[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