Alexis Strauss , Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following notice of final rulemaking on

July 8 , 2016, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet v ersion of this final , it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website ( https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR ) and on Regulatio ns.gov ( http://www.regulations.gov ) in Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2015

- 0711. Billing Code: 6560

- 50

- P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA
- R09
- OAR
- 2015
- 0711 ; FRL
- ]Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the State of California ’s State Implementation Plan (SIP ) for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area . The revisions consist of an update to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets ( “budgets” ) for nitrogen oxides ( NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8

- h our o zone n ational a mbient a ir q uality s tandard (NAAQS or “standard” ) for the SJV ozone nonattainment area and for NO x and co a rse particulate matter (PM 10 ) for the 1987 24

- hour PM 10 standard for the SJV PM 10 maintenance area . The EPA is approv ing the SJV

ozone revis ed budgets and conditionally approving the PM 10 budgets in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act” ) and the EPA’s regulations. DATES: This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]

. ADDRESSES : The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA

R09

- OAR

- 2015

- 0 711

. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.govThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidenti al business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket mat erials are available through http://www.regulations.gov , or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR

2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972

- 3963, ungvarsky.john @epa.gov

. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this docu ment, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
I II

. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action On May 1 8 , 2016 (81 FR 31 21 2 ), the EPA proposed , under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “ Act ” ) , to approve a revision to the California SIP submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 13, 2015

. 1 The SIP submittal revises budgets applicable to control strategy or maintenance plans for the SJV for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard , 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard , and the 1987 24

- hour PM 10 standard

. 2 In our May 18, 2016

1 Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 13 , 201 5 with enclosures. 2 For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment area includes all of seven counties, including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the western half of Kern County. See theThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 action, we proposed to approve revised budgets for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard and the 2006
24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. We also proposed to conditionally approve revised budgets for the 1987
24

- hour PM 10 standard. CARB developed the revised budgets using EMFAC2014 and the travel activity projections provided by the S JV Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs ) consistent with the 2015 Federal T ransportation I mprovement P rogram (TIP) . As such, the revised budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the most recent emission factor data and approved calculation methods. The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard an d the 24

- hour PM 10 standard. The ozone budgets were included in the EPA’s approval of the SJV
2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan (“2007 Ozone Plan”) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012), which established NO x and VOC 3 budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023. 4 The PM 10 budgets were included in the EPA’s approval of the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (“2007 PM 10 Plan”) at 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2008), which established direct PM 10 and NO x budgets for 2005 and 2020. 5 The SJV budgets for the 200 6 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard

w ere included in the EPA’s proposed approval of the SJV 2012 PM 2.5 Plan (“2012 PM 2.5 Plan”) at 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017 PM 2.5 budgets in the SJV 2012
PM 2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing direct PM 2.5 and NO x budgets for 2017. As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must be used to determine conformity of

NAAQS

- specific tables in 40 CFR 81.305. 3 California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG. 4 The approved 2 007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV

- related portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). 5 The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation , September 20, 2007 , and technical corrections by CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 PM 10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Wayne Nastri from James N. Goldstene.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 transportation plans and TIPs to the control strategy plan for the SJV for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. 6
In our May 18 , 2016 proposed rule, we reviewed the revised budgets for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in the November 1 3 , 2015 submittal , evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they me e t all applicable requirements. More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), we propos ed to approve the revised VOC and
NO x budgets in t able 1 for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard . We determined that replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised VOC and NO x budgets would not interfere with the approved RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in the SJV and emissions changes in non

- motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan

. Table 1. San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed for the 1997 8
- Hour Ozone Standard Using EMFAC2014 7 , 8

County Subarea NO x

(tons per summer day) VOC (tons per summer day) 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 Fresno 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6 Kern (SJV) 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8 Kings 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9

6 Also see l etter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, April 1, 201 6 with enclosures. 7 The county

- specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to CARB Resolution 15

- 50. Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 1 3, 2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM 2.5 , and PM

10 State Implementation Plans , release date September 21, 2015. 8 CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking the sum of the county

- by

- county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV

- wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NO x and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and PM 10 ; then re

- al locating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 Madera 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 Merced 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 San Joaquin 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3
Stanislaus 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7 Tulare 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5
Second , under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA propos ed to conditionally approve the revised direct PM 10 and NO x budgets in table 2 for 2020 for the 24

- hour PM 10 standard . We determined that , when combined with implementation of the contingency plan in the SIP

- appro ved
2007 PM 10 Plan and fulfillment of the commitments in the State’s April 29, 2016 letter, the revised direct PM 10 and NO x budgets will allow the SJV to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 24

- hour PM 10 standard. The contents of the State’s April 29, 2016 letter are described in detail in our proposed rule on pages 31220 and 31221. In our proposal , we explained that if the conditional approval is finalized , CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has c ommi tted to submit by June 1, 2017. The resulting impacts if CARB fails to comply with this commitment are explained below in section III of today’s action.

Table 2 . San Joaquin Valley Revised 2020 Budgets for the PM 10 Standard Developed Using EMFAC2014 9 , 10 County Subarea Direct PM 10 NO x

9 The county

- specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to CARB Resolution 15

- 50. Attachment A constitutesthe SIP revision adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13, 2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM 2.5 , and PM

10 State Implementation Plans , release date September 21, 2015. 10 CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking th e sum of the county

- by

- county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV

- wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NO x and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC and PM 10 ; then re

- allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each coun ty’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding methodThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 (tons per annual day) (tons per annual day)

Fresno 7.0 25.4 Kern (SJV) 7.4 23.3 Kings 1.8 4.8 Madera 2.5 4.7 Merced 3.8 8.9 San Joaquin 4.6 11.9 Stanislaus 3.7 9.6 Tulare 3.4 8.4
Third , the EPA also propos ed to approve the revised direct PM 2.5 and NO x budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard . We determined that: (1) replacement of the current adequate budgets with the revised budgets would be consistent with our separate proposal finding that the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year 2017 ; (2) emissions changes in non

- motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusion of the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan ; and (3) the revised budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)

- (v i). Because the EPA has yet to finalize its approval of 2012 PM 2.5 Plan , we are not able to finaliz e, in today’s action, our approval of the revised direct PM 2.5 and NO x budgets for 2017 in CARB ’s submittal dated November 13 , 201 5 for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard . T he EPA expects to take final action on the revised PM 2.5 budgets for 2017 as part of its final action on the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan for the
2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard

. Lastly, o n the effecti ve date of today’s action, the previously

- approved budgets for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard and the 1987 24

- hour PM 10 standard would no longer be applicableThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 for transportation conformity purposes , and the SJV MPOs and the U.S. Department of Transportation ( DOT ) must use the revised budgets for future tra nsportation conformity determinations. Please see our May 18 , 2016 proposed rule for more information concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for approval of the revised budgets

. II. Public Comments
Our May 18 , 2016 proposed rule provided a 30

- day public comment period, which closed

on June 1 7 , 2016. We received no comments on our proposal during this period.
I II . Final Action For the reasons discussed in the May 1 8 , 2016 proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is approving, or conditionally approving, revised motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on November 13, 2015 by CARB for the SJV area as a revision to the California SIP. More specifically, the EPA is approv ing , under CAA section 110(k)(3) , revised VOC and NO x budgets shown in table 1 above for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard

. The EPA is conditionally approv ing , under CAA section 110(k)(4), the revised direct PM 10 and NO x budgets shown in table 2 above for 2020 for the 24

- hour PM 10 standard

. CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017 , as described in their April 29, 2016 letter . If CARB fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. Disapproval of the revised budgets for the 2007 PM 10 Plan would reinstate the existing approved budgets as the budgets that must be used in transportation planThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 and TIP conformity determinations after the effective date of the disa pproval. See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1). 11
I V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the C AA , 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 C AA . Accordingly, this action merely approves revisions to motor vehicle emission budgets as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

 I s not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Octob er 4, 1993);

 D oes not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

 I s certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regul atory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

 D oes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104

- 4);

 D oes not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

11 Because the submittal of the revised budgets is not a required submittal, disapproval would not trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but would nonetheless trigger a two

- year clock for a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c) . Disapproval would not trigger a transportation conformity freeze because the disapproval does not affect a cont rol strategy implementation plan as defined in the transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9  I s not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

 I s not a significant regulatory act ion subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

 I s not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the C AA ; and

 D oes 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). Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Ind ian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal offic ials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the rela tionship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.” Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the S JV air quality planning are a for the 1997 8

- hours ozone standard and 24

- hour PM 10 standard : the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table MountainThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.
T he EPA’s approval into the SIP of the S JV revised budgets submitted by CARB would not have tribal implications because 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 SIP approvals do 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). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the action will not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and

w ill not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor w ill it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the S JV has requested eligibility to adm inister programs under the CAA. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agen cy 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 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 [ INSERTThis document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]

.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 withi n 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 Pa rt 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. A uthority : 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
.

_______________________ _____________________________________ Dated: Alexis Strauss , Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 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. 2 20 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(477) to read as follows : § 52.2 20 Identification of plan.

* * * * * (c) * * * ( 477 ) The following revision was submitted on November 13 , 201 5 by the Governor’s designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board. ( 1 ) Attachment A to Resolution 15

- 50, “Updates to the Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM 10 , 2007 Ozone and 2012 PM 2.5 SIPs,” Table A

- 1 (Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer day) and Table
A

- 3 (Upd ated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 PM 10 Maintenance Plan (Tons per annual da y ))

.

* * * * *
3. S ubpart F is amended by adding § 52.248 to read as follows: § 52.248 Identification of plan

– conditional approval.This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss on July 8 ,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 (a) The EPA is conditiona lly approving a California State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisionsubmitted on November 13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and co a rse particulate matter (PM 10 ) for the 1987 24

- hour PM 10 standard for the S an Joaquin Valley PM 10 maintenance area. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the State to submit a SIP revision that demonstrates full implementation of the contin g ency provisions of the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignat ion (September 20, 2007)

. If the State fails to meets its commitment by June 1, 2017, the approval is treated as a disapproval.