Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2012/08/20/2012-20268.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 04:05:31
Document Index: 678203044

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', 'art 51', 'art 52', 'art 70', 'art 71', 'arts 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0571; FRL-9691-1]
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is finalizing approval of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 3170, "Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee," as a revision to SJVUAPCD's portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 3170 is a local fee rule submitted to address section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard for anti-backsliding purposes. EPA is also finalizing approval of SJVUAPCD's fee-equivalent program, which includes Rule 3170 and state law authorities that authorize SJVUAPCD to impose supplemental fees on motor vehicles, as an alternative to the program required by section 185 of the Act. EPA has determined that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program is not less stringent than the program required by section 185, and, therefore, is approvable as an equivalent alternative program, consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 19, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0571 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically athttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed athttp://www.regulations.gov,some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4114,wong.lily@epa.gov.
Table of Contents I. Proposed Action and Interim Final Determination to Defer Sanctions II. Rationale for Approving Equivalent Alternative Programs III. Public Comments and EPA Responses IV. EPA Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action and Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions
On July 28, 2011 (76 FR 45212), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted SJVUAPCD 3170 Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee 05/19/11 06/14/11
EPA also proposed to approve SJVUAPCD's fee-equivalent program, which includes Rule 3170 and state law authorities that authorize SJVUAPCD to impose supplemental fees on motor vehicles, as an equivalent alternative to the program required by section 185 of the Act for the 1-hour ozone standard as an anti-backsliding measure.
In addition, on July 28, 2011 (76 FR 45199), EPA published an Interim Final Rule to defer the implementation of sanctions that would have resulted from EPA's final limited approval and limited disapproval of an earlier version of Rule 3170 (75 FR 1716, January 13, 2010).
II. Rationale for Approving Equivalent Alternative Programs
In proposing this action regarding the SJVUAPCD, EPA proposed to allow states to meet the section 185 obligation arising from the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS through a SIP revision containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185 of the Act, or an equivalent alternative program. 76 FR 45213 (July 28, 2011). Since our proposed action on SJVUAPCD's alternative section 185 program, EPA has also proposed to approve an alternative section 185 program submitted by the State of California on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District as an equivalent alternative program. 77 FR 1895-01 (January 12, 2012). As further explained below, EPA is today approving through notice-and-comment rulemaking, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 into the California SIP. We are also approving SJVUAPCD's alternative program as an equivalent alternative program consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the CAA and not less stringent than a program prescribed by section 185.1
1EPA has previously set forth this reasoning in a memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, “Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,” January 5, 2010 (“Section 185 Guidance Memo”). On July 1, 2011, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this guidance, on the ground that it was final agency action for which notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures were required, and that the Agency's failure to use the required notice and comment procedures rendered the guidance invalid.NRDCv.EPA,643 F.3d 311 (DC Cir. 2011). In today's action, EPA, having gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking, adopts the reasoning set forth in that memorandum as it applies to SJVUAPCD's equivalent alternative program as its basis for approving the SJVUAPCD SIP revision. In so doing, we have applied the court's directive to follow the rulemaking requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act to inform consideration of section 185 and equivalent alternative programs.
Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the CAA that requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a nonattainment area are “not less stringent” than those that applied to the area before EPA revised a NAAQS to make it less stringent. In the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined that although section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply to the transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour NAAQS, the same anti-backsliding principle that would apply to the relaxation of a standard. Thus, as part of applying the principles in section 172(e) for purposes of the transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA can either require states to retain programs that applied for purposes of the 1-hour standard, or can allow states to adopt equivalent alternative programs, but only if such alternatives are determined through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be “not less stringent” than the mandated program. EPA has previously identified three types of alternative programs that could satisfy the section 185 requirement: (i) Those that achieve the same emissions reductions; (ii) those that raise the same amount of revenue and establish a process where the funds would be used to pay for emission reductions that will further improve ozone air quality; and (iii) those that would be equivalent through a combination of both emission reductions and revenues.2 We are today determining through notice-and-comment rulemaking that states can demonstrate an alternative program's equivalency by comparing expected fees and/or emissions reductions directly attributable to application of section 185 to the expected fees, pollution control project funding, and/or emissions reductions from the proposed alternative program. Under an alternative program, EPA concludes that states may opt to proceed as here, shifting the fee burden from a specific set of major stationary sources to non-major sources, such as owners of mobile sources that also contribute to ozone formation. EPA also believes that alternative programs, if approved as “not less stringent” than the section 185 fee program, would encourage one-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas to reach attainment as effectively and expeditiously as a section 185 fee program, if not more so, and therefore satisfy the CAA's goal of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
2These types of programs were identified in our proposed rulemaking action concerning SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 and its alternative program 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011).
While section 185 focuses most directly on assessing emissions fees, webelieve it is useful to interpret anti-backsliding requirements for section 185 within the context of the CAA's ozone implementation provisions of subpart 2 (which includes section 185). The subpart 2 provisions are designed to promote reductions of ozone-forming pollutant emissions to levels that achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS. In this context, to satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements for section 185 associated with the 1-hour NAAQS, we believe it is appropriate for states to implement equivalent alternative programs that maintain a focus on achieving further emission reductions, whether that occurs through the incentives created by fees levied on pollution sources or other funding of pollution control projects, or some combination of both. For any alternative program adopted by a state, the state's demonstration that the program is not less stringent should consist of comparing expected fees and/or emission reductions directly attributable to application of section 185 to the expected fees, pollution control project funding, and/or emissions reductions from the proposed alternative program. For a valid demonstration to ensure equivalency, the state's submissions should not underestimate the expected fees and/or emission reductions from the section 185 fee program, nor overestimate the expected fees, pollution control project funding, and/or emission reductions associated with the proposed alternative program.
We also note that the structure established in Subparts 1 and 2 of the CAA recognizes that successful achievement of clean air goals depends in great part on the development by states of clean air plans that are specifically tailored to the nature of the air pollution sources in each state. The Act recognizes that states are best suited to design plans that will be most effective. Allowing states to put forward an equivalent program under the circumstances that pertain here, and under the authority of section 172(e), is consistent with this principle of the Act.
In sum, in order for EPA to approve an alternative program as satisfying the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision requirement, the state must demonstrate that the alternative program is not less stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program by collecting fees from owner/operators of pollution sources, providing funding for emissions reduction projects, and/or providing direct emissions reductions equal to or exceeding the expected results of the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program. We have previously accepted public comment on whether it is appropriate for EPA to consider equivalent alternative programs. We have concluded that it is appropriate to do so, and that SJVUAPCD's program is approvable as an equivalent alternative program consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the Act.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from several parties. The comments and our responses are summarized below.
A. Rule 3170 and Section 185 1. Exemption for Clean Emission Units
a.Comment:One commenter stated that Rule 3170, sections 4.1 and 4.2, exempt so-called “clean emission units,” but section 185 does not allow for such an exemption. The Act provides no exemption for any major stationary source, regardless of the emission control technology employed. Congress assumed that areas subject to 185 will have adopted reasonably available control technologies (“RACT”) for major stationary sources, that other sources will have gone through new source review and be subject to the lowest achievable emission rate (“LAER”) requirement, and that SIPs may have targeted certain categories for more stringent controls than others. All of this is laid out in subparts 1 and 2 of Title I, Part D of the Act. Section 185 applies when, despite all of these controls, the area still fails to attain. Another commenter stated that Rule 3170 allows exemptions for “clean emissions units” and stated that the Act provides no exemption for any major stationary source, regardless of the emission control technology employed.
Response:We agree that section 185 applies when an ozone nonattainment area designated Severe or Extreme fails to reach attainment by its attainment date and requires assessment of a fee for each source, with no exemption for clean emission units. Today's action, however, is to approve Rule 3170, in the context of the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We conclude that Rule 3170 is approvable into the California SIP and as part of the District's equivalent alternative program because we have determined that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of fees at least equal to the amount that would be collected under section 185, that the fees will be used to reduce ozone pollution, and that the program therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA section 185, consistent with the principles of section 172(e). We also note that the program will raise this amount by a combination of fees from sources that do not qualify as “clean units” as defined in Rule 3170 and from a fee on vehicles, which are responsible for approximately 80 percent of ozone formation in SJVUAPCD.3 Our proposed action contains our analysis of how the District's equivalent alternative program meets the “not less stringent than” criterion of section 172(e), and we provide additional explanation below.
3District comment letter dated August 24, 2011 and the California Air Resources Board'sCalifornia Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM): 2009 Almanacfound at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2009.php.
b.Comment:Congress' decision was to make each major stationary source pay a penalty based on their individual contribution to the continuing problem. Larger emitters pay a larger fee and small emitters pay a smaller fee. There is no suggestion that the best controlled sources are entitled to any other “reward” or exemption. Section 185 is not a program to penalize only the less-well regulated sources.
Response:We do not agree with the commenter's statement that section 185 does not provide a “reward” or exemption for well-controlled sources. In fact, we believe that section 185 clearly “rewards” well-controlled sources by exempting those that reduce emissions by 20 percent or more from the fee requirements. This “reward,” however, is available only if the source acts to decrease its emissions after the attainment deadline has passed, which in San Joaquin's case was 2010. Rule 3170, on the other hand, provides an exemption from fees for “clean emission units,” which are units that have air pollution controls that reduce pollution by at least 95 percent or units that installed Best Available Control Technology (BACT) anytime between 2006 and 2010. The “clean unit exemption” in Rule 3170 is thus not consistent with the timing envisioned by Congress; therefore, we agree with the commenter that the exemption is not consistent with the express language in section 185. We note, however, that in the context of the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS, we are approving Rule 3170 into the California SIP and as part of the District's equivalent alternative program because we have determined that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of fees at least equal to the amount that would be collected under section 185, that the fees will be used to reduce ozone pollution, and that the program therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA section 185, consistent with the principles of section 172(e). Ourproposed action contains our analysis of how the District's equivalent alternative program meets the “not less stringent than” criterion of section 172(e), and we provide additional explanation below.
We also do not agree with the comment that, “Congress' decision was to make each major stationary source pay a penalty based on their individual contribution to the continuing problem. Larger emitters pay a larger fee and small emitters pay a smaller fee.” In fact, under section 185 large emitters can completely avoid penalties in any year that they emit 20 percent less than they emitted in the applicable attainment year (2010 for the District). As a result, a source in the District that emits 500 tons of NOXin 2010 would not pay a section 185 fee in any subsequent year in which its NOXemissions are 400 tons or less. On the other hand, a source that emits 50 tons of NOXin 2010 will still have to pay a section 185 fee in every subsequent year that it emits more than 40 tons. Thus, under these scenarios, after the attainment year of 2010, the source that emits 400 tons would pay no fee and the source that emits 41 tons would pay a fee (albeit a nominal one based on 1 ton of emissions above the reduction target). In this respect, then, section 185 does not distinguish between sources based on their relative contribution to ozone non-attainment.
c.Comment:That Congress understood that the level of control between sources could vary is expressly acknowledged in section 185(b)(2), which specifies that the baseline comes from the lower of actuals or allowables, and that the allowables baseline is to be based on the emissions allowed “under the permit” unless the source has no permit and is subject only to limits provided under the SIP. It would defeat this express language to exempt sources from paying a fee based on some arbitrary notion of being “clean enough.”
Response:The commenter's characterization of Rule 3170's clean unit exemption as “arbitrary” or as based on “being clean enough” is inaccurate. In fact, Rule 3170, section 3.3 defines a “clean unit” as: an emission unit that (i) has emissions control technology with a minimum control efficiency of at least 95 percent (or at least 85 percent for leanburn, internal combustion engines); or (ii) has emission control technology that meets or exceeds achieved-in-practice BACT as accepted by the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) during the period from 2006—2010.” We believe Rule 3170 reflects the District's considered determination of what it views as “clean” sufficient to qualify for an exemption from fees as part of an equivalent alternative program for anti-backsliding purposes.
Nevertheless, we agree with the commenter that Congress did not differentiate between sources according to the “level of control.” Thus, section 185 does not distinguish a source with a control efficiency of 1 percent from a source with a control efficiency of 99 percent. Under either scenario, sources are subject to section 185 fees if those reductions occurred prior to the attainment year. This aspect of section 185 does not affect our action to approve Rule 3170 into the California SIP and as part of SJVUAPCD's equivalent alternative program, as discussed further below.
2. Alternative Baseline
a.Comment:Two commenters stated that Rule 3170 fails to meet the requirements of section 185 by allowing an alternative baseline period for major stationary sources. They claim there is no statutory basis for section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170, which allows for the establishment of “[a]n alternative baseline period reflecting an average of at least two consecutive years within 2006 through 2010, if those years are determined by the APCO as more representative of normal source operation.” They further claim that:
• Section 185 requires the baseline to be the lower of actual emissions or emissions allowed during the attainment year.
• Only sources with emissions that are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly from year to year can extend the baseline period to account for that variation.
• The possibility of extending the baseline is not available at the option of the source or at the discretion of the APCO.
• Section 185 allows the option of extending the baseline only with respect to determining actual emissions; section 5.1 suggests that the APCO might be able to change the baseline period for determining allowable emissions, which is not allowed.
Response:Section 185(b)(2) authorizes EPA to issue guidance that allows the baseline to be the lower of average actuals or average allowables determined over more than one calendar year. Section 185(b)(2) further states that the guidance may provide that the average calculation for a specific source may be used if the source's emissions are irregular, cyclical or otherwise vary significantly from year to year. Pursuant to these provisions, EPA developed and issued a memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division Directors, “Guidance on Establishing Emissions Baselines under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date,” William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Division, March 21, 2008 (EPA's Baseline Guidance). EPA's Baseline Guidance suggests as an alternative baseline for sources whose annual emissions are “irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly from year to year,” the baseline calculation in EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(48). As explained in EPA's Baseline Guidance, the PSD regulations allow a baseline to be calculated using “any 24-consecutive month period within the past 10 years (`2-in-10' concept) to calculate an average actual annual emissions rate (tons per year).”
Rule 3170, section 3.2.2 allows for an alternative baseline based on the average of at least two consecutive years within 2006 through 2010, “if those years are determined by the APCO as more representative of normal source operation.” Therefore, Rule 3170 differs from the PSD-based 2-in-10 concept described in EPA's Baseline Guidance because it allows for an alternative baseline based on 2006-2010, rather than the “2-in-10” concept.
In response, we note that EPA's Baseline Guidance stated that the 2-in-10 concept was “an acceptable alternative method that could be used for calculating the `baseline amount,' ” leaving open the possibility that other methods might also be appropriate. We also note that EPA's Baseline Guidance described the 2-in-10 concept as warranted because it allows for a determination of a baseline “that represents normal operation of the source” over a full business cycle; the similar terminology leads to a reasonable expectation that determinations under Rule 3170 will be similar to those contemplated by EPA's Baseline Guidance. In addition, we believe that Rule 3170's use of a 5 year “look back,” rather than a 10 year “look back” actually limits the amount of flexibility allowed by Rule 3170's alternative baseline, rather than expanding it beyond the scope of EPA's Baseline Guidance.
We do not agree with the commenter's criticism that Rule 3170 section 5.1 “suggests that the APCO might be able to change the baseline period for determining allowable emissions” whereas section 185 allows for extending a baseline based only on actual emissions. Section 185 plainlystates that EPA may issue guidance authorizing a baseline reflecting an emissions period of more than one year based on the “lower of average actual or average allowables”.
Furthermore, we note that the District's equivalent alternative program uses the attainment year, 2010, as the baseline period to determine the fees that would have been assessed under a direct implementation of section 185 and as the point of comparison for the equivalency demonstration.SeeRule 3170, Section 7.2.1.3. In this way, we believe the District will be able to make a proper comparison between fees owed under section 185 and revenues resulting from the alternative fee program.
Finally, we note that in the context of the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS, we are approving Rule 3170 into the California SIP and as part of the District's equivalent alternative program because we have determined that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of fees at least equal to the amount that would be collected under section 185, that the fees will be used to reduce ozone pollution, and that the program therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA section 185, consistent with the principles of section 172(e). Our proposed action contains our analysis of how the District's equivalent alternative program meets the “not less stringent than” criterion of section 172(e).
3. Major Source Definition
a.Comment:Cross-references are a bad practice because they create a potential for conflicts between the locally-applicable rule and the SIP-approved rule.
Response:EPA believes that cross-references to other district rules can be problematic and has commented to our state and local agencies to that effect. There are also cases where cross-referencing is an efficient and reasonable approach to local rule development. We do not find that Rule 3170's cross-reference to Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule, is an appropriate basis for disapproval, nor does the commenter seem to claim that we should disapprove the rule on that basis.
b.Comment:Rule 2201's definition of “major source” does not match the definition of 182(e) of the Act, which includes all emissions of VOC or NOX, with no exemption for fugitive emissions, and looks at the larger of actual or potential emissions. Rule 2201 excludes fugitive emissions for certain sources.
Response:EPA does not agree that Rule 3170's reference to Rule 2201 is clearly inconsistent with the requirements of section 185. First, we note that section 182(e) is silent with respect to whether fugitive emissions should be included when determining whether a source's actual or potential emissions exceed the 10 ton per year threshold. That is, section 182(e) neither expressly includes nor excludes fugitive emissions. Second, we note that Congress' definition of “major stationary source” at CAA 302(j) expressly delegates to EPA the authority to address the inclusion of fugitive emissions in major source determinations by rule. EPA has promulgated such definitions in the context of our rules for non-attainment major new source review, prevention of significant deterioration, state operating permit programs, and federal operating permit programs. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, part 52, part 70 and part 71. Each of these regulations excludes a source's fugitive emissions from major source determinations unless the source belongs to one of 28 specifically listed categories. Third, we believe that the District's use of its permitting program's definition of major source to implement the section 185 fee program is reasonable and consistent with congressional intent because Congress itself recognized the relevancy of permit programs to section 185 fee programs when it provided that the baseline amount for calculating 185 fees should be “the lower of the amount of actual VOC emissions (`actuals') or VOC emissions allowed under the permit applicable to the source”. Fourth, we note that CAA section 185 fee programs are new and that neither EPA nor the states have a history of interpreting or implementing section 185 in a way that would suggest that states should include fugitive emissions when determining which sources are subject to the program or that failure to do so would provide a basis for disapproving Rule 3170.
The commenter's reference to section 182(e) “look[ing] at the larger of actual or potential emissions” is not entirely clear. To the extent that the commenter is saying that section 182(e) defines a major source as a source whose actual emissions exceed 10 tons per year or whose potential to emit exceeds 10 tons per year, we agree with the comment. Rule 2201, section 3.23 also defines major stationary source as one whose post-project emissions or post-project PTE exceeds 20,000 pounds (10 tpy).
c.Comment:Rule 2201 only includes potential emissions from units with valid permits.
Response:The comment is vague and unclear in its reference to Rule 2201. To the extent the commenter is complaining that a source's potential emissions are included only if the unit has a valid permit, EPA infers that the commenter is referencing Rule 2201, section 4.10, which provides that the calculation of post-project stationary source potential to emit shall include the potential to emit from all units with a valid Authority to Construct (ATC). To the extent that the commenter is concerned that some sources will not be considered major sources subject to section 185 fees because the source includes unpermitted emission units, EPA believes this problem is not an inherent defect in either Rule 2201 or Rule 3170, but rather a problem that should be addressed through enforcement action, which presumably will result in the issuance of an ATC if appropriate, followed by a determination of major source status if warranted.
d.Comment:Rule 2201 credits limits in authorities to construct that may or may not reflect actual emissions.
Response:The commenter's complaint that Rule 2201 “credits limits in authorities to construct that may or may not reflect actual emissions” is also vague and unclear—both in reference to the application of Rule 2201 itself and to how this aspect of Rule 2201, if it exists, affects determinations of major source status for the purposes of Rule 3170. To the extent the commenter is claiming that the application of Rule 2201 would not result in a calculation of major source status consistent with the CAA, we disagree. Rule 2201, section 3.23 clearly allows for major source determinations to be made based on a source's post-project actual emissions or its post-project PTE and applies the correct trigger for either NOXor VOCs of 20,000 pounds or 10 tons per year. Furthermore, we note that Rule 3170, section 6.2, requires sources to report actual emissions on an annual basis and that Rule 2201, sections 3.26 and 4.10 provide a clear means to determine a source's potential to emit. Thus, we do not agree with the commenter that Rule 3170 is flawed because of its reference to Rule 2201 as the basis for defining “major source.”
4. Motor Vehicle Fees as a “Cure” for Rule 3170's Clean-Unit Exemption and Alternative Baseline Provisions
Comment:Motor vehicle fees do not qualify SJVUAPCD for either of the fee exemptions provided by the Act: (i) extension years under 7511(a)(5), and (ii) areas with population below 200,000 that can demonstrate transport.
Response:As explained in our proposed action, we are approving Rule3170 into the California SIP and as part of the District's equivalent alternative program as an anti-backsliding measure for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard because we have determined that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of fees at least equal to the amount that would be collected under section 185, that the fees will be used to reduce ozone pollution, and that the program therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA section 185, consistent with the principles of section 172(e). Thus, it is irrelevant that Rule 3170 does not meet the precise requirements of section 185.
B.EPA's Authority To Approve Alternative Fee Programs that Differ from CAA Section 185 1. Authority Under CAA and Case Law
Comment:One commenter stated that nothing in the plain language of the Act, the “principles” behind that language, orSouth Coast Air Quality Management Districtv.EPA,472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) gives EPA the power to rewrite the terms of section 185. EPA's argument that it can invent alternatives that fail to comply with the plain language of section 185 has no statutory basis. Another commenter stated that section 185's plain language is unambiguous, that Congress has specified the parameters of the section 185 program and that to approve a fee alternative program that does not meet the minimal requirements explicitly set out in section 185 violates the plain language of the Act. This commenter also stated that theSouth Coastcourt upheld retention of section 185 nonattainment fees for regions that fail to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. Other commenters supported EPA's action as a reasonable interpretation of the Act and consistent with theSouth Coast decision.
Response:In a 2004 rulemaking governing implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) (“2004 Rule”);see also,40 CFR 50.9(b). EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.South Coast Air Quality Management Districtv.EPA,472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) reh'g denied, 489 F.3d. 1245 (D.C. Cir.) 2007) (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the petitions for review)(“South Coast”). Thus, the 1-hour ozone standard that the District failed to attain by its attainment date no longer exists and a different standard now applies.
Section 172(e) provides that, in the event of a relaxation of a primary NAAQS, EPA must promulgate regulations to require “controls” that are “not less stringent” than the controls that applied to the area before the relaxation. EPA's 8-hour ozone standard is recognized as a strengthening of the NAAQS, rather than a relaxation; however, EPA is applying the “principles” of section 172(e) to prevent backsliding of air quality in the transition from regulation of ozone pollution using a 1-hour metric to an 8-hour metric. Our application of the principles of section 172(e) in this context was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in theSouth Coastdecision: “EPA retains the authority to revoke the one-hour standard so long as adequate anti-backsliding provisions are introduced.”South Coast,472 F.3d at 899. Further, the court stated, that in light of the revocation, “[t]he only remaining requirements as to the one-hour NAAQS are the anti-backsliding limitations.”Id.
As stated above, section 172(e) requires State Implementation Plans to contain “controls” that are “not less stringent” than the controls that applied to the area before the NAAQS revision. EPA's 2004 Rule defined the term “controls” in section 172(e) to exclude section 185.See2004 Rule, 69 FR at 24000. The D.C. Circuit ruled that EPA's exclusion of section 185 from the list of “controls” for Severe and Extreme non-attainment areas was improper and remanded that part of the rule back to EPA.See South Coast,472 F.3d at 902-03. The court did not, however, address the specific issue of whether the principles of section 172(e) required section 185 itself or any other controls not less stringent, and section 172(e) clearly on its face allows such equivalent programs. Further, the court inNRDCv.EPA,643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011), specifically noted with respect to equivalent alternative programs that “neither the statute nor our case law obviously precludes [the program alternative.]” 643 F.3d at 321. In this rulemaking approving SJVUAPCD Rule 3170, EPA is fully recognizing section 185 as a “control” that must be met through the application of the principles of section 172(e). As explained above, the D.C. Circuit stated that EPA must apply the principles of section 172(e) to non-attainment requirements such as section 185. Thus, we are following the D.C. Circuit's holding that the principles of section 172(e) apply in full to implement 185 obligations.
2. Applicability of Section 172(e)
Comment:CAA section 172(e) does not apply to this situation because EPA has adopted a more health protective ozone standard. EPA acknowledges that section 172(e) by its terms does not authorize EPA's action because the newer 8-hour ozone standard is not a relaxation of the prior 1-hour ozone standard. EPA claims that its authority to permit States to avoid the express requirements of section 185 derives from the “principles” of section 172(e). But there is no principle in the CAA that Congress intended to give EPA authority to rewrite the specific requirements of section 185 when EPA finds that the health impacts related to ozone exposure are even more dangerous than Congress believed when it adopted the detailed requirements in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. TheSouth Coastcourt upheld retention of section 185 nonattainment fees for regions that fail to meet the 1-hour ozone standard. Other commenters supported EPA's action as a reasonable application of section 172(e).
Response:TheSouth Coastcourt agreed with the application of the principles of section 172(e) despite the fact that section 172(e) expressly refers to a “relaxation” of a NAAQS, whereas the transition from 1-hour to 8-hour is generally understood as increasing the stringency of the NAAQS. As the court stated, “Congress contemplated * * * the possibility that scientific advances would require amending the NAAQS. Section 109(d)(1) establishes as much and section 172(e) regulates what EPA must do with revoked restrictions * * *. The only remaining requirements as to the one-hour NAAQS are the anti-backsliding limitations.”South Coast,472 F.3d at 899. (citation omitted).
3. Discretion in Title I, Part D, Subparts 1 and 2
Comment:One commenter stated that the Supreme Court inWhitmanv.Am. Trucking Assns,interpreted the CAA as showing Congressional intent to limit EPA's discretion. The D.C. Circuit inSCAQMDalso held that EPA's statutory interpretation maximizing agency discretion was contrary to the clear intent of Congress in enacting the 1990 amendments. EPA's approach [with respect to 185] would allow EPA to immediately void the specific statutory scheme Congress intended to govern for decades. EPA cannot reasonably claim that Congress meant to give EPA the discretion to revise the carefully prescribed statutory requirements like section 185 that Congress adopted to address these exposures. EPA proposes to accept a program other than that provided by Congress in section 185. Given that Congress provided a specificprogram, EPA has no discretion to approve an alternative. Another commenter also stated that given that Congress provided a specific program, EPA has no discretion to approve an alternative.
Response:While one holding inWhitmanv.Am. Trucking Assns,531 U.S. 457 (2001) stands for the general proposition that Congress intended to set forth prescriptive requirements for EPA and states, particularly the requirements contained in Subpart 2, the D.C. Circuit has noted that the Court did not consider the issue of how to implement Subpart 2 for the 1-hour standard after revocation.See, South Coast,472 F.3d at 893 (“when the Supreme Court assessed the 1997 Rule, it thought that the one- and eight-hour standards were to coexist.”). Thus, the Court did not consider how section 172(e)'s anti-backsliding requirements might be applied in the current context of a revoked NAAQS.
We also believe that the commenter's reliance onSouth Coastto argue that it precludes EPA's use of section 172(e) principles to implement section 185 is similarly misplaced. The holding cited by the commenter relates to an entirely different issue than EPA's discretion and authority under section 172(e)—whether EPA had properly allowed certain 8-hour ozone non-attainment areas to comply with Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2. In fact, theSouth Coastcourt not only upheld EPA's authority under section 109(d) to revise the NAAQS, it recognized its discretion and authority to then implement section 172(e):
Although Subpart 2 of the Act and its table 1 rely upon the then-existing NAAQS of 0.12 ppm, measured over a one-hour period, elsewhere the Act contemplates that EPA could change the NAAQS based upon its periodic review of `the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health' that the pollutant may cause. CAA sections 108(a), 109(d), 42 U.S.C. sections 7408(a), 7409(d). The Act provides that EPA may relax a NAAQS but in so doing, EPA must `provide for controls which are not less stringent than the controls applicable to areas designated nonattainment before such relaxation.' CAA 172(e), 42 U.S.C. 7502(e).South Coast,472 F.3d at 888.
Further, as noted above, EPA believes thatSouth Coastsupports our reliance on section 172(e) principles to approve Rule 3170 and SJVUAPCD's alternative program as fulfilling section 185 requirements for the revoked 1-hour standard. As the court stated, “EPA was not, as the Environmental petitioners contend, arbitrary and capricious in withdrawing the one-hour requirements, having found in 1997 that the eight-hour standard was `generally even more effective in limiting 1-hour exposures of concern than is the current 1-hour standard.' * * * The only remaining requirements as to the one-hour NAAQS are the anti-backsliding limitations.”Id.(citation omitted).
C.EPA's Proposed Action and Consistency With Section 172(e) 1. Statutory Analysis for Alternatives to a 185 Program
Comment:EPA's different and inconsistent tests for determining “not less stringent” undermine the reasonableness of these options as valid interpretations of the Act. EPA's interpretation means that a program that achieves the same emission reductions as section 185 and a program that achieves fewer emission reductions than section 185 can both be considered “not less stringent.” However, stringency is either a measure of the emission reductions achieved or it is not. If it is, then a program that does not achieve equivalent reductions cannot pass the test. EPA did not actually interpret the term “stringent” and offers no basis for claiming that Congress intended this term to have different meanings and allow for different metrics for guarding against backsliding.
Response:We believe that the three alternatives we identified in our proposed action (i.e., same emission reductions; same amount of revenue to be used to pay for emission reductions to further improve ozone air quality; a combination of the two) are reasonable and consistent with Congress' intent. First, we note that Congress did not define the phrase “not less stringent” or the term “stringent” in the Act. EPA, therefore, may use its discretion and expertise to reasonably interpret section 172(e). Furthermore, we note that the D.C. Circuit, inNRD.C.v.EPA,643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011), while finding that EPA's guidance document providing our initial presentation of various alternatives to section 1854 should have been promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking, declined to rule on whether the types of alternative programs we considered in connection with our proposed action on SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 were illegal, stating, “neither the statute nor our case law obviously precludes [the program alternative].”Id.at 321.
4“Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS, Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, Jan. 5, 2010,” vacated,NRD.C.v.EPA,643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
We do not agree that evaluating a variety of metrics (e.g., fees, emissions reductions, or both) to determine whether a state's alternative program meets section 172(e)'s “not less stringent” criterion undermines our interpretation. On its face, section 185 results in assessing and collecting emissions fees, but the fact that section 185 is also part of the ozone nonattainment requirements of Part D, Subpart 2, suggests that Congress also anticipated that section 185 might lead to emissions reductions that would improve air quality, and ultimately facilitate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.5 Thus, EPA believes it is reasonable to assess stringency of alternative programs on the basis of either the monetary or emissions-reduction aspects of section 185 or on the combination of both.
5EPA previously articulated the dual nature of section 185 in its now-vacated section 185 guidance.See id.at 4. Although the section 185 guidance policy has been vacated, we agree with, and here in this notice and comment rulemaking adopt, its reasoning on this point.
Lastly, as discussed in our proposal, SJVUAPCD has demonstrated that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of at least as much revenue from owners/operators of relevant emission sources as a fee program directly implemented under section 185. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that SJVUAPCD's alternative program will achieve more emission reductions than direct implementation of section 185 because the District's alternative program uses fees to reduce emissions, while section 185 has no such direct requirement. While the comment suggests that EPA's logic, if unreasonably extended, might theoretically lead it to approve a program that achieves fewer emission reductions than a program directly implemented under section 185, we are clearly not doing that here, and have no intention of doing so in the future.
2. “Not Less Stringent” and Target of Fees
a.Comment:To be “not less stringent,” a control must be no less rigorous, strict, or severe; all of these qualities focus on the burden to the entities responsible for complying with the rule or standard. The purpose of Rule 3170 is less stringent than section 185 because Rule 3170 exempts large categories of major industrial sources and dilutes section 185's target by spreading its impact across the millions of individuals registering cars in the SJV.
Response:It is difficult to try to assess the relative stringency of section 185 and Rule 3170 based on a comparison of which entities are responsible for paying fees. The two types of fee programs target different types of sources, such that all stationary sources have the fee obligation under section 185 while less well-controlled stationary sources, along with motor vehicle owners have the obligation under Rule 3170. Overall, however, we believe that SJVUAPCD's alternative program is not less stringent than section 185 because it will generate at least as much revenue as a program that directly implements section 185. Rule 3170 by its explicit terms requires a demonstration that the revenue generated by the alternative program will equal or exceed the amount that would have been generated by a 185 program.
In addition, we believe that SJVUAPCD's alternative program will result in emissions reductions because the demonstration required by Rule 3170 must rely on “California Vehicle Code fees” to offset any fees that would otherwise be due from direct implementation of section 185. Rule 3170's definition of “California Vehicle Code fees” specifies that these fees “are required by Health and Safety Code Section 40612 to be expended on establishing and implementing incentive-based programs * * *. These fees shall therefore be used in programs designed to reduce NOXand VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.” In addition, state law clearly requires that the fees be directed towards programs that reduce NOXand VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Cal. Health and Safety Code 40612.
Furthermore, we note that, according to the District, stationary sources currently contribute approximately 20 percent of the ozone precursor emissions, while mobile sources are responsible for approximately 80 percent of such emissions in the SJVUAPCD.6 The District also states that most stationary sources in its jurisdiction have already installed air pollution controls as a result of new source review or retrofitting requirements and that the only options to such businesses to avoid fees would be to either curtail production or to cease operation.7 Rule 3170 places the burden of fees under its equivalent alternative program on major stationary sources that do not qualify as “clean emissions units” and on motor vehicle owners. To the extent that stringency can be evaluated based on which entities are subject to fees, we believe that SJVUAPCD's alternative program is not less stringent than section 185 because it imposes the fee obligation on the sources most responsible for continuing ozone pollution in the Valley. And, as noted, it also requires that the fees be used to fund ozone reduction, something section 185 does not do.
6District comment letter dated August 24, 2011 and the California Air Resources Board'sCalifornia Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM): 2009 Almanacfound at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2009.php.
7“Most stationary sources in the San Joaquin Valley are already equipped with Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT) * * * most businesses have already made significant investments and installed the most advanced controls available for their facilities.” Memorandum from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO to SJVUAPCD Hearing Board, re “Alternatives for the Equitable Application of Mandated Federal Nonattainment Penalties to Sources within the San Joaquin Valley through the use of Motor Vehicle Fees,” Oct. 21, 2010, at 4.
b.Comment:Rule 3170 is less stringent than section 185. Section 185 is not a standard-based provision, nor is it based on a specific fee collection amount. The purpose of section 185 is to penalize major stationary sources in Severe and Extreme nonattainment areas. The stringency of section 185 does not stem from a dollar figure or emission target, but rather from three requirements: (i) Each major stationary source pay a fee; (ii) the fee be equal to $5000, adjusted for inflation, per ton of VOC or NOXemitted in excess of 80 percent of the baseline; and (iii) the baseline amount be established from the attainment year inventory, unless the source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise varying significantly from year to year. Charging motor vehicle fees merely adds a revenue stream. It fails to make up for the shortfall of not charging all major stationary sources penalty fees and basing those fees on the attainment year baseline, etc.
Response:We do not agree that an alternative program must adhere to the specific criteria identified by the commenter. In the context of the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and applying the principles of section 172(e) as upheld by the D.C. Circuit, the alternative program must be demonstrated to be “not less stringent” than the otherwise applicable required “control,” i.e., section 185. We are approving Rule 3170 into the California SIP and as part of the District's equivalent alternative program because we have determined that Rule 3170 will result in the collection of fees at least equal to the amount that would be collected under section 185, that the fees will be used to reduce ozone pollution, and that the program therefore satisfies the requirements of CAA section 185, consistent with the principles of section 172(e). Moreover, as explained above, we believe that the District's alternative program, by imposing fees on mobile sources—the sources most responsible for the Valley's continuing ozone nonattainment problems—advances the legislative policy of creating incentives to facilitate attainment that underlay section 185 when it was enacted by Congress in 1990.
In addition, we note that Rule 3170 allows only money generated by motor vehicle registration fees and spent on ozone pollution reduction projects in the Valley to offset fees that would otherwise be due from direct implementation of section 185. In addition, state law requires that these fees be used to reduce NOXand VOC pollution in the San Joaquin Valley which is consistent with section 185's place within the ozone non-attainment provisions of CAA Title 1, part D, subpart 2.
3. “Not Less Stringent” and Equivalent Fees
Comment:A program that raises an equivalent amount of money is not supported by section 185's structure and legislative history. Section 185 was not intended as a revenue generating provision.
Response:Section 185 explicitly mandates a specific fee, requires that the fee be indexed for inflation, establishes a baseline for measuring such fees, and authorizes an alternative method for calculating that fee. For those reasons, and the additional reasons discussed above, we believe that section 185 has both monetary and emissions-related aspects and that it is reasonable for EPA to assess stringency of alternative programs on the basis of either aspect of section 185 or on the combination of both. Nevertheless, EPA notes that Rule 3170 imposes fees on those major stationary sources that do not meet the criteria for the “clean emissions unit” exemption and thereby provides an incentive for those stationary sources to reduce their emissions.8 In addition, SJVUAPCD's alternative program imposes a fee on motor vehicles, the largest source of emissions in the Valley, thereby supporting emissionsreductions from that source as well and in that respect will be no less effective in reducing ozone-formation than a section 185 fee program on major sources not meeting the “clean emissions unit” exemption would be. We further note that SJVUAPCD's alternative program will direct the revenues generated from the motor vehicle registration fee to VOC and NOXemissions reductions programs.
8Rule 3170's clean unit exemption applies only to: (i) Units equipped with emissions control technology that meets a minimum control efficiency of at least 95% or 85% for lean-burn internal combustion engines; or (ii) units equipped with BACT as accepted by the APCO during 2006 through 2010).
4. “Not Less Stringent” and Equivalent Emission Reductions
a.Comment:The measure of equivalency should be section 185's emission reduction incentive. Penalties end if an area attains the standard or a source reduces its emissions by 20 percent. As the DC Circuit noted, “these penalties are designed to constrain ozone pollution.” Nothing in the legislative history indicates that Congress' intent was to collect a certain amount of money.
Response:The comment correctly points to the fact that section 185 states that fees must be paid until an area is redesignated to attainment for ozone and that section 185 does not require fees from sources that reduce emissions by 20 percent (compared to emissions during the baseline period). Thus, one consequence of a section 185 fee program may be a reduction in VOC and/or NOXemissions. However, EPA does not agree with the comment to the extent it is saying that emission reductions must be the sole basis for determining whether an alternative program is “not less stringent” than a section 185 program. As we stated above, we believe the stringency of an alternative program may be evaluated by comparing either the fees (which must be used to pay for emissions reductions) or emission reductions otherwise achieved from the proposed alternative program to the fees or emissions reductions directly attributable to application of section 185 (or by comparing a combination of fees and reductions).
In addition, the comment does not acknowledge that section 185 allows major sources to pay fees and not reduce emissions. The comment also does not acknowledge that SJVUAPCD is required by state law to use the revenues generated by the alternative fee program to fund incentive-based programs that will result in NOXand VOC emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley. We believe this aspect of the District's alternative program reflects the emission reductions aspects of section 185. We also believe that it is possible that SJVUAPCD's alternative program could result in more emission reductions than a section 185 program that funds unrelated programs.
b.Comment:Section 185 is a market-based policy device to internalize the external costs of pollution and thereby incentivize emission reductions at major stationary sources. EPA should assess how the incentives in Rule 3170 compare to the incentives in section 185. This analysis would look at how a pollution tax might drive sources to improve controls, and how the potential increase in the price of goods would cause consumers to look for alternatives that are not subject to the same tax.
Response:We do not agree that the comparison of “incentives” or a pollution tax proposed by the commenter is the only approach to evaluating the relative stringency of an alternative program, as explained above. In addition, we believe that Rule 3170 will have a beneficial effect on air quality in the San Joaquin Valley because state law requires that the fees generated by the rule be spent on air pollution reduction programs in the Valley.
c.Comment:Rule 3170 severs the link between the fee and pollution levels. A new Prius is subject to the same fee as a dirty clunker, while stationary sources exempted from the fee have no incentive to improve performance.
Response:While we agree that in theory a section 185 program may reduce emissions, section 185 in itself does not mandate such reductions. Moreover, the link between section 185 and emission reductions is uncertain to the extent that section 185 requires fees from a unit that lowered its emissions by less than 20 percent at any time, or even by more than 20 percent if it did so before the attainment year deadline, but creates a perverse incentive by exempting a source that defers 20 percent emission reductions until after the attainment year.
In addition, as stated above, Rule 3170 continues to impose section 185 fees on emissions units that have not taken the emission reduction measures needed to qualify for the “clean emissions unit” exemption. Moreover, the District has determined that most stationary sources have installed pollution controls that meet BARCT or BACT standards and thus there is little more these sources can do to reduce emissions other than curtailing production or ceasing operation.
5. “Not Less Stringent” and Alternative Baseline
Comment:Rule 3170 is less stringent because it exempts certain stationary sources from paying penalty fees and because it allows sources to use an alternative baseline of a 2 year average even if the source's emissions are not irregular, cyclical or otherwise vary from year to year.
Response:We do not agree that the District's alternative program is less stringent than section 185. As explained above, section 185 has both monetary and emissions reductions characteristics. We believe that the District's alternative program implements both aspects of section 185 by assessing fees on major contributors to air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley (major sources not qualifying for the clean unit exemption and motor vehicles), and by obligating these fees to NOXand VOC pollution reduction programs. Moreover, as explained previously, we are approving SJVUAPCD's program as a not less stringent alternative program for anti-backsliding purposes and therefore determine that it complies with the statute even though it does not strictly follow the requirements of 185.
6. “Not Less Stringent” and Process for Revenues To Be Spent on Air Quality Programs
a.Comment:EPA's analysis did not demonstrate that Rule 3170 includes a process for revenues to be spent on emission reductions to improve ozone air quality. EPA states that alternative programs might include those that raise the same amount of revenue and establish a process where the revenues would be used to pay for emission reductions that will further improve ozone air quality. But Rule 3170 includes no process or mention of how fees will be spent.
Response:Rule 3170, section 7.2 requires the District to prepare an “Annual Fee Equivalency Demonstration Report.” Section 7.2.2 specifies that the report must demonstrate whether the sum total of fees collected under Rule 3170 and “California Vehicle Code fees” is equal to or greater than the fees that would be due under a direct implementation of section 185. Rule 3170's definition of “California Vehicle Code fees” specifies that these fees “are required by Health and Safety Code Section 40612 to be expended on establishing and implementing incentive-based programs * * * These fees shall therefore be used in programs designed to reduce NOXand VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.” We believe that Rule 3170, therefore, will result in the expenditure of fees on ozone air pollution reduction programs.
In addition, we note that Health & Safety Code section 40612(a)(1) authorizes SJVUAPCD to increase motorvehicle fees by up to $30 per motor vehicle per year to establish and maintain incentive-based programs that are intended to address air pollution caused by motor vehicles and achieve and maintain state and federal air quality standards. Health & Safety Code section 40612(b) specifies that at least ten million dollars of motor vehicle registration fees be used to mitigate air pollution impacts on disadvantaged communities. Section 40612(c) requires the District and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to take certain steps to effectuate the supplemental motor vehicle fee: (1) The District must notify CARB that it has adopted the fee and provide an estimate of the amount of revenue that will be generated; (2) CARB must file with the California Secretary of State written findings that the District has performed the above requirements and that the District has undertaken all feasible measure to reduce nonattainment air pollutants from sources within the District's jurisdiction and regulatory control.
To demonstrate its authority to charge the supplemental motor vehicle registration fee, the District submitted Governing Board Resolution No. 10-10-14 dated October 21, 2010 to document that its governing board had exercised its authority to increase motor vehicle fees by $12 per year per motor vehicle and that it estimated the additional fee would generate approximately $34 million in additional funds. The District also submitted California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-10-126, dated December 10, 2010,