[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13086-13088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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