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role
is to approve state decisions, provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements, and does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where 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.
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. 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 June 1, 2015. 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 relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic
carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
Part 52, 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)(454) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(454) The following plan was submitted on June 16, 2014, by the
Governor's Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
(1) CARB Resolution 14-15, dated May 22, 2014, approving the
``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report.''
(2) The ``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report'',
adopted on May 22, 2014.
0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.281 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(g) Approval. On June 16, 2014, the California Air Resources Board
submitted the ``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report''
(``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets the requirements of
Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40
CFR 51.308.
[FR Doc. 2015-07232 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P