Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On March 8, 2010, EPA fully approved state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) extreme ozone nonattainment area. 75 FR 10420. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had submitted these SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable requirements of part D, title I of the CAA following EPA's reclassification of the SJV area from severe to extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective May 17, 2004. 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 2004).
These submittals, which we refer to collectively as the “2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan” or “Plan,” contained the following required elements of a 1-hour ozone plan for the SJV: (1) A rate of progress (ROP) demonstration as required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures as required by CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment demonstration as required by CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a); (4) attainment contingency measures as required by CAA section 172(c)(9); (5) a reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration as required by CAA section 172(c)(1); (6) provisions for clean fuels/clean technologies for boilers as required by CAA 182(e)(3); and (7) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions as required by CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), including the requirement regarding transportation control strategies and transportation control measures sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips in the SJV area (VMT emissions offset requirement).
The Sierra Club and several environmental groups filed a petition for review of EPA's March 8, 2010 approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan, arguing, among other things, that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it did not take into account new emissions inventory data that California had submitted subsequent to its submittal of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan. On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the petition with respect to this issue, holding that EPA's failure to consider the new emissions data rendered the Agency's action arbitrary and capricious under the APA and remanding EPA's action, in its entirety, for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Consistent with the
As a consequence of EPA's reclassification of the SJV to extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in 2004, California was obligated to submit plan revisions for the SJV area meeting CAA and regulatory requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Because California will be in default of these obligations should it withdraw the Plan from EPA's consideration, following such withdrawal EPA will promptly issue a finding of failure to submit pursuant to CAA section 179(a)(1), effective upon publication in the
If California withdraws the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan, the plan elements under subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title I of the CAA for which the State will no longer have a valid submission and thus would be required to submit for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV area are as follows: (1) A ROP demonstration meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment
On March 1, 2012, EPA fully approved SIP revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan).
Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State shall submit a 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 and to attain reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction requirements of this subpart, to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissions reduction requirements). The State shall consider measures specified in section 7408(f) of this title, and choose from among and implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment with the national ambient air quality standards; in considering such measures, the State should ensure adequate access to downtown, other commercial, and residential areas and should avoid measures that increase or related emissions and congestion rather than reduce them.
As explained in EPA's proposed and final rules, in
EPA's final rule approving the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan was published on March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12652). Shortly thereafter, several environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit challenging that approval.
As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's prior interpretation of the VMT emissions offset requirement in section 182(d)(1)(A), under which we had allowed states to demonstrate compliance through submittal of aggregate motor vehicle emissions estimates showing year-over-year declines in such emissions. This interpretation formed the basis for EPA's determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfied the VMT emissions offset requirement. In response to the court's ruling in
Because EPA's determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP satisfied the VMT emissions offset requirement was made in the absence of any such demonstration submitted by the State, California will be in default of its obligation to submit a SIP revision satisfying this requirement if EPA finalizes the withdrawal of its determination that the obligation has been met. Therefore, simultaneously with a final action to withdraw our previous determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), EPA intends to issue a finding that California has failed to submit a SIP revision to address this requirement, which would be effective upon publication in the
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the “Date” and “Addresses” sections at the beginning of this preamble.
This action merely proposes to withdraw previous EPA actions, or portions thereof, on SIP revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment of ozone standards in the San Joaquin Valley. As such it does not propose to impose additional requirements on any entity. 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
• 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
• 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 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)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401