Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in Submitted Ozone Attainment Plan for San Joaquin Valley, California |
|---|
|
Deborah Jordan
Environmental Protection Agency
29 June 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29547-29548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0345; FRL-9964-02-Region 9]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in Submitted
Ozone Attainment 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 emission
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') for ozone for the years 2018, 2021,
2024, 2027, 2030, and 2031 in the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard (``2016 Ozone Plan'') are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes for the 2008 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The California Air Resources
Board (CARB) submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan to the EPA on August 24,
2016, as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Upon the effective date of this notice of adequacy, the previously-
approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards will no longer be
applicable for transportation conformity purposes, and the metropolitan
planning organizations in the San Joaquin Valley and the U.S.
Department of Transportation must use these budgets for future
transportation conformity determinations.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action, identified
by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0345. The index to the docket is
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the EPA Region IX office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, (415) 972-3958, or by email
at lee.anita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
This notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. On June 13, 2017, the Region IX office of the EPA sent a
letter to CARB stating that the MVEBs in the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District's 2016 Ozone Plan for the reasonable
further progress milestone years of 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, and 2030,
and the attainment year of 2031, are adequate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See letter from Richard Corey, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, EPA,
dated August 24, 2016, and letter from Elizabeth Adams, EPA, to
Richard Corey, CARB dated June 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We announced the availability of the budgets on the EPA's adequacy
review Web page from February 23, 2017, through March 27, 2017.\2\ We
did not receive any comments on the budgets. The MVEBs are provided in
the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#Sanjoquin2017.
Adequate MVEBs in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard \a\
[Tons per summer planning day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2031
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno...................................... 8.0 27.7 6.4 22.2 5.4 14.1 4.9 13.2 4.5 12.6 4.3 12.5
Kern \b\.................................... 6.6 25.4 5.5 20.4 4.8 12.6 4.5 11.7 4.2 10.9 4.1 10.8
Kings....................................... 1.3 5.1 1.1 4.2 0.9 2.6 0.9 2.5 0.8 2.3 0.8 2.3
Madera...................................... 1.9 5.1 1.5 4.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 2.3 0.9 2.0 0.9 2.0
Merced...................................... 2.5 9.4 2.0 7.8 1.6 4.8 1.5 4.4 1.3 4.2 1.3 4.1
San Joaquin................................. 5.9 13.0 4.9 10.3 4.2 6.9 3.8 6.2 3.5 5.7 3.3 5.5
Stanislaus.................................. 3.8 10.5 3.0 8.3 2.6 5.6 2.3 5.1 2.1 4.7 2.0 4.7
Tulare...................................... 3.7 9.5 2.9 7.2 2.4 4.7 2.2 4.1 1.9 3.8 1.9 3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CARB calculated the MVEBs by taking each county's emissions results from EMFAC2014 (short for EMission FACtor 2014 version) and then rounding each
county's emissions up to the nearest tenth of a ton. The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP revisions and transportation conformity at 80 FR 77337
(December 14, 2015).
\b\ San Joaquin Valley portion.
[[Page 29548]]
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 SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. 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 the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated on
August 15, 1997.\3\ We have further described our process for
determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our final rule dated
July 1, 2004, and we used the information in these resources in making
our adequacy determination.\4\ Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from the EPA's completeness review and should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate action on the SIP. Even if we find a budget
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 62 FR 43780 (August 15, 1997).
\4\ See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e), within 2 years of the effective date
of this notice, the metropolitan planning organizations in the San
Joaquin Valley and the U.S. Department of Transportation will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new MVEBs if the demonstration has not
already been made.\5\ For demonstrating conformity to the MVEBs in this
plan, the motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the
transportation plan should be projected consistently with the budgets
in this plan, i.e., by taking each county's emissions results from
EMFAC2014 and then rounding each county's emissions up to the nearest
tenth of a ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.
Dated: June 13, 2017.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-13658 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P