[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31212-31222]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11741]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711; FRL-9946-60-Region 9]

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.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 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 (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for the
SJV ozone nonattainment area; for NOX and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for
NOX and course particulate matter (PM10) for the
1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV PM10
maintenance area. The EPA is proposing to approve the SJV ozone and
PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally approve the
PM10 budgets in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and the EPA's regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0711 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket and documents in the docket for
this action are generally available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket
are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material,
large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (775) 434-
8176<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
    A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action
    B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    C. What is the EMFAC model?
    D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California?
    E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect?
    F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets
    G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014
III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP
Submittals
IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets?
V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the
State's Submittal
    A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
    B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 Standard
    C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10
Standard
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing action on a SIP revision submitted by the
State of California (``State'') on November 13, 2015. The SIP submittal
revises budgets applicable to control strategy or maintenance plans for
the SJV for three different NAAQS. We are proposing to approve revised
budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. We are also proposing to conditionally
approve revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard.
Should the EPA later finalize the revised budgets as proposed herein,
they will replace the SJV's existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the 1987 24-
hour PM10 standard. At that time, the previously-approved or
adequate budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation
conformity purposes, and the revised budgets would need to be used as
of the effective date of the final approval.

II. Background

A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action

    In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to set the acceptable
level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts per million, averaged
over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\1\ On April 15,
2004, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and classified the area as ``Serious'' under CAA section
181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89
(April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, California requested that
the EPA reclassify the SJV from ``Serious'' to ``Extreme''
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section
181(b)(3). We granted California's request on May 5, 2010 and
reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the

1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the 8-hour
ozone standard by setting the acceptable level of ozone in the
ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (``2008 8-
hour ozone standard''). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In 2015, the
EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the EPA revised the PM2.5 24-hour standard to
provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level
from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (40
CFR 50.13). On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the SJV as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 74 FR
58688 (November 13, 2009). This designation became effective on
December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SJV area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1987, the EPA revised the particulate matter standard, replacing
standards for total suspended particulates with new standards applying
only to PM10. 52 FR 24633 (July 1, 1987). In 1990, the SJV
was designated nonattainment for PM10. 56 FR 11101 (March
15, 1991). In 2006, the 24-hour PM10 standard was retained,
but the annual standard was revoked effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006).\3\ In 2008, the EPA approved a
PM10 maintenance plan and redesignated the SJV to attainment
for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 73 FR 66759 (November 12,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2013, the EPA again retained the 24-hour PM10
standard of 150 ug/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR 81.305.

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment
and maintenance areas for a given NAAQS. These emission control
strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include
motor vehicle emissions budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the portions of the total allowable
emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for RFP,
attainment or maintenance. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area's planned transportation system. For more information
about budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans,
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or
delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations
can be found at 40 CFR part 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, the EPA
must affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets
do not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same
purpose, the EPA must approve the budgets, and can affirm that they are
adequate at the same time. Once the EPA approves the submitted budgets,
they must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether
transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section
176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's substantive criteria for determining the
adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

C. What is the EMFAC model?

    The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) is a computer model
developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB updates
EMFAC on a regular basis and releases new versions generally every
three or four years. The current version can estimate emission rates
for on-road mobile sources (``motor vehicles'') operating in California
for calendar years from 2000 to 2050. Pollutant emissions for VOCs,\4\
carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, lead, carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur
oxides are outputs generated by the model. Emissions are calculated for
fifty-one different vehicle classes composed of passenger cars, various
types of trucks and buses, motorcycles, and motor homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMFAC is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor
vehicle emissions at the state, air district, air basin, or county
level. EMFAC contains default vehicle activity data, and the option of
modifying that data, so it can be used to estimate a motor vehicle
emissions inventory in tons/day for a specific year, month, or season,
and as a function of ambient temperature, relative humidity, vehicle
population, mileage accrual, miles of travel and speeds. Thus the model
can be used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs
at the local or state level. Inventories based on EMFAC are also used
to meet the federal CAA's SIP and transportation conformity
requirements.

D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California?

    Most budgets in the California SIP were developed using EMFAC2007
(released by CARB in October 2007) or EMFAC2011 (released by CARB in
September 2011). The EPA approved EMFAC2007 at 73 FR 3464 (January 18,
2008) and EMFAC2011 at 78 FR 14533 (March 16, 2013) for all areas in
California.
    EMFAC2011 was considered a major update to previous versions of
EMFAC and most budgets in the California SIP were updated with
EMFAC2011 in the 2012-2014 timeframe. EMFAC2011 included a new model
structure, new data and methodologies regarding calculation of motor
vehicle emissions, and revisions to implementation data for control
measures.

E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect?

    The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP revisions and
transportation conformity at 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC2014
includes significant changes to its model interface, new data and
methodologies regarding calculation of motor vehicle emissions and
revisions to implementation data for control measures. EMFAC2014
includes updated data on car and truck activity, and emissions
reductions associated with CARB's Advanced Clean Cars regulations.\5\
Motor vehicle fleet age, vehicle types and vehicle population have also
been updated based on 2000-2012 California Department of Motor Vehicle
data. EMFAC2014 incorporates new temperature and humidity profiles.
Each of these changes impact emission factors for each area in
California. In addition to changes to truck activity, EMFAC
incorporates updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for all vehicle
classes. The new model interface for EMFAC2014 allows users to update
the default VMT data and speed profiles by vehicle class for different
future

scenarios. CARB's Web site describes these and other model changes at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For further information, see the EPA's January 9, 2013
waiver of preemption for the Advanced Clean Cars regulations at 78
FR 2112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets

    The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and the 24-hour PM10 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 NOX and VOC budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020,
and 2023.\6\ The PM10 budgets were included in the EPA's
approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for
Redesignation (``2007 PM10 Plan'') at 73 FR 66759 (November
12, 2008), which established direct PM10 and NOX
budgets for 2005 and 2020.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The approved 2007 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).
    \7\ The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10
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
PM10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri
from James N. Goldstene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA previously proposed to approve the SJV budgets for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard. The PM2.5 budgets were
included in the EPA's proposed approval of the SJV 2012
PM2.5 Plan (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'') at 80 FR 1816
(January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in
the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April
15, 2016), establishing direct PM2.5 and NOX
budgets for 2017. As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must be used to
determine conformity of transportation plans and TIPs to the control
strategy plan for the SJV for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air
Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, April 1, 2016 with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current EPA-approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
and PM10 standard were developed using EMFAC2007, and the
adequate budgets for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard were
developed using EMFAC2011. In the SJV, the eight county-level
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) are the relevant transportation agencies that must
use approved or adequate budgets in determining the conformity of
transportation plans and TIPs within the SJV region.

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014

    The revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour
PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 standards were adopted by
the CARB on October 22, 2015.\9\ They were submitted to the EPA on
November 13, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CARB Resolution No. 15-50, October 22, 2015.
    \10\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015
with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations
in 40 CFR 51.102.
    CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for
reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of
the revised budgets. In the documentation included as part of the
November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal, CARB provided evidence of the
required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its
October 22, 2015 public hearing and adoption of the revised budgets. We
find, therefore, that the submittal of the revised budgets meets the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l).
    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan submittal that the EPA has not affirmatively
determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by
operation of law six months after the date of submittal. The EPA's SIP
completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA
determined that CARB's November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal was
complete on April 21, 2016.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region
9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated April 21,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets?

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, SIP revisions must not interfere
with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. Generally, the EPA reviews
budgets for adequacy or approval in the context of the Agency's review
of a control strategy implementation plan (i.e., attainment or RFP
plan) or maintenance plan. However, revisions to budgets can be
approved without comprehensive updates to the related control strategy
implementation or maintenance plan if the plan, with the new level of
motor vehicle emissions contained in the revised budgets, continues to
meet applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance).
EPA policy guidance suggests that a state may revise the motor vehicle
emissions inventories and related budgets without revising their entire
SIP consistent with section 110(l) if: (1) The SIP continues to meet
applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions
inventories are replaced with new MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year
inventories; and (2) the state can document that growth and control
strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid
and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the
SIP.\12\ The EPA's policy guidance for MOVES can be applied to EMFAC
because EMFAC is a California-specific emissions model analogous to
MOVES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and
Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-14-008, July 2014. See question and answer
#6 on page 7. Available online at: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b14008.pdf. MOVES is a model that states use to
estimate on-road emissions for SIP development, transportation
conformity determinations, and other purposes. Also see examples of
EPA rulemakings involving replacement of budgets in response to a
MOVES update, e.g., Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (79 FR 28435, May 16,
2014) and Beaumont/Port Arthur (78 FR 7672, February 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, revised budgets that are intended to replace adequate
(but not approved) budgets must meet the adequacy criteria found in our
transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). These
criteria include endorsement by the Governor (or designee); prior
consultation among relevant air and transportation agencies; clear
identification and precise quantification of the budgets; consistency
of the budgets, when considered with all other emissions sources, with
applicable requirements for RFP, attainment or maintenance; consistency
with and clear relation to the emissions inventory and control
measures; and explanation and documentation of changes relative to
previously submitted budgets. In this instance, the adequacy criteria
do not

apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan or
the 2007 PM10 Plan because the budgets they would replace
are approved budgets. The adequacy criteria do, however, apply to our
review of the revised budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
because the budgets from that plan have been found adequate, but are
not yet approved.

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the State's
Submittal

    Table 1 lists the revised budgets by subarea included in the
State's submittal for the SJV budgets applicable to the 1997 8-hour
ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and the 24-hour PM10
standards. CARB developed the revised budgets using EMFAC2014 and the
travel activity projections provided by the San Joaquin Valley MPOs
consistent with the 2015 Federal TIP. As such, we find that the revised
budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the
most recent emission factor data and approved calculation methods. A
comparison of the current approved or adequate budgets with the revised
budgets and a discussion of the EPA's proposed action on each set of
budgets is provided further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 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, PM2.5, and
PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September
21, 2015.

                                                           Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed Using EMFAC2014 \13\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997 8-hour ozone standard                              2006 24-hour PM2.5           PM10 standard
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------         standard         -------------------------
                                                                      NOX (tons per summer day)              VOC (tons per summer day)       --------------------------               NOX (tons
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------               NOX (tons                 per annual
                        County subarea                                                                                Direct     per winter  Direct PM10      day)
                                                                                PM2.5 (tons      day)      (tons per  ------------
                                                                    2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023      per winter ------------- annual day)
                                                                                day)         2017                      2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................................         29.9         24.3         14.6          8.7          6.8          5.6          1.0         32.1          7.0         25.4
Kern (SJV)....................................................         26.8         22.4         12.9          6.9          5.7          4.8          0.8         28.8          7.4         23.3
Kings.........................................................          5.5          4.7          2.7          1.4          1.1          0.9          0.2          5.9          1.8          4.8
Madera........................................................          5.5          4.5          2.7          2.0          1.6          1.3          0.2          6.0          2.5          4.7
Merced........................................................         10.3          8.5          5.1          2.7          2.1          1.7          0.3           11          3.8          8.9
San Joaquin...................................................         14.1         11.3          7.3          6.4          5.1          4.3          0.6         15.5          4.6         11.9
Stanislaus....................................................         11.3          9.2          5.8          4.1          3.2          2.7          0.4         12.3          3.7          9.6
Tulare........................................................         10.3          8.1          4.9          4.0          3.1          2.5          0.4         11.2          3.4          8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 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 NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC, PM2.5 and PM10; then re-allocating 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.

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

    Tables 2 and 3 below compare the current EPA-approved
NOX and VOC budgets developed using EMFAC2007 with the
revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by
subarea and apply to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

                                               Table 2--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for NOX for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                                                [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2017                                      2020                                      2023
                          County subarea                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Current       Revised     Net change      Current       Revised     Net change      Current       Revised     Net change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................................          22.6          29.9           7.3          17.7          24.3           6.6          13.5          14.6           1.1
Kern (SJV)........................................................          31.7          26.8          -4.9          25.1          22.4          -2.7          18.6          12.9          -5.7
Kings.............................................................           6.7           5.5          -1.2           5.3           4.7          -0.6           4.0           2.7          -1.3
Madera............................................................           5.8           5.5          -0.3           4.7           4.5          -0.2           3.6           2.7          -0.9
Merced............................................................          12.4          10.3          -2.1           9.9           8.5          -1.4           7.4           5.1          -2.3
San Joaquin.......................................................          15.6          14.1          -1.5          12.4          11.3          -1.1          10.0           7.3          -2.7
Stanislaus........................................................          10.6          11.3           0.7           8.4           9.2           0.8           6.4           5.8          -0.6
Tulare............................................................          10.1          10.3           0.2           8.1           8.1           0.0           6.2           4.9          -1.3
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................................................         115.5         113.7          -1.8          91.6          93.0           1.4          69.7          56.0         -13.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets 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 NOX and
  nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating 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. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

                           Table 3--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for VOC for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2017                                   2020                                   2023
           County subarea           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.............................          9.3          8.7         -0.6          8.3          6.8         -1.5          8.0          5.6         -2.4
Kern (SJV).........................          8.7          6.9         -1.8          8.2          5.7         -2.5          7.9          4.8         -3.1
Kings..............................          1.8          1.4         -0.4          1.7          1.1         -0.6          1.6          0.9         -0.7
Madera.............................          2.2          2.0         -0.2          2.0          1.6         -0.4          1.9          1.3         -0.6
Merced.............................          3.2          2.7         -0.5          2.9          2.1         -0.8          2.8          1.7         -1.1
San Joaquin........................          7.2          6.4         -0.8          6.4          5.1         -1.3          6.3          4.3         -2.0
Stanislaus.........................          5.6          4.1         -1.5          5.0          3.2         -1.8          4.7          2.7         -2.0

Tulare.............................          5.8          4.0         -1.8          5.3          3.1         -2.2          4.9          2.5         -2.4
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................         43.8         36.2         -7.6         39.8         28.7        -11.1         38.1         23.8        -14.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets 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 NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating 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. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised NOX and VOC budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023
are intended to replace the EPA-approved NOX and VOC budgets
in 2007 Ozone Plan developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A
comparison of the current budgets with the revised budgets is shown in
tables 2 and 3. The tables show that the NOX and VOC totals
for the revised budgets are less than the current budgets for all
years, except 2020 for NOX, which shows a slight increase of
1.4 tpd or 1.4% when compared to the prior budget.
    First, we note that the 2007 Ozone Plan relied upon motor vehicle
emissions inventories, from which the budgets \14\ were derived, to
demonstrate compliance with RFP and attainment requirements. With
respect to the RFP requirement, we found that the 2007 Ozone Plan
provided a significant surplus of NOX emissions reductions
beyond those necessary to meet the RFP requirement. See table 11 of our
proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan (76 FR 57862, September 16,
2011). As shown in tables 2 and 3, with one exception, the revised
regional total motor vehicle emissions estimates submitted by CARB for
VOC and NOX for 2017, 2020 and 2023 are lower than the
corresponding estimates from the plan as approved in 2012. As such, the
replacement of the older budgets with the revised budgets would not
change the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan meets the requirements
for RFP. The exception, the 1.4 tpd of NOX in 2020, is too
minor to affect the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue
to meet the RFP requirement in that year given the significant surplus
in NOX emissions reductions in that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In San Joaquin Valley plans, the motor vehicle emissions
inventories are essentially the same as the budgets. Historically,
CARB has set the budget for the SJV MPOs by rounding the motor
vehicle emissions estimate to the nearest tenth of a ton. With more
recent plans and for the revised budgets, CARB rounds the regional
total motor vehicle emissions inventories up to the nearest whole
ton (for NOX) or the nearest tenth of a ton (for ROG,
PM2.5 and PM10) and then re-allocates the
emissions to the various counties based on the ratio of the county-
specific motor vehicle emissions to the regional total. The re-
allocated county-specific emissions estimate is rounded
conventionally to the nearest tenth of a ton, which then constitutes
the budget. See the attachment to CARB's staff report included in
the November 13, 2015 submittal in support of the SIP revision
(i.e., the revised budgets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of
the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with the
November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB
prepared updated NOX and VOC emissions inventories from all
sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) in the
SJV for 2017, 2020, and 2023. These updated inventories provide a basis
for comparison with the corresponding inventories from the 2007 Ozone
Plan. We would expect that most current emissions estimates from all
sources in SJV in 2017, 2020, and 2023 would be lower than those
included in the 2007 Ozone Plan because they reflect control measures
adopted since the plan was approved, and as shown below in tables 4 and
5, the updated regional emissions for 2017, 2020, and 2023, including
the revised budgets, are approximately 20 tpd, 15 tpd, and 34 tpd lower
for NOX and 0 tpd, 4 tpd, and 12 tpd lower for VOCs,
respectively, than the corresponding figures in the EPA-approved plan.
The most significant differences between the inventories are from large
decreases in the actual reported emissions for several point source
categories (i.e., cogeneration, oil and gas production, food and
agriculture, glass manufacturing and composting), compared to their
projected emissions in the EPA-approved plan.\15\ Other significant
differences include updates to: (1) Agricultural acreage burned; (2)
CARB's off-road source emissions using a newer suite of category-
specific models developed to support recent CARB regulations; and (3)
animal population estimates and VOC emission factors for livestock
operations. The current emissions estimates for 2023 (161 tpd of
NOX, and 327 tpd of VOC) are consistent with the attainment
target level \16\ for the 1997 ozone standard (141 tpd of
NOX, and 342 tpd of VOC) given the continued implementation
of the long-term element of the control strategy of the 2007 Ozone Plan
to develop new technologies or to improve existing control technologies
as approved by EPA under section 182(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comparing the Emission Inventories for the San Joaquin
Valley State Implementation Plans, CARB, March 30, 2016. Attachment
to email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9,
March 30, 2016.
    \16\ See table 9 on page 57858 of our proposed approval of the
2007 Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we find that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet
applicable requirements for RFP and attainment when the previously-
approved EMFAC2007-based budgets are replaced with the revised
EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the changes in the growth and control
strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the
overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan. As such, we find that
approval of the revised NOX and VOC budgets for the 2007
Ozone Plan for 2017, 2020 and 2023 as shown in table 1 would not
interfere with attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act
and would thereby comply with section 110(l), and we propose to approve
them on that\\ basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from
appendix A-3 and B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan
titled ``Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions
and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San
Joaquin Valley Air Basins'' (release date: June 20, 2011). CARB's
updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report
submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

                  Table 4--Comparison of NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                               [Tons per summer day] \17\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Emissions inventory in approved ozone       Updated emissions inventory                     Net change
                                                      plan                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inventory category         ---------------------------------------
                                         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area................           55           53           53           36           36           35          -19          -17          -18
On-road............................          115           91           69          113           92           55           -2            1          -14
Non-road...........................           89           80           73           89           82           70            0            2           -3
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................          259          225          195          239          210          161          -20          -15          -34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in
  emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan.

                  Table 5--Comparison of VOC Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                               [Tons per summer day] \18\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Emissions inventory in approved ozone       Updated emissions inventory                     Net change
                                                      plan                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inventory category         ---------------------------------------
                                         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area................          229          235          244          255          263          272           26           28           28
On-road............................           43           39           37           36           29           24           -7          -10          -13
Non-road...........................           57           57           57           38           35           32          -19          -22          -25
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................          329          331          339          329          327          327            0           -4          -12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in
  emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan.

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from
appendix A-3 and appendix B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007
Ozone Plan titled Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan
Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San
Joaquin Valley Air Basins (release date June 20, 2011). CARB's
updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report
submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 below compares the current direct PM2.5 and
NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2011 that were recently
found adequate for transportation conformity purposes with the revised
budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea
and apply to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

    Table 6--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley 2017 PM2.5 Budgets for PM2.5 and NOX for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
                                                    Standard
                                              [Tons per winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Direct PM2.5                               NOX
          County subarea           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................          0.9          1.0          0.1         25.2         32.1          6.9
Kern (SJV)........................          1.0          0.8         -0.2         34.4         28.8         -5.6
Kings.............................          0.2          0.2          0.0          7.2          5.9         -1.3
Madera............................          0.2          0.2          0.0          7.0          6.0         -1.0
Merced............................          0.4          0.3         -0.1         13.7           11         -2.7
San Joaquin.......................          0.6          0.6          0.0         15.9         15.5         -0.4
Stanislaus........................          0.5          0.4         -0.1         12.0         12.3          0.3
Tulare............................          0.4          0.4          0.0         10.7         11.2          0.5
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................          4.2          3.9         -0.3        126.1        122.8         -3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets 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 NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton
  for direct PM2.5; then re-allocating 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. The existing adequate PM2.5 budgets were calculated in the same manner.

    The revised 2017 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets
are intended to replace the adequate 2017 PM2.5 and
NOX budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan developed for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. A comparison of the prior
budgets with the revised budgets, as shown in table 6, indicates that
the totals for the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX
budgets are less than the current budgets.
    First, we note that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan relied upon
motor vehicle emissions inventories, from which the budgets were
derived, for year 2017 to demonstrate compliance with RFP requirements
for that year. In our proposed partial approval of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan, we proposed to approve the RFP demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) for year 2017 based
on emissions

projections in the plan for that year that reflect full implementation
of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control
requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at a minimum). See 80 FR 1816, at 1834-
1837 (January 13, 2015). We deemed such a showing to be sufficient to
meet the RFP requirement in an area that cannot practicably attain the
PM2.5 standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment
date. The revised motor vehicle emissions estimates used to develop the
revised budgets continue to reflect full implementation of a control
strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements, and as
such, replacement of the EMFAC2011-based motor vehicle emissions
budgets from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan with the revised EMFAC2014-
based motor vehicle emissions budgets would not change the proposal to
approve the RFP demonstration for 2017 in the 2012 PM2.5
Plan.
    Second, we have reviewed the analysis that CARB prepared in support
of the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with
the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB
included a comparison of the estimated direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions inventories from all sources (i.e.,
stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 2017 with those
from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. As shown below in table 7, the
total emissions for 2017 associated with the revised budgets are
approximately 7 tpd lower for direct PM2.5 and 6 tpd lower
for NOX when compared to the total emissions inventory in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan containing the current budgets. The
differences include updates to: Agricultural acreage burned; locomotive
and recreational boat emissions; and farming operations.
    Therefore, we find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan continues to
meet applicable requirements for RFP in 2017 when the EMFAC2011-based
budgets are replaced with the new EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the
changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor
vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions regarding the
2012 PM2.5 Plan's demonstration of RFP for 2017. As such, we
find that approval of the revised direct PM2.5 and
NOX budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for year 2017
as shown in table 1 would not interfere with attainment or RFP or any
other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply with section
110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.
    In addition, we have reviewed the revised direct PM2.5
and NOX budgets for compliance with the adequacy criteria
and find that, in addition to being consistent with the 2017 RFP
demonstration, they are clearly identified and precisely quantified and
meet all of the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(i)-(vi). See the EPA
memorandum documenting review of the budgets for compliance with the
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e) that has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect our
January 13, 2015 proposal, or rationale therein, to approve the trading
mechanism as described on page C-32 in appendix C of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan as enforceable components of the transportation
conformity program in the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 standard
with the condition, as explained in our January 13, 2015 proposal, that
trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NOX
for increases in PM2.5. See 80 FR at 1816, at 1841 (January
13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CARB's updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's
staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision
submittal.

          Table 7--Comparison of 2017 PM2.5 and NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard
                                                               [Tons per winter day] \19\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2017 emissions inventory in       Updated 2017 emissions                Net change
                                                                  2012 PM2.5 plan                    inventory           -------------------------------
                   Inventory category                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary..............................................             8.9            27.4             8.7            28.5            -0.2             1.1
Area....................................................            46.8            15.6            41.2            11.7            -5.6            -3.9
On-road.................................................             4.2           125.6             3.7           122.3            -0.5            -3.3
Non-road................................................             3.6            64.3             4.1            62.9             0.5            -1.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................            63.6           232.9            57.7           225.4            -5.9            -7.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and
  a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 Standard

    Table 8 below compares the current EPA-approved direct
PM10 and NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007
with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are
provided by subarea and apply to the 24-hour PM10 standard.

                        Table 8--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley PM10 2020 Budgets for Direct PM10 and NOX for the PM10 Standard
                                                              [Annual average tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Direct PM10 \20\                                       NOX
                     County subarea                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current         Revised         Change          Current         Revised         Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..................................................            16.1             7.0            -9.1            23.2            25.4             2.2
Kern (SJV)..............................................            14.7             7.4            -7.3            39.5            23.3           -16.2
Kings...................................................             3.6             1.8            -1.8             6.8             4.8            -2.0

Madera..................................................             4.7             2.5            -2.2             6.5             4.7            -1.8
Merced..................................................             6.4             3.8            -2.6            12.9             8.9            -4.0
San Joaquin.............................................            10.6             4.6            -6.2            17.0            11.9            -5.1
Stanislaus..............................................             6.7             3.7            -3.0            10.8             9.6            -1.2
Tulare..................................................             9.4             3.4            -6.0            10.9             8.4            -2.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................            72.2            34.2           -38.0           127.6            97.0           -30.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised PM10 budgets 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 NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM10; then re-allocating 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. The previously approved budgets for PM10 were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets for
2020 are intended to replace the EPA-approved PM10 and
NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007 for the 2007
PM10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The direct PM10 budgets include PM10
emissions from paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and road
construction dust, as well as PM10 from vehicle exhaust
and brake and tire wear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we note that the 2007 PM10 Plan relied upon motor
vehicle emission inventories, from which the budgets were derived, to
demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2020.
Maintenance through 2020 was demonstrated in the 2007 PM10
Plan using a combination of chemical mass balance receptor modeling to
identify emission source contributions by chemical species and rollback
techniques. See pages 6-11 of the 2007 PM10 Plan. Given the
modeling methods used to demonstrate maintenance, it is not possible to
precisely calculate the change in concentration associated with the
substitution of the approved budgets with the revised budgets. However,
given that the revised budgets, when summed for the SJV region, are
lower than the regional sum for the approved budgets, replacement of
the approved budgets with the revised budgets would not undermine the
maintenance demonstration in the 2007 PM10 Plan.
    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of
the revised budgets. To further demonstrate that the changes to the
direct PM10 and NOX budgets are consistent with
the 2007 PM10 Plan for the 24-hour PM10 standard,
CARB's analysis included a comparison of the estimated direct
PM10 and NOX emissions inventories from all
sources (including stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for
2020. As shown below in table 9, the total emissions for 2020
associated with the revised budgets are approximately 10.2 tpd lower
for direct PM10 and 121.0 tpd lower for NOX when
compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2007 PM10
Plan. The lower estimates for NOX are primarily due to
greater reductions in NOX from stationary sources than had
been assumed in the 2007 PM10 Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 2007 PM10 Plan estimated a reduction in
stationary source emissions of NOX from 106 tpd to 103
ptd from 2005 to 2020. See CARB's staff report titled ``Analysis of
the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,''
appendix B. Instead, controls on such sources, as well as
corrections and updates to inventory methods, are now expected to
reduce such emissions 30 tpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary differences between the inventories in the 2007
PM10 Plan and the supporting documentation for the revised
budgets are from: (1) New or revised CARB mobile source measures (e.g.,
heavy-duty truck retrofit requirements and new or revised emissions
standards for transportation refrigeration units, portable diesel
engines, and large spark ignition engine regulation, among other
categories) and new or revised San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD or ``District'') stationary and area source measures
(e.g., regulations affecting open burning; boilers, steam generators
and process heaters; dryers, dehydrators and ovens; and internal
combustion engines, among others); (2) corrections to the Manufacturing
and Industrial and Food and Agriculture categories; (3) updates to
agricultural and managed burned acreage and the reclassification of
Wildfire Use as a natural source category; and (4) updates to CARB's
emission estimation models for locomotives, commercial and recreational
boats, transportation refrigeration units, construction equipment, oil
drilling and workover equipment, cargo handling equipment, and farm
equipment.
    Table 9 shows that CARB's current estimates of NOX
emissions for 2020 differ substantially from those projected in the
2007 PM10 Plan. The changes in growth and control strategy
assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall
conclusions of the 2007 PM10 Plan because they reflect,
among other things, additional controls that support continued
maintenance of the PM10 standard in the SJV beyond those
assumed in the plan. While the changes in emissions estimates lend
support to the conclusion that the 2007 PM10 Plan, with the
revised budget, continues to meet the underlying purpose of the plan,
i.e., to provide for maintenance of the PM10 standard
through 2020, the EPA also reviewed the ambient PM10
concentration data collected over the past several years in the SJV to
see if they too are consistent with the continued maintenance of the
standard.

             Table 9--Comparison of 2020 PM10 and NOX Emissions Reductions Associated with Current and Revised Budgets for the PM10 Standard
                                                           [Annual average tons per day] \22\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2020 Emissions inventory in       Updated 2020 emissions                Net change
                                                                approved PM10 plan                   inventory           -------------------------------
                   Inventory category                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Direct PM10         NOX         Direct PM10         NOX         Direct PM10         NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary..............................................            26.4           103.7            15.3            29.5           -11.1           -74.2
Area....................................................           247.8            17.1           251.7             8.4            +3.9            -8.7
On-road.................................................             9.7           124.7             7.6            96.7            -2.1           -28.0
Non-road................................................             6.1            82.4             5.6            72.2            -0.5           -10.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................           290.0           327.8           280.2           206.8           -10.2          -121.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in
  the 2007 PM10 Plan.

    From our review of the available, quality-assured, and certified
PM10 ambient air monitoring data in the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) for 2013 and 2014, along with preliminary data for 2015,
we determined that the SJV PM10 maintenance area experienced
multiple exceedances of the PM10 standard in 2013 and 2014.
In response to the exceedances, the EPA evaluated whether the District
implemented the contingency plan in its 2007 PM10 Plan. In
its contingency plan, the District established an action level of 155
[mu]g/m\3\ of PM10 over a 24-hour period. Should the action
level be reached, the District committed to evaluating the exceedance
and take appropriate action within 18 months of the event date. The
following major steps comprise the District's contingency plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 2020 emissions inventory in the approved 2007
PM10 Plan is from CARB's Staff Report titled ``Analysis
of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,''
appendix B, which was approved as part of the 2007 PM10
Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)(2). The updated 2020
emissions inventory is attached to a December 15, 2015 email from
Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 1. The District will examine the event and determine if it
needs to be classified as a natural or exceptional event in accordance
with the EPA's final rulemaking (72 FR 13560). If the data qualify for
flagging under this rule, the District would proceed with preparing and
submitting the necessary documentation for a natural/exceptional event,
and would not consider the monitored level as a trigger for the
maintenance plan contingency plan.
    Step 2. If the event does not qualify as a natural or exceptional
event, the District would then analyze the event to determine its
possible causes. It would examine emission reductions from adopted
rules or rule commitments in adopted and approved plans to see if
emission reductions not used in demonstrating maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS would address the violation.
    Step 3. If reductions from Step 2 above are insufficient, the
District would proceed with identifying control measures from any
feasibility studies (e.g., from the 2007 Ozone Plan) completed to date
that recommend future controls and prioritize development of the
measures most relevant to reducing PM10 levels.
    In a March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA,\23\ the District summarized
the steps they had taken in response to the PM10
exceedances, including implementation of the contingency plan in their
2007 PM10 Plan. Specifically, the District identified
seventeen exceedances of the PM10 standard that occurred at
five monitoring sites. Of these, the District characterized ten
exceedances as high wind events that qualify as exceptional events per
criteria in 40 CFR 50.1(j). CARB indicated they will be submitting to
the EPA exceptional event documentation for some or all of these
events; however, the EPA has not yet received the documentation in
support of determining whether the ten exceedances qualify as
exceptional events. The District characterized the remaining seven
exceedances as exceptional events caused by ``exceptional drought
conditions'' coinciding with stagnant air conditions, and indicated
they will be submitting to CARB exceptional event documentation for
these events. On February 16, 2016, the District requested that CARB
flag five exceedances in AQS as possible exceptional events caused by
the drought conditions.\24\ On March 10, 2016, CARB responded to the
District's February 16, 2016 request and indicated that the five
exceedances could not be flagged as exceptional events because they did
not meet the definition of an exceptional event in 40 CFR 50.1(j).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter, Samir Sheikh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer,
SJVAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
March 11, 2016.
    \24\ Email, Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, to Theresa Najita, CARB,
February 16, 2016.
    \25\ Email, Theresa Najita, CARB, to Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD,
March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA, the District identified
multiple rules and regulations that reduce PM10 or
PM10 precursors beyond commitments in the 2007
PM10 Plan. Based on our analysis of the March 11 letter, the
EPA has determined there is uncertainty regarding whether the rules and
regulations identified by the District, when combined with the
PM10 revised budgets, are sufficient for maintenance of the
PM10 standard. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA
may conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the
State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not
later than one year after the EPA approval of the plan or plan
revision. In this instance, the District indicated in their March 11,
2016 letter that adequate measures have been adopted to provide
continued maintenance of the PM10 standard; however, the EPA
has determined that the State's revised budgets submittal and the
District's March 11, 2016 letter alone are not sufficient for the EPA
to determine the area will maintain the 24-hour PM10
standard. To help remedy this situation, in an April 29, 2016 letter to
the EPA, CARB committed to submit a SIP revision by June 1, 2017 that
will provide additional documentation on the nature and causes of each
of the recent PM10 exceedances. To the extent that data is
available, the State committed to the following: \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For additional background on the District's response to the
2013-2014 PM10 exceedances and the State's April 29, 2016
letter, please see the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Evaluation of PM10 filter-based and continuous
data across the SJV to

understand the local or regional nature of each exceedance;
     Analysis of PM2.5 data to determine whether
fine or coarse particles are contributing to the exceedance;
     Analysis of available chemical speciation data including
additional filter speciation analysis as appropriate to assess
potential source types contributing to each exceedance; and
     Analysis of wind speed and direction, along with
geographic visualization tools to help identify the types of sources
impacting each monitor.
    Based on these analyses, CARB and the District will determine the
appropriate remedy to address the nature of each exceedance. This may
include submittal of documentation for exceptional events, or analysis
and evaluation of the further emission reductions that will accrue from
ongoing implementation of current control programs or development of
new control measures as part of upcoming attainment plans.
    For exceedances that qualify as natural or exceptional events, CARB
and the District will follow the notification and data flagging process
that is contained in the EPA's revised Exceptional Event Rule (``EE
Rule''). This will include a commitment to notify the EPA by July 1 of
each year of the PM10 data that has been flagged. Subsequent
submittal of documentation for each event will follow requirements
specified in the EE Rule. In addition, CARB and the District commit to
ensuring ongoing network adequacy and data completeness through
existing mechanisms such as data certification and the annual network
plan review.
    Based on the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX
budgets in table 8 above, the updated inventory estimates in table 9
above, and the commitments in CARB's April 29, 2016 letter, the EPA
concludes that a conditional approval of the 2020 revised direct
PM10 and NOX budgets supports continued
maintenance of the PM10 standard and is consistent with
applicable CAA requirements; thus, we propose to conditionally approve
the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets as a
revision to the 2007 PM10 Plan.\27\ If we finalize this
proposed conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP
revisions it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to
comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a
disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ To comply with CAA section 175A(a), a maintenance plan must
provide for the maintenance of standard (for which an area is being
redesignated) for 10 years from redesignation to attainment, under
CAA section 175A(b), states are required, within eight years of
redesignation to attainment, to submit a revision to the SIP that
provides for the maintenance of the standard an additional ten years
after expiration of the initial 10-year period. For the SJV and
PM10, California must submit a subsequent 10-year
maintenance plan by December 12, 2016. We expect that the subsequent
SJV PM10 maintenance plan will address the recent
exceedances described in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect the
trading mechanism first included in the SJV Amended 2003
PM10 Plan and approved by the EPA at 69 FR 30006 (May 26,
2004) and later carried forward and approved as part of the 2007
PM10 Plan. See pages 20-21 of the 2007 PM10 Plan;
73 FR 22307, at 22317 (April 25, 2008); and 73 FR 66759, at 66772
(November 12, 2008). That is, the trading mechanism approved as part of
the 2007 PM10 Plan will remain available regardless of our
action on the revised budgets.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve
the revised ozone and PM2.5 budgets and conditionally
approve the revised PM10 budgets in California's November
13, 2015 submittal for the SJV area. The revised budgets are shown in
table 1 and are based on estimates from California's EMFAC2014 model.
    More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is
proposing to approve the revised VOC and NOX budgets for
2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because
replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised budgets
would not interfere with the approved RFP and attainment demonstrations
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and because emissions
changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the
overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
    Second, the EPA is also proposing to approve the revised direct
PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard because replacement of the current
adequate budgets with the revised budgets would be consistent with our
separate proposal finding that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
demonstrates RFP for year 2017, because emissions changes in non-motor
vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusion of
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and because the revised budgets meet
the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi).
    Third, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the revised direct PM10 and
NOX budgets for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10
standard because, when combined with implementation of the contingency
plan in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and fulfillment of
the commitments in the State's April 29, 2016 letter, they will allow
the SJV to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour
PM10 standard. If we finalize this proposed conditional
approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has
committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to comply with this
commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval.
Disapproval of the revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan
would reinstate the existing approved budgets as the budgets that must
be used in transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations after
the effective date of the disapproval. See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1). 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), and it would not trigger a
transportation conformity freeze because the disapproval does not
affect a control strategy implementation plan as defined in the
transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).
    Lastly, if the EPA takes final action to approve the revised
budgets as proposed, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs and DOT must use the
revised budgets for future transportation conformity determinations.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

VII. 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. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address 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 Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials 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 relationship 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 San
Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone,
2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10
standards: 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 Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon
Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River
Reservation.
    The EPA's proposed approval of the revised budgets submitted by
CARB to address the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5,
and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards in the San Joaquin Valley
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 proposed 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 proposed action will not have tribal implications
for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and would not impose
substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal
law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley
has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-11741 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56267-56268]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22162]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0353]

Article 19-A of the State of New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition for determination of preemption; request for
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests comments on petitions submitted by the American
Bus Association (ABA) and Motor Coach Canada (MCC) seeking a
determination that Article 19-A of the State of New York's Vehicle and
Traffic Law governing drivers of passenger-carrying interstate motor
vehicles is preempted by Federal law. FMCSA requests comments on
whether Article 19-A has safety benefits, how it is being enforced
against interstate passenger carriers and its effect, if any, on
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Number in the heading of this document by any of the
following methods. To allow effective public participation before the
comment deadlines, however, the Agency encourages use of the Web site
that is listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely
method of receiving and processing your comments. Do not submit the
same comments by more than one method.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this action. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading on
http://www.regulations.gov for further information.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received
the comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on line. Copies or abstracts of all documents
referenced in this notice are in this docket. For access to the docket
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments received before
the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will
be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at
the above address. FMCSA will continue to file in the public docket
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new
material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call U.S.
DOT Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Provisions of Article 19-A of the State of New York's Vehicle and
Traffic Law and its implementing regulations (15 CRR-NY ch. 6)
establish a wide range of

requirements applicable to both interstate and intrastate passenger
carriers operating in New York. Under this regulatory scheme, all
interstate passenger carriers must file an annual compliance affidavit
certifying that their drivers are not disqualified under State law and
reporting the number of days and vehicle miles of bus service provided
in New York during the previous year. An interstate carrier is
generally exempt from the rest of Article 19-A, which includes
requirements related to employment, driver medical qualifications,
reporting, recordkeeping and other matters affecting both drivers and
carriers, unless it operates certain types of school buses or operates
in New York for more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles
annually. Interstate carriers that exceed the 100 day or 10,000 mile
threshold can apply for a waiver for bus drivers who operate less than
30 days per year in New York (N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law, Sec.  509-n; 15
CRR-NY Sec.  6.14). Otherwise, an interstate passenger carrier
operating in New York is required to comply with Article 19-A. The New
York Department of Motor Vehicles (NY DMV) makes information about
compliance with Article 19-A available through the following web link:
http://www.dmv.ny.gov/art19.htm.
    By letter dated June 28, 2011, MCC requested that FMCSA preempt
Article 19-A, alleging that it creates a burden on interstate commerce
by imposing requirements that are more stringent than Federal
regulations. MCC stated that 49 CFR part 391 of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) contains comprehensive driver
qualification and licensing requirements and that the requirements of
Article 19-A impermissibly regulate interstate passenger carrier
operations. MCC specifically identified New York's request for bus
driver information (a two-page form for each driver), an Affidavit of
Compliance and an annually-updated roster as unlawful burdens. On July
18, 2011, the ABA wrote a similar letter, objecting to New York's
enforcement of Article 19-A, but, at that time, specifically stated
that it was not requesting preemption.
    In response, on March 29, 2012, FMCSA sent a letter giving the NY
DMV an opportunity to respond to MCC's and the ABA's letters. The
letter also asked whether the NY DMV applies Article 19-A to interstate
carriers and how it uses the information it collects. By letter dated
July 31, 2012, the DMV responded, stating that Article 19-A applies to
interstate carriers and that it keeps the information it collects in
its files, notifies carriers when a driver's CDL is revoked or
suspended, and notifies school bus operators of the results of the
mandatory criminal history checks.
    On September 7, 2012, the ABA sent another letter, this time
requesting that FMCSA determine that Article 19-A is preempted because
it has no demonstrated safety benefit, is not compatible with federal
requirements and places an undue burden on interstate commerce. ABA
stated that the requirements of Article 19-A exceed Federal driver
qualification requirements, burdening interstate carriers. ABA
specifically objected to those provisions of Article 19-A that require
carriers to report information to the NY DMV about a driver's
employment status, disqualification, pending criminal charges, out-of-
State driving record, miles driven and number of convictions and
accidents. ABA also objected to the requirements that carriers
participate in New York's Conviction and Accident Notification program,
establish an escrow account in New York, administer tests and
assessments of driving skills in excess of that required by the FMCSRs,
and submit affidavits attesting to compliance with Article 19-A.
    The letters referenced above are available in the docket for this
proceeding.

Applicable law

    Section 31141 of title 49, United States Code, prohibits States
from enforcing a law or regulation on CMV safety that the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) has determined to be preempted. To determine
whether a State law or regulation is preempted, the Secretary must
decide whether a State law or regulation: (1) Has the same effect as a
regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, which is the authority for
much of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs); (2) is
less stringent than such a regulation; or (3) is additional to or more
stringent than such a regulation (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(1)). If the
Secretary determines that a State law or regulation has the same effect
as a regulation based on Sec.  31136, it may be enforced (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(2)). A State law or regulation that is less stringent may not
be enforced (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(3)). And a State law or regulation the
Secretary determines to be additional to or more stringent than a
regulation based on Sec.  31136 may be enforced unless the Secretary
decides that the State law or regulation (1) Has no safety benefit; (2)
is incompatible with the regulation prescribed by the Secretary; or (3)
would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(4)). To determine whether a State law or regulation will cause
an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Secretary may
consider the cumulative effect that the State's law or regulation and
all similar laws and regulations of other States will have on
interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(5)). The Secretary's authority
under Sec.  31141 is delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR
1.87(f).

Request for Comments

    Although preemption under Sec.  31141 is a legal determination
reserved to the judgment of the Agency, FMCSA seeks comment on what
effect, if any, Article 19-A and its accompanying regulations have on
interstate motor carrier operations. Commenters are encouraged to
provide information about the regulatory scheme's safety benefits, if
any, and whether it constitutes a burden on interstate commerce or is
incompatible with the FMCSRs. FMCSA is particularly interested in
specific information on how New York enforces Article 19-A against
interstate passenger carriers. In requesting comments, FMCSA does not
seek legal conclusions, but requests commenters to submit data
supporting their positions.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
    Dated: September 3, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
 Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-22162 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P