Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations |
|---|
|
Jared Blumenfeld
Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52539-52542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20791]
[[Page 52539]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823; FRL-9915-85-Region 9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plan Revisions; State of
California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the
State of California to meet the vehicle miles traveled emissions offset
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards in the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast''). The EPA is approving this
revision because it demonstrates that California has put in place
specific enforceable transportation control strategies and
transportation control measures to offset the growth in emissions from
the growth in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips in the South
Coast, and thereby meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Regulatory Background
B. CARB's Submittal
C. The EPA's Proposed Approval
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), under section 110(k) of the Clean
Air Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed approval of a submittal dated
February 13, 2013 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) of a
revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) for the
South Coast. The SIP revision includes demonstrations intended to show
compliance with the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset element of
CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). The following paragraphs summarize the
regulatory background, CARB's submittal, and the EPA's rationale for
proposing approval. For additional details concerning these topics,
please see our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.
A. Regulatory Background
The specific CAA requirement that is relevant for the purposes of
this action is section 182(d)(1)(A), which applies in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme,'' and, in
relevant part, requires the state, if subject to its requirements, to
``submit a [SIP] revision that identifies and adopts specific
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation
control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in
vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area.'' \1\
Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to vehicle miles traveled or vehicle
trips, and refer to the related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions
offset requirement.'' In addition, we refer to the SIP revision
intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset
requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements.
This final action relates only to the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Coast \2\ is an ``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment area for
both the revoked 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(standard or NAAQS) and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thus, the
State of California is required to submit SIP revisions that include
VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the South Coast for both ozone
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County. The South Coast is home to
approximately 17 million people, has a diverse economic base, and
contains one of the highest-volume port areas in the world. For a
precise description of the geographic boundaries of the South Coast,
please see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement for
the 1-hour ozone standard, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration showing decreases in
aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the South Coast
from a base year (1990) through the applicable attainment year (2010).
The following year, the EPA approved the South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT
emissions offset demonstration as meeting the VMT emissions offset
requirement of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). See 74 FR 10176 (March 10,
2009). The EPA also approved the South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstration submitted in connection with the area's ``Extreme''
classification for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 77 FR 12674
(March 1, 2012). Once again, the approved demonstration showed
decreases in aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the
South Coast from a base year through the applicable attainment year.
In approving the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations in
2009 and 2012, the EPA applied its then-longstanding interpretation of
the VMT emissions offset requirement, first explained in guidance in
the General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air Act (see 57 FR 13498,
at 13521-13523, April 16, 1992), that no transportation control
measures are necessary if aggregate motor vehicle emissions are
projected to decline each year from the base year of the plan to the
attainment year. See 74 FR 10176, at 10179-10180 (March 10, 2009); 76
FR 57872, at 57889 (September 16, 2011). However, in response to a
legal challenge brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the Court ruled against the EPA's approval of the South Coast
VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard,
determining that the EPA incorrectly interpreted the statutory phrase
``growth in emissions'' in section 182(d)(1)(A) as meaning a growth in
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT.
Essentially, the Court ruled that additional transportation control
measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be
higher than they would have been had VMT not increased, even when
aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. However, the Court
acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances could result in
[[Page 52540]]
there being no increase in emissions even in the face of VMT growth,
which would then allow VMT to increase without triggering the
requirement to adopt offsetting transportation control measures.
Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 596-597
(9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d
668, further amended February 13, 2012.
Based on this reasoning, the Court remanded the approval of the
South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
standard back to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with the
opinion. In response, we withdrew our approval of the South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and
disapproved it. See 78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013). Furthermore, because
our approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was predicated on the same rationale as
the corresponding South Coast demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
standard that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit, we withdrew our
approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and disapproved it as well. Id. Our
disapproval of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstrations triggered sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) that
would lead to sanctions within a certain period of time unless
California submitted, and the EPA approved, SIP revisions that
addressed the deficiency upon which the disapproval was based.
In the wake of the decision in the Association of Irritated
Residents case cited above, and in addition to withdrawing our approval
of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations and
disapproving the same, the EPA issued a guidance document, Guidance on
Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control
Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in
Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled (herein referred to
as the ``August 2012 guidance''), which includes a revised methodology
for states to use in their VMT emissions offset demonstrations.\3\ The
guidance discusses the meaning of the terms, ``transportation control
strategies'' (TCSs) and ``transportation control measures'' (TCMs), and
recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations made
for the purpose of determining the degree to which any hypothetical
growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. Generally,
TCSs is a broad term that encompasses many types of controls including,
for example, motor vehicle emission limitations, inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative fuel programs, other
technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would fit within the
regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' See, e.g., 40 CFR
51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as meaning ``any
measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air pollutants
from transportation sources. Such measures include, but are not limited
to those listed in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]'' and
generally refer to programs intended to reduce the VMT, the number of
vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved
public transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction ordinances, and similar
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl
Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9,
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Court's ruling. States are recommended to estimate emissions for
the nonattainment area's base year and the attainment year. One
emission inventory is developed for the base year, and three different
emissions inventory scenarios are developed for the attainment year.
For the attainment year, the state would present three emissions
estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical emissions
scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the ``growth in
emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions
obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance
for specific details on how states might conduct the calculations.
B. CARB's Submittal
On February 13, 2013, in response to the EPA's final disapproval of
the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations, CARB
submitted revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations for
the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. CARB then provided
supplemental information and analysis on April 3, 2014.
C. The EPA's Proposed Approval
As noted above, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), the EPA proposed
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations
submitted by CARB to meet the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions
offset requirement for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards
in the South Coast. The EPA proposed to approve the revision because it
demonstrated that California had put in place specific enforceable TCSs
and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT and
vehicle trips in the South Coast, and thereby met the applicable
requirements in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). In addition, based on our
proposed approval of the VMT emissions offset demonstrations, we issued
an interim final determination that deferred the imposition of
sanctions triggered by our March 28, 2013 disapproval of previous
versions of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations. See 79
FR 29680 (May 23, 2014).
Our full evaluation of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards can
be found in our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. In summary, the results
from the State's VMT emissions offset calculations establish projected
actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 65 tons per day (tpd) for the
1-hour standard demonstration and 62 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard
demonstration. The State then compared these projected actual emissions
values against the attainment year scenario for no growth in VMT and
trips and no additional TCMs or TCSs. This calculation is also referred
to as the ``VMT offset ceiling.'' By comparing the projected actual
attainment year emissions against the VMT offset ceiling, the State
(along with the EPA and the public) can determine whether additional
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT. Because the
projected actual emissions in both the 1-hour standard demonstration
and the 1997 8-hour standard demonstration are less than the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling emissions, the State concluded that
the demonstration shows compliance with the VMT emissions offset
requirement and that there are sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT in the South
Coast for
[[Page 52541]]
both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As described in the EPA's May 23, 2014 proposed rule, the
offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and TCMs put in
place after the respective base year can be determined by
subtracting the projected actual emissions estimates from the no
action emissions estimates. For the purposes of the 1-hour ozone
demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 423 tpd (488 tpd
minus 65 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and
vehicle trips, 176 tpd (488 tpd minus 312 tpd). See table 1 on page
29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. For the purposes of the 8-
hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 53
tpd (115 tpd minus 62 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from
growth in VMT and vehicle trips, 26 tpd (115 tpd minus 89 tpd). See
table 2 on page 29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the State's submittal, including the
technical supplement, we found the State's analysis to be acceptable
and agreed that the State had adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in
the South Coast for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. As such, we found that the revised South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstrations complied with the VMT emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, we proposed
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a revision to
the California SIP.
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
Our May 23, 2014 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period. During this period, we received one comment: an email from a
private citizen representing the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC).
We provide our response to this comment below.
Comment: PSPC, noting ongoing litigation over the 2012 South Coast
Air Quality Management Plan, requests that sanctions be imposed on
California and the District. PSCP also calls for adoption by SCAQMD of
an Immediate Solar Conversion Plan as a control measure, with full
implementation by 2020 at the latest, contending that that the
Immediate Solar Conversion Plan is cost effective and represents RACT/
RACM. PSPC also requested a 60-day extension of the comment period to
allow more time to get the more recent information into the records.
Response: Our proposed rule relates to the South Coast VMT offset
demonstration submitted by CARB as a revision to the California SIP to
address the VMT-related requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for
the South Coast ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
ozone standards. Section 182(d)(1)(A) requires states to submit SIP
revisions for such areas that identify and adopt specific TCSs and TCMs
to offset any growth in emissions due to growth in VMT in such areas.
In our proposed rule, we concluded that, with the TCSs and TCMs put
in place by the various relevant state and regional agencies, the
required demonstrations have been made. PSPC does not challenge our
conclusion but rather seeks to compel the state to adopt a specific
additional control measure referred to by PSPC as the Immediate Solar
Conversion Plan. However, the EPA's role in reviewing SIPs and SIP
revisions is to ensure that the states meet the requirements of the
CAA, and California has demonstrated how it meets the requirement
without adoption and implementation of the Immediate Solar Power
Conversion Plan. Therefore, we have no authority to require California
to adopt and implement such a plan to comply with CAA section
182(d)(1)(A). Furthermore, because we have concluded that California
has met the applicable requirements, sanctions would not be authorized
under the CAA.
Lastly, we have decided not to extend the comment period because
further information concerning the Immediate Solar Power Conversion
Plan would not change our conclusion that California has submitted a
SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
for the South Coast and would not, therefore, provide a basis for us to
reconsider our approval of the SIP revision under CAA section 110(k).
III. What action is the EPA taking?
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), for the reasons set forth above and in
greater detail in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving CARB's
submittal dated February 13, 2013 of the revised South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstrations \5\ for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards, as supplemented by CARB on April 3, 2014, as a
revision to the California SIP. We are approving this SIP revision
because it demonstrates that California has put in place specific
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation
control measures to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in
VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast for both the 1-hour ozone and
1997 8-hour ozone standards, and thereby meets the applicable
requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Contained in the appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled
Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the SCAQMD's Final 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the effective date of today's final approval, all sanctions
and sanctions clocks that were triggered upon our final disapproval at
78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013) of previous versions of the South Coast
VMT emissions offset demonstrations, and deferred upon our interim
final rule at 79 FR 29680 (May 23, 2014), are permanently terminated.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 approves a state plan revision as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For these reasons, this final 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 CAA; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address
[[Page 52542]]
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, this final 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 in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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. The 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 3, 2014. 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 regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 13, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
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
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs
(c)(439)(ii)(A)(3) and (c)(439)(ii)(B)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(439) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated April 3, 2014, providing
supplemental information related to Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the Final 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan.
(B) * * *
(4) Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset
Demonstration'') (December 2012) of the Final 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan.
[FR Doc. 2014-20791 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P