Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17327 

1 79 FR 58302–58309. 

2 79 FR 64160. 

3Letter from Nathan Miller (NPCA) to Thomas 

Webb (EPA) dated November 29, 2014. 

required to have on board a properly 

installed, operational Coast Guard typeapproved AIS Class A device. 80 FR 

5335. As indicated in the final rule 

preamble (80 FR 5307, January 30, 2015) 

and the NPRM proposed rule (73 FR 

76317, December 16, 2008), we intended 

to limit the applicability of 

§ 164.46(b)(1)(iii) to self-propelled 

vessels. 

Need for Corrections 

As discussed above, the published 

definition of ‘‘VTS User’’ in 33 CFR 

161.2 and AIS applicability paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii) in § 164.46 each contain an 

error which is misleading and needs to 

be corrected. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 161 

Harbors, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 164 

Incorporation by reference, Marine 

safety, Navigation (water), Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Waterways. 

Accordingly, 33 CFR parts 161 and 

164 are corrected by making the 

following correcting amendments: 

PART 161—VESSEL TRAFFIC 

MANAGEMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 161 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70114, 70119; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 

2064; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 161.2, add the word ‘‘required’’ 

before the words ‘‘Coast Guard’’ in 

paragraph (3) of the definition of ‘‘VTS 

User.’’ 

PART 164–NAVIGATION SAFETY 

REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 164 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1222(5), 1223, 1231; 

46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 

58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107– 

295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 

6101. 

■ 4. In § 164.46(b)(1)(iii), add the word 

‘‘self-propelled’’ before the word 

‘‘vessel’’. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

K. Kroutil, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07228 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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 webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

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. 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
17328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4See 64 FR 33713, 35719–35720 (July 1, 1999). 

5 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). 

6California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress 

Report, CARB, May 22, 2014, pages 6–7. 

7WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress 

Report Support Document, Emissions Inventories, 

page 3–11 to 3–29. 

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 nonBART 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17329 

8NPCA letter to EPA dated November 29, 2014, 

page 8. 

9See Progress Report, Statewide 2018 Reasonable 

Progress Goals Summary, Table 3, page 12. 

10See Progress Report, Deciview Record (2000– 

2012), Appendix C, Tables C–1, C–2, and C–3. 

11Progress Report, Technical Analyses of Factors 

Impeding Progress, Appendix D, pages 1–23. 

12Progress Report, Appendix B. 

13 General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze 

Progress Reports, USEPA, April 2013, page 7. 

five-year period from 2008–2012 to the 

URP milestone in 2018.8

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
17330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

14Proposed 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. 

15LAVO is an IMPROVE monitor collecting air 

quality data for Lassen Volcanic National Park, 

Caribou Wilderness Area, and Thousand Lakes 

Wilderness Area in northern California. 

16 79 FR 58307, September 29, 2014. 

17 Ibid. 

18Technical Analyses of Factors Impeding 

Progress, Appendix D, pages D8–D16. 

19See Figure D–7, Relative Contributions to Total 

Light Extinction at LAVO, Progress Report, page D– 

9. 

20Progress Report, page D–13. 

CARB14 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17331 

21 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

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: 

• 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 

■ 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 paragraph (c)(454) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 3. Section 52.281 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0353; FRL–9925–50– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Great 

Falls 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Montana. On 

July 13, 2011, the Governor of 

Montana’s designee submitted to EPA a 

second 10-year maintenance plan for the 

Great Falls area for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This maintenance 

plan addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES