Related videosSadriddin - Az mani ya na NEW SONG 2017صدرالدین - از منی یا نه - Садриддин Начмиддин
EPA agrees that a similar demonstration must be included in the area's ozone plan to account for pre-baseline emission reduction credits and ensure that the plan generates sufficient creditable emission reductions to satisfy reasonable further progress and compliance demonstration requirements for extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
Comment AIR also notes that there is uncertainty surrounding the District's ability to manage the tracking system if the San Joaquin Valley is redesignated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area.
Response: On April 8, , EPA took final action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area from a severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA agrees that redesignation of the ozone nonattainment area will affect the implementation of the offset equivalency tracking system.
The District will need to update its NSR program to meet the new federal requirements triggered by redesignation. The offset tracking system and equivalency demonstration was approved for limited purposes and EPA would like to avoid any possible misunderstanding that it was intended to address additional rule deficiencies that would occur if the District failed to update its rules to comply with federal NSR requirements for extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
As AIR acknowledges, it is not certain when or if the area will be unable to demonstrate equivalency in the future. In the meanwhile, we believe it is reasonable to approve the proposed revisions to Rule because the Rule provides automatic remedies in the event equivalency cannot be demonstrated.
Thus, if the District cannot demonstrate equivalency, the District will meet all federal offset requirements on a case-by-case basis. AIR observes that section prohibits the modification of any pre implementation plan in effect in a nonattainment area unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions.
AIR contends that allowing the District to use pre emission reduction credits without determining whether or not they are surplus would not have been allowed prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments and would violate section In fact, the revisions being approved today are to District rules approved into the SIP in It is unclear how section applies to these changes given that they do not revise any pre control requirements.
Comment Comments from WSPA, along with the District, disagreed with EPA's conclusion that pre emissions reduction credits are not surplus creditable reductions available to meet federal offset requirements.
These commenters argue that the District had properly accounted for pre credits in previous submittals to EPA.
Several of the comments note that EPA approved these documents without questioning the methodology used to account for pre emissions reduction credits. WSPA encourages EPA to work with the District to resolve this issue in a manner that maintains the viability of the District's emissions banking program and protects the ability of permittees to obtain offsets for future projects.
EPA proposed approval of this plan on February 4, EPA believes that the plan shows that even assuming a limited amount of growth in emissions is not offset by reductions in the current inventory because pre-baseline ERCs are used, the area will still be able to attain the NAAQS and demonstrate reasonable further progress. The District will need to support a similar demonstration as part of the area's ozone plan.
The plans referenced by commenters did not reasonably support a conclusion that the area can attain the ozone NAAQS while foregoing meaningful offsets from the emissions inventory. EPA approval of an attainment demonstration does not automatically allow the use of pre-baseline ERCs.
There is no requirement that an area carry forward pre-baseline ERCs. The decision of whether to allow their continued use is up to the State and local District. Should a State or local District choose to protect these credits for future use, the amount of such ERCs must be correctly included in the plan.
A state or local agency could choose to include all pre-baseline ERCs and require compensating reductions elsewhere, or could choose to not allow any pre-baseline ERCs to be carried forward.
The plans referenced by commenters included no specific, identifiable quantity of pre-baseline ERCs and did not in any way limit or account for their use. More fundamentally, these demonstration have not proven out. Reliance on such demonstrations while simultaneously redesignating the ozone area from severe to extreme nonattainment would not be reasonable. Until revised demonstrations are provided with respect to ozone attainment, EPA's position remains that the District has not shown that use of these ERCs as offsets can be allowed while preserving the area's ability to attain and make reasonable further progress toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
No comments were submitted that changed our assessment that the submitted rules address the deficiencies noted in our July 19, limited disapproval and comply with the relevant CAA requirements. This action terminates all sanction and FIP obligations associated with our July 19, action on a previous version of the rule. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements Start Printed Page under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Pub.
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 65 FR , November 9, This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 64 FR , August 10, This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 44 U. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. Senate, the U. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Under section b 1 of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 16, Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section b 2. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:. Authority: 42 U. Section On September 22, , the Governor signed SB into law. We also received an e-mail on March 14, from Cathy Reheis-Boyd, Acting President of WSPA, asking EPA to consider incorporating language into the final notice that indicates a willingness to work with the District to develop a flexible tracking system that accounts for all differences between the local and federal permitting systems.
We do not understand this to be a comment on the decision to approve the District's rule or a suggestion that the tracking system fails to accurately account for the various differences between the local and federal programs. We agree, however, that, should the District choose to revise its tracking system provisions, it will be important for EPA to continue to work with the District to ensure the system accurately accounts for these differences. These are emissions reductions banked as credits before the Clean Air Act Amendments.
The District's rule provides for EPA review of the District's creditability determinations not for purposes of reviewing whether individual permitting decision rely on ERCs that are not surplus at the time-of-use, but to ensure the District's program satisfies the offset requirements of the Act. Accordingly, section 7. We noted that the District rule allowed Calpine to rely on credits considered acceptable under the District rules but that would be non-surplus under the federal rules.
We added that the District would need to address any shortfall that resulted in the creditable emission reductions needed to satisfy the Clean Air Act offset requirements. A copy of this testimony has been added to the administrative record for today's action. Rather, any portion of the necessary offsets may be generated by the local air quality district or by the State.
Given the likely need for stringent controls and significant emissions reductions, it may be more difficult for the area to demonstrate attainment and reasonable further progress if pre-baseline credits are carried forward in the inventory. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform documents in the last year. Government Contracts 50 documents in the last year.
Fishery Management documents in the last year. Taking of Marine Mammals documents in the last year. Cultural Objects Imported for Exhibition 68 documents in the last year. International Trade Anti-Dumping documents in the last year. Broadband Policy documents in the last year. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright documents in the last year. Climate Change documents in the last year. Oil and Gas Leasing 19 documents in the last year. Air Travel 94 documents in the last year.
Trade Adjustment Assistance 80 documents in the last year. We propose using the CAP cars and funds to provide random quality audit of smog check providers. The Bureau of Automotive Repair program did not fine the licensees nor did it involve coercion.
Many cars are not brought into compliance. To level the smog check failure repair playing field so more cars meet standards after repair, the whole smog check market should be subject to a CAP secret shopper random audit. When BAR ran fewer than on audit per station per year, the result was a change in behavior that started at more than an 80 percent rate, but moved to less than 20 percent rate of noncompliance. The difference was a percent change in result in finding the missing part.
If the CAP audit was addressing the issue of repair compliance rather than just finding a missing part, the results may be the same or a percent improvement in compliance. With the missing part program, a follow-up audit with increasing demands lift the stations no options but to find the missing part or be removed from the game. There are huge inconsistencies from smog check station to station and with BAR representatives.
For BAR to decide a car is not in compliance, rules of smog check must be clarified. Money is available for the CAP program. It can be used for contracted scrap and repairs, or some of the funds can be used to evaluate and support improved Performance of licensed small business. The cars and funds are the same, but the results may be credit for 2, tons per day in pollution prevention credit in the State Implementation Plan, rather than our current credit of fewer than tons per day.
The governor and state Legislature would get the credit for improved performance. Dated: August 30, This program implements section of the Clean Air Act, as amended in , which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for ozone-depleting substances and find them acceptable where they pose comparable or lower overall risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes.
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule; in such case, the final rule will become effective as provided in the accompanying direct final rule. DATES: Comments must be received in writing or a request for a public hearing must be made as provided below by October 19, Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule? This document proposes to list under SNAP certain substitutes for ozonedepleting substances for use in fire suppression applications.
We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. Does this action apply to me? Email: wicher. However, the SJV area remains subject to certain CAA requirements for the 1- hour ozone standard through the anti-backsliding provisions in EPA's implementing regulations. The Sierra Club and several environmental groups filed a petition for review of EPA's March 8, approval of the 1-Hour Ozone Plan, arguing, among other things, that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act APA because it did not take into account new emissions inventory data that California had submitted subsequent to its submittal of the 1-Hour Ozone Plan.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the petition with respect to this issue, holding that EPA's failure to consider the new emissions data rendered the Agency's action arbitrary and capricious under the APA and remanding EPA's action, in its entirety, for further proceedings consistent with the decision. As a consequence of EPA's reclassification of the SJV to extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in , California was obligated to submit plan revisions for the SJV area meeting CAA and regulatory requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Because California will be in default of these obligations should it withdraw the Plan from EPA's consideration, following such withdrawal EPA will promptly issue a finding of failure to submit pursuant to CAA section a 1 , effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Should California fail to promptly withdraw the 1-Hour Ozone Plan upon finalization of today's proposal, EPA plans to commence a new rulemaking addressing the approvability of the 1-Hour Ozone Plan.
Although the 8-Hour Ozone Plan does not contain a specific demonstration to address the VMT emissions offset requirement, EPA concluded, based on the Agency's then-current interpretation of CAA section d 1 A , that California was not required to include additional transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT in the SJV area for purposes of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the 8-Hour Ozone Plan demonstrated that both volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions from on-road mobile sources declined steadily over the entire period covered by the plan.
See 57 FR , at April 16, At the time of signature of the final rule approving the 8-Hour Ozone Plan, December 15, , the court had not yet issued its mandate in the AIR case and EPA had not adopted the court's interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency's petition for rehearing of the court's ruling on the VMT emissions offset requirement, pending a final decision by the court.
EPA's Proposed Action As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's prior interpretation of the VMT emissions offset requirement in section d 1 A , under which we had allowed states to demonstrate compliance through submittal of aggregate motor vehicle emissions estimates showing year-over-year declines in such emissions. This withdrawal would be limited to our conclusion with respect to the VMT emissions offset requirement and would not affect any other element of our March 1, action on the 8-Hour Ozone SIP.
Because EPA's determination that the 8-Hour Ozone SIP satisfied the VMT emissions offset requirement was made in the absence of any such demonstration submitted by the State, California will be in default of its obligation to submit a SIP revision satisfying this requirement if EPA finalizes the withdrawal of its determination that the obligation has been met. Therefore, simultaneously with a final action to withdraw our previous determination that the 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section d 1 A , EPA intends to issue a finding that California has failed to submit a SIP revision to address this requirement, which would be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
This finding would trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section unless the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of such finding and would also trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan FIP under CAA section c unless California submits and we approve a SIP revision that corrects the [[Page ]] deficiency within two years of such finding.