[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6936-6986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02325]
[[Page 6935]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 26
February 9, 2016
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Approval and Disapproval of California Air Plan; San Joaquin Valley
Serious Area Plan and Attainment Date Extension for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 6936]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432; FRL-9942-00-Region 9]
Approval and Disapproval of California Air Plan; San Joaquin
Valley Serious Area Plan and Attainment Date Extension for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, conditionally approve, and disapprove state implementation
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) requirements for the 1997 24-hour and annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area. As part of this action, the EPA is
proposing to grant extensions of the Serious area attainment dates for
the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV to
December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2020, respectively, based on a
conclusion that the State has satisfied the statutory criteria for
these extensions of the Serious area attainment date. The EPA is also
proposing to approve inter-pollutant trading ratios for use in
transportation conformity analyses.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 10, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0432 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3227, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan
III. Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2015
PM2.5 Plan
IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area
Plans
A. PM2.5 Serious Area Plan Requirements
B. Implementation of Best Available Control Measures
C. Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures
D. Extension of the Serious Area Attainment Date Beyond 2015
V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area
Plan and Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Adequate Monitoring Network
C. PM2.5 Precursors
D. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section
188(e)
1. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
2. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date
Is Impracticable
3. Compliance With All Requirements and Commitments in the
Implementation Plan
4. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
5. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious
Alternative Date Practicable
F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
G. Contingency Measures
H. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA
Section 189(e)
I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 18, 1997, the EPA established new national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter (PM2.5), including an annual
standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-
hour (daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.\1\ The EPA
established these standards after considering substantial evidence from
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are
associated with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations above
these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effective
December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144 (October
17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA
strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering
the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ while retaining the secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at the level of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086
(January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all
references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise
specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standards (65 [mu]g/m\3\) and
annual standards (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature
mortality. Other important health effects associated with
PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of
cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to
PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and
lung disease, and children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or direct
PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary
PM2.5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas
throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On
January 5, 2005, the EPA published initial air quality designations for
the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality
monitoring data for the three-year periods of 2001-2003 and 2002-
2004.\4\ These designations became effective April 5, 2005.\5\ The EPA
designated the
[[Page 6937]]
San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area as nonattainment for both the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (65 [mu]g/m\3\).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
\5\ Id.
\6\ 40 CFR 81.305. The 2001-2003 design values for the San
Joaquin Valley were 21.8 [mu]g/m3 for the annual standard and 82
[mu]g/m3 for the 24-hour standard. See EPA design value workbook
dated August 12, 2014, worksheets ``Table 3a'' and ``Table 3b.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area encompasses over 23,000
square miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley
portion of Kern.\7\ The area is home to 4 million people and is the
nation's leading agricultural region. Stretching over 250 miles from
north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is partially enclosed by
the Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the
south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District) has
primary responsibility for developing plans to provide for attainment
of the NAAQS in this area. The District works cooperatively with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in preparing attainment plans.
Authority for regulating sources under State jurisdiction in the SJV is
split between the District, which has responsibility for regulating
stationary and most area sources, and CARB, which has responsibility
for regulating most mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\8\ We refer to these submissions
collectively as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9,
2011, the EPA approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
except for the contingency measures, which the EPA disapproved.\9\ As
part of that action and pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the EPA
granted California's request for an extension of the attainment date
for the SJV area to April 5, 2015.\10\ The EPA took these actions in
accordance with the ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,''
which the EPA issued in April 2007 to assist states in their
development of SIPs to meet the Act's attainment planning requirements
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (hereafter ``2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule'').\11\ In July 2013, the State submitted a revised
PM2.5 contingency measure plan for the SJV, which the EPA
fully approved in May 2014.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\9\ Id. at 69924.
\10\ Id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment date for
a nonattainment area is ``the date by which attainment can be
achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five
years from the date such area was designated nonattainment,'' except
that EPA may extend the attainment date as appropriate for a period
no greater than ten years from the date of designation as
nonattainment, considering the severity of nonattainment and the
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. CAA
section 172(a)(2)(A); see also 40 CFR 51.1004(a) and (b).
\11\ 72 FR 20583 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z. This rule was premised on EPA's prior interpretation of
the Act as allowing for implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS
solely pursuant to the general nonattainment area provisions of
subpart 1 and not the more specific provisions for particulate
matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the
Act.
\12\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(``D.C. Circuit'') issued its decision in a challenge by the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to the EPA's 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule.\13\ In NRDC, the court held that the EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standards solely pursuant to the
general implementation requirements of subpart 1, without also
considering the requirements specific to nonattainment areas for
particles less than or equal to 10 [mu]m in diameter (PM10)
in subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA. The court reasoned that the
plain meaning of the CAA requires implementation of the 1997
PM2.5 standards under subpart 4 because PM2.5
particles fall within the statutory definition of PM10 and
are thus subject to the same statutory requirements as PM10.
The court remanded the rule, without vacatur, and instructed the EPA
``to repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with
this opinion.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``NRDC'').
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the NRDC decision, on June 2, 2014, the EPA
published a final rule classifying all areas designated nonattainment
for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as ``moderate''
nonattainment under subpart 4.\15\ Because this rulemaking did not
affect any action that the EPA had previously taken under section
110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area,
the April 5, 2015 attainment date that the EPA had approved for the SJV
area in November 2011 remained in effect.\16\ On April 7, 2015, the EPA
published a final rule reclassifying the SJV area as ``serious''
nonattainment under subpart 4, based on the EPA's determination that
the area could not practicably attain the 1997 PM2.5
standards by the April 5, 2015 attainment date.\17\ This
reclassification was based upon the EPA's evaluation of ambient air
quality data from the 2003-2014 period, including the 2012-2014 design
value, indicating that it was not practicable for certain monitoring
sites within the SJV area to show PM2.5 design values at or
below the level of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5,
2015.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). As part of this rulemaking, EPA
established a December 31, 2014 deadline for states to submit
attainment-related and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) SIP
elements required for PM2.5 nonattainment areas pursuant
to subpart 4. Id.
\16\ Id. at 31569.
\17\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
\18\ Id. at 18529; see also proposed rule, 80 FR 1482 (January
12, 2015). Air quality data for 2012-2014 indicated that the highest
monitors in the SJV area had design values of 19.7 [mu]g/m\3\ for
the annual standard and 71 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a consequence of its reclassification as a Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area, the SJV area became subject to a
new attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2) and the requirement to
submit a Serious area plan that satisfies the requirements of part D of
title I of the Act, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\19\ Under subpart 4, the attainment date
for an area classified as Serious is as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year following
designation. As explained in the EPA's final reclassification action,
the Serious area plan for SJV must include provisions to assure that
the best available control measures (BACM) for the control of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented
no later than 4 years after the area is reclassified (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B)), and a demonstration (including air quality modeling)
that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 2015, which is the latest permissible
attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 80 FR 18258 at 18530-18532.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the December 31, 2015 outermost attainment deadline for the
SJV area under section 188(c)(2), the EPA noted its expectation that
the State would adopt and submit a Serious area plan for the SJV well
before the statutory SIP submission deadlines in CAA section
189(b)(2).\21\ The EPA also noted that, in light of the available
ambient air quality data and the short amount of time available before
the December 31, 2015 attainment date, California may choose to submit
a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant
to CAA
[[Page 6938]]
section 188(e) simultaneously with its submission of a Serious area
plan for the area.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. at 18531.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan
We are proposing action on two California SIP submissions that
address the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley. The first submission is the ``2015 Plan for the 1997
PM2.5 Standard,'' which the State submitted to the EPA on
June 25, 2015.\23\ The second submission is the ``2018 Transportation
Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP,
Plan Supplement,'' which the State submitted to the EPA on August 13,
2015.\24\ We refer to these SIP submissions collectively herein as the
``2015 PM2.5 Plan'' or ``the Plan.'' The 2015
PM2.5 Plan is a PM2.5 Serious area plan for the
SJV and includes a request to extend the applicable attainment dates
for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards by five and three
years, respectively, on the basis that attainment by December 31, 2015
is impracticable, in accordance with CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
\24\ Letter dated August 13, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first submission includes two sets of documents: The ``2015
Plan for the PM2.5 Standard,'' adopted by the SJVUAPCD
Governing Board on April 16, 2015 and the ``Staff Report, ARB Review of
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,''
adopted by CARB on May 21, 2015 (``CARB Staff Report''). Both sets of
documents include Appendices A and B. To distinguish between the two
sets of appendices, we refer to those adopted by the SJVUAPCD Governing
Board simply as ``Appendix A'' (``Ambient PM2.5 Data
Analysis'') and ``Appendix B'' (``Emission Inventory Tables''), and we
refer to the additional appendices that accompany CARB's Staff Report
as ``WOEA'' for Appendix A (``San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Weight of Evidence Analysis'') and ``CARB Staff Report, Appendix B''
for Appendix B (``San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP Additional
Emission Reductions Towards Meeting Aggregate Commitment'').
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes an Executive Summary and a
description of air quality standards and requirements applicable to the
SJV (Chapter 1), PM2.5 challenges and trends (Chapter 2,
including a summary of the District's determination regarding air
pollutant precursors to PM2.5), and health impacts and risk
reduction strategy (Chapter 3).\25\ Chapter 4 presents the SJVUAPCD's
request for an extension of the PM2.5 Serious area
attainment date; summary arguments for how the SJVUAPCD claims it has
met the extension requirements of CAA section 188(e), including a
demonstration that attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2015 is impracticable; a demonstration, as detailed in
Appendix F (``Attainment Demonstration (Provided by ARB)''), of
attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable; and
financial commitments to achieve further emission reductions by
replacing heavy duty trucks and residential wood burning devices
through the District's truck replacement incentive program and Burn
Cleaner Incentive Program, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, regarding
trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 5, Appendix C (``BACM and MSM for Stationary and Area
Sources''), and Appendix D (``BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources (Provided
by ARB)'') provide analyses of District and State rules to address the
statutory requirements for Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and
Most Stringent Measures (MSM) and the District's calculation of de
minimis thresholds for directly emitted PM2.5 (direct
PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides
(SOX).
Chapters 6 and 7 present the District's summary analysis to address
the planning requirements for PM2.5 Serious nonattainment
areas under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, including
the statutory requirements for extension requests under CAA section
188(e). These include the District's analysis and demonstration, in
Chapter 6, of its compliance with the requirements and commitments in
the implementation plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, reasonably
available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP)
and quantitative milestones, contingency measures, transportation
conformity budgets for 2014, 2017, and 2020, and permitting of new and
modified major stationary sources (i.e., nonattainment new source
review (NSR)).\26\ Chapter 7 describes the State's and District's
regulatory control strategy, incentive programs, technology advancement
program, legislative strategy, and public outreach.\27\ Finally,
Chapter 8 presents the District's commitments to evaluate opportunities
for additional emission reductions in general, and specifically from
three source categories: Flares, asphalt, and conservation management
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B and
Appendix G (``New Source Review (NSR) and Emission Reduction Credits
(ERCs)'').
\27\ See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E
(``Incentive and Other Non-regulatory Strategies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional documents adopted by CARB on May 21, 2015 supplement
the analysis and demonstrations of those adopted by SJVUAPCD. In
particular, the CARB Staff Report presents estimated emission
reductions by 2018 and 2020 from specific District control measures; an
accounting of how the State has complied with its control measure and
emission reduction commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan;
analysis of ammonia effects on reasonable further progress planning;
and 2021 attainment year contingency reductions from specific
measures.\28\ These additional documents also include the methodology
and results for the attainment demonstration,\29\ a weight of evidence
analysis for the attainment demonstration (WOEA), a discussion of
additional emission reductions achieved towards the aggregate tonnage
commitments of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (CARB Staff Report,
Appendix B), and technical clarifications for the 2015 PM2.5
Plan as a whole (Technical Clarifications).\30\ Finally, transportation
conformity budgets for 2018 are presented in a supplemental SIP
revision adopted July 23, 2015 and entitled ``Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP Plan
Supplement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ``Staff Report, ARB Review of
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,''
release date April 20, 2015, pp. 9, 17-22, 25-26, and 26-27,
respectively.
\29\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ``Attainment Demonstration for
the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the Annual (15
[micro]g/m\3\) and 24-hour (65 [micro]g/m\3\) Standards.''
\30\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ``Technical Clarifications to
the 2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present our evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in
section V of this proposed rule. Given the overlap of some control and
planning requirements between a PM2.5 Serious area plan and
a request for extension of the PM2.5 Serious area attainment
date, we generally address these requirements together rather than
separately. For example, we address the BACM requirement for Serious
area plans and the MSM requirement for extension requests together in
section V.D. of this proposed rule. Similarly, we address the
requirement for a Serious area attainment demonstration and the
requirement to demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable, for purposes of requesting an extension
of the attainment date,
[[Page 6939]]
together in section V.E.5 of this proposed rule.
III. Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2015
PM2.5 Plan
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission 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.
Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submission of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. The
District conducted a public workshop, provided a public comment period,
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the main SIP
submission on April 16, 2015.\31\ CARB provided the required public
notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its May 21, 2015
public hearing and adoption of the main SIP submission.\32\ CARB then
adopted its supplemental SIP submission pertaining to 2018
transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets at its July
23, 2015 Board meeting after reasonable public notice.\33\ Each
submission includes proof of publication of notices for the respective
public hearings. We find, therefore, that the 2015 PM2.5
Plan meets the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in
CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Workshop [on] Draft Plan for
the 1997 PM2.5 Standard,'' March 2, 2015; SJVUAPCD,
``Notice of Public Hearing [to] Adopt Proposed 2015 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 Standard,'' March 17, 2015; and SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, ``In the Matter of Adopting the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2015 Plan
for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard,'' April 16, 2015.
\32\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,''
April 20, 2015; and CARB Board Resolution 15-9, ``San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' May 21, 2015.
\33\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval
of Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' June 19, 2015; and
CARB Board Resolution 15-39, ``San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
State Implementation Plan,'' July 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness
criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The initial SIP
submission, dated June 25, 2015, became complete by operation of law on
December 25, 2015 and we find that the SIP submission pertaining to
2018 transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets, dated
August 13, 2015, satisfies the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V.
IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
A. PM2.5 Serious Area Plan Requirements
Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious
nonattainment area under subpart 4, the CAA requires the State to
submit the following Serious area SIP elements: \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 80 FR 18528, 18531 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
2. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the area is
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 2015, or where the State is seeking an extension of
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by December 31, 2015 is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
4. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP)
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
5. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP
toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
6. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
State demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)); and
8. A revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program
to lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \35\ thresholds
from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of
PM10 (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serious area PM2.5 plans must also satisfy the
requirements for Moderate area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the
extent those requirements have not already been satisfied in the
Moderate area plan submitted for the area; the general requirements
applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA; the
requirement to provide necessary assurances that the implementing
agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under section
110(a)(2)(E); and the requirements concerning enforcement provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA provided its preliminary views on the CAA's requirements
for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the
following guidance documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (hereafter ``General
Preamble''); (2) ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
Supplemental,'' 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) (hereafter
``Supplement''); and (3) ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (hereafter ``Addendum''). Additionally, in a
proposed rule published March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15340), the EPA provided
further interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
standards (hereafter ``Proposed PM2.5 Implementation
Rule''). We discuss these preliminary interpretations of the Act as
appropriate in our evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in
section V of this proposed rule.
[[Page 6940]]
B. Implementation of Best Available Control Measures
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area that the State submit provisions to
assure that the best available control measures (BACM) for the control
of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be
implemented no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified as a serious area. The EPA defines BACM as, among other
things, the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for a
source or source category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts.\36\ We
generally consider BACM a control level that goes beyond existing RACM-
level controls, for example by expanding the use of RACM controls or by
requiring preventative measures instead of remediation.\37\ Indeed, as
implementation of BACM and BACT is required when a Moderate
nonattainment area is reclassified as Serious due to its inability to
attain the NAAQS through implementation of ``reasonable'' measures, it
is logical that ``best'' control measures should represent a more
stringent and potentially more costly level of control.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Addendum at 42010, 42013.
\37\ Id. at 42011, 42013.
\38\ Id. at 42009-42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has historically provided an exemption from BACM and BACT
for source categories that contribute only de minimis levels to ambient
PM10 concentrations in a Serious nonattainment area. The
Addendum discusses the following steps for determining BACM:
1. Develop a detailed emission inventory of the sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors;
2. Evaluate source category impacts;
3. Evaluate alternative control techniques and their technological
feasibility; and
4. Evaluate the costs of control (i.e., economic feasibility).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id. at 42012-42014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these analyses are complete, the State must use this
information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to
the EPA for evaluation under CAA section 110. We use these steps as
guidelines in our evaluation of the BACM measures and related analyses
in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.
C. Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures
When the EPA reclassifies a Moderate area to Serious under subpart
4, the requirement to implement reasonably available control measures
(RACM) in section 189(a)(1)(C) remains. Thus, a Serious area
PM2.5 plan must also provide for the implementation of RACM
as expeditiously as practicable, to the extent that the RACM
requirement has not been satisfied in the area's Moderate area
plan.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ EPA previously approved California's RACM demonstration for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (76 FR 69896, November 9,
2011). On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded
this final rule to EPA on the grounds that the California mobile
source ``waiver measures'' upon which the plan relied were not
federally enforceable components of the approved SIP. Committee for
a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). On November
12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve the relevant waiver measures
into the SIP and to thereby make them federally enforceable under
the CAA. 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). Final approval of these
waiver measures would cure the deficiency in California's RACM
demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the EPA does not normally conduct a separate evaluation to
determine whether a Serious area plan's measures also meet the RACM
requirements. As explained in the Addendum, we interpret the BACM
requirement as generally subsuming the RACM requirement--i.e., if we
determine that the measures are indeed the ``best available,'' we have
necessarily concluded that they are ``reasonably available.''\41\
Therefore, a separate analysis to determine if the measures represent a
RACM level of control is not necessary. A proposed approval of a Plan's
provisions concerning implementation of BACM is also a proposed finding
that the Plan provides for the implementation of RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Addendum at 42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Extension of the Serious Area Attainment Date Beyond 2015
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years,
which the EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain conditions.
Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under
section 188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the
attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate
that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3)
have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the
area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the ``most
stringent measures'' that are included in the implementation plan of
any State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ For a discussion of EPA's interpretation of the
requirements of section 188(e), see Addendum at 42002 (August 16,
1994); 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on
PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252
(October 2, 2001) (proposed action on PM10 Plan for
Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action
on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); and Vigil v.
EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004)
(remanding EPA action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County,
Arizona but generally upholding EPA's interpretation of CAA section
188(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to establishing these preconditions for an extension of
the Serious area attainment date, section 188(e) provides that the EPA
may consider a number of factors in determining whether to grant an
extension and the appropriate length of time for any such extension.
These factors are: (1) The nature and extent of nonattainment in the
area, (2) the types and numbers of sources or other emitting activities
in the area (including the influence of uncontrollable natural sources
and trans-boundary emissions from foreign countries), (3) the
population exposed to concentrations in excess of the standard in the
area, (4) the presence and concentrations of potentially toxic
substances in the mix of particulate emissions in the area, and (5) the
technological and economic feasibility of various control measures.\43\
Notably, neither the statutory requirements nor the discretionary
factors identified in section 188(e) include the specific ambient air
quality conditions in section 188(d)(2), which must be met for an area
to qualify for an extension of a Moderate area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has previously interpreted section 188(e) in approving an
extension of the PM10 Serious area attainment date for the
Phoenix Metropolitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona.\44\ We propose
to generally follow the steps provided in that rulemaking action for
addressing the statutory requirements for an extension of the Serious
area attainment date under section 188(e) as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on
Maricopa County Serious Area Plan, annual PM10 standard);
66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on Maricopa County
Serious Area Plan, 24-hour PM10 standard); and 67 FR
48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa County Serious Area
Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment by the statutory Serious area
attainment date is impracticable.
Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to grant a state request for an
extension of the Serious area attainment date if,
[[Page 6941]]
among other things, attainment by the date established under section
188(c) would be impracticable. In order to demonstrate
impracticability, the plan must show that the implementation of BACM
and BACT on relevant source categories will not bring the area into
attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date. For the SJV,
the Serious area attainment date under section 188(c)(2) is December
31, 2015.\45\ BACM, including BACT, is the required level of control
for serious areas that must be in place before the Serious area
attainment date. Therefore, we interpret the Act as requiring that a
state provide for at least the implementation of BACM, including BACT,
before it can claim impracticability of attainment by the statutory
deadline. The statutory provision for demonstrating impracticability
requires that the demonstration be based on air quality modeling.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment . . . .'' EPA designated the SJV area
as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standards effective
April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 956-957, January 5, 2005). Therefore, the
latest permissible attainment date under section 188(c)(2), for
purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in this area, is
December 31, 2015.
\46\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interpretation parallels our interpretation of the
impracticability option for Moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas in section 189(a)(1)(B), under which implementation of a RACM/
RACT control strategy, at a minimum, is a prerequisite for approval of
a Moderate area plan demonstrating impracticability of attainment by
the Moderate area attainment date.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ General Preamble at 13544; see also 65 FR 19964, 19968
(April 13, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: Comply with all requirements and commitments in the
applicable implementation plan.
A second precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is a showing that the State has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area
in the implementation plan. We interpret this criterion to mean that
the State has implemented the control measures and commitments in the
SIP revisions it has submitted to address the applicable requirements
in CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
For a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted
simultaneously with the initial Serious area attainment plan for the
area, the EPA proposes to read section 188(e) not to require the area
to have a fully approved Moderate area attainment plan and to allow for
extension of the attainment date if the area has complied with all
Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in
the State's submitted Moderate area implementation plan. This
interpretation is based on the plain language of section 188(e), which
requires the State to comply with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the implementation plan.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of the most stringent measures.
A third precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is for the State to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes
the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation
plan of any state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can
feasibly be implemented in the area. The EPA has interpreted the term
``most stringent measure'' (MSM) to mean the maximum degree of emission
reduction that has been required or achieved from a source or source
category in any other attainment plan or in practice in any other state
and that can feasibly be implemented in the area seeking the
extension.\49\ The Act does not specify an implementation deadline for
MSM. Because the clear intent of section 188(e) is to minimize the
length of any attainment date extension, we propose that the
implementation of MSM should be as expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also Addendum at
42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An MSM demonstration should follow a process similar to a BACM
demonstration, but with one additional step, as follows:
1. Develop a detailed emission inventory of the sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors;
2. Evaluate source category impacts;
3. Identify the potentially most stringent measures in other
implementation plans or used in practice in other states for each
relevant source category and, for each measure, determine their
technological and economic feasibility in the nonattainment area;
4. Compare the potential MSM for each relevant source category to
the measures, if any, already adopted for that source category in the
Serious nonattainment area to determine whether such potential MSM
would further reduce emissions; and
5. Provide for the adoption and expeditious implementation of any
MSM that is more stringent than existing measures or, in lieu of
adoption, provide a reasoned justification for rejecting the potential
MSM (i.e., provide an explanation as to why such measures cannot
feasibly be implemented in the area).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also Proposed
PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 15420 (March 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The level of control required under the MSM standard may depend on
how well other areas have chosen to control their sources. If a source
category has not been well controlled in other areas then MSM could
theoretically result in a low level of control. This contrasts with
BACM which is determined independently of what other areas have done
and depends only on what is the best level of control feasible for an
area.\51\ On the other hand, given the strategy in the nonattainment
provisions of the Act to offset longer attainment timeframes with more
stringent emission control requirements, we interpret the MSM provision
to assure that it results in additional controls beyond the set of
measures adopted as BACM. Two ways to do this are (1) to require that
more sources and source categories be subject to MSM analysis than to
BACM analysis, that is, by expanding the applicability provisions in
the MSM control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require
reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected
during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the
BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the
area given the longer attainment timeframe.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id.
\52\ 65 FR 19964, 19968-19969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, the ``to the satisfaction of the Administrator'' qualifier
on the MSM requirement indicates that Congress granted the EPA
considerable discretion in determining whether a plan in fact includes
MSM, recognizing that the overall intent of section 188(e) is that we
grant as short an extension as practicable. For this reason, the EPA
will apply greater scrutiny to the evaluation of MSM for source
categories that contribute the most to the PM2.5 problem in
the SJV and less scrutiny to source categories that contribute little
to the PM2.5 problem.
Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious alternative
date practicable.
Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the Serious area plan for the
SJV area
[[Page 6942]]
demonstrate attainment, using air quality modeling, by the most
expeditious date practicable after December 31, 2015. Because the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards are independent
standards, section 189(b)(1)(A) requires a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious date practicable for each standard.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that the
CAA requires independent treatment of the annual and 24-hour
PM10 standards in an implementation plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of a modeled attainment demonstration consists of two
parts: Evaluation of the technical adequacy of the modeling itself and
evaluation of the control measures that are relied on to demonstrate
attainment. The EPA's determination of whether the plan provides for
attainment by the most expeditious date practicable depends on whether
the plan provides for implementation of BACM and BACT no later than the
statutory implementation deadline, MSM as expeditiously as practicable,
and any other technologically and economically feasible measures that
will result in attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
Step 5: Apply for an attainment date extension.
Finally, the State must apply in writing to the EPA for an
extension of a Serious area attainment date, and this request must
accompany the modeled attainment demonstration showing attainment by
the most expeditious alternative date practicable. Additionally, the
State must provide the public reasonable notice and opportunity for a
public hearing on the attainment date extension request before
submitting it to the EPA, in accordance with the requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110.
V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area Plan
and Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area . . .
.'' By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of
the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base
year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 1997
PM2.5 standards, this includes direct PM2.5 as
well as the main chemical precursors to the formation of secondary
PM2.5: NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3). Primary
PM2.5 includes condensable and filterable particulate
matter.
A state must include in its SIP submission documentation explaining
how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source
emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. States are also
required to use the EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(AP-42) \54\ road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust
emissions from paved roads.\55\ The latest EPA-approved version of
California's mobile source emission factor model is EMFAC2014.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011, which
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests
results.
\55\ 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
\56\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must also submit
future ``baseline inventories'' for the projected attainment year and
each reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone year, and any other
year of significance for meeting applicable CAA requirements.\57\ By
``baseline inventories'' (also referred to as ``projected baseline
inventories''), we mean projected emissions inventories for future
years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of
economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The SIP
should include documentation to explain how the emissions projections
were calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 40 CFR 51.1007(a), 51.1008(b), and 51.1009(f); see also
U.S. EPA, ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
[and Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/2014revisedeiguidance_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions Inventories in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
The planning inventories for direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SOX, VOC, and
ammonia) for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area together with
documentation for the inventories are found in SJV Appendix B of the
2015 PM2.5 Plan. Annual average inventories and winter daily
average inventories, representing conditions in the period November
through April, are provided for the base year of 2012 and each baseline
year from 2013 to 2020. The winter daily average inventory is useful to
evaluate sources of emissions during the portion of the year when the
vast majority of exceedances of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
occur. Baseline inventories reflect all control measures adopted prior
to January 2012. Growth factors used to project these baseline
inventories are derived from data obtained from a number of sources
such as the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and the California Department of
Finance, as well as studies commissioned by the SJV's metropolitan
planning organizations.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, SJV Appendix B, pp. B-23 to B-
29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each inventory includes emissions from point, area, on-road, and
non-road sources. The inventories use EMFAC2014 for estimating on-road
motor vehicle emissions.\59\ Re-entrained paved road dust emissions
were calculated using the EPA's AP-42 road dust methodology.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id. at B-31.
\60\ Id. at B-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the annual average and winter
daily average inventories of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors for the base year of 2012. The District
provides its reasons for selecting 2012 as the base year in Appendix B
of the Plan.\61\ These inventories provide the basis for the control
measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id. At B-20, B-21.
[[Page 6943]]
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Annual Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the
2012 Base Year
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.8 38.3 6.9 99.2 13.6
Area Sources.................... 44.1 8.2 0.3 152.1 311.2
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 7.3 198.0 0.6 54.0 4.7
Off-Road Mobile Sources......... 5.9 87.7 0.2 35.3 0.0
Total....................... 66.0 332.2 8.1 340.7 329.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5.
Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Winter Daily Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for
the 2012 Base Year
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.5 34.6 6.6 98.7 13.5
Area Sources.................... 40.7 11.7 0.5 156.5 291.8
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 7.3 204.1 0.6 55.6 4.7
Off-Road Mobile Sources......... 4.6 68.0 0.2 26.8 0.0
Total....................... 61.0 318.5 7.9 337.5 310.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The inventories in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan are based on the
most current and accurate information available to the State and
District at the time the Plan and its inventories were being developed
in 2014 and 2015, including the latest version of California's mobile
source emissions model, EMFAC2014.\62\ The inventories comprehensively
address all source categories in the SJV and were developed consistent
with the EPA's inventory guidance. For these reasons, we are proposing
to approve the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3). We are also proposing to find that the baseline inventories
in the Plan provide an adequate basis for the BACM, MSM,
impracticability, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ CARB submitted the EMFAC2014 model to the EPA on May 21,
2015 and EPA recently approved that model for use in California
SIPs. 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adequate Monitoring Network
We discuss the adequacy of the monitoring network in this preamble
to support our finding that the plan appropriately evaluates the
PM2.5 challenges in the San Joaquin Valley. Reliable ambient
data is necessary to validate the base year air quality modeling which
in turn is necessary to assure sound attainment demonstrations.
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. Our regulations in 40 CFR part 58
establish specific requirements for operating air quality surveillance
networks to measure ambient concentrations of PM2.5,
including requirements for measurement methods, network design, quality
assurance procedures, and in the case of large urban areas, the minimum
number of monitoring sites designated as State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS). A good spatial distribution of sites, correct siting,
and quality-assured and quality-controlled data are the most important
factors we consider when evaluating the monitoring network for air
quality modeling.
Under 40 CFR part 58, states are required to submit Annual Network
Plans (ANPs) for ambient air monitoring networks for approval by the
EPA. The most recent ANP, entitled ``2014 Air Monitoring Network
Plan,'' summarizes the state of the ambient air monitoring network in
the San Joaquin Valley as it operated from January 2013 through May
2014.\63\ During this time, there were 20 monitoring sites operated by
either the District or CARB that collected PM2.5 data,
including 14 monitors designated as SLAMS, ten monitors designated as
special purpose monitors (SPMs), four supplemental speciation monitors,
and eight non-regulatory monitors.\64\ On June 16, 2015, the EPA
approved those portions of the State's and District's 2014 Air
Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to the adequacy of the network for
PM2.5 monitoring purposes.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ SJVAPCD, ``2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan,'' January 28,
2015.
\64\ Id., Table 17, p. 25 and Table 19, p. 27.
\65\ Letter dated June 16, 2015, from Meredith Kurpius, Manager,
EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director
of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the District's previous ANP, entitled ``Annual Air
Monitoring Network Plan, June 25, 2013,'' summarizes the state of the
ambient air monitoring network in the San Joaquin Valley as it operated
from January 2012 through March 2013.\66\ During this time, there were
21 monitoring sites operated by either the District or CARB that
collected PM2.5 data, including 14 monitors designated as
SLAMS, 12 monitors designated as special purpose monitors (SPMs), two
supplemental speciation monitors, and eight non-regulatory
monitors.\67\ On May 8, 2014, the EPA approved those portions of the
State's and District's 2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to
the adequacy of the network for PM2.5 monitoring
purposes.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ SJVAPCD, ``Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan,'' June 25,
2013.
\67\ SJVAPCD, ``Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan,'' June 25,
2013, Tables 15-17, pp. 25-32.
\68\ Letter dated May 8, 2014, from Meredith Kurpius, Manager,
EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director
of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the PM2.5 monitoring network operated by the
District and CARB from January 2012 through May 2014 is adequate to
support the air quality modeling in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.
[[Page 6944]]
C. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The composition of PM2.5 is complex and highly variable
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous
SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia to PM2.5,
making them precursors to PM2.5.\69\ Formation of secondary
PM2.5 may also depend on atmospheric conditions, including
solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the
interactions of precursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or
fog droplets.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (EPA/600/
P-99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3.
\70\ EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
(EPA/452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule contained rebuttable
presumptions concerning the four PM2.5 precursors applicable
to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. See 40
CFR 51.1002(c). Although the rule included presumptions that states
should address SO2 and NOX emissions in their
attainment plans, it also included presumptions that regulation of VOCs
and ammonia was not necessary. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002(c), the
EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to
address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan
precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in
the state for control measures,'' unless the state or the EPA provided
an appropriate technical demonstration showing that emissions from
sources of these pollutants ``significantly contribute'' to
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3), (4). See also 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 at 20589-97 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In NRDC, however, the DC Circuit remanded the EPA's 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in its entirety, including the
presumptions concerning VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002.\72\ Although
the court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to these
presumptions concerning precursors,\73\ the court cited CAA section
189(e) \74\ to support its observation that ``[a]mmonia is a precursor
to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both
PM2.5 and PM10'' and that ``[f]or a
PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor
is presumptively regulated.'' \75\ Consistent with the NRDC decision,
the EPA now interprets the Act to require that under subpart 4, a state
must evaluate all PM2.5 precursors for regulation unless,
for any given PM2.5 precursor, it demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that such precursor does not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\73\ Id. at 437, n. 10.
\74\ Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ``[t]he control
requirements applicable under plans in effect under this part for
major stationary sources of PM10 shall also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.''
\75\ 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term ``precursor''
for purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly require the
control of any specifically identified particulate matter (PM)
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however,
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
`air pollutant' is used.'' CAA section 302(g). The EPA has identified
SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the
formation of PM2.5. Accordingly, the attainment plan
requirements of subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four precursor
pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all types of stationary,
area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act
(e.g., CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standard in the
area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT), best available control measures (BACM) and best
available control technology (BACT), most stringent measures (MSM), and
new source review (NSR)) for sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although section 189(e)
explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, the EPA interprets
the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate
circumstances, that regulation of specific PM2.5 precursors
from other source categories in a given nonattainment area is not
necessary. For example, under the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
the control requirements that apply to stationary, area, and mobile
sources of PM10 precursors area-wide under CAA section
172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\76\ a state may demonstrate in a SIP
submission that control of a certain precursor pollutant is not
necessary in light of its insignificant contribution to ambient
PM10 levels in the nonattainment area.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539-42 (April 16, 1992).
\77\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are evaluating the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in accordance with
the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that all PM2.5
precursors must be addressed in the State's evaluation of potential
control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that
emissions of a particular precursor or precursors do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any
determination by the State to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from
the required evaluation of potential control measures, we consider both
the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to
reductions in emissions of that precursor.
2. Evaluation of Precursors in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
In the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the State and District identify
NOX and SOX as the precursors that are the focus
of its control strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards
in the San Joaquin Valley.\78\ Although no technical demonstration is
necessary to support a conclusion consistent with the statutory
requirement to regulate specific PM2.5 precursors under
subpart 4, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan nevertheless provides
supporting evidence describing the effectiveness of NOX and
SOX emission controls.\79\ By contrast, the 2015
PM2.5 Plan includes statements that further
[[Page 6945]]
reductions in VOC and ammonia emissions would not contribute to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area \80\ and
provides CARB's and SJVUAPCD`s analyses to support these positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ This identification is made in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan, WOEA, p. A-3. See also Chapter 2 (``PM2.5 Trends
and Challenges in the San Joaquin Valley''), for more regarding the
State and District's analysis that NOX is a significant
precursor (p. 2-8), and that VOC and ammonia are insignificant
precursors (pp. 2-19 and 2-27, respectively).
\79\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-24 and Figure
2-19, p. 2-26 (for NOX) and SJV Appendix A, p. A-47 (for
SOX).
\80\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and the SJVUAPCD base these conclusions on various air quality
monitoring and modeling studies, modeling done by CARB for the 2008
PM2.5 Plan and for the 2012 plan for attaining the 2006
PM2.5 standard in the SJV (``2012 PM2.5 Plan''),
and other technical information. We discuss below the technical bases
provided in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan to support these positions
with respect to SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia, as
well as EPA's analyses of this information. For more detail on EPA's
analyses, please refer to section II of our ``General Technical Support
Document for EPA's Proposed Rule on the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for
the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' January
2016 (``General TSD'').
a. SO2
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that emissions of
SO2 contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM2.5
concentrations are sensitive to reductions in SO2. It shows
the measured contribution of SO2 emissions to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in pie charts portraying the
contribution of various pollutant species. For 2010-2012, depending on
location, the three-year annual average PM2.5 chemical
composition was 11-14% ammonium sulfate, while for 2011-2013, the
three-year average high day PM2.5 chemical composition was
4-6% ammonium sulfate.\81\ The Plan further describes the formation of
ammonium sulfate as SOX-limited, given that ammonia is about
80 times more abundant than SOX for both annual and winter
average emission inventories.\82\ The ammonium sulfate contribution
levels are substantial, particularly with respect to the annual average
concentration, although smaller than the contributions of some other
PM2.5 components (i.e., ammonium nitrate and organic
matter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7,
respectively, p. A-16. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix
F, Figure F-2, pp. F-8 to F-9, which shows how ammonium sulfate has
decreased slightly at three of the four monitoring sites from the
2004-2006 period to the 2011-2013 period.
\82\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A-41. This is on a
molar or mass-equivalent basis: there are 80 times as many ammonia
molecules emitted as would be required to combine with all the
emitted SO2 molecules to form ammonium sulfate,
accounting for the emissions in tons per day, the molecular masses,
and the chemical formula for ammonium sulfate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambient PM2.5 sensitivity to reductions of
SO2 emissions is also presented in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan in the form of modeling results. The results from the sensitivity
modeling are cited and discussed below in the NOX
subsection. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan infers from the modeling
that there is an ambient PM2.5 concentration decrease of
0.08 [micro]g/m\3\ at the projected design value monitoring site in
2019 (Bakersfield-California) per ton of SO2 reduction in
the SJV area.\83\ While the 2019 winter average emissions inventory for
SOX (7.6 tpd) is much smaller than that for NOX
(208.0 tpd) in the SJV, the 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\ PM2.5
decrease per ton of emissions reduction is the same for SO2
as it is for NOX.\84\ Even though the relatively small
SO2 contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations
may leave less scope for reductions, the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 to SO2 emission reductions indicates that
SO2 emissions contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels above the standards in the SJV area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A-27.
\84\ Id. See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp.
B-8 and B-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the technical analyses provided in the Plan, the EPA
agrees with the State's and District's conclusion that SO2
controls must be included in the evaluation of potential control
measures for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV, consistent
with the requirements of subpart 4.
b. NOX
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that emissions of
NOX contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM2.5
concentrations are sensitive to reductions in NOX. The Plan
discusses NOX in conjunction with ammonia, because these
precursors react together to create ammonium nitrate, the largest
component of ambient PM2.5 particles by species in the
SJV.\85\ The chemical products of ammonia and NOX (ammonium
and nitrate) combine in a 1:1 molecular ratio, but as discussed below,
this ratio does not mean that emissions controls for the two precursor
pollutants would be equally effective at reducing ambient
PM2.5. The Plan provides several forms of evidence to
indicate that reductions in NOX emissions are effective in
reducing PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the standard, and
also that they are more effective than reductions in ammonia emissions.
The evidence includes speciated data from ambient PM2.5
monitors, model simulations of NOX emission reductions,
historical trends, and the relative amounts of NOX and
ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. A-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the ambient
contribution of NOX to PM2.5 levels in the SJV is
substantial. According to available speciation data, ammonium nitrate
is the largest chemical component of ambient PM2.5 in the
SJV, as measured in the southern (Bakersfield), central (Fresno), and
northern (Modesto) portions of San Joaquin Valley. It comprises 38-41%
of the 2010-2012 average annual PM2.5 concentrations and 53-
64% of the 2011-2013 average peak 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations, the highest percentages being observed in
Bakersfield.\86\ Using the 2011-2013 annual average PM2.5
design value of 17.3 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Bakersfield-Planz site,\87\ the
ammonium nitrate concentration is approximately 7.1 [mu]g/m\3\. If only
nitrate itself is considered (i.e., the nitrate part of the ammonium
nitrate molecules), the contribution of NOX represents 5.5
[mu]g/m\3\, which is approximately 31.8% of the annual average
PM2.5 concentration.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id.
\87\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A-9. The design
value for the Bakersfield-Planz site for 2011-2013 is given as a
rounded value of 17.0 [mu]g/m\3\ in Table A-6 in Appendix A of the
Plan. For greater precision in estimating species contributions, we
have used the unrounded value of 17.3 [mu]g/m\3\, which we
calculated as the average of the 98th percentiles values for each
year (14.5, 14.7, and 22.8) as listed in Appendix A, Table A-5. We
used the Bakersfield-Planz site (the second highest 2011-2013 annual
average) in lieu of the Madera-City site (highest average),
consistent with the Plan's weight of evidence for the attainment
demonstration. Similarly consistent with the attainment
demonstration, this 17.3 [mu]g/m3 value excludes the data from May
5, 2013 for Bakersfield-Planz. Section V.E.5 of this proposed rule
has further discussion of these matters. For calculating the
ammonium nitrate concentration, we used the 41% value from the
Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA,
Figure 6, p. A-16.
\88\ The nitrate fraction of ammonia nitrate (5.5 [mu]g/m\3\) is
calculated as molecular weight of nitrate (62) divided by the
molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80) and equals 77.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, using the 2011-2013 24-hour PM2.5 design
value of 64.6 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Bakersfield-California site,\89\ the
24-hour average ammonium nitrate
[[Page 6946]]
concentration on peak PM2.5 days is approximately 41.3
[mu]g/m\3\. If only nitrate itself is considered (i.e., the nitrate
part of the ammonium nitrate molecules), the contribution of
NOX represents 32.0 [mu]g/m\3\, which is approximately 49.6%
of the average peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentration. Whether
considered as ammonium nitrate or simply as nitrate, NOX is
clearly a significant contributor to ambient PM2.5 levels
above the standard in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A-8. The design
value for Bakersfield-California (the high site for monitors with
complete data for the three years) for 2011-2013 is given as a
rounded value of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ in Table A-4 in Appendix A of the
Plan. For greater precision in estimating species contributions, we
have used the unrounded value of 64.6 [mu]g/m\3\, which we
calculated as the average of the 98th percentiles values for each
year (65.5, 56.4, and 71.8) as listed in Table A-3. For calculating
the ammonium nitrate concentration, we used the 64% value from the
Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA,
Figure 7, p. A-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this evidence concerning the contribution of
NOX to PM2.5 concentrations, the 2015
PM2.5 Plan provides evidence that ambient PM2.5
concentrations are sensitive to NOX reductions (i.e.,
nitrate PM2.5 concentrations decrease when NOX
emissions are reduced). The evidence is from modeling, historical
trends, and relative proportions of NOX and ammonia. The
2015 PM2.5 Plan provides evidence from past and current
photochemical modeling simulations that ambient ammonium nitrate is
sensitive to NOX reductions. The Plan describes past
modeling studies that were documented in academic journals.\90\ In the
various studies, when NOX emissions were reduced by 50%,
ambient ammonium nitrate decreased by 25-50%, depending on the episode
modeled and the geographic location.\91\ In addition, modeling for the
2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
whose results were relied on for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, also
shows substantial sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
concentrations to reductions in NOX emissions. The State
modeled the effect of a 25% reduction in NOX emissions on
ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in 2019 and combined
this with the emission mass (tons per day) to determine that the
PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced by 0.08 [mu]g/m3 at
the Bakersfield-California site (the design value site for 2019) and
decreases of a similar order of magnitude (i.e., 0.03 to 0.09 [mu]g/m3)
at other monitors in the SJV.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The academic journal papers are described in 2015
PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Section 5 (``Secondary Ammonium Nitrate
Formation''), pp. A-23-A-29.
\91\ Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., Kleeman,
M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal Modeling of PM2.5 in
California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 92, 182-
190, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.030. Kleeman, M.J., Ying, Q.,
and Kaduwela, A., Control strategies for the reduction of airborne
particulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric
Environment, 2005, 39, 5325-5341. Liang, J., G[uuml]rer, K., Allen,
P.D., Zhang, K.M., Ying, Q., Kleeman, M., Wexler, A., and Kaduwela,
A., 2006, A photochemical model investigation of an extended winter
PM episode observed in Central California: Model Performance
Evaluation, Proceedings of the 5th Annual CMAQ Models-3 User's
Conference, Chapel Hill, NC. Livingstone, P.L. et. al., 2009,
``Simulating PM Concentrations During a Winter Episode in a
Subtropical Valley and Sensitivity Simulations and Evaluation
methods'', Atmospheric Environment, 43: 5971-5977. doi:10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2009.07.033. Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C.,
2009, Modeling wintertime particulate matter formation in Central
California, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 402-409. Different models
and emission inventories in these studies conducted over the years
also contribute to the variation in results.
\92\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B-2 (``Modeled
PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide
precursor emission reductions''), p. A-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides additional (non-modeling)
evidence on the effectiveness of NOX reductions. The
historical downward trends of NOX emissions and of ambient
nitrate concentrations are discussed in Chapter 2 and the weight of
evidence analysis (WOEA) of the Plan.\93\ Annual average NOX
emissions levels are plotted against ammonium nitrate concentrations at
Bakersfield and Fresno, and in each case have decreased by about 35-40%
from 2004 to 2012.\94\ This shows that NOX emissions and
ammonium nitrate concentrations are correlated with one another. The
conclusion that PM2.5 nitrate concentrations are more
limited by NOX emissions than by ammonia emissions is
strengthened by the fact that this reduction in ambient ammonium
nitrate occurred despite an increase in emissions of ammonia, the other
precursor to ammonium nitrate, during the same period.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-8 and 2-9; and
CARB's Staff Report, Appendix A (i.e., WOEA), pp. A-60 to A-61.
\94\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Figure 2-19, p. 2-
26; 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 5-6; and
WOEA, Figure 44, p. A-60.
\95\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan further describes the effectiveness
of NOX controls by characterizing it as the ``limiting
precursor'' in ammonium nitrate formation, based on the relative
amounts of NOX and ammonia. Based on monitored
concentrations and the emissions inventory, CARB and the SJVUAPCD
conclude that NOX is the limiting precursor and briefly
illustrates this concept in its WOEA.\96\ One molecule each of
NOX and ammonia is required to form each molecule of
ammonium nitrate. If NOX is in short supply relative to
ammonia, then NOX is the limiting factor in ammonium nitrate
formation.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, section 5.b, pp. A-18 to
A-19. See also 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, section 2.6, pp. 2-18
to 2-27.
\97\ As noted below in the ammonia subsection, the ``limiting
precursor'' concept is not absolute, and must be used with caution.
However, for NOX it does support evidence from the
modeling results that NOX significantly contributes to
exceedances of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WOEA analysis includes plots \98\ of ammonia and nitric acid
(which contains nitrate) concentrations at two monitoring sites in the
SJV (Angiola, a rural site, and Fresno, an urban site) that were
measured during the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS \99\ study and reported in
Lurmann et al. (2006).\100\ CARB notes that in this study, ammonia
concentrations are at least an order of magnitude larger than those of
nitrate and notes Lurmann et al.'s conclusion that NOX is
the limiting precursor. CARB and the SJVUAPCD did not, however, present
more current information about ammonia concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 11 and 12, pp. A-
21 to A-22.
\99\ CRPAQS is the California Regional Particulate Air Quality
Study. More information is available about CRPAQS at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/ccaqs.htm.
\100\ Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Roberts,
P.T., December 2006, Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol
Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter, Journal of Air
and Waste Management Association, 56, 1679-1693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WOEA also considers emissions inventories to support the
argument that NOX is the limiting precursor. The WOEA
normalized NOX emissions using the relative molecular
weights of NOX and ammonia, in order to reflect the number
of molecules of each available to react with each other.\101\ In 2012,
the normalized amount of NOX available was 37-38% of the
amount of ammonia for both annual and winter averages, while it is
projected to be 21% of the amount of ammonia in 2020. This shows the
scarcity of NOX relative to ammonia and implies that
NOX is the limiting precursor in the formation of ammonium
nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ WOEA, Table 1, p. A-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the range of technical analyses provided in the Plan and
other information available to the EPA, we agree with the State's and
District's conclusion that NOX controls must be included in
the evaluation of potential control measures for the 1997
PM2.5 standards in the SJV, consistent with the requirements
of subpart 4.
c. Ammonia
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that, based on modeling,
emissions inventory, and monitoring studies, ``[b]ecause of [the]
regional surplus in ammonia, even substantial ammonia emissions
reductions yield a relatively small reduction in nitrate'' \102\ and
``[a]mmonia emission reductions are approximately an order of magnitude
less effective'' than NOX emission reductions in reducing
ambient PM2.5
[[Page 6947]]
concentrations.\103\ To support this finding, CARB and the SJVUAPCD
discuss the ambient contribution of ammonia to measured
PM2.5 levels in the SJV and the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 to ammonia reductions. The latter includes discussion
of the relative abundance of NOX and ammonia, and of modeled
simulations of further reductions in ammonia emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-19.
\103\ WOEA, p. A-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan indicates that ammonia contributes to ambient
concentrations of PM2.5, in the form of ammonium nitrate and
ammonium sulfate. As noted above in our discussion of NOX,
ammonium nitrate comprises 38-41% of the 2010-2012 average annual
PM2.5 concentrations and 53-64% of the 2011-2013 average
peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, the highest percentages
being observed in Bakersfield.\104\ Ammonium sulfate contributes an
additional 11-14% of the 2010-2012 average annual PM2.5
concentrations and 4-6% of the 2011-2013 average peak 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations, with the highest percentages similarly
being observed in Bakersfield.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. A-
16.
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the highest 2011-2013 annual average PM2.5 design
value of 17.3 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Bakersfield-Planz site, the ammonium
nitrate concentration is approximately 7.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and the
ammonium sulfate concentration is approximately 2.4 [micro]g/m\3\.\106\
If only ammonium is considered (i.e., the ammonium part of the ammonium
nitrate and ammonium sulfate molecules), the contribution of ammonium
represents 2.3 [micro]g/m\3\, or 13.0% of the annual average
PM2.5 concentration.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See n. 87 supra. In addition, for calculating the ammonium
sulfate concentration, we used the 14% ammonium sulfate values from
the Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA,
Figure 6, p. A-16.
\107\ The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate (1.6 [micro]g/
m\3\) is calculated as the molecular weight of ammonium (18) divided
by the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5
percent of the mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium sulfate (0.7
[micro]g/m\3\) is calculated as the molecular weight of the two
ammonium molecules (36) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium
sulfate (132), which is 27.3 percent of the mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, using the 2011-2013 24-hour PM2.5 design
value of 64.6 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Bakersfield-California site, the 24-
hour average ammonium nitrate concentration on peak PM2.5
days is approximately 41.3 [micro]g/m\3\ and the ammonium sulfate
concentration is approximately 3.9 [micro]g/m\3\.\108\ If only ammonium
itself is considered (i.e., the ammonium part of the ammonium nitrate
and ammonium sulfate molecules), the contribution of ammonium
represents 10.4 [micro]g/m\3\, which is approximately 16.0% of the
average peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentration.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See n. 89 supra. In addition, for calculating the ammonium
sulfate concentration, we used the 6% ammonium sulfate values from
the Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA,
Figure 6, p. A-16.
\109\ The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate (9.3 [micro]g/
m\3\) is calculated as the molecular weight of ammonium (18) divided
by the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5
percent of the mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium sulfate (1.1
[micro]g/m\3\) is calculated as the molecular weight of the two
ammonium molecules (36) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium
sulfate (132), which is 27.3 percent of the mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia emissions are essential to the formation of both of these
components of the ambient particulate matter, and the EPA finds that
these levels of contribution are a substantial fraction of the SJV's
2011-2013 annual average design value of 17.3 [micro]g/m\3\, as
measured at the Bakersfield-Planz site, and the 24-hour design value of
64.6 [micro]g/m\3\, as measured at the Bakersfield-California site.
This is evidence that emissions of ammonia contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 concentrations that exceed the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
Next we examined information in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
regarding the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV
to potential ammonia emission control. On this issue there is
conflicting evidence. Based on evidence that ammonia appears not to be
the limiting precursor for ammonium nitrate formation and that modeled
ammonia reductions are ineffective relative to NOX
reductions,\110\ CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that controls for
ammonia are not warranted. However, the EPA's own evaluation of the
modeling indicates that ammonia controls can be effective at reducing
ambient PM2.5 in some locations and can be more effective at
certain times of year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2, pp.
2-21 to 2-27 and WOEA, pp. A-23 to A-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and the SJVUAPCD 's evidence discussed above to support the
argument that NOX is the limiting precursor for ammonia
nitrate formation is also presented as evidence that ammonia is not the
limiting precursor, and thus to argue that ambient PM2.5
levels would not be sensitive to ammonia reductions.\111\ In the Plan,
CARB and the SJVUAPCD state that there is both an abundance of ambient
ammonia relative to ambient nitrate, and an abundance of ammonia
emissions relative to NOX emissions. CARB and the SJVUAPCD
also indicate that there is an abundance of gaseous ammonia relative to
particulate ammonium at multiple locations during the 2000-2001 winter
episode in the CRPAQS study,\112\ so that even under conditions
favorable to ammonium nitrate formation, a substantial amount of
unreacted ammonia remains.\113\ Based on these multiple pieces of
evidence on the abundance of ammonia, CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude
that ammonia is not the limiting factor for ammonium nitrate formation
and, thus, that reducing ammonia emissions would not reduce ambient
PM2.5 in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ WOEA, pp. A-18 to A-22.
\112\ WOEA, pp. A-22 and Figure 13, p. A-23.
\113\ As noted above, NOX emissions have been
decreasing and ammonia emissions increasing, so under the State's
reasoning, this relationship would be expected to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and the SJVUAPCD also considered air quality modeling analyses
to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing ammonia as compared to other
precursors, and to PM2.5 decreases needed for attainment.
Based on modeling a 25% reduction in ammonia emissions, holding direct
PM2.5 and other precursor emissions constant, the Plan
states that per ton per day of ammonia emissions reduction, there would
be a 0.005 to 0.010 [micro]g/m\3\ decrease in ambient PM2.5
concentrations across the Valley, including a 0.008 [micro]g/m\3\
effect at the Bakersfield-California site.\114\ By comparing these
sensitivities to the effect of a 25% reduction of NOX
emissions, the Plan states that, on a per ton basis, reducing ammonia
is only about 10% as effective as reducing NOX.\115\ Thus,
based on this air quality modeling, CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that
additional ammonia control is considerably less effective than
NOX control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ WOEA, Table 2, p. A-27.
\115\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State and District assume in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
that additional ammonia control, as modeled, would provide limited
benefit for attainment planning purposes. They also conclude, based
upon the various forms of information and analyses described above,
that ammonia emission reductions are much less effective than direct
PM2.5 or NOX emission reductions, and thus argue
that ``[a]mmonia is not a significant precursor to PM2.5
values in the Valley.'' \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds the modeling and other analyses presented and
referred to in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan to be credible, but the
modeling analyses nonetheless show
[[Page 6948]]
that additional reductions in ammonia may reduce ambient
PM2.5 levels to varying degrees. In the various studies,
when ammonia emissions were reduced by up to 50%, ambient ammonium
nitrate decreased by a range of approximately 5-25%, depending on the
episode modeled and the geographic location evaluated.\117\ Modeling
conducted by ARB staff for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for attaining
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS indicated that for emissions
reduction within Kern County, a one ton per day decrease in ammonia
would lead to a 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\ improvement in the PM2.5
24-hour design value.\118\ If this rate were to remain constant as
ammonia emissions decrease, and if this same sensitivity applied to
valley-wide reductions, it would mean that a 50% reduction in the
ammonia emissions inventory (estimated in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan at 329.5 tpd annual average in 2012) would be expected to reduce
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations by more than 3 [micro]g/m\3\,
an amount that the EPA would not consider insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ WOEA, pp. A-24 to A-25.
\118\ WOEA, p. A-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentages for ammonia benefits are generally smaller than
those for NOX reductions, but a range of modeling results
show that reductions in ammonia emissions under certain circumstances
can effectively help to reduce ambient PM2.5. The fact that
all the modeling studies find at least some benefit from ammonia
control shows that the concept of NOX as a ``limiting
precursor'' in the formation of ammonium nitrate particles discussed
above is not absolute. In addition, the test for determining whether
emission reduction measures for a particular precursor must be
evaluated for purposes of timely attainment should not be based
exclusively on the control effectiveness of the precursor relative to
other precursors, but must also consider whether emissions of the
precursor ``contribute significantly'' to ambient PM2.5
levels which exceed the PM2.5 standards in the nonattainment
area. In other words, the fact that control of NOX may be
more important than the control of ammonia in relative terms does not
mean that a state should not evaluate regulations for both as part of a
comprehensive plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, and to do so
expeditiously as required by the CAA.
Taking into consideration a number of factors, the EPA does not
agree with the conclusion in the Plan that the more than 100,000 annual
tons of ammonia emissions from sources in the SJV area do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. First, the information provided by the State
and District in the Plan shows that ammonia contributes to a large
fraction of measured PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV area,
in the form of ammonium nitrate and, to a lesser extent, ammonium
sulfate. Based on data presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan,
ammonia emissions, in the form of ammonium, are responsible for
approximately 13% of the annual average concentration and 16% of the
24-hour average at the design value site for the San Joaquin Valley.
Second, modeled evidence submitted by the State and studies
available to the EPA indicate that although ammonia control is less
effective at reducing PM2.5 concentrations compared to
NOX control, reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV would
reduce PM2.5 by varying amounts throughout the nonattainment
area. Studies indicate that reducing ammonia does not have a uniform
effect across a large nonattainment area during all times of the year;
ammonia reductions can be more effective at reducing PM2.5
concentrations in specific locations during certain times of the year.
Reductions in ammonia in conjunction with reductions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX would help to
provide for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area.
Finally, despite the fact that a broad range of emission reduction
measures have been implemented to reduce emissions of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, the Plan also
indicates that attainment by the statutory attainment date is
impracticable. This underscores the continuing severity of the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV and the need for a
robust assessment of potential control measures (e.g., BACM and MSM)
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including
potential ammonia control measures which may be effective in reducing
ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
Given the severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in
the SJV, the high degree to which controls have already been applied to
the emission of PM2.5 and its precursor pollutants, the
demonstration that attainment in the SJV by 2015 is impracticable, and
the documentation in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan showing that
ammonia emissions are responsible for more than 2 [micro]g/m\3\ of the
annual average PM2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz
site, and for more than 10 [micro]g/m\3\ of the peak day 24-hour
average PM2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-California
site, the EPA does not agree at this time with the conclusion in the
Plan that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 standards in the
SJV.
Although the Plan states that ammonia is not a significant
precursor to ambient PM2.5 levels, and that additional
controls for ammonia are not necessary to attain the PM2.5
standards in the SJV, the Plan nonetheless provides an evaluation of
control measures currently implemented in the SJV that reduce ammonia
emissions and other potential ammonia control measures. We discuss the
State's ammonia control evaluation in section V.D. of this proposed
rule.
d. VOC
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that VOCs are not a
significant precursor to ambient PM2.5 levels in the San
Joaquin Valley and that further reductions in VOC emissions would not
contribute to PM2.5 attainment. To support this finding,
CARB and the SJVUAPCD discuss the ambient contribution of VOC to
measured PM2.5 levels in the SJV, the indirect role of VOC
in ammonium nitrate formation, and modeled simulations of further
reductions in VOC emissions.
There are two routes by which VOC can contribute to ambient
PM2.5. The first is through various chemical reactions
leading to the formation of Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA). The
second is through photochemical reactions that create oxidants such as
ozone and the hydroxyl radical (OH), which in turn oxidize
NOX emissions to nitrate or SOX emissions to
sulfate, leading to the formation of particulate ammonium nitrate or
particulate ammonium sulfate. Chapter 2 of the 2015 PM2.5
Plan discusses both roles of VOC in PM2.5 formation,\119\ as
does the Plan's weight of evidence analysis.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-20 to 2-21.
\120\ WOEA, section 5.d (``Role of VOC in ammonium nitrate
formation''), pp. A-30 to A-39, and section 6 (``Secondary Organic
Aerosol Formation''), pp. A-39 to A-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the direct contribution of VOC to PM2.5, the 2015
PM2.5 Plan states that modeling for annual average
PM2.5 for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan found that
anthropogenic SOA were about 3-5% of total organic aerosol, and that
SOA were mainly formed during the summer from non-anthropogenic
sources.\121\ The SJVUAPCD states that the winter anthropogenic
contribution that is of interest for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS would necessarily be lower because less SOA forms at winter
temperatures, which are lower than temperatures for the annual average.
CARB and the SJVUAPCD also cite a
[[Page 6949]]
study by Chen et al.\122\ for the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS episode. This
study found that the SOA portion of total organic aerosol had a maximum
value of 4.26 [micro]g/m\3\ with concentrations at Bakersfield of 2.28
[micro]g/m\3\ and at Fresno of 2.46 [micro]g/m\3\, which represent 4%
and 6% of the total organic aerosol at those locations. These locations
typically represent the highest PM2.5 concentrations for the
southern and central portions of the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-20.
\122\ Chen, J., Ying, Q., and Kleeman, M.J., 2010, Source
apportionment of wintertime secondary organic aerosol during the
California regional PM10/PM2.5 air quality
study, Atmospheric Environment, 44(10), 1331-1340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying this roughly 5% SOA proportion to the organic carbon
portion of the measured 2011-2013 peak day 24-hour average
PM2.5 composition shows that, by mass, SOA is about 0.9% of
total ambient PM2.5 at Bakersfield-California and 1.5% of
ambient PM2.5 at Fresno.\123\ The EPA notes that because
anthropogenic SOA is only a portion of the total SOA, the portion due
to controllable anthropogenic sources would be even less. CARB and the
SJVUAPCD conclude that these modeling studies show that SOA is not a
substantial component of peak day (i.e., winter) 24-hour ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV and that the potential for
reducing ambient PM2.5 through VOC emission reductions is
very limited. We do not have comparable information at this time to
evaluate whether or not SOA is a substantial component of annual
average PM2.5 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ The contribution of Organic Matter to 2011-2013 peak day
24-hour PM2.5 levels was 18 percent at Bakersfield and 30
percent at Fresno (see WOEA, Figure 7, p. A-16). Five percent of
these proportions gives 0.90 percent SOA at Bakersfield and 1.5
percent SOA at Fresno. As a fraction of the 2013 design values of
64.6 [micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-California and 63.5 [micro]g/m\3\
at Fresno-Winery, these percentages give SOA contributions of 0.58
[micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-California and 0.95 [micro]g/m\3\ at
Fresno-Winery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the indirect contribution of VOC to PM2.5, nitrate
formation via daytime photochemistry, CARB and the SJVUAPCD assert that
this route is also not a substantial contributor, based on modeled
sensitivity to VOC reductions. For one such study there were relatively
low modeled concentrations of ozone, which did not appear consistent
with nitrate formation via daytime oxidant (ozone) photochemistry,
which would be expected to have elevated ozone levels.\124\ The Plan
reviews essentially the same studies that the State relied on in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
standards,\125\ except for one additional 2014 study by Chen et.
al.\126\ The EPA's review of these studies and of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan's examination of the studies is covered in the
technical support document (TSD) for the EPA's final action on the 2008
PM2.5 Plan (``2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD'').\127\ The
2014 Chen et. al. paper presented results of modeling the 1st and 4th
quarters of 2007 using the CMAQ model (the same period and model that
was used for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan), and also of modeling the
winter 2000 CRPAQS episode using the UCD/CIT (University of California,
Davis/California Institute of Technology) model. The paper explored the
sensitivity of PM2.5 to reductions of the various
precursors. The CMAQ modeling showed that reducing anthropogenic VOC
actually increases PM2.5 design values, while the UCD/CIT
modeling showed that it has a negligible effect. NOX vs. VOC
isopleth diagrams from the paper are reproduced in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, and illustrate these effects.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, Modeling
Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central California,
Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402-409. doi: 10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2008.08.040.
\125\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-20 to 2-21;
WOEA, p. A-3, and section 5.d, pp. A-30 to A-39.
\126\ Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., Kleeman,
M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal Modeling of PM2.5 in
California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 92, 182-
190, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.030.
\127\ EPA Region 9, ``Technical Support Document and Responses
to Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' September 30, 2011,
section II.C.
\128\ WOEA, p. A-37 to A-38, Figs. 23 and 24. PM2.5
increases when VOC decreases, for any given level of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The findings from those reviews remain the same for the current
Plan: Past modeling studies vary on whether controlling VOC reduces
PM2.5, but the most reliable ones show VOC control has
little benefit, or even a disbenefit. As detailed in the EPA's 2008
PM2.5 Plan TSD and in the Plan's WOEA,\129\ the studies for
which VOC control showed a benefit at some times and places are less
reliable because they used unrealistic emissions levels, unrealistic
control scenarios, or the effect occurred at PM2.5
concentrations no longer reached in the SJV. The WOEA also suggests
that, in this context of indirect PM2.5 formation from VOC,
the model boundary conditions have sufficient ozone flowing in from
outside the SJV area,\130\ implying that VOC reductions would have
little effect on ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the standard
in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ WOEA, p. A-3, and section 5.d, pp. A-30 to A-39.
\130\ WOEA, p. A-38. See also, Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and
Kaduwela, A., 2005, Control strategies for the reduction of airborne
particulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric
Environment, 39: 5325-5341 September 2005. doi: 10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2005.05.044; cited in Plan Modeling Protocol.p.F-36). A
similar statement is made in the 2014 Chen et al. paper, citing Qi
Ying, Jin Lu, Michael Kleeman, Modeling air quality during the
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality
Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model--
Part III. Regional source apportionment of secondary and total
airborne particulate matter, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 43,
Issue 2, January 2009, Pages 419-430, ISSN 1352-2310, DOI: 10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2008.08.033. The Chen paper actually cites ``Part I'' of
the Ying paper, not this Part III. However, none of these papers
gives the basis for the statement that background ozone is the
dominant nitrate oxidant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall conclusion is that the effect of reducing VOC emissions
is somewhat uncertain, but in general produces little benefit or even a
disbenefit in PM2.5 concentrations.
The modeling for the prior 2012 PM2.5 Plan, which
indicates a disbenefit from controlling VOC at important geographic
locations, adds to the evidence from past studies, and is incorporated
into the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. This is shown by negative
PM2.5 sensitivities (that is, decreased VOC emissions result
in increased PM2.5 levels) for multiple locations.\131\ In
addition, a diagram of model PM2.5 response at the
Bakersfield-California site to various combinations of NOX
and VOC reductions show graphically that VOC reductions increase
PM2.5, for any given level of NOX.\132\ For other
monitoring sites, such as Fresno and Angiola, these NOX vs.
VOC diagrams show mixed effects on PM2.5, albeit generally
of small magnitude, depending on the level of ambient PM2.5
as VOC emissions are reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ WOEA, Table 2, p. A-27 (see VOC columns for Bakersfield,
Visalia, and Corcoran).
\132\ WOEA, Figure 18, p. A-28. This diagram shows the model
PM2.5 response at the Bakersfield-California site to
reductions in various combinations of precursors. Subfigure ``b)''
shows NOX reductions plotted against VOC reductions. For
a given level of NOX, in decreasing VOC by moving
leftward along a horizontal line (representing constant
NOX), one crosses the lines of constant PM2.5
(isopleths) into regions of increased PM2.5. The 2012
PM2.5 Plan presents similar diagrams for the various
monitoring sites. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Figures 4-
15 through 4-2334, pp. 4-31 to 4-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes additional VOC vs.
NOX isopleth diagrams from a 2005 Kleeman et al. paper.\133\
The key ones show that the effect of reducing VOC for all sources
increases total PM2.5 nitrate for any
[[Page 6950]]
given level of NOX emissions.\134\ The Plan states that the
VOC disbenefit occurs because reducing VOCs can reduce the organic
nitrate ``sink'' that makes nitrate unavailable, thus freeing it for
ammonium nitrate formation.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, ``Control
strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in
California's San Joaquin Valley'', Atmospheric Environment, 39:
5325-5341 September 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044. This
paper was discussed in our TSD for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,
though the 2008 PM2.5 Plan did not include the diagrams.
\134\ WOEA, upper left quadrant of Figures 19 to 21, pp. A-32 to
A-34.
\135\ WOEA, pp. A-31, citing. Z. Meng, D. Dabdub, and J. H.
Seinfeld, ``Chemical Coupling Between Atmospheric Ozone and
Particulate Matter'', Science 277, 116 (1997); DOI: 10.1126/
science.277.5322.116. The Meng paper cites the organic nitrate sink
as a possibility in PM chemistry. The Plan provides no direct
evidence that this reaction is important in the SJV, though it is
plausible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the information provided by the State and District in the
Plan indicates that: (a) Wintertime levels of secondary organic aerosol
measured in the SJV are low and therefore the direct products of VOC
emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
above the standard in the SJV; and (b) wintertime reductions in VOC
emissions in the SJV, when PM2.5 concentrations are high,
would not reduce ambient PM2.5 levels, and therefore the
indirect products of VOC emissions also do not contribute significantly
to PM2.5 levels above the standard in the SJV. Based on this
information, we propose to determine that, at this time, VOC emissions
do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area.
e. Recommendations for Further Analyses
The EPA believes that several precursor issues warrant further
explanation and exploration in future PM2.5 plans. For
ammonia, an explanation should be provided for the apparent conflict
between NOX as a ``limiting'' precursor for ammonium nitrate
formation and modeling that nevertheless shows some benefits from
ammonia emission reductions. In the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, ammonia
reductions for Kern County alone were simulated along with reductions
for the area as a whole. Further exploration of the effect of more
specific localized controls would inform decisions on whether ammonia
controls should be part of the control strategy in the next
PM2.5 plan.
For VOC, the apparent conflict between different past modeling
studies on whether VOC emission reductions are beneficial or not also
should be more fully explained. As mentioned above, and discussed
further in the EPA's TSD for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,\136\ those
studies showing a VOC benefit can be discounted on various grounds, but
there does not appear to be a full explanation of the chemistry
differences seen. Differences between the models used, their chemical
mechanisms, their emissions and meteorological inputs, and the episodes
they are applied to all cause differences in study results. Without a
fuller reconciliation of those results, it is difficult to know whether
or not chemistry sensitive to VOC reductions could still be operating
today in the SJV. Also mentioned above, the Plan's WOEA asserts that
background ozone levels are sufficient to provide the oxidants needed
for nitrate formation, even without the VOC-mediated generation of
ozone within the SJV.\137\ But little support has been provided for
this assertion, other than similar assertions in a few journal papers.
More concrete evidence on this issue should be provided in future
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ EPA Region 9, ``Technical Support Document, Proposed
Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan and 2014 Supplemental Document and Proposed
Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley as Serious Nonattainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard,'' December 2014.
\137\ WOEA, p. A-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A related issue is why a VOC disbenefit occurs. One explanation is
that VOC can remove nitrate via a ``sink'' reaction to organic
nitrates, so reducing VOC frees nitrate to form PM2.5. This
explanation is provided in a journal paper posing the nitrate sink as a
possibility in PM chemistry. While this is plausible, no evidence has
been provided from any studies during the ten years since the paper was
published that this particular phenomenon is actually occurring in the
SJV modeling or atmosphere. Some of these issues may be resolved
through better documentation and explanation in the SIP submission of
what is already known; others may require quantitative examination of
particular chemical pathways in the modeling or ambient measurements.
Evaluation of the available research and its implications for the
effectiveness of various precursor emissions controls would also be
useful as part of the next plan. This research includes projects funded
by the San Joaquin Valley-wide Air Pollution Study Agency, including
``Improve emission estimates for urban ammonia sources,'' ``Update of
CRPAQS conceptual model and synthesis of results,'' and ``Develop
Improvements to the PM2.5 Inventory to Better Reconcile with
Ambient Measurements.'' The CARB Staff Report refers to several recent
field studies relevant for the SJV, including ARCTAS-CARB, CalNex2010,
and DISCOVER-AQ, all of which should be examined for their implications
for the SJV's atmospheric chemistry and the effectiveness of various
precursor emissions controls.
Some results from the CalNex study are already available in a
Synthesis document.\138\ While CalNex was conducted during the summer
of 2010, some of its findings may be relevant for PM2.5
formation in the SJV, even though such formation is greatest in winter.
Finding I2b (pp. 63-64) suggests that the SJV ammonia inventory is
underestimated by a factor of three; if confirmed, this may have
implications for modeling, the effectiveness of ammonia controls, and
the amount of NOX used in the Plan to offset the ammonia
inventory increases. Finding I3 (p. 65) highlights ammonia reactions
with carboxylic acids and the resulting enhancement of secondary
organic aerosol (SOA); the importance of this pathway in modeling
winter PM2.5 may need to be explored. Several other findings
relate to SOA. Finding L2 (p. 75) stated significant SOA formation at
night at Bakersfield. Finding N2 (p. 86) stated SOA as 72% of
Bakersfield ultra-fine particulate matter (i.e., PM less than 1
micrometer in diameter) (this contrasts with the 5% of PM2.5
used in the Plan), and also stated that SOA dominated daytime particle
growth. Findings W3a and W3b (p. 129) stated the importance of
anthropogenic VOC as the main SOA precursor, and nitrate as a VOC
oxidant. While many of these findings may be relevant mostly for summer
conditions, their implications for chemical pathways and controls in
winter should be examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Synthesis of Policy Relevant Findings from the CalNex 2010
Field Study (California Research at the Nexus of Air Quality and
Climate Change): Final Report to the Research Division of the
California Air Resources Board, David D. Parrish, NOAA Earth System
Research Laboratory, March 27, 2014. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Action
Based on a review of the information provided in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan and other information available to the EPA, we
propose to determine that at this time VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels which exceed the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and, therefore,
that VOCs may be excluded from the State's evaluation of potential
control measures for purposes of these standards in this area.
Consistent with the statutory requirements under subpart 4, all other
PM2.5 precursors (i.e., NOX, SO2, and
ammonia) must be included in the State's evaluation of potential
control measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area,
including nonattainment NSR provisions to
[[Page 6951]]
implement the requirements of subpart 4.\139\ We discuss the State's
evaluation of potential control measures for NOX,
SO2, and ammonia, as well as direct PM2.5, in
section V.D. of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Absent a demonstration to EPA's satisfaction that major
stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
NAAQS in the SJV area, under CAA section 189(e) major stationary
sources of ammonia are subject to the control requirements that
apply to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5,
including nonattainment NSR requirements. We intend to evaluate the
adequacy of the District's nonattainment NSR program for
PM2.5 upon submission of the NSR SIP revision due May 7,
2016, which is the date 12 months after EPA's reclassification of
the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
became effective. 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
As discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, section
189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious PM2.5
nonattainment area that the State submit provisions to assure that the
best available control measures (BACM) for reducing emissions of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will be implemented no
later than four years after the date the area is reclassified as a
serious area. Because the EPA reclassified the SJV area as Serious
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS effective May 7,
2015, the date four years after reclassification is May 7, 2019. In
this case, however, the Serious area attainment date for the SJV area
under section 188(c) is no later than December 31, 2015, and to qualify
for an extension of this date under section 188(e) the State must,
among other things, demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable. Given these circumstances, we are
evaluating the Plan's control strategy for implementation of BACM as
expeditiously as practicable.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a
Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the State must,
among other things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or
are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented
in the area (MSM). As discussed above, we have established a process
for evaluating BACM in serious area plans and a similar process for
evaluating MSM. Because of the substantial overlap in the source
categories and controls evaluated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM,
we present our evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's
provisions for including MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan's
provisions for implementing BACM for each identified source category.
We provide a more detailed evaluation of many of the District's control
measures for stationary and area sources in our ``Technical Support
Document for the EPA's Evaluation of Fine Particulate Matter Best
Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures for the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,'' January 2016 (``SJV
Rules TSD'').
1. Identifying the Sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
Precursors
The first step in determining BACM and MSM is to develop a detailed
emissions inventory of the sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors that can be used with modeling to determine
the effects of these sources on ambient PM2.5 levels. The
EPA's past guidance on Serious area plans in the Addendum suggested
that the second step is to use modeling to identify those source
categories that have a greater than de minimis impact on ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Addendum at 42012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section V.A of this proposed rule, Appendix B of
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan contains the planning inventories for
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors
(NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia) for the SJV
PM2.5 nonattainment area together with documentation to
support these inventories. The District used available speciation data
to identify de minimis thresholds, also referred to in the Plan as
``significant emission levels,'' for direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SOX.\142\ Based on these thresholds,
which are described in Chapter 5 of the Plan, the District identified
the following six source categories as emission sources in the SJV that
emit pollutants at levels exceeding its selected de minimis thresholds
(i.e., ``significant'' source categories):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4 (``De
Minimis Thresholds for Determining Significant Source Categories'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open Burning;
2. Glass Melting Furnaces;
3. Agricultural Conservation Management Practices;
4. Commercial Charbroiling;
5. Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters; and
6. Paved and Unpaved Roads.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Id. at Table 5-2 (``Valley Source Category De Minimis
Determinations (using 2012 data)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB identified most mobile source categories as ``significant''
and identified only several (e.g., cargo handling equipment,
motorcycles, recreational boats, off-road recreational vehicles and
commercial harbor craft) as de minimis source categories.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately in Appendix C and Appendix D of the Plan, however, both
CARB and the District identified all of the sources of direct
PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia in the SJV
that are subject to State or District emission control measures and
provided their evaluations of these regulations for compliance with
BACM and MSM requirements. Table 3 identifies the source categories in
SJV that are under State and District jurisdiction, each source
category's 2012 emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX,
and SOX in tons per day (tpd), and, for each source
category, the regulations that the State and District have relied on in
the Plan to satisfy BACM and MSM requirements.
Table 3--2015 PM2.5 Plan--Source Categories Evaluated for BACM and MSM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. 2012 PM2.5 2012 NOX 2012 SOX
Source category (if any) * (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area Source Categories under District Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Burning................................................ 4103 2.27 1.61 0.05
Reduction of Animal Matter.................................. 4104 0.03 0.00 0.00
Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning............. 4106 0.76 0.07 0.03
Particulate Matter Emissions from the Incineration of 4203 0.00 0.00 0.00
Combustible Refuse.........................................
Cotton Gins................................................. 4204 0.22 0.00 0.00
Fuel Burning Equipment...................................... 4301 N/A N/A N/A
[[Page 6952]]
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 4306/4320 1.27 1.93 0.60
5.0 MMBtu/hr...............................................
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--2.0 to 5.0 4307 0.32 0.49 0.15
MMBtu......................................................
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--0.075 to 4308 0.61 0.92 0.28
less than 2.0 MMBtu........................................
Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens.............................. 4309 0.85 0.20 0.47
Flares...................................................... 4311 0.16 0.56 0.33
Lime Kilns.................................................. 4313 0.00 0.00 0.00
Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 4352 0.62 2.69 0.56
Heaters....................................................
Glass Melting Furnaces...................................... 4354 0.33 6.04 1.96
Conservation Management Practices........................... 4550
Tilling Dust................................... ........... 5.17 0.00 0.00
Harvest Operations Dust........................ ........... 7.28 0.00 0.00
Dust from Ag Lands (non-pasture)............... ........... 6.15 0.00 0.00
Dust from Pasture Lands........................ ........... 1.09 0.00 0.00
Commercial Charbroiling..................................... 4692 2.84 0.00 0.00
Internal Combustion Engines................................. 4702 0.49 13.06 0.12
Stationary Gas Turbines..................................... 4703 1.22 3.09 0.22
Sulfuric Acid Mist.......................................... 4802 0.00 0.00 0.75
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters............ 4901 4.48 0.50 0.08
Residential Water Heaters................................... 4902 0.21 2.21 0.06
Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces................ 4905 0.20 2.46 0.06
General Requirements........................................ 8011 N/A N/A N/A
Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other 8021 1.46 0.00 0.00
Earthmoving Activities.....................................
Bulk Materials.............................................. 8031 0.04 0.00 0.00
Carryout and Trackout (emission included in Paved and 8041 N/A N/A N/A
Unpaved Roads, Rule 8061, below)...........................
Open Areas.................................................. 8051 0.34 0.00 0.00
Paved and Unpaved Roads..................................... 8061 7.59 0.00 0.00
Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas..................... 8071 0.59 0.00 0.00
Agricultural Sources........................................ 8081 1.21 0.00 0.00
Lawn and Garden Equipment................................... SC 001 0.04 0.58 0.00
Energy Efficiency........................................... SC 002 N/A N/A N/A
Fireworks................................................... SC 003 N/A N/A N/A
Sand and Gravel Operations.................................. SC 004 0.09 0.00 0.00
Asphalt/Concrete Operations (Mineral Processes)............. SC 005 0.82 0.20 0.36
Almond Hulling/Shelling Operations.......................... SC 006 0.38 0.00 0.00
Pistachio Hulling/Shelling Operations (emissions included in SC 007 N/A N/A N/A
Almond Hulling/Shelling above).............................
Agricultural Material Screening/Shaking Operations SC 008 N/A N/A N/A
(emissions included in other control categories)...........
Tub Grinding (emissions included in IC engines, Rule 4702, SC 009 N/A N/A N/A
fugitive emissions accounted for in stationary and area
inventory).................................................
Abrasive Blasting........................................... SC 010 0.33 0.00 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Source Categories under State Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles............................. (**) 1.9 32.2 (***)
Heavy-Duty Vehicles......................................... (**) 4.8 138.6 (***)
Off-Road Vehicles and Engines (excludes Cargo Handling (**) 1.1 19.2 (***)
Equipment).................................................
Farm Equipment.............................................. (**) 2.9 50.4 (***)
Cargo Handling Equipment.................................... (**) 0.0 0.1 (***)
Other Mobile Sources........................................ (**) ........... ........... (***)
Motorcycles.................................... ........... 0.0 1.0
Recreational Boats............................. ........... 0.4 1.6
Off-Road Recreational Vehicles................. ........... 0.0 0.1
Commercial Harbor Craft........................ ........... 0.0 0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2; Appendix C (``BACM and MSM for Stationary Sources''); and
Appendix D (``BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources''), except as otherwise noted.
* ``SC'' refers to a source category that is subject to either several District rules or none.
** See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D for a discussion of the State measures that cover these mobile source
categories.
*** See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B (Emissions Inventory) for SOX emission levels.
With respect to ammonia, the District states in Appendix C of the
2015 PM2.5 Plan that ammonia is an ``insignificant''
PM2.5 precursor in the SJV but also provides an analysis of
several SIP-approved District regulations that control ammonia
emissions.\145\ We provide our evaluation of these regulations below
and further in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-239 to C-
280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the State and District have evaluated a much larger set of
emission sources than those identified as ``significant'' sources in
the Plan, and because the District's evaluation of de minimis
thresholds entirely excludes consideration of ammonia emission
[[Page 6953]]
sources, the EPA is not proposing any action with respect to the
District's selected de minimis thresholds for BACM and MSM purposes.
Instead, based on the Plan's more comprehensive evaluation of State and
District regulations that apply to stationary, area, and mobile sources
of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia
in the SJV, we propose to find that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
appropriately identifies all emission sources and source categories
that must be subject to evaluation for potential control measures
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
2. Identification and Implementation of BACM and MSM
As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM and MSM and
considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional
control measures, CARB and the District reviewed the EPA's guidance
documents on BACM, guidance documents on control measures for direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission sources,
and control measures implemented in other ozone and PM2.5
nonattainment areas in California and other states. The State's and
District's evaluations of potential BACM and MSM for each source
category identified in Table 3 above is found in Appendix C and
Appendix D of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. In the following
sections, we review key components of the State's and District's
demonstrations concerning BACM and MSM for sources of direct
PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia emissions
in the SJV. We provide a more detailed evaluation of the District's
regulations in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD, together with recommendations
for improvements to these rules.
Based on our evaluation of these State and District demonstrations,
we propose to determine that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides
for the implementation of BACM and MSM for sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as expeditiously as
practicable, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
a. District Measures for Stationary and Area Sources
The District's BACM and MSM process is described in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.3 (``BACM/MSM Evaluation
Process'') and in Appendix C. The District followed a process similar
to that used by Arizona in the Maricopa County PM10 Serious
Area Plan, the only other air quality plan in the nation that includes
a BACM and MSM demonstration for purposes of requesting an attainment
date extension under CAA section 188(e).\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on Maricopa
County Serious Area Plan); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed
action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan); and 67 FR 48718 (July
25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each identified source category, the District first identified
potential control measures included in SIPs for other areas, addressed
in federal regulations or guidance (e.g., control technique guidelines
(CTGs), alternative control techniques (ACTs), or new source
performance standards (NSPSs)), or addressed in state or local
regulations or guidance (e.g., Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs).\147\
The District evaluated these identified potential control measures to
determine whether implementation of the measures would be
technologically and economically feasible in the SJV.\148\ In addition,
the District considered other available control options (beyond those
included in other SIPs or identified in federal/state regulations or
guidance), such as measures that the State or District have previously
considered ``beyond RACT'' and measures that have been implemented in
practice in other areas. The District also evaluated these potential
control measures to determine whether their implementation would be
technologically and economically feasible in the SJV. The EPA's SJV
Rules TSD provides a more detailed evaluation of many of these District
regulations and our recommendations for rule improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5; and Appendix C, pp.
C-4 to C-6.
\148\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Burning
SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (``Open Burning''), as amended April 15, 2010,
is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from
open burning of agricultural waste and other materials.\149\ The rule
restricts the type of materials that may be burned and establishes
other conditions and procedures for open burning in conjunction with
the District's Smoke Management Program.\150\ The EPA approved this
rule into the California SIP on January 4, 2012.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15,
2010; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-14 to
C-15.
\150\ Id.
\151\ 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4103 to several other open burning rules
implemented in other parts of California and found no other rules more
stringent as a whole than those in Rule 4103. According to the
District, although the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) implements a rule that restricts burning on residential wood
combustion (RWC) curtailment days (Rule 444) and District Rule 4103
does not contain the same restriction, in practice the District
currently bans all burning on RWC curtailment days through
implementation of its Smoke Management Program, which specifically
allocates allowable burn acreage for 103 geographic zones based on
local meteorology.\152\ We note that a restriction on burning on RWC
curtailment days by itself may not consistently reduce wintertime
PM2.5 emission levels as it could shift more waste burning
activity to days with more favorable meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-8 to C-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the California Health and Safety
Code require the District to prohibit open burning of specific crop
categories unless the District determines either that there is no
economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste or
that there is no long-term federal or state funding commitment for the
continued operation of biomass facilities in the SJV or for the
development of alternatives to burning.\153\ The District has
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to
burning several times in the last several years and concluded that such
alternatives are not feasible for selected crop categories at this
time.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ California Health & Safety Code, sections 41855.5 and
41855.6.
\154\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-8 to C-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/
hr
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 3''), as amended October 16, 2008, establishes
NOX emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 ppm and related
operational requirements for gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total rated heat
input greater than 5 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr).\155\ The EPA
approved Rule 4306 into the California SIP on January 13, 2010.\156\
SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers,
Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr''), as
adopted October 16, 2008, establishes more stringent NOX
emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and
[[Page 6954]]
related operational requirements for these units but allows sources to
pay an emission fee in lieu of compliance with the NOX
emission limits.\157\ The EPA approved Rule 4320 into the California
SIP on March 25, 2011 but determined that this rule, as approved, may
not be credited for attainment planning purposes because the fee
provision renders the NOX emission limits
unenforceable.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October 16,
2008; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35.
\156\ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
\157\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16,
2008; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35.
\158\ 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared both Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 to several other
analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the
Sacramento metropolitan area, the South Coast, and the Bay Area.\159\
According to the District, the NOX emission limits in Rule
4306 are generally within the same range as, and in some cases are more
stringent than, those contained in analogous rules implemented by these
other California agencies, except that the SCAQMD implements a rule
containing NOX emission limits that are potentially more
stringent for units of certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended
November 1, 2013).\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38.
\160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 ppm NOX emission limit
for larger units (i.e., those with heated rate inputs above 75 MMBtu/
hr), whereas Rule 4320 establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306
establishes a 9 ppm limit for such units.\161\ SCAQMD Regulation XX
(``Regional Clean Air Incentives Market'' or ``RECLAIM'') also applies
to units within the same range of sizes as Rule 4320 but allows sources
to comply with emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading
Credits.\162\ We do not have information about the rated heat input of
the units subject to RECLAIM in the South Coast area and therefore
cannot conclude that the lower NOX emission limits for
larger boilers in SCAQMD Rule 1146 are technically and economically
feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended November 1, 2013) at
section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38.
\162\ RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow
facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements
for NOX and SOX through, among other things,
add-on controls, equipment modifications, reformulated products,
operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase of excess emission
reductions. See SCAQMD Rule 2000, section (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative NOX and PM2.5 control techniques
for this source category, such as low temperature oxidation and
EMX system for NOX control, and alternative
fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers for direct
PM2.5 control.\163\ Based on its consideration of the
technical constraints and costs associated with each of these control
options, the District concluded that these additional controls are not
feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-39.
\164\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the NOX emission limits in Rule 4320 do not
satisfy the Act's enforceability requirements because of the option to
pay an emission fee, we note that the requirement to pay the emission
fee itself is an enforceable requirement and that the fee provision
appears to function effectively as a pollution deterrent.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ See section 3.b.5 of the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flares
SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (``Flares''), as amended June 18, 2009,
establishes specific operational and administrative requirements to
limit emissions of NOX, SOX, and VOCs from the
operation of flares.\166\ Under Rule 4311, for each refinery flare and
other flare with a capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the operator must submit
a flare minimization plan (FMP) to the District describing relevant
equipment and preventative measures and demonstrating that the operator
appropriately minimized flaring activity.\167\ The EPA approved Rule
4311 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18,
2009; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-63.
\167\ Id.
\168\ 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4311 with several other analogous rules
implemented in other parts of California, including the South Coast,
Bay Area, Ventura County, and Santa Barbara, all of which require
regulated sources to submit FMPs to the local districts.\169\ According
to the District, most flares in the SJV occur in the oil and gas
production industry and operate as emergency control devices, unlike
many flares in the South Coast area and the Bay Area, which are
significantly larger and operate as part of the refinery process.\170\
Because of wide variation in flaring operations in the SJV, the
District concludes that requirements to submit details FMPs, as in Rule
4311, are the most effective means of reducing NOX and
SOX emissions from flaring.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-73.
\170\ Id.
\171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for flares, such as maximum monthly
flared gas targets and requirements to capture gas before it is
flared.\172\ Based on its consideration of the technical constraints
and costs associated with these control options, the District concluded
that these additional controls are not feasible for implementation in
the SJV at this time.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-82.
\173\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to conduct a comprehensive review of submitted FMPs to
identify effective flare minimization practices; to evaluate the
technical and economic feasibility of implementing new and additional
flare minimization practices at affected facilities; to have a draft
report available for public review and comment by December 1, 2015; to
develop a final report by March 31, 2016 after addressing public
comments on these evaluations; and upon completion of these analyses,
to work closely with affected operators to ``evaluate and implement,
when feasible, the most effective flare minimization practices through
the FMP submittal and approval process under Rule 4311.'' \174\ The
District issued its draft report of FMPs on December 3, 2015, starting
a 30-day public comment period.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.1 (pg. 8-2).
\175\ SJVUAPCD, ``Draft Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare
Minimization Plans, 2015,'' December 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters''), as amended December 15, 2011, establishes
NOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters that burn municipal
solid waste (MSW), biomass, and other solid fuels.\176\ Specifically,
the rule establishes NOX emission limits of 165 ppmv for
units burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units burning biomass, and 65 ppmv for
units burning other solid fuels.\177\ The EPA approved this rule into
the California SIP on November 6, 2012.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December 15,
2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-87.
\177\ Id.
\178\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4352 have been lowered significantly over time and are
[[Page 6955]]
at least as stringent as analogous requirements implemented in other
parts of California. The District compared the provisions of Rule 4352
to potentially more stringent requirements implemented in Sacramento
County, the South Coast area, and the Bay Area, but these comparisons
are of limited value because no affected facilities are subject to the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's (SMAQMD)
rule, and no sources are currently complying with the 40 ppmv limit in
the SCAQMD's or Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's)
rules.\179\ Nonetheless, we note that three other air districts in
California implement regulations that apply to active biomass-fueled
units: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), El Dorado
County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) and Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The NOX emission limits
in these regulations are all within the same range as SJVAPCD's limit
of 90 ppm corrected to 3% O2 on a 24-hour block
average.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-89.
\180\ SJV Rules TSD at Section 3.d.2. See also 77 FR 66548
(November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for this source category, such as
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOX control and ESPs
or baghouses for direct PM2.5 control.\181\ Based on its
consideration of the costs associated with SCR retrofits at units
burning biomass, MSW, or other solid fuels, the District concluded that
SCR for these units is not economically feasible for sources in the SJV
at this time.\182\ With respect to direct PM2.5 control, the
District states that sources subject to Rule 4352 are subject to permit
limits that require the best feasible controls.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-91 to C-
101.
\182\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-95--C-96
and C-98.
\183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that biomass- and MSW-fired units provide an environmental
benefit by diverting these wastes from landfills and reducing open
burning.
Glass Melting Furnaces
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), as amended May 19,
2011, establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and
PM10 emission limits and related operational requirements
for glass melting furnaces.\184\ Specifically, the rule establishes
NOX emission limits of 1.5 to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton
glass, depending on glass product and averaging time, and
SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. SOX/ton
glass.\185\ The EPA approved Rule 4354 into the California SIP on
January 31, 2013.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011;
see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-102.
\185\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011, at pp. 5 and
7.
\186\ 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4354 require implementation of oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems,
which are the best available NOX control techniques, and are
at least as stringent as analogous requirements implemented in the
South Coast and Bay Area.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not aware of prohibitory rules for glass melting furnaces in
other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4354. We note that the
SCAQMD has found a 1.2 lb./ton NOX emission limit feasible
through a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT)
determination under its RECLAIM program, but absent information about
how affected sources in the South Coast area have complied with the
available compliance options under RECLAIM, it is not clear that these
lower NOX emission levels are technically and economically
feasible for implementation in the SJV.
Conservation Management Practices
SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices''), as
adopted August 19, 2004, establishes requirements for owners and
operators of agricultural sites to implement conservation management
practices (CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from on-field
crop and animal feeding operations.\188\ Under the rule, each owner/
operator of an agricultural site must select and implement a CMP for
each category of operations, including unpaved roads and unpaved
vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and submit a CMP application to the
District for its review and approval.\189\ The EPA approved this rule
into the California SIP on February 14, 2006.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19,
2004; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-106.
\189\ Id.
\190\ 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the District, Rule 4550 is the most stringent rule of
its kind.\191\ The District compared the provisions of Rule 4550 to
analogous requirements implemented by air agencies in other parts of
California (Imperial County, South Coast, and Sacramento County) and in
Arizona, and found no requirements more stringent than those in Rule
4550.\192\ We note that it is difficult to directly compare the
requirements among these rules because of the widely varying rule
structures and operations of the affected agricultural sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-114.
\192\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of additional control options for this source category, such as misting
to reduce PM10 emissions from disking activity and the use
of new almond harvesting equipment.\193\ As to misting, the District
found that the available information was not sufficient to demonstrate
that this control technique would achieve its minimum standard of a 10%
reduction in PM10 emissions, so the District did not add
this measure to the CMP list.\194\ As to the use of newer almond
harvesting equipment, the District noted, based on a 2010-2011 study,
that newer equipment would achieve significant PM10 emission
reductions but found it was not necessary to revise the CMP list given
use of newer almond harvesting equipment is already listed under an
existing CMP category.\195\ Finally, the District considered adding
windblown dust controls to Rule 4550 but determined that such controls
would not substantially impact PM2.5 design values in the
SJV because windblown dust events typically occur during the spring and
fall seasons whereas the District asserts that PM2.5 values
are driven by winter-time concentrations; PM2.5 values
recorded during winter stagnation periods are usually much higher than
those recorded during wind events; and the geologic component of peak
PM2.5 concentration is a fraction of the mass formed by
secondary processes and other sources.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-111.
\194\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-112.
\195\ Id.
\196\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to reevaluate Rule 4550, in close coordination with
stakeholders (including agricultural industry representatives, CARB,
and the EPA), for additional feasible control options; to have a draft
report available for public review and comment by May 31, 2016; and to
develop a final report by October 15, 2016 after addressing public
comments on these evaluations.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.3 (pg. 8-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Charbroiling
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling''), as amended
September 17, 2009, establishes control
[[Page 6956]]
requirements to reduce PM10 (of which PM2.5 is a
component) and VOC emissions from chain-driven charbroilers.\198\
Specifically, the rule requires that chain-driven charbroilers be
equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer with a control
efficiency of at least 83% for PM10 emissions and 86% for
VOC emissions.\199\ The EPA approved Rule 4692 into the California SIP
on November 3, 2011.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17,
2009; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-115.
\199\ Id.
\200\ 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared the requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous
requirements for chain-driven charbroilers implemented by the SCAQMD,
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), and BAAQMD and
found no requirements in these rules more stringent than those
contained in Rule 4692, with one exception in the BAAQMD rule.\201\
With respect to under-fired charbroilers (UFCs), the District found
that no cost-effective control techniques have been demonstrated to
date given technical challenges associated with controlling emissions
from UFCs, which operate differently from chain-driven
charbroilers.\202\ Although the BAAQMD has adopted a rule that
establishes control requirements for both chain-driven and under-fired
charbroilers, according to the District, a significant portion of the
UFCs in the BAAQMD are not subject to the rule's requirements for UFCs
because they fall below the rule's applicability thresholds.\203\ The
District also stated that the BAAQMD has been unable to enforce its UFC
requirements because no control technologies have been certified.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-116 to C-
117.
\202\ Id.
\203\ Id.
\204\ Id. at p. C-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for UFCs, such as catalytic
oxidizers, high efficiency particulate-arresting filtration system,
ESPs, and wet scrubbers.\205\ Based on its consideration of the
technical difficulties and costs associated with installing these
control devices at UFCs, the District concluded that these control
techniques are not technically and economically feasible for sources in
the SJV at this time.\206\ The District also stated, however, that it
expects to begin testing some of these additional control options in
mid-2015. The District's Governing Board approved $750,000 for its
Restaurant Charbroiler Technology Partnership program, which would fund
particulate emission control technology demonstration projects for
under-fired charbroilers at restaurants in the SJV.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Id. at pp. C-117, C-118.
\206\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-117 to C-
119.
\207\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2015
Governing Board Meeting, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD submitted a
commitment to amend Rule 4692 in 2016 to add requirements for UFCs,
with an anticipated compliance date of 2017.\208\ The Plan relies on
this commitment for a portion of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-119 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A (April 16, 2015) at
paragraph 7.
\209\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9. See
also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 7-6,
and Appendix C, section C.16, pp. C-115 to C-119, which describe the
charbroiling rule revision commitment in the context of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Combustion Engines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion Engines''), as amended
November 14, 2013, establishes NOX, CO, VOC, and
SOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
internal combustion (IC) engines.\210\ The rule contains separate
emission limits for spark-ignited IC engines used in agricultural
operations (SI AO engines), spark-ignited IC engines used in non-
agricultural operations (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC
engines.\211\ The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the California
SIP on December 2, 2015.\212\ The EPA approved a previous version of
this rule into the California SIP on January 10, 2008.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14,
2013; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-120.
\211\ Id.
\212\ 80 FR 75442 (December 2, 2015).
\213\ 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX
emission limits ranging from 25 to 75 ppmv.\214\ According to the
District, these NOX emission limits are at least as
stringent as many analogous control requirements implemented in the Bay
Area, Sacramento Metro, and Ventura County areas.\215\ We also note
that Rule 4702 limits are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements in the Feather River, Placer County, Mojave Desert, and
San Diego areas.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
1.
\215\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-122 to C-
123.
\216\ Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County APCD Rule 242;
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the emission limits for SI non-AO engines in Rule 4702 are,
however, less stringent than those implemented in the South Coast, El
Dorado, and Antelope Valley areas for similar engines. Specifically,
the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC engines; \217\ El
Dorado has adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ``rich-burn'' engines and a
65 ppmv limit for SI ``lean-burn'' engines (except those used
exclusively in agricultural operations); \218\ and Antelope Valley has
adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines (except those used exclusively
in agricultural operations).\219\ The District considered the technical
and economic feasibility of alternative control techniques for SI non-
AO engines that would lower the emission levels for certain engines to
11, 25, and 65 ppmv, but found that for reasons of both technical and
economic feasibility, NOX emission limits lower than those
in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation in the SJV
at this time.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
\218\ El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006.
\219\ Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21,
2003.
\220\ See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EPA's
SJV Rules TSD, which provides a more detailed discussion of the
District's technical and economic feasibility analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX emission
limits ranging from 90 to 150 ppmv.\221\ These NOX emission
limits are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in the Sacramento Metro, Placer County, El Dorado, and
Antelope Valley areas, which exempt AO engines from control
requirements altogether, and are equivalent to analogous control
requirements implemented in the Mojave Desert area.\222\ The SCAQMD,
however, has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC engines,\223\ and the
BAAQMD has adopted NOX emission limits ranging from 25-70
ppmv for all spark-ignited IC engines.\224\ Thus, Rule 4702's
[[Page 6957]]
requirements for SI AO engines are at least as stringent as most but
not all analogous requirements implemented in other parts of
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
3.
\222\ SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; Placer County
APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule
233, as amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as
amended January 21, 2003; and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as
adopted January 23, 2012.
\223\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
\224\ Bay Area AQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8, as amended July 25,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of
alternative control techniques for SI AO engines that would lower their
emission levels and found that for reasons of both technical and
economic feasibility, NOX emission limits lower than those
in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation within SJV's
agricultural industry at this time.\225\ We note that the SCAQMD, like
SJVUAPCD, has provided economic incentive grants for agricultural
engine retrofits and replacement in recognition of unique economic and
technical circumstances in the agricultural industry.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EPA's
SJV Rules TSD.
\226\ SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 2005,
Appendix B: Incentive Funding Available for Agricultural Engine
Emission Reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for compression-ignited IC engines (both those used in
agricultural operations and those used in non-agricultural operations),
Rule 4702 requires that all certified engines meet the EPA's Tier 3 and
Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines and that non-
certified engines meet the same standards or a numerical NOX
emission limit based on engine size.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Gas Turbines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (``Stationary Gas Turbines''), as amended
September 20, 2007, establishes NOX emission limits ranging
from 5 to 25 ppm and related operational requirements for all
stationary gas turbines with greater than 0.3 MW capacity.\228\ These
units operate primarily in the oil and gas production and utility
industries, with some also operating in manufacturing and government
facilities.\229\ The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on
October 21, 2009.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 20, 2007, at
Table 5-3.
\229\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-142.
\230\ 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4703 are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in many other parts of California, including the Sacramento
Metro area, South Coast, and Ventura County.\231\ The District
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternative
control techniques to reduce emissions further, such as the
installation of SCR or installation of entirely new turbine systems,
and concluded that these options are extremely expensive and not
economically feasible.\232\ The District also considered the potential
for installation of EMx system for NOX control and concluded
that this technology requires further testing before it will be
generally available for implementation in the SJV.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-144.
\232\ Id.
\233\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters''), as amended September 18, 2014, is designed to limit
emissions of PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, and
other pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood
burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes
requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood
burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the
SJV.\234\ The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the SIP on
September 30, 2015.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18,
2014.
\235\ 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). Also, EPA approved a
previous version of Rule 4901, as adopted October 16, 2008, into the
SIP on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4901 includes a mandatory two-tiered curtailment program.
During a Level One Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared
when the PM2.5 concentration is forecasted to be between 20-
65 [micro]g/m\3\, operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregistered
wood burning heaters is prohibited, but properly operated wood burning
heaters that meet certification requirements and have a current
registration with the District may be used. During a Level Two Episodic
Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared when the PM2.5
concentration is forecasted to be above 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or the
PM10 concentration is forecasted to be above 135 [micro]g/
m3, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18, 2014, at
paragraph 5.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4901 is at least as stringent as
analogous rules in other areas, including the South Coast, Bay Area,
Sacramento Metro area, Washoe County, Nevada, and Washington
State.\237\ We note that SCAQMD Rule 445 includes a mandatory
curtailment of all devices when the 24-hour average PM2.5
concentration is forecasted above 30 [micro]g/m\3\, and SMAQMD Rule 421
bans operation of all wood burning devices when ambient
PM2.5 concentrations are above 35 [micro]g/m\3\. According
to the District, however, the small increase in emissions from
registered clean burning devices when concentrations are between 20-65
[micro]g/m\3\ in the SJV will be more than offset by the decrease in
emissions from dirty devices when concentrations are between 20-30
[micro]g/m\3\, which will reduce the build-up of emissions during long
periods of stagnation experienced in the wintertime in the Valley.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-156.
\238\ Rule 4901 Staff Report, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4901 incorporates all elements outlined in the EPA's
Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke \239\ and includes comparable
provisions available in other analogous rules. We are not aware of more
stringent measures for reducing residential wood smoke that are
technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV.
Our Technical Support Document to support our separate proposal on Rule
4901 contains a more detailed discussion of this rule in comparison to
analogous rules implemented elsewhere.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' EPA-
456/B-13-001, March 2013.
\240\ U.S. EPA Region 9, ``Technical Support Document for EPA's
Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,'' August
2015. See also section 3.f (Conservation Management Practices) of
the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paved and Unpaved Roads
SJVUAPCD Rule 8061 (``Paved and Unpaved Roads''), as amended August
19, 2004, is designed to limit fugitive dust emissions generated from
paved and unpaved roads. The rule establishes control measures and
design criteria for existing public and private paved or unpaved roads,
road construction projects, and road modification projects, such as
requirements to stabilize unpaved roads by applying water, a uniform
layer of washed gravel, chemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants,
paving, or any other method demonstrated to effectively limit visible
dust to 20% opacity.\241\ The EPA approved this rule into the SIP on
February 17, 2006.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 2004, at section
5.2.1.
\242\ 71 FR 8461 (February 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 8061 to SCAQMD Rule 1156 (``Further
Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing
Facilities''); SCAQMD Rule 1157 (``PM-10 Emission Reductions from
Aggregate and Related Operations''); SMAQMD Rule 403 (``Fugitive
Dust''); VCAPCD Rule 55 (``Fugitive Dust''); Clark County
[[Page 6958]]
Department of Air Quality Section 91 (``Fugitive Dust from Unpaved
Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads''), and Section 93
(``Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping
Equipment'').\243\ Based on these evaluations, SJVUAPCD concluded that
no other areas implemented requirements more stringent than those
already in Rule 8061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-194 to C-
197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the feasibility of requiring control
measures on paved and unpaved roads with less than 26 annual average
daily trips (AADT). Such a measure would require more road owners/
operators to implement control measures to reduce fugitive emissions
from paved and unpaved roads. SJVUAPCD's analysis of the emission
inventory indicates that the majority of the particulate emissions
attributable to unpaved roads are from roads with more than 26 AADT.
Because these roads are already subject to the mitigation requirements
of Rule 8061, the District concluded that the remaining emissions from
unpaved roads with less than 26 AADT provide very little opportunity
for additional emissions reductions. Additionally, the District noted
that emissions from unpaved roads are lowest in the winter months, when
exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard tend to occur. For
these reasons, SJVUAPCD concluded that additional control measures for
paved and unpaved road with less than 26 AADT would not achieve
emission reductions.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ Id. at p. C-196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asphalt/Concrete Operations
SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 (``Visible Emissions''), as amended February 17,
2005, establishes limits on opacity, which is often used as an
indicator of PM emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4309 (``Dryers, Dehydrators,
and Ovens''), as amended December 15, 2005, establishes NOX
and CO emission limits for dryers, dehydrators and ovens firing gaseous
or liquid fuel with a total rated heat input of at least 5.0 MMBtu/hr.
Under Rule 4309, asphalt/concrete manufacturing plants that operate
equipment of this size are subject to NOX emission limits of
4.3 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 12.0 ppm (liquid fuel).\245\ The EPA
approved Rule 4101 into the California SIP on August 11, 2005 \246\ and
approved Rule 4309 into the California SIP on May 30, 2007.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4309, as adopted December 15, 2005, at p. 5.
\246\ 70 FR 46770 (August 11, 2005).
\247\ 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the District, there are no state regulations that
apply to this source category and no analogous rules in the Bay Area,
Sacramento Metro, or Ventura County areas.\248\ The District evaluated
analogous rules implemented in the South Coast and found no
requirements more stringent than those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 and Rule
4309.\249\ We are not aware of more stringent control requirements for
visible emissions or NOX emissions in other California
districts for asphalt plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-219, C-
220.
\249\ Id. (citing SCAQMD Rule 1157 and Rule 403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of using warm mix asphalt (WMA), a newer substance which is produced at
temperatures 25 to 90 degrees (Fahrenheit) lower than hot mix asphalt
(HMA) and which results in lower emissions because it requires less
fuel to heat the asphalt. Although the use of WMA has grown steadily in
the U.S., the District concluded that use of WMA at asphalt production
facilities in the SJV is not technically and economically feasible at
this time given the high costs of, and technical difficulties
associated with, converting equipment.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Id. at pp. C-221, C-225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to evaluate and promote the use of WMA in the SJV, in
close coordination with stakeholders (including asphalt plant
operators, Caltrans, city and county planning agencies, CARB, and the
EPA); to have a draft report available for public review and comment by
December 1, 2015; and to develop a final report by March 31, 2016,
after addressing public comments. As part of this evaluation, the
District committed to (1) evaluate opportunities to further encourage
transportation and county agencies to continue transitioning from HMA
to WMA as feasible, (2) to explore the potential feasibility of
additional control measures and the granting of mitigation credits for
WMA usage through the District's Indirect Source Review (ISR) program,
and (3) to consider outreach and education opportunities for
encouraging project developers and construction managers to increase
the use of WMA.\251\ The District issued its draft report on WMA on
December 1, 2015, starting a 30-day public comment period.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p. 8-3.
\252\ SJVUAPCD, ``Draft Further Study, Warm Mix Asphalt,''
December 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs)
SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (``Confined Animal Facilities''), as amended
October 21, 2010, applies to large dairy, poultry, beef cattle feeding
and swine CAFs and requires operators of such facilities to implement
measures to control VOC emissions for each major stage of operation,
e.g., feeding, silage, milking (dairy), housing, waste management, and
waste storage/application.\253\ According to the District, although
Rule 4570 was developed to limit VOC emissions, the work practice
standards contained in the rule also reduce ammonia emissions--for
example through mitigation measures for nutritional management,
increased cleaning and removal of manure and litter from housing areas,
and land incorporation of manure and litter.\254\ The EPA approved Rule
4570 into the California SIP on January 17, 2012.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ See generally Rule 4570, as amended October 21, 2010; see
also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240.
\254\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, p. C-241.
\255\ 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared the requirements of Rule 4570 with those in
analogous prohibitory rules implemented in other areas, including the
South Coast, Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, Ventura County, Imperial
County, and the State of Idaho, and concluded that Rule 4570 is more
stringent than all of these rules.\256\ For example, Rule 4570 contains
applicability thresholds that are more stringent than those in
analogous rules implemented in the South Coast (Rule 233) and Idaho
(Rule 58.01.01).\257\ We note that it is difficult to directly compare
the requirements among these rules because of the widely varying rule
structures and operations of confined animal facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-236 to C-
267.
\257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for CAFs, including episodic
application of sodium bisulfate (SBS) on manure at dairies, which
converts a greater fraction of ammonia to non-volatile ammonium.\258\
Given the costs of SBS application and its potential adverse impacts on
worker safety and health, cattle health, and water quality, the
District concluded that SBS application this control option is not
technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV at
this time.\259\ The District also evaluated the use of covers to reduce
ammonia from
[[Page 6959]]
lagoons and solid manure storage piles and found no definitive evidence
that such techniques would reduce ammonia emissions. To the contrary,
the District stated, several studies indicated that anaerobic lagoon
covers might increase ammonia emissions.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ Id. at pg. C-267.
\259\ Id.
\260\ Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill, SJVUAPCD to
Andy Steckel, EPA, re: Requested Information, and attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compost Operations
SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (``Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter
Operations''), as adopted March 15, 2007, establishes requirements for
facilities that landfill, land apply, compost, or co-compost biosolids,
animal manure, or poultry litter.\261\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (``Organic
Material Composting''), as adopted August 18, 2011, establishes
requirements for facilities that stockpile and compost greenwaste and
foodwaste materials.\262\ According to the District, although both of
these rules were designed to control VOC emissions, both rules
establish work practice standards that have the co-benefit of reducing
ammonia emissions.\263\ The EPA approved Rules 4565 and 4566 into the
California SIP on January 17, 2012 \264\ and November 29, 2012,\265\
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as adopted March 15,
2007; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-276.
\262\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as adopted August 18,
2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272.
\263\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272 and C-
276.
\264\ 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012).
\265\ 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared the requirements of Rule 4565 and Rule 4566
with those in an analogous prohibitory rule implemented in the South
Coast area (Rule 1133.2) and found that the SCAQMD rule requires in-
vessel composting with 70% to 80% control efficiency for existing and
new facilities, respectively, while SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 requires 10% to
80% control efficiency based on annual throughput.\266\ According to
the District, however, the lower control efficiencies required by
SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 are appropriate because in-vessel composting is not
cost-effective for smaller or medium-sized facilities, and SCAQMD does
not regulate any facilities of the size that is subject to the 80%
control requirement.\267\ Moreover, the District states that Rule 4565
contains a more stringent applicability threshold (100 tpy of
biosolids, animal manure or poultry litter) compared to the
applicability threshold in SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (1,000 tpy VOC).\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-272, C-
273.
\267\ Id.
\268\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for compost operations, including
finished compost covers and water systems, but found that these control
techniques are not technically and economically feasible for compost
operations in the SJV at this time.\269\ The District also noted that
it has funded a project through its Technology Advancement Program that
could potentially reduce ammonia and other emissions at large
greenwaste and/or foodwaste composting facilities--specifically, an
``extended aerated stack pile (eASP) method'' which substitutes diesel-
powered loaders with electronic conveyor systems to build piles, uses
solar-powered blowers to replace diesel-powered windrow turners, and
uses finished compost biofilter covers.\270\ According to the District,
the study authors note that this demonstration project is the first
test of this technology and recommend further testing and evaluation to
assure results on an industry-wide basis.\271\ We note that there are
other environmental benefits associated with composting operations,
including diversion of material from landfills, which should be
considered in evaluating the feasibility of additional controls for
this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ Id. at pp. C-275 to C-276 and C-279.
\270\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E, p. E-15.
\271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. State Measures for Mobile Sources
CARB's BACM and MSM demonstration for mobile sources is in Appendix
D of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. CARB has primary responsibility
for reducing emissions in California from new and existing on-road and
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer
products. Given the need for significant emissions reductions from
mobile sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas,
CARB has been a leader in the development of stringent control measures
for on-road and off-road mobile sources, fuels and consumer
products.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ The Plan does not address CARB's consumer products program
because it is primarily designed to reduce emissions of VOCs, which
the State has excluded from its control strategy for attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with establishing
national emission limits for mobile sources. States are generally
preempted from establishing such limits except for California, which
can establish these limits subject to EPA waiver or authorization under
CAA section 209 (referred to herein as ``waiver measures''). Over the
years, the EPA has issued waivers (for on-road vehicles and engines
measures) or authorizations (for non-road vehicle and engine measures)
\273\ for many mobile source regulations adopted by CARB.\274\
California attainment and maintenance plans, including the 2015
PM2.5 Plan for the SJV, rely on emissions reductions from
implementation of the waiver measures through the use of emissions
models such as EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ California regulations use the term ``off-road'' to refer
to ``nonroad'' vehicles and engines.
\274\ The Clean Air Act assigns mobile source regulation to EPA
through title II of the Act and assigns stationary source regulation
and SIP development responsibilities to the states. In so doing, the
CAA preempts various types of state regulation of mobile sources as
set forth in section 209(a) (preemption of state emissions standards
for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of
state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles and engines), and
section 211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements for
motor vehicles, i.e., other than California's motor vehicle fuel
requirements--see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile
source standards, the State of California may request a waiver or
authorization for state emission standards.
CAA section 209(b)(1) and (e)(2) give California unique
authority under the CAA to regulate emissions from new motor
vehicles and nonroad engines, except for locomotives and engines
used in farm and construction equipment less than 175 horsepower. To
exercise its authority, California must obtain a waiver from EPA
demonstrating that the standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards. Additionally, EPA must grant a waiver unless California's
``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary and capricious;
California does not need the standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; or California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA Sec. 202(a). EPA
has previously stated that consistency with section 202(a) requires
that California's standards must be technologically feasible within
the lead time provided, giving due consideration of costs. See,
e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009) regarding the greenhouse gas
waiver. Once a waiver is granted, compliance with California's new
motor vehicle or engine standards is treated as compliance with
applicable federal standards. In the absence of a waiver, the
applicable federal mobile source standards apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, California has not submitted, and the EPA has not
required that California submit, its mobile source rules that have been
granted a waiver or authorization by the EPA for inclusion in the
California SIP. However, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals held that the EPA's longstanding practice in this regard was
at odds with the CAA requirement that state and local emissions limits
relied upon to meet the NAAQS be enforceable by the EPA or private
citizens through
[[Page 6960]]
adoption and approval of such limits in the SIP.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th
Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Court's ruling, CARB has submitted its mobile
source control rules that have been granted waivers or authorizations
but have not been included in the SIP, and, in a separate rulemaking,
the EPA has proposed to approve these rules into the SIP.\276\ Upon the
EPA's final approval of these rules into the SIP, which the EPA intends
to complete before or concurrent with final action on the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, the measures will be enforceable by the EPA or
private citizens under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to waiver measures, CARB has adopted operational
requirements for in-use vehicles, rules that limit the amounts of
pollutants allowed in transportation fuels, and incentive programs that
provide funding to replace or retrofit older, dirtier vehicles and
equipment with cleaner technologies.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-9 to D-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously determined that California's mobile source
control programs constituted BACM for PM10 purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley.\278\ Since then, the State has adopted additional
mobile source control measures including the Advanced Clean Cars
program, heavy-duty vehicle idling rules, revisions to the State's
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, in-use rules for on-
road and non-road diesel vehicles, and emissions standards for non-road
equipment, farm and cargo handling equipment, and recreational
vehicles.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ 69 FR 5412 at 5419 (February 4, 2004).
\279\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pages D-4 to D-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's BACM and MSM analysis provides a discussion of the measures
adopted and implemented for each of the identified source categories.
We discuss each of these mobile source categories below.
Light and Medium Duty Vehicles
This category includes light-duty passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty trucks. The source category's emissions are
32.2 tpd NOX and 1.9 tpd direct PM2.5.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB has a long history of adopting programs for reducing emissions
from this source category. Light-duty and medium-duty motor vehicles
are currently subject to California's ``Low-Emission Vehicle III'' (LEV
III) standards as well as a ``Zero Emission Vehicle'' (ZEV)
requirement. The LEV III standards are consistent, or harmonized, with
the subsequently adopted national Tier 3 standards for the same
vehicles. California's ZEV program, however, does not have a national
counterpart and results in additional emissions reductions as it phases
in a requirement that 15% of new light-duty vehicle sales consist of
ZEV or partial ZEV.\281\ Taken as a whole, California's standards for
light and medium-duty vehicles are more stringent than the federal
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ 78 FR 2112 at 2119 (January 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has also adopted regulations for gasoline fuel
(California Reformulated Gasoline or CaRFG) which reduce emissions from
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. On July 10, 2009, the EPA approved
the CaRFG regulations into the California SIP.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ 74 FR 33196 (July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
This category includes heavy-duty gas and diesel trucks, heavy-duty
gas and diesel urban buses, school buses and motor homes. The emissions
from this category are 130.6 tpd NOX and 4.8 tpd direct
PM2.5.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has the most stringent heavy-duty vehicle emissions
control measures in the nation, including engine standards for diesel
and gasoline vehicles, idling requirements, certification procedures,
on-board diagnostic requirements, and verification measures for
emissions control devices. Many of these control measures are subject
to the CAA waiver process and have also been submitted for inclusion in
the SIP.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8 to D-12.
See also 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has also adopted many in-use requirements to help reduce
emissions from the vehicles already on the road, which may remain in
use for many years. The most recently adopted in-use requirement is the
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure (``Truck and Bus Regulation
and Drayage Truck Regulation''), which became effective in 2011 and the
EPA approved into the SIP in 2012.\285\ The Truck and Bus Regulation
and Drayage Truck Regulation are designed to reduce emissions of diesel
particulate matter, NOX, and other pollutants from in-use
trucks and buses and establish, among other things, phased-in PM
control requirements from 2014 through 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, California has adopted regulations for diesel fuel that
further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The EPA approved these
diesel fuel regulations into the California SIP on July 10, 2009.\286\
Off-Road Vehicles and Engines
This category includes off-road compression ignition (diesel)
engines and equipment, small spark ignition (gasoline) off-road engines
and equipment less than 25 horsepower (hp) (e.g., lawn and garden
equipment), off-road large gasoline engines and equipment greater than
25 hp (e.g., forklifts, portable generators), and airport ground
service equipment. The emissions from this category total 19.2 tpd
NOX and 1.1 tpd direct PM2.5.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-12 to D-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it has done for the on-road categories discussed above, CARB has
adopted stringent new emissions standards subject to EPA authorization
under CAA section 209(e) and in-use measures or requirements for this
source category (e.g., incentives for early introduction of cleaner
engines and equipment and requirements to limit vehicle idling). CARB
has been regulating off-road equipment since the 1990s and its new
engine standards for off-road vehicles and engines are generally as
stringent as the corresponding federal standards. For larger off-road
equipment, which can have a slow turnover rate, CARB adopted an in-use
off-road regulation in 2007 that requires owners of off-road equipment
in the construction and other industries to retrofit or replace older
engines/equipment with newer, cleaner models. The off-road regulation
also imposes idling limitations.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Equipment
The farm equipment category includes agricultural equipment such as
tractors, harvesting equipment and sprayers. The category's emissions
are 50.4 tpd NOX and 2.9 tpd PM2.5. CARB has
adopted standards identical to the EPA's standards for this off-road
engine category. CARB notes also that State, District, and federal
incentive funds have resulted in the replacement of over 3,000 pieces
of agricultural equipment earlier than required by state and federal
regulations.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Mobile Source Categories
Other mobile source categories identified by CARB in the Plan
include cargo handling equipment, motorcycles, recreational boats, off-
road recreational vehicles and commercial harbor craft. The emissions
from all of these
[[Page 6961]]
categories total 3.5 tpd NOX and 0.5 tpd direct
PM2.5. Although CARB considers these categories
``insignificant'' for BACM purposes in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan,
CARB provided a discussion of the emission standards and other measures
it has adopted to control emissions from these categories.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15 to D-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
TCMs are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from
on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or
traffic congestion. TCMs can reduce PM2.5 emissions in both
the on-road motor vehicle exhaust and paved road dust source categories
by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. They can
also reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by relieving congestion. EPA
guidance states that where mobile sources contribute significantly to
PM2.5 violations, ``the state must, at a minimum, address
the transportation control measures listed in CAA section 108(f) to
determine whether such measures are achievable in the area considering
energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs.'' \291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Addendum at 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current efforts by the SJV's eight local jurisdiction
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) \292\ to implement cost-
effect transportation control measures (TCM) are described in Chapter
6.5.6 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.\293\ The Plan includes a
discussion of the on-going implementation of a broad range of TCMs in
the Valley. There is also a discussion of the MPOs' Congestion
Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding policy, which is a
standardized process across the Valley for distributing 20% of the CMAQ
funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley air basin: The San Joaquin Council of Governments,
the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association
of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the
Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County Association of
Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and Kern
Council of Governments.
\293\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6.5.6, p. 6-19.
\294\ For an example of the CMAQ funding policy implemented by
the eight SJV MPOs, see ``Resolution To Adopt The Local Cost-
Effectiveness Congestion Mitigation And Air Quality (CMAQ) Program
Policy,'' San Joaquin Council Of Governments (SJCOG), R-08-03, July
26, 2007,'' and ``Exhibit A, Local Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ Policy,''
SJCOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Valley MPO is required to update its Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) at least once every four years.\295\ The RTP is a long-term
regional transportation plan that provides a vision for transportation
investments throughout the Valley. To further illustrate the eight SJV
MPOs' commitment to the implementation of TCMs, the RTPs contain a host
of improvements to the regional multimodal transportation system
including: Active transportation (e.g., biking and walking),
transportation demand management, transportation system management,
transit, passenger rail, goods movement, aviation and airport ground
access, highways, arterials, and operations and maintenance. Included
within these transportation system improvements are TCM projects that
reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions,
such as: Improved transit, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic flow
improvements, park and ride lots, ridesharing/trip reduction programs,
and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.\296\ These projects are listed in
each MPO's conformity analysis for the 2014 RTP and 2015 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).\297\ The FTIP is a four-year
spending plan that lists every transportation project that will receive
federal funds or that is subject to a federally required action, such
as a review and approval of environmental documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ 23 CFR 450.322(c)
\296\ See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government's Conformity
Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted
June 26, 2014, Appendix D, Timely Implementation Documentation for
Transportation Control Measures. The 2014 RTP is combined with the
Sustainable Communities Strategy to integrate land use and
transportation planning to achieve, where feasible, regional
greenhouse gas (GHG) targets set by the CARB pursuant to Senate Bill
375, which identifies specific GHG reduction goals for each of
California's MPOs in 2020 and 2035.
\297\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SJV has a long history of adopting and then enhancing programs
to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles by reducing vehicle
miles traveled, vehicle trips, and/or congestion. For example, Rule
9410 (``Employer Based Trip Reduction'' or ``eTRIP''), requires larger
employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
to encourage employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus
reducing emissions, including PM2.5 and NOX,
associated with work commutes.\298\ The MPOs implement public outreach
programs to encourage people to reduce driving, programs to improve
bicycling and pedestrian travel, and an extensive program to
synchronize traffic lights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ EPA, Final rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Reduction
Programs,'' pre-publication notice signed December 11, 2015; see
also 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015) (proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our approval of California's Serious area plan for the 1987
PM10 NAAQS in the SJV \299\ (``2003 PM10 Plan''),
we determined that the measures in the ``Regional Transportation
Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document'' (April 2002)
\300\ satisfied the PM10 BACM requirement for TCMs.\301\ In
May 2003, the San Joaquin Valley MPO Executive Directors committed to
conduct feasibility analyses as part of each successive RTP in support
of the 2003 PM10 Plan. The MPOs retained this commitment in
the PM10 maintenance plan for the SJV area adopted September
20, 2007.\302\ In accordance with their commitment and in preparation
for their 2014 RTPs, the MPOs reviewed several PM10 Plans
adopted in other areas since 2009.\303\ From their reviews, the MPOs
concluded no additional on-road fugitive dust controls measures were
available for consideration. In consultation with CARB and the
District, however, the MPOs considered priority funding allocations in
the 2014 RTPs for PM10 and NOX emission reduction
projects for the measures listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ SJVUAPCD, ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley
Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter of 10
Microns and Smaller,'' submitted August 19, 2003 as amended by
subsequent submission of December 30, 2003.
\300\ SJVUAPCD, ``Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Commitments for Implementation Document,'' April 2002.
\301\ 69 FR 30006 at 30020, 30035 (May 26, 2004).
\302\ SJVUAPCD, ``2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Request for Redesignation,'' submitted November 16, 2007. Chapter 7,
p. 21.
\303\ PM10 Plans reviewed included: Puerto Rico,
Municipality of Guaynabo, PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan;
Nogales, AZ, PM10 Attainment Demonstration; Coso
Junction, CA, PM10 Maintenance Plan, May 17, 2010;
Sacramento, CA, PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan,
October 28, 2010; Truckee Meadows, NV, PM10 Maintenance
Plan, May 2009; and Eagle River, AK, PM10 Maintenance
Plan, adopted August 2010.
Paving or Stabilizing Unpaved Roads and Alleys
Curbing, Paving, or Stabilizing Shoulders on Paved Roads
Frequent Routine Sweeping or Cleaning of Paved Roads (i.e.,
funding allocation for the purchase of PM10 efficient street
sweepers for member jurisdictions); and
Repave or Overlay Paved Roads with Rubberized Asphalt.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government's Conformity
Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted
June 26, 2014, Chapter 4, Section E, p. 42.
In their implementation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, the SJV MPOs evaluate and
prioritize the
[[Page 6962]]
reduction of PM10 emissions in the CMAQ scoring criteria.
The MPOs continue to implement the adopted San Joaquin Valley CMAQ
Policy, which was included in the District's plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS \305\ and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The CMAQ policy
includes a standardized process for distributing 20% of the CMAQ funds
to projects that meet a minimum cost effectiveness beginning in fiscal
year 2011. This policy focuses on achieving the most cost effective
emissions reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local
needs. The 2015 FTIP includes a listing of all transportation-related
projects requiring federal funding or other approval by the federal
transportation agencies. The aggregate funding allocated \306\ for TCMs
in the eight SJV 2015 FTIPs includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ SJVUAPCD, ``2007 Ozone Plan,'' April 30, 2007, which EPA
approved on March 1, 2012. (78 FR 12652).
\306\ Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Figure 6-2
Illustration of Valley MPO Funding for Sample TCM Categories, p. 6-
20. The funding in the 2015 FTIPs covers the federal fiscal years
(i.e., October 1-September 30) 2014/2015 through 2017/2018. An
example 2015 FTIP, the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program, Fresno Council of Governments, is included in the docket
for today's action and available at http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/FTIP/2015_FTIP/FINAL_2015_FTIP_8-13-14.pdf.
Improved transit; ($928,000,000)
traffic flow improvements ($499,381,000)
park and ride lots; ($2,666,346)
ridesharing/trip reduction programs; ($7,630,000)
bicycle/pedestrian facilities ($6,650,000)
3. Conclusion
Based on all of these evaluations, we propose to find that the 2015
PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM and MSM
for sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
Section 188(e) of the Act allows the EPA to extend the attainment
date for a serious area for up to five years if attainment by the
applicable date is impracticable. However, before we may grant an
extension of the attainment date, the State must first:
(1) Apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM2.5
attainment date beyond 2015,
(2) demonstrate that attainment by 2015 is impracticable,
(3) have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to
the area in its implementation plan,
(4) demonstrate to our satisfaction that its serious area plan
includes the most stringent measures that are achieved in practice in
any state and are feasible for the area, and
(5) submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
We evaluate the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's compliance with each
of these requirements below.
1. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
As discussed in section IV.D of this proposed rule, for the SJV,
the Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31, 2015. The first criterion
of an extension of the attainment date beyond this statutory attainment
date is that the State must apply for such extension. In the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD submit a complete application
for an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the SJV to
December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and to
December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan: CARB Resolution 15-9, May 21,
2015 (submitting the Plan to EPA as a SIP revision); SJVAPCD,
Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 1 (adopting the 2015
PM2.5 Plan); and Chapter 4, p. 4-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
Despite the implementation of BACM as expeditiously as practicable,
as discussed in section V.D. above, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
shows that attainment by the Serious area attainment date is
impracticable. We discuss below the air quality data that support the
State's and District's demonstration of impracticability.
Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan presents
data showing that the SJV area cannot attain the 1997 PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards by December 31, 2015.\308\ Specifically,
the District provided ambient PM2.5 air quality data from
monitoring sites in the SJV, including 2013 measured concentrations and
2014 measured and estimated concentrations, and then calculated the
maximum 2015 annual average and 24-hour concentrations for each
monitoring site that would result in a 3-year average PM2.5
concentration of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., annual design value), and 3-
year average 98th percentile concentration of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e.,
24-hour design value), at each monitoring site. The District states
that several of the maximum allowable 2015 concentrations are so low,
and in one instance a negative number, that attaining the standards by
December 31, 2015 is impracticable.\309\ A separate analysis is
presented for the annual and 24-hour standards and we have evaluated
each with respect to demonstrating impracticability of attaining the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-1 to 4-5.
\309\ Id. at pp. 4-3 to 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual average value for a given year is calculated using the
quarterly average concentrations for that year, while the 24-hour value
for a given year is calculated using the 98th percentile of 24-hour
average concentrations for that year.\310\ At the time the District
compiled monitoring data for this purpose in January 2015, actual
PM2.5 measurements were available for 2013 and most of 2014
from the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. For the remainder of
the 2014 data, preliminary monitoring measurements were used for the
latter portion of 2014 and, for four of the 16 monitors used in the
analysis, the District used 2013 4th quarter data for the 2014 4th
quarter data, since the 2014 filter data from those monitors were not
yet available.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, sections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.
\311\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-1, p. 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard
by December 31, 2015
According to the District, the maximum 2015 annual average
concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site (which recorded the area's
highest annual average in 2013, and is estimated to have the highest
annual average in 2014) that will enable the site to show a design
value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for 2015 is negative 2.4 [micro]g/
m\3\.\312\ In addition, the District calculates that the Hanford,
Visalia-Church, and Bakersfield-California monitoring sites (which are
in the three southern-most counties in the SJV) would have to each
average under 10 [micro]g/m\3\, and states that such concentrations are
unlikely given historical PM2.5 concentrations in the
SJV.\313\ Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the 2015
PM2.5 Plan concludes that it is impracticable for the
Hanford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-California, and Bakersfield-Planz
monitoring sites, to show an annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value
at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ by December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ Id.
\313\ Id. at p. 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA independently evaluated 2013 and 2014 PM2.5 air
quality data
[[Page 6963]]
that had been uploaded to AQS as of June 30, 2015, and as of January
20, 2016, to assess the District's representations.\314\ Table 4 shows
the annual average PM2.5 concentrations that were recorded
in 2013 and 2014 and that the EPA estimated for 2015 at selected
monitoring sites. The average annual concentrations in 2013 and 2014
were higher than in 2012, and in several cases the 2013 and 2014 values
were significantly higher than the 2012 value, especially at the
Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, whose annual average concentrations
for 2013 and 2014 were each over 20 [micro]g/m\3\.\315\ Based on the
annual average concentrations observed in 2013 and 2014, the EPA
calculated the maximum annual average concentration for seven
monitoring sites that would enable each site to show a 2015 annual
average PM2.5 design value at or below 15.04 [micro]g/
m\3\.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ See Section III (``Analysis of Practicability of
Attainment'') and Appendix A (``Data Worksheets for Analysis of
Practicability of Attainment'') of the EPA's General TSD.
\315\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions
associated with the extreme drought in California, including low
precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversions, among the
reasons for the high PM2.5 concentrations observed in the
winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp.
4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5.
\316\ The small differences between the District's and EPA's
calculations of ``maximum 2015'' values are due to EPA's use of
certified, rather than preliminary, 2014 data and different rounding
conventions. EPA's calculations of maximum 2015 values are based on
the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, which
provides that intermediate calculations are not rounded, and that a
design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 [micro]g/m\3\ is
rounded down to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 4.3. In computing the maximum 2015 concentration consistent
with attainment and consistent with 2013 and 2014 annual mean
concentrations, EPA did not round the 2013 and 2014 means in the
intermediate steps of the calculation, and used 15.04 [micro]g/m\3\
as the highest design value consistent with the standard. In
contrast, the calculations presented in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan rounded the 2013 and 2014 means to one decimal place initially,
and used 15.00 [micro]g/m\3\ as the highest attaining design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA found that four monitoring sites located in the three
southern-most counties of the SJV would have to have 2015 annual mean
concentrations 35% or more below their corresponding historical lows in
order to attain by the end of 2015.\317\ The most extreme example is
the Bakersfield-Planz Rd. monitoring site, which would require
approximately 95% below the previously recorded low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ See section III and Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
Table 4--2013 and 2014 Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations (in [micro]g/m\3\) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Annual Average Maximum To
Attain in 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Estimate for Lowest recorded
Annual Annual max. 2015 annual annual average Max. 2015% below
average in average in average allowed 1999-2014 (year) lowest recorded
2013 \a\ 2014 \a\ to attain \b\ \b\ annual average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanford........................................................ 18.18 17.47 9.47 14.79 (2012) 36
Visalia........................................................ 18.90 17.88 8.34 13.58 (2010) 39
Bakersfield-California......................................... 19.95 18.55 6.62 13.03 (2012) 49
Bakersfield-Planz.............................................. 22.79 21.61 0.72 14.45 (2011) 95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480.
\b\ See Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period indicate that it
is not practicable for the Hanford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-
California, and Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites to show an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ by
December 31, 2015. While our analyses resulted in slightly different
numbers for the maximum annual average concentrations allowed to attain
for 2015, they are consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the
2015 PM2.5 Plan that attainment is impracticable at these
sites. As such, we propose to determine that the SJV area cannot
practicably attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015.
Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5
Standard by December 31, 2015
According to the District, the maximum 2015 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site (which
recorded the area's highest 24-hour average in 2013 and was estimated
to have recorded the highest 24-hour average concentration in 2014)
that will enable the site to show a design value at or below 65
[micro]g/m\3\ for 2015 is 15.9 [micro]g/m\3\.\318\ In addition, the
District states that other monitoring sites in the southern portion of
the SJV would have to record improbably low 2015 average
concentrations, of which the lowest are the Hanford and Bakersfield-
California sites at 44.6 [micro]g/m\3\ and 44.4 [micro]g/m\3\,
respectively.\319\ Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the
2015 PM2.5 Plan concludes that it is not possible for the
Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, and extremely unlikely for the
Hanford and Bakersfield-California sites, to show a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 65 [micro]g/m\3\ by
December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-2, p. 4-5.
\319\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the annual standard, the EPA independently evaluated 2013
and 2014 PM2.5 air quality data available in AQS as of June
30, 2015, and as of January 20, 2016, to assess the District's
representations.\320\ Table 5 shows the 98th percentile 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentrations that were recorded in 2013 and 2014 and
the maximum concentrations allowed to attain that the EPA estimated for
2015 at selected monitoring sites. The 98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations in 2013 and 2014 were higher than in 2012, and in some
cases the 2013 and 2014 values were significantly higher than the 2012
value, especially at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, whose 98th
percentile concentration for 2013 was over 95 [micro]g/m\3\.\321\ Based
on the 98th percentile values observed in 2013 and 2014, the EPA
calculated the maximum 98th percentile 24-hour concentration for six
monitoring sites that would enable the site to show a 2015 24-hour
PM2.5 design value at or below 65.4 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ See section III and Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
\321\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions
associated with the extreme drought in California, including low
precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversions, among the
reasons for the high PM2.5 concentrations observed in the
winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp.
4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA found that the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site would have
to have a 2015 annual mean concentration recorded at 44% below its
[[Page 6964]]
corresponding historical low in order to attain by the end of
2015.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ See Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
Table 5--2013 and 2014 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (in [micro]g/m\3\) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Maximum 98th Percentile
Concentrations for 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimate for
98th 98th max. 2015 98th Lowest recorded Max. 2015% below
Percentile in Percentile in percentile 98th percentile lowest recorded
2013 \a\ 2014 \a\ allowed to attain 1999-2014 (year) annual average
\b\ \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanford........................................................ 67.6 81.9 46.7 48.3 (2012) 3
Bakersfield-California......................................... 71.8 79.9 44.5 53.3 (2010) 17
Bakersfield-Planz.............................................. 96.7 76.7 22.8 40.6 (2012) 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480.
\b\ Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
For these three sites, the EPA's analysis largely confirms the
analysis presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan of the maximum
98th percentile concentration allowed for the SJV to attain the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 2015 (e.g., EPA
estimated maximum is 22.8 [micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-Planz compared
to District estimated maximum of 15.9 [micro]g/m\3\, both of which are
well below the historic low). For the Bakersfield-California site, the
estimated maximum 98th percentile concentrations are 17% below the
historic low, which is quite low, while the estimated maximum 98th
percentile concentration at Hanford site is not drastically different
than its historic low. However, such values would appear very unlikely
given the 98th percentile values in 2013 and 2014 and do not alter the
clear impracticability of attaining the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
standard at the Bakersfield-Planz site.
In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period indicate that it
is not practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an
annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ by December 31, 2015. While our analysis resulted in slightly
different numbers for the maximum annual average concentrations for
2015, they are consistent with the Plan's analysis and conclusion that
attainment is impracticable at this site. As such, we propose to
determine that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 2015.
3. Compliance With All Requirements and Commitments in the
Implementation Plan
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented
the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172
and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For a Serious area
attainment date extension request being submitted simultaneously with
the initial Serious area attainment plan for the area, the EPA proposes
to read section 188(e) not to require the area to have a fully approved
Moderate area attainment plan and to allow for extension of the
attainment date if the area has complied with all Moderate area
requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the State's
submitted Moderate area implementation plan. This interpretation is
based on the plain language of section 188(e), which requires the State
to comply with ``all requirements and commitments pertaining to [the]
area in the implementation plan.'' \323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,\324\ which we refer to collectively
as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the
contingency measures, which the EPA disapproved.\325\ As part of this
action, the EPA approved, among other things, commitments by CARB and
the SJVUAPCD to take specific actions with respect to identified
control measures and to achieve specific amounts of NOX,
SOX, and direct PM2.5 emission reductions by
2014.\326\ In July 2013, the State submitted a revised PM2.5
contingency measure plan for the SJV, which the EPA fully approved in
May 2014.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\325\ Id. at 69924.
\326\ Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2),
52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2)).
\327\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
decision in a challenge to the EPA's November 9, 2011 action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan.\328\ In Committee for a Better Arvin et. al
v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (CBA), the court held that the
EPA violated the CAA by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan even
though the plan did not include certain state-adopted mobile source
emission standards on which the plan relied to achieve its emission
reduction goals.\329\ The CBA court remanded the EPA's action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan for further proceedings consistent with the
decision but did not vacate the EPA's action.\330\ Thus, absent an EPA
rulemaking to withdraw or revise the EPA's November 2011 approval of
the control measure and emission reduction commitments in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, all of these commitments remain enforceable
components of the California SIP.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169
(9th Cir. 2015).
\329\ Id.
\330\ Id.
\331\ As a consequence of the CBA decision, EPA recently
proposed to withdraw its May 2014 approval of the District's
PM2.5 contingency measure submission and to disapprove
this submission in its entirety. 80 FR 49190 (August 17, 2015). Upon
EPA's final withdrawal of this action and disapproval of the
PM2.5 contingency measure submission, the measures and
commitments in this submission will no longer be required components
of the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific State and District commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
as follows:
(1) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan'' in accordance with the
timetable specified in Table 6-2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as
[[Page 6965]]
amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB
for transmittal to the EPA as SIP revisions; \332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (June 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896
at 69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures identified in
Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,'' dated
April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report), in accordance with the timetable
specified therein; \333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB Resolution No. 07-
28, Attachment B (September 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34
(April 24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921-69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of
NOX emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct PM2.5
emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SOX emission reductions
by 2014 as described in Table 6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c,
respectively, of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; and
(4) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2014 as described in CARB
Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and 2011.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA's final action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied
substantial portions of these control measure and emission reduction
commitments. Specifically, the District had adopted 12 of the 13
measures that it had committed to adopt and implement as part of its
control strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standards, leaving
one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014 (Rule
4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central
Furnaces'').\335\ CARB had proposed action on six of the seven measures
that it had committed to propose for Board consideration as part of its
PM2.5 control strategy for the SJV, leaving one additional
measure that was scheduled for proposal in 2013 (``New Emissions
Standards for Recreational Boats'').\336\ Finally, together CARB and
the District had achieved all of the SOX emission reduction
commitments and substantial portions of the direct PM2.5 and
NOX emission reduction commitments through implementation of
State and District control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emission reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (``San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule
Commitments'').
\336\ 76 FR 69896 at 69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011) (``2007
State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and
Current Status'').
\337\ Id. at 69923, Table 4 (``Reductions Needed for Attainment
Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CARB Staff Report for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan \338\
contains the State's demonstration that both CARB and the District have
satisfied the commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that
remained outstanding as of November 9, 2011, as follows. First, on
January 22, 2015, the District adopted Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015,
CARB submitted this rule to the EPA as a revision to the California
SIP.\339\ Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for Board
consideration, and the Board adopted, new emission standards for
recreational boats entitled ``Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Spark-Ignited Watercraft.'' \340\ These State and
District rulemaking actions satisfied the last remaining commitments
concerning specific control measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 17-22
and Appendix B.
\339\ CARB Staff Report, Table 7, p. 19 and letter dated April
7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting air
district regulations to EPA as California SIP revisions).
\340\ CARB Staff Report, Table 8, p. 20; see also http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/simw2015.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the outstanding emission reduction commitments
(also called ``aggregate commitments''), Tables 9 and 10 of the CARB
Staff Report, as amended by CARB's Technical Clarifications, identify
nine specific State and District control measures that, according to
CARB, achieved emission reductions beyond those already credited toward
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and that satisfy the State's remaining
2014 emission reduction obligations. These measures are identified in
Table 6.
Table 6--2008 PM2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment--State and District-
Identified Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Emission reductions
(annual average tpd)
Measure -------------------------------
NOX Direct PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction 1.8 0.0
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr)..............................
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)...... 1.0 0.1
Woodstove Replacements.................. 0.0 0.1
District Funded Incentive-Based Emission 1.5 0.1
Reduction Measures.....................
Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip 0.3 0.0
Reduction).............................
Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and 0.0 1.3
Wood Burning Heaters)..................
State Funded Incentive-Based Emission 7.8 0.2
Reduction Measures.....................
CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 11.5 0.1
Measure................................
CARB Portable Equipment Registration 2.5 0.2
Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM
-------------------------------
Total Emission Reductions........... 26.4 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB Staff Report, pp. 21, 22 and Technical Clarifications, pp.
2 to 4.
We have reviewed the State's demonstration with respect to each of
these nine measures and, for the reasons provided below, we propose to
find that all but one may be credited toward the State's outstanding
2014 emission reduction obligations.
First, with respect to SJVUAPCD's Rule 4320 (``Advanced Emission
Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters
Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr''), also called the ``AERO Rule,'' the EPA
approved this rule as adopted October 2008 into the
[[Page 6966]]
California SIP on March 25, 2011 \341\ but did not credit the rule with
any emission reductions as part of the attainment demonstration in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan.\342\ In the proposal to approve this rule
into the SIP, the EPA stated that because this rule allows regulated
entities to pay a fee in lieu of meeting NOX emission
limits, the State would need to demonstrate that the fee provisions
achieve emission reductions that are quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable, and permanent consistent with EPA guidance before relying
on this rule for credit in an attainment plan.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
\342\ 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 93-94, Table F-4
(September 30, 2011); see also CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p.
B-7 and Table B-8.
\343\ 75 FR 68294 at 68295 (November 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has
documentation showing that operators of 472 of the units subject to
Rule 4320 chose to pay fees and that operators of the remaining 692
units subject to the rule chose to retrofit their equipment to comply
with the NOX emission limits in the rule.\344\ CARB also
explained that, based on these enforceable emission limits, the
District estimated that the operators of the 692 units that did not pay
fees had achieved 1.8 tpd of actual NOX emission reductions
by the beginning of 2014, based on an operating capacity of 50% or
75%.\345\ We find this documentation adequate to credit Rule 4320 with
1.8 tpd of NOX emission reductions toward the State's
outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B-7.
\345\ Id. at p. B-8, Table B-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to SJVUAPCD's Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source
Review''), the EPA approved this rule as adopted December 2005 into the
California SIP on May 9, 2011 \346\ but did not credit the rule with
any emission reductions as part of the attainment demonstration in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan.\347\ In the final rule to approve Rule 9510
into the SIP, the EPA identified a number of concerns about the
enforceability of the rule's provisions, e.g., provisions that allow
project developers to pay a fee instead of implementing on-site
pollution mitigation plans, and noted that the State would need to
resolve these enforceability issues before relying on this rule for
credit in an attainment plan.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).
\347\ 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 100-101; see also
CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at pp. B-6 and B-7.
\348\ 76 FR 26609 at 26612-26613 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has
documentation of the number of projects that have complied with the
rule through on-site mitigation (instead of payment of a fee) and the
associated reductions in on-site emissions of NOX and
PM10.\349\ The project information provided in Appendix B-2
of the CARB Staff Report, however, is not adequate for the EPA to
determine what types of mitigation plans were implemented, to verify
that those plans were implemented as proposed, or to estimate the
associated emission reductions. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the
District or any other state or local agency is authorized to enforce
these mitigation plans. We find this documentation insufficient to
credit Rule 9510 with any emission reductions toward the State's
outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ CARB Staff Report at p. B-6, B-7 (referencing list of
projects in Appendix B-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, with respect to wood stove replacements, the CARB Staff
Report explains that the District implements a voluntary wood stove
replacement program that provides funding for residents to replace less
efficient wood stoves with more efficient gas-burning devices.\350\
CARB also notes that the District has provided a list of wood stoves
replaced through this program as of December 31, 2013, together with
documentation of the calculation methodologies and related emission
factors that it used to calculate the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions achieved by these wood stove replacements.\351\ All wood
stoves are installed by a District contracted retailer, with pre- and
post-installation photographs provided to the District. Old wood or
pellet inserts/stoves are removed and surrendered to a licensed
recycling/dismantling facility within 60 days of installation.\352\ We
find this documentation adequate to credit the District's wood stove
replacement program with 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions toward the State's outstanding 2014 emission reduction
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ Id. at pp. B-5.
\351\ Id. at pp. B-5, B-6 and Appendix B-1.
\352\ See SJVAPCD Burn Cleaner Voucher Guidelines, dated
December 2014, available at: http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/burncleaner/2014/BC_Guidelines.pdf; and SJVAPCD Burn Cleaner Voucher
Application--Phase 1, dated December 2014, available at: http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/burncleaner/2014/BC_VoucherApp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, with respect to District-funded incentive programs, CARB
provided a list of stationary and portable agricultural engines and
off-road agricultural equipment that were repowered, retrofitted with
controls, or replaced with newer equipment through incentive funds
disbursed by the District pursuant to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air
Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program).
Specifically, the CARB Staff Report documents the State's bases for
concluding that a total of 824 incentive projects implemented in the
SJV between January 2009 and December 2013 in accordance with specified
portions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines have achieved a total of
1.8 tons per day (tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 0.1
tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions in the SJV, which may be
credited toward the State's 2014 emission reduction commitment.\353\
The EPA previously reviewed the identified portions of the Carl Moyer
Program Guidelines and found that they adequately address the EPA's
recommended integrity elements for economic incentive programs.\354\ We
find this documentation sufficient to credit these District-funded
projects with 1.8 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.1 tpd
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions toward the State's
outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ CARB Staff Report, pp. B-9 to B-12; Technical
Clarifications at 2-4; and Revised Appendix B-3.
\354\ The specified portions of the guidelines that apply to the
identified projects are contained in The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revision 2005; The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revision 2008; and The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revision 2011. See CARB Staff Report at Table
B-10. EPA has reviewed these portions of the Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines and found that they adequately address EPA's recommended
integrity elements for economic incentive programs. 79 FR 29327 (May
22, 2014); see also 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, with respect to SJVUAPCD's Rule 9410 (``Employer Based Trip
Reduction''), CARB submitted this rule as adopted December 2009 to the
EPA as a revision to the California SIP on May 17, 2010, and on
December 11, 2015, the EPA fully approved the rule into the SIP.\355\
Accordingly, the emission reductions that the State and District have
attributed to this rule (0.3 tpd of NOX emission reductions)
are creditable toward the State's outstanding 2014 emission reduction
obligation. As part of the EPA's proposed action on Rule 9410, the EPA
evaluated the District's estimates of emission reductions achieved by
the rule and found the District's calculations to be technically sound
and
[[Page 6967]]
generally consistent with the planning assumptions in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.\356\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ EPA, Final rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Reduction
Programs,'' pre-publication notice signed December 11, 2015.
\356\ 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixth, with respect to SJVUAPCD's Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters''), the EPA approved this rule as
adopted October 2008 into the California SIP on November 10, 2009 \357\
and credited the rule with 1.08 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions in 2014 as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.\358\ In the CARB Staff Report, the State
explained that it now has documentation of additional direct
PM2.5 emission reductions achieved by this rule based on an
updated methodology for calculating emission reductions from its
curtailment program. Specifically, the District reviewed ambient air
quality data for a more recent period (2009-2013) to determine the
number of ``No Burn'' days that would have been required under the
mandatory curtailment level (30 [micro]g/m\3\) in the October 2008
version of Rule 4901. This updated air quality data resulted in a
larger number of ``No Burn'' days compared to the District's prior
calculation, which was based on 2006 air quality data.\359\ We find
this documentation adequate to credit Rule 4901 with 1.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions toward the State's outstanding
2014 emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\357\ 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009).
\358\ 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at p. 93, Table F-4
(September 30, 2011); see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1
(November 9, 2011).
\359\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Technical Clarifications, p.
1; and CARB Staff Report, Appendix B, p. B-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventh, with respect to State Funded Incentive-Based Emission
Reduction Measures, CARB submitted the ``Report on Reductions Achieved
from Incentive-based Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin
Valley'' (Emission Reduction Report) to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP on November 17, 2014,\360\ and on August 24, 2015, the
EPA proposed to fully approve this report into the SIP.\361\ As part of
this proposal, the EPA evaluated the State's demonstration that
specified portions of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program
guidelines adequately address the EPA's recommended integrity elements
for economic incentive programs and that the identified projects funded
pursuant to these guidelines achieved 7.8 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions by the beginning of 2014.\362\ Upon final approval of this
demonstration into the California SIP, these emission reductions would
be creditable toward the State's 2014 emission reduction obligation.
Thus, final action by the EPA to fully approve the Emission Reduction
Report before or concurrent with our final action on the 2015
PM2.5 Plan would suffice to credit these state-funded
projects with 7.8 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions toward the State's
outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\360\ CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B-2.
\361\ 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015).
\362\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighth, with respect to CARB's Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks
measure (also called the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation), the EPA approved these rules as adopted September 2011
into the California SIP on April 4, 2012 \363\ and credited the rules
with 1.1 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 1.7 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions in 2014 as part of the
attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\364\ In the
CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has documentation of
additional NOX and direct PM2.5 emission
reductions achieved by these rules by the beginning of 2014, based on
current compliance reports indicating that diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) are more efficient than original estimates and that a larger
than expected number of truck and bus owners had purchased new vehicles
(which are cleaner than retrofits) rather than installing retrofit
DPFs.\365\ We find this documentation adequate to credit CARB's Cleaner
In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks measure with 11.5 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions toward the State's outstanding 2014 emission reduction
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\363\ 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012).
\364\ 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD, Table F-8, p. 99
(September 30, 2011).
\365\ CARB Staff Report, Appendix B, pp. B-2 to B-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to CARB's Portable Equipment Registration
Program (PERP) and Portable Engine Airborne Toxic Control Measure
(Portable Engine ATCM), CARB adopted these programs in 1997 and 2004,
respectively, to reduce pollution by requiring the removal of
uncertified engines from the registered fleet of nonroad engines
operating in California.\366\ The EPA did not credit either of these
programs with emission reductions as part of the attainment
demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\367\ On December 6,
2012, the EPA granted California's request for authorization under CAA
section 209(e)(2) to implement both the PERP and the Portable Engine
ATCM.\368\ On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted these measures to the EPA
for SIP approval and on November 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve
both measures as revisions to the California SIP.\369\ Upon final
approval of these measures into the SIP, their requirements will be
federally enforceable and the associated emission reductions will be
creditable for attainment planning purposes in the SJV. Thus, final
action by the EPA to fully approve the PERP and the Portable Engine
ATCM before or concurrent with our final action on the 2015
PM2.5 Plan would suffice to credit these measures with 2.5
tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of
PM2.5 reductions toward the State's outstanding 2014
emission reduction obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\366\ Id. at pp. B-4, B-5 and Technical Clarifications, p. 3.
\367\ 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD, Table F-8, p. 99
(September 30, 2011).
\368\ 77 FR 72846 and 77 FR 72851 (December 6, 2012).
\369\ Letter dated August 14, 2015, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments.
80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the CARB Staff Report, implementation of these control
measures resulted in NOX emission reductions that exceeded
the State's outstanding NOX commitment by 13.9 tpd by the
beginning of 2014.\370\ Citing air quality modeling conducted as part
of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB stated that a reduction of 9
tpd of NOX emissions provides an air quality improvement
equivalent to a 1 tpd reduction in directly emitted PM2.5.
On this basis, CARB concluded that an 8.1 tpd portion of the 13.9 tpd
of surplus NOX reductions achieved through implementation of
the identified State and District measures adequately covered the small
shortfall (0.9 tpd) in required reductions of direct
PM2.5.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\370\ CARB Staff Report at pp. 21, 22.
\371\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 identifies the State and District measures that the EPA is
proposing to credit toward the State's outstanding 2014 emission
reduction obligations, the amount of SIP-creditable emission reductions
for each measure, and the 9:1 NOX for PM2.5
trading ratio \372\ calculation that the EPA is proposing to accept for
this purpose. The total amount of SIP-creditable NOX
emission reductions associated with the identified control measures
(25.4 tpd) exceeds the State's outstanding NOX emission
reduction commitment (12.9
[[Page 6968]]
tpd) by 12.5 tpd.\373\ We believe the technical bases for a 9:1
NOX for PM2.5 trading ratio are generally sound
and have therefore used this trading ratio to credit the State with 1
additional tpd of PM2.5 emission reduction (based on 9 tpd
of ``excess'' NOX emission reductions) toward its
outstanding 2014 commitment. In evaluating the interpollutant trading
used for the aggregate commitments (as well as for Reasonable Further
Progress and for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for conformity), the
EPA considered the regulatory basis for allowing interpollutant
trading, 24-hour and annual averaging times, the pollutant trading
direction, the geographical extent of emissions, the conservativeness
and the numerical stability of the ratio, and the geographical
variation of the trading ratio. For further discussion of our
evaluation of the 9:1 NOX to PM2.5 trading ratio
for purposes of the aggregate commitment, please see section IV.C of
the EPA's ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Evaluation of
Interpollutant Trading Ratios For Fine Particulate Matter Emissions in
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,'' January 2016
(``Interpollutant Trading Ratios TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ We use ``trading ratio'' in this action to refer to the
extent to which reductions of one pollutant are substituted for
necessary reductions of another pollutant.
\373\ As explained in this section, we find CARB's documentation
insufficient to credit Rule 9510 with any emission reductions toward
the State's outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation and,
therefore, do not entirely agree with CARB's conclusion that it
achieved 13.9 tpd of NOX emission reductions in excess of
its outstanding commitments. The difference between the 25.4 tpd of
NOX emission reductions achieved by the control measures
identified in Table 7 and the State's outstanding 12.9 tpd
NOX emission reduction commitment is 12.5 tpd of
``excess'' NOX emission reductions.
Table 7--2008 PM2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment--EPA Proposed Emission
Reduction Credits for Measures in CARB Compliance Demonstration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 emission reductions
(annual average tpd)
Measure -------------------------------
NOX Direct PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction 1.8 0.0
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr)..............................
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)...... 0.0 0.0
Woodstove Replacements.................. 0.0 0.1
District Funded Incentive-Based Emission 1.5 0.1
Reduction Measures.....................
Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip 0.3 0.0
Reduction).............................
Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and 0.0 1.3
Wood Burning Heaters)..................
State Funded Incentive-Based Emission 7.8 0.2
Reduction Measures.....................
CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 11.5 0.1
Measure................................
CARB Portable Equipment Registration 2.5 0.2
Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM
-------------------------------
Total SIP-Creditable Emission 25.4 2.0
Reductions from State and District
Measures...........................
NOX to PM2.5 Emissions Equivalence (9:1) -9.0 1.0
-------------------------------
Total Emission Reductions Achieved.. 16.4 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the CARB Staff Report demonstrates that implementation of
State and District measures achieved a total of 16.4 tpd of
NOX emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions that have not previously been
credited as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan and that may, therefore, be credited toward the
State's outstanding obligation to achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions by the beginning of 2014.
Based on these evaluations, we propose to determine that California
has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the
SJV area in the implementation plan.
4. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State must demonstrate
to the EPA's satisfaction that its serious area plan includes the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any
state, or achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.
As discussed above in section V.D, because of the substantial
overlap in the source categories and controls evaluated for BACM and
those evaluated for MSM, we present our evaluation of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan's provisions for including MSM alongside our
evaluation of the Plan's provisions for implementing BACM for each
identified source category. For the reasons provided in section V.D and
further in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD, we propose to determine that the
2015 PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of MSM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as
expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirement in CAA
section 188(e).
5. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious Alternative Date
Practicable
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that each Serious area
plan include a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan provides for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date or, where the State is seeking an extension
of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by that date is impracticable and that the plan provides for
attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. We
discuss below our evaluation of the modeling approach in the Plan, the
State's basis for excluding one 24-hour data point from the modeling
analysis, and the control strategy in the Plan for attaining the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious
alternative dates practicable.
Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling Approach and Results
The EPA's PM2.5 modeling guidance \374\ (``Modeling
Guidance'' and
[[Page 6969]]
``Modeling Guidance Update'') recommends that a photochemical model,
such as CAMx or CMAQ, be used to simulate a base case, with
meteorological and emissions inputs reflecting a base case year, to
replicate concentrations monitored in that year. The model application
to the base case year undergoes a performance evaluation to ensure that
it satisfactorily agrees with concentrations monitored in that year.
The model may then be used to simulate emissions occurring in other
years required for a plan, namely the base year (which may differ from
the base case year) and future year.\375\ The modeled response to the
emission changes between those years is used to calculate Relative
Response Factors (RRFs), which are applied to the design value in the
base year to estimate the projected design value in the future year for
comparison against the NAAQS. Separate RRFs are estimated for each
chemical species component of PM2.5, and for each quarter of
the year, to reflect their differing responses to seasonal
meteorological conditions and emissions. Since each species is handled
separately, before applying an RRF the base year design value must be
speciated using available chemical species measurements, that is, each
day's measured PM2.5 comprising the design value must be
split into its species components. The Modeling Guidance provides
additional detail on the recommended approach.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\374\ ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007
(``Modeling Guidance''); and ``Update to the 24 Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Modeled Attainment Test,'' Memorandum from
Tyler Fox, Air Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air
Program Managers, EPA, June 28, 2011 (``Modeling Guidance Update'').
\375\ In this section, we use the terms ``base case,'' ``base
year'' or ``baseline,'' and ``future year'' as described in section
3.5 of the EPA's Modeling Guidance. The ``base case'' modeling
simulates measured concentrations for a given time period, using
emissions and meteorology for that same year. The modeling ``base
year'' (which can be the same as the base case year) is the
emissions starting point for the plan and for projections to the
future year, both of which are modeled for the attainment
demonstration. See Modeling Guidance at pp. 33-34. Note that CARB
sometimes uses ``base year'' synonymously with ``base case'' and
``reference year'' instead of ``base year.''
\376\ Modeling Guidance Update at 43 ff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attainment demonstration in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan is
based on modeling performed for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, but
that modeling is used in a streamlined way, by employing scaling. The
attainment demonstration approach in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan is
covered in its Chapter 4 (``Classification and Attainment'') and
Appendix F (``Attainment Demonstration''), with several further details
in Appendix A (``Weight of Evidence Analysis'') of the CARB Staff
Report. For the modeling used in this Plan, the base case year was
2000, the base year was 2012, and the future years were 2018 and 2020
for the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, respectively.
CARB scaled the results from modeling performed for the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, assuming the same relative response to emission
changes applies in the time frame for the current Plan. Starting from
the RRFs from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which reflect the
emission changes from the base year to the future year in that plan
(2005 to 2014), CARB scaled those RRFs to reflect the current 2015
PM2.5 Plan's base year to future year emission changes (2012
to 2020 for the annual standard, and 2012 to 2018 for the 24-hour
standard).
The formula in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan \377\ for scaling an
RRF is based on the definition of an RRF as (modeled future
concentration)/(modeled base year concentration), and on the assumption
that the modeled percent change in concentration per percent change in
emissions is the same for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan as it was for
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. As shown in section IV.A of the EPA's
General TSD for this action, these assumptions lead to the Plan
formula. Since the RRF includes the modeled effect of emission changes,
accounting for their temporal and spatial distribution and their
chemistry, the scaling approach used in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
differs from a simple ``rollback'' scaling (which would merely assume
that the percent concentration change is identical to the percent
emissions change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-8, and
Appendix F, p. F-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's procedure for using emissions from the two plans in the RRF
scaling formula differed to some extent between the two plans due to
data availability, even though ideally they would be treated in the
same way. The reason the scaling is being done rather than new modeling
is that modeling inventories were not available for the base and future
years of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. Only the planning inventories
are available; they cover all the source categories, but do not reflect
the allocation of the emissions to all the grid squares in the modeling
domain and to all the hours of the year, a considerable undertaking
necessary for input to the model. Absent the future modeling
inventories, the most consistent way to perform the scaling would be to
use planning inventories from both the new and old plans. Because the
scaling is done for each chemical species, the inventories used should
also be speciated using the same procedure, by applying speciation
profiles for the various emission source categories. Unfortunately, the
old speciation profiles for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were not
available, so the planning inventory from the 2008 PM2.5
Plan could not be speciated in the same way as the 2015
PM2.5 Plan planning inventory could. Therefore, CARB used
the modeling inventory from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which did
have a speciation procedure comparable to that available for the 2015
PM2.5 Plan planning inventory. In sum, in calculating the
RRF scaling factors, CARB used the modeling inventory to compute
percent emission changes for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and used
the planning inventory for emission changes for the 2015
PM2.5 Plan.378 379
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-4.
\379\ Modeling the ambient PM2.5 components of
elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) and geological
material requires emissions for those, derived from speciation
profiles of the various emission source categories. The RRF scaling
also requires separate EC and OC emissions. But planning
inventories, such as that available for the 2008 plan, generally
report only direct PM2.5 emissions, the total of these
species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's modeling domain is somewhat larger than the SJV
nonattainment area, so emission totals differ between the modeling
inventory and the planning inventory. But we expect that percent
changes are comparable because both the modeling inventories and
planning inventories reflect emissions from the same types of sources
and in similar proportions. The inventories also reflect similar
controls, for example statewide motor vehicle emissions controls, where
motor vehicles are the main source of NOX. We also expect
the ratios of the percent changes, i.e., the RRF scaling factors
themselves, to be comparable given discrepancies between the modeling
and planning inventories would typically be similar for the two plans
used in the ratio, and hence canceled out to an extent.
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan provided several bases to support
the use of a scaling approach premised on the 2008 PM2.5
Plan model response. The base case in the previous modeling was based
on extensive measurements during the 2000 CRPAQS study,\380\ and the
underlying meteorological conditions leading to high PM2.5
concentrations in the 2000-2001 winter were similar to those in the
2013-2014 winter, including persistent pressure ridges, surface
inversions, cool temperatures,
[[Page 6970]]
and low winds.\381\ Also, the 2004-2006 PM2.5 species
composition data that CARB used for speciating PM2.5
concentrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan show a similar
composition to 2011-2013 speciation measurements that CARB used in the
2015 PM2.5 Plan to speciate design values prior to applying
RRFs, as seen in composition pie charts for Bakersfield, Fresno,
Modesto, and Visalia.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ 2000 California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS); descriptive documents available on CARB's ``Central
California Air Quality Studies'' Web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways.
\381\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-4, and WOEA,
p. A-5.
\382\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment A, p.
F-8 to F-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These observations indicate that the 2013 PM2.5 design
values for the current 2015 PM2.5 Plan would respond in a
way similar to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan modeling. An alternative
would have been to use modeling from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,
which had a 2007 meteorology and emissions base case, which is more
recent than that in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. However, it modeled
only the first and fourth quarters, the only quarters needed to address
the 24-hour NAAQS; the 2008 PM2.5 Plan modeled the entire
year, and so was suitable for assessing both the 24-hour and the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
CARB calculated an RRF from the scaling formula using the
concentration of each PM2.5 chemical species, with emissions
from the corresponding precursor. CARB used percent changes in
emissions of NOX, SOX, Organic Carbon (OC),
Elemental Carbon (EC), and other (direct PM2.5 less OC and
EC), to scale the RRF for the corresponding ambient PM2.5
component: Nitrate (NO3-), sulfate
(SO4-2), OC, EC, and geological material (also
called ``other'' or ``dust''). For the ammonium component, which is
present in ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, a choice must be made
as to which precursor emissions, either NOX or
SO2, should be used in scaling ammonia; CARB used
NOX.
This is in line with information in the Plan indicating that
ammonium nitrate formation responds far more to NOX emission
changes than to ammonia changes. The Plan also noted that sulfate is a
much smaller ambient component than nitrate, so that ammonium scales
more with NOX than with SO2.\383\ Conceivably
some combination of precursor emissions could have been used for
scaling ammonium, but that would require a plausibility argument about
how to reflect the actual chemistry involved, a complication that would
obscure both the relative simplicity of direct scaling and the more
comprehensive consideration of chemistry already present in the
modeling being scaled. Another point about the choice of NOX
is that ammonium concentrations were independent of ammonia emissions,
since the latter was not used, and so inherently cannot respond to
increases or decreases of ammonia that occur during the planning
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section V.C of this notice, modeling for the 2012
PM2.5 Plan showed that there is a small ambient response to
ammonia changes. Additionally, annual average ammonia emissions in the
planning inventory increase by 8.6% from 2012 to 2020, which suggests
that the ammonium contribution to projected design values may be higher
than stated in the Plan. However, this is of little concern since the
pre-scaled RRFs for ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate were based on actual
modeling for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; they take into account the
atmospheric chemistry and the ambient effects due to ammonia changes
during 2005-2014, when the annual average ammonia emissions increased
by 18.1%.
Aside from the RRFs themselves, the procedure that CARB followed in
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for projecting design values is
consistent with the recommendations in the Modeling Guidance. The steps
included using daily speciation data and the SANDWICH approach \384\ to
split daily measured PM2.5 concentrations into their
chemical components, taking quarterly averages (of all days for the
annual standard, and of the highest 10% or so of days for the 24-hour
standard), applying RRFs to get future component concentrations,
summing to total PM2.5, and finally averaging over quarters
and years to estimate the future design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, Inferred
Carbonaceous mass material balance approach: Modeling Guidance, p.
47; Frank, N., 2006: ``Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Sulfates, and
Carbonaceous Mass in Federal Reference Method Fine Particulate
Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities,'' J. Air Waste Management
Assoc., 56, 500-511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two aspects of the Plan's approach to modeling differ from the
Modeling Guidance recommendations. First, for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the RRFs were applied to a single high value
per quarter to represent the potential 98th percentile, as opposed to
applying RRFs to multiple high individual days in each quarter, and
then choosing the 98th percentile. The former approach is consistent
with the original Modeling Guidance, before it was updated to the
latter approach by the June 28, 2011 Modeling Guidance Update.\385\ The
latter approach is intended to allow for the shifting of high days
between quarters as emission controls are applied: a day that has a
concentration in the top 10% in the autumn may more strongly respond to
controls and no longer be in the top 10%, while a summer day may
respond less to controls and end up being in the post-control top 10%.
Because winter PM2.5 concentrations are significantly higher
than those in the other seasons, such shifting is very unlikely to be
an issue in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ Modeling Guidance, p. 58 and Modeling Guidance Update, p.
B-2 (Steps 1, 4, and 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Modeling Guidance recommends that RRFs be applied to
the average of three three-year design values \386\ (e.g. using data in
2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014), whereas the Plan used just the
single 2013 design value (2011-2013 data). The 2011-2013 period for the
2013 design value is centered on the Plan's 2012 base year, as the
Modeling Guidance recommends. One reason for the longer period in EPA's
recommendation is that the additional averaging provides some stability
in the estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ Modeling Guidance, p. 22; and Modeling Guidance Update, p.
B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Plan's procedure is not entirely consistent with EPA
guidance, we find it acceptable in this context given the time
constraints imposed by EPA's April 2015 reclassification of the SJV
area \387\ and the available modeling analyses. Despite the presence of
scaling at a key step, CARB's approach remains a modeled attainment
demonstration as required by section 189(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It relies
on photochemical modeling that EPA reviewed and approved \388\ for the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, and which remains sufficiently
representative of PM2.5 formation in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ 80 FR 18528 at 18530 (April 7, 2015) (noting unusually
short timeframe for State's development and submission of a plan to
provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Serious area attainment date, which is December 31, 2015).
\388\ ``Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on
the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the San
Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,'' EPA
Region 9, November 8, 2010, for proposed approval in 75 FR 74518
(November 30, 2010); final approval was in 76 FR 69896 (November 9,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three other considerations give some reassurance of the
acceptability of a scaling approach. First, EPA's 2014 draft modeling
guidance explicitly recognizes that ``there may be plausible
alternative means of calculating the relative response factors [RRFs]
that can differ from the approaches recommended.'' \389\ While this
2014 draft guidance does not
[[Page 6971]]
specifically address the alternative of scaled RRFs, it indicates, as
does the Modeling Guidance, that alternatives to the recommended
procedures are acceptable where adequately supported. Second, even the
recommended RRF procedure involves model sensitivity derived from one
period being applied to another: RRFs are computed using a single
year's modeled response to emissions changes, but are assumed to be
applicable to all five years composing the average over three design
values. This consideration makes the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's
application of the model response from one period to another analogous
to the application more broadly envisioned by the Modeling Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'',
DRAFT December 2014, EPA OAQPS, p. 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while scaling itself is relatively crude, the scaling of
RRFs is less so. The procedure is not a simple scaling of an emission
total, but reflects the geographic and temporal distribution of the
emissions sources and the emission changes, since it is based on
modeling. The pattern of emission changes during the span of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan does not exactly match the changes modeled for
the span of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, but many of the emission
reductions continue the effect of existing controls on the same types
of sources, so the patterns of the emissions changes are unlikely to be
very different. For example, continued vehicle NOX emission
reductions occur over much the same roadway network and direct
PM2.5 reductions from controls on wood burning are largely
achieved from the same residential areas.
Late in EPA's review process, EPA and CARB found that the scaling
factor for EC had been applied to the RRF for OC and the product used
as the RRF for EC, and vice versa.\390\ Because the original RRFs for
OC were larger than those for EC, and remained so after scaling,
applying the smaller EC scaled RRFs to OC made the projected OC
concentration smaller than it should have been. Conversely, projected
EC was larger than it should have been. Because OC has a larger ambient
contribution than EC, the OC effect dominates. The net result of the
EC-OC reversal is that the projected design values for the attainment
demonstration were underestimated. CARB estimates that the 2020 annual
design value for Madera increased from the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's
original 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ to a corrected value of 16.2 [micro]g/
m\3\,\391\ which is above the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\390\ Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to K. Drake, EPA Region 9,
August 12, 2015. See also, Memo to file, ``Call with California Air
Resources Board regarding letter about reversal of elemental and
organic carbon,'' S. Bohning, EPA Region 9, September 18, 2015.
\391\ Id., Attachment A (``Revised San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Design Values'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, CARB presents compelling reasons for discounting this high
Madera projected 2020 annual design value. The starting point for the
scaled modeling projection is the 2013 design value--the average of
annual means during 2011-2013. The 2011 monitoring data included within
that 2013 design value appears anomalous, as documented in the WOEA at
Appendix A2 (``Assessment of the Representativeness of 2011
PM2.5 Beta Attenuation Monitor Data from Madera'') and
Attachment B to CARB's Technical Clarifications of August 12, 2015
(``Attachment B''). We refer herein to figures and tables in Appendix
A2 of the WOEA as ``S.R. App. A2, Figure 2.''
EPA's regulations require that monitoring data for comparison to
the NAAQS be collected using specific equipment and procedures to
ensure accuracy and reliability.\392\ For each NAAQS, the default
monitoring equipment and the procedures for operating it are termed the
Federal Reference Method (FRM); an alternative approach, termed a
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) may also be used if it is demonstrated
to give results comparable to an FRM monitor. The Met One Beta
Attenuation Monitor (BAM) 1020 is an example of an FEM that provides
continuous hourly PM2.5 concentrations compared to the FRM's
24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations. This is useful for a
number of purposes, including real-time forecasting for deciding when
to issue public advisories and wood burning restrictions, as well as
for evaluating air quality model performance. BAMs are deployed at
multiple sites in the SJV, including Madera (the ``Madera-City'' site,
AQS ID 06-039-2010).\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\392\ 40 CFR parts 53 and 58.
\393\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-3
(``Projected 2020 Annual and 2018 24-hour Design Values''), p.4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the S.R. App. A2, 2011 was the first full year of
data collected by the Madera BAM, and the concentrations were
unexpectedly high in comparison with other monitoring sites, including
both BAMs and FRM monitor sites. During 2011-2013, annual
concentrations at Madera were some 30% higher than at Fresno, and as
much as 100% higher during the summer, historically the season with the
lowest PM2.5.\394\ This was unexpected because historically
there has been a north-to-south increasing gradient of concentrations,
with northern sites like Stockton and Merced at the low end, and
southern sites like those in Bakersfield at the high end, and with
central sites like Fresno somewhere in between.\395\ This gradient is
consistent with the greater potential for ventilation at the northern
end of the SJV, nearest the opening to the ocean at the Golden Gate,
and the lower ventilation at the southern end, surrounded by mountains.
Madera and Fresno concentrations are highly correlated,\396\ suggesting
common meteorological influences at the two sites, as opposed to
additional emission sources contributing at Madera.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ S.R. App. A2, Figures 3 and 4, and Tables 1 and 2.
\395\ S.R. App. A2, Figure 2.
\396\ S.R. App. A2, Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various checks on the monitor and its operation were made over time
without affecting the high readings, but in April 2014, adjustments
were made as a result of checking the zero point of the instrument
using outdoor air, rather than indoor air (both are permissible;
outdoor air could be more representative of the conditions the
instrument normally operates under).\397\ After that time, Madera
concentrations shifted to lower values,\398\ conformed better to the
known north-south gradient,\399\ and tracked closely with the monitored
data from the Merced-Coffee Road site about 30 miles to the North,
which is expected given the two monitors' proximity to one another and
similar geographic conditions.\400\ They also agreed better with
measurements at a new FRM installed in July 2014 at the Madera
site.\401\ ARB concluded that the 2011 ``BAM data at Madera appear to
be biased high due to sampling artifacts . . . not representative of
air quality in the central portion of the Valley''.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\397\ ``BAM 1020 Particulate Monitor Operation Manual, BAM-1020-
9800 Rev K'', Met One Instruments, Inc. 2008; Memorandum from Tim
Hanley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA to Met One
BAM Users, ``RE: Zero Tests on the Met One BAM 1020,'' October 5,
2012.
\398\ S.R. App. A2, Figure 8.
\399\ S.R. App. A2, Figure 9.
\400\ Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, EPA Region 9,
August 12, 2015, Attachment B, p. 2.
\401\ S.R. App. A2, Figures 12 and 13.
\402\ S.R. App. A2, p.A2-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan nevertheless included the 2011
Madera data and 2013 design value in the attainment demonstration,
because up until recently the issue appeared to be moot, as despite the
high starting point concentration the modeling predicted a 2020 annual
concentration of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\, which attains the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The discovery of the EC-OC reversal described
above brings the issue to the fore because there is no
[[Page 6972]]
room for the increase it causes in the 2020 Madera design value.
The fact that 2011-2013 Madera BAM concentrations are higher than
values at the Fresno FRM and other sites does not in itself prove they
are incorrect; it is conceivable that unknown sources were contributing
there. Also, the later agreement between the lower Madera BAM and FRM
concentrations could be explained as sources that are now emitting
less, or that are contributing less at the monitor due to different
wind patterns. Nevertheless, the mismatch with the historical gradient
pattern, the unexpectedly but only temporarily high readings that
declined after an adjustment in operation, and the current lower FRM
readings do suggest that the 2011 Madera concentrations were anomalous.
EPA believes that the 2011-2013 readings at the Madera site are not
known to be representative of air quality for Madera and not
sufficiently certain to drive the SJV control strategy, or to
invalidate the conclusion of the attainment demonstration that the SJV
will attain the 1997 annual NAAQS in 2020.
CARB explored two alternative scenarios to estimate annual average,
ambient PM2.5 values in 2020 for the Madera site.\403\ Under
the first scenario, CARB substituted the 2014 design value of 15.8
[micro]g/m\3\ at the Madera site for its 2013 design value and
estimated that the 2020 Madera design value would be 14.1 [micro]g/
m\3\. For the second scenario, CARB substituted the annual 2011 data
from the Merced-Coffee Road site, adjusted upward to reflect the
typically slightly higher values at Madera, resulting in an estimated
2020 Madera design value of 14.9 [micro]g/m\3\. Both scenarios are
reasonable alternatives to estimating the 2020 Madera design value for
the SJV attainment planning purposes for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the Bakersfield-Planz site, which
would have a corrected 2020 design value of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\, would
become the design value monitor for the SJV, as would be expected under
the historic observation of a north-to-south increasing gradient of
concentrations.\404\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, EPA Region 9,
August 12, 2015, Attachment B, pp. 3-4.
\404\ Note that if the unexpectedly high concentrations seen in
2011-2013 are due to real phenomena affecting air quality, then they
would be expected to occur again at some point in the intervening
years between now and the projected attainment year of 2020. If they
do occur again, then they would influence the monitored attainment
status at that time, and hence any request for SJV to be designated
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA accepts the scaled modeling approach of the attainment
demonstration in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, which was the product
of extended discussion between EPA, ARB, and SJVUAPCD. Based on our
review of the modeling approach and results, we propose to conclude
that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan adequately demonstrates that the
SJV area will attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December
31, 2020 and attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December
31, 2018. We recommend that CARB reassess the status of the modeled
attainment of the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS as
part of the new modeling required for SIP revisions addressing the 2006
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Evaluation of Bakersfield-Planz Data Exclusion for May 5, 2013
As described in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the State and
District based the attainment demonstration on ambient measurements
during 2011-2013.\405\ The 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of
167.3 [micro]g/m\3\ measured at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site
(AQS ID: 06-029-0016) on May 5, 2013 was not included in the attainment
demonstration analyses due to its unrepresentativeness for purposes of
attainment planning for the SJV as a whole. Therefore, the modeled
projections for the 2020 annual PM2.5 design values and 2018
24-hour design values \406\ and the discussion of the modeling results
in Appendix F, section F.4 of the Plan are based on data that exclude
the May 5, 2013 24-hour data point from the Bakersfield-Planz
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p F-4.
\406\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan provides an assessment of the representativeness of this
data for purposes of inclusion in the attainment demonstration analyses
\407\ and concludes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\407\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B:
Assessment of the Representativeness of the PM2.5 Value
Recorded at the Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site on May 5, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In summary, comparison of the 167.3 [micro]g/m\3\ concentration
measured on May 5, 2013, to values typical for this season as well as
comparison to values measured throughout the Valley on the same day,
combined with the record high fugitive dust and elemental species
concentrations, indicate that the monitor was impacted by microscale
sources that are not representative of the neighborhood spatial scale
the monitor is intended to represent. Therefore, this value is not
included in modeling analysis for the San Joaquin Valley 2015
PM2.5 Plan.''
The assessment provided in the Plan \408\ based this conclusion on:
(1) Representativeness of Bakersfield-Planz PM2.5 data;
\409\ (2) potential fugitive dust sources affecting the Bakersfield-
Planz site; \410\ and (3) meteorology at the Bakersfield-Planz
site.\411\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B.
\409\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B,
Section B.
\410\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B,
Section C.
\411\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B,
Section D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information provided regarding the representativeness of
Bakersfield-Planz data included analyses of San Joaquin Valley seasonal
PM2.5 concentrations \412\ and elemental species
composition.\413\ The assessment provided PM2.5 data on the
highest concentrations throughout the Valley since 2000 and shows that
the May 5, 2013 Bakersfield-Planz value was unusually high compared to
historical trends since 2000. Further, this data point was also
unusually high compared to other sites in the San Joaquin Valley on the
same day.\414\ The species composition analyses show that the primary
content of the particulate matter was fugitive dust and that the level
of the dust was over four times higher than the next highest value
observed in the entire California network based on 14 years of
available data. In addition, total elemental species and other chemical
species were found to be unusually high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\412\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, pp. F-11 to F-13.
\413\ Id., pp. F-13 to F-14.
\414\ Id., pp. F-12 to F-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State and District's assessment of potential fugitive dust
sources affecting the Bakersfield-Planz site was based on an evaluation
of aerial photos to identify sources and field investigation by
District enforcement staff.\415\ The assessment found no documented
dust violations at any nearby sources and identify the likely source of
the dust was from the open areas immediately adjacent to the monitor,
suggesting a localized microscale impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\415\ Id., pp. F-14 to F-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third part of the assessment evaluated meteorology at the
Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site.\416\ Wind speeds on May 5, 2013 were
compared to other days in May 2013 and also to other high wind days at
the Bakersfield-Planz site. The wind speeds were in excess of 25 mph
for over eight hours on May 5, 2013. The meteorology indicates that
Bakersfield-Planz experienced a high wind event on May
[[Page 6973]]
5, 2013 that was unusual in terms of wind speed and duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ Id., pp. F-17 to F-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, EPA agrees with the evidence provided that the
Bakersfield-Planz monitor was affected by an unusual high wind dust
event on May 5, 2013 that resulted in anomalous PM2.5
concentrations on that day. EPA believes that it is appropriate to omit
this data point from the attainment demonstration based on EPA's 2013
guidance on exceptional events.\417\ Regarding the inclusion of event-
affected data for attainment demonstrations, EPA's 2013 guidance says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\417\ Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, I-X,
``Interim Guidance to Implement Requirements for the Treatment of
Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,'' May
10, 2013 (``2013 Exceptional Events Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``An air agency incorporating the event-related concentration in a
design value used for a prospective attainment demonstration might seem
to need more emission reductions to attain the NAAQS by its attainment
deadline than is actually the case. The EPA plans to more formally
address this topic on a pollutant/NAAQS basis, the first of which will
be ozone guidance in the preamble of a soon-to-be-proposed rulemaking
on SIP requirements for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Until the planned guidance for a pollutant and NAAQS of
interest is issued, air agencies should consult with their EPA regional
office if they face this situation.'' \418\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA reviewed PM2.5 data in AQS for the SJV since 2010
and identified four days flagged with high wind exceptional event
requests for exclusion. These PM2.5 high wind dust events do
not appear to be recurring events and their inclusion in the attainment
demonstration therefore would not accurately reflect the effect of
controls during more typical conditions at the Bakersfield-Planz
monitoring site.\419\ Based on these reviews, EPA agrees with the
State's and District's assertion that the May 5, 2013 concentrations at
Bakersfield-Planz were due to an unusual PM2.5 high wind
dust event that would not be appropriate to include in the attainment
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\419\ EPA also reviewed PM10 data in AQS for the SJV
since 2010 and identified eight days flagged with high wind
exceptional event request for exclusion, which indicate that
PM10 high wind dust events recur and should be subject to
reasonable controls in accordance with the 2013 Exceptional Events
Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to EPA's 2013 guidance on exceptional events, EPA also
considered the monitoring requirements for PM2.5. In
particular, 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.71(b) specifies for
PM2.5:
``The required monitoring stations or sites must be sited to
represent area-wide air quality. These sites can include sites
collocated at PAMS. These monitoring stations will typically be at
neighborhood or urban-scale; however, micro-or middle-scale
PM2.5 monitoring sites that represent many such locations
throughout a metropolitan area are considered to represent area-wide
air quality.''
Based on the information provided in the Plan, EPA agrees that the
Bakersfield-Planz concentrations on May 5, 2013 appear to have been
affected by a localized event; therefore, it was neither representative
of neighborhood scale concentrations, nor occurring at many locations.
EPA agrees with the State and District that the May 5, 2013
concentrations at Bakersfield-Planz were not representative of area-
wide, typical PM2.5 concentrations in San Joaquin Valley.
Based on the technical analyses provided in the Plan and EPA
guidance and requirements as cited in this section, EPA agrees with the
State and District that the May 5, 2013 Bakersfield-Planz 24-hour
PM2.5 data point resulted from a localized, anomalous event
that can be omitted from the attainment demonstration analyses.
Evaluation of Control Strategy
The attainment control strategy in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
consists of State and District baseline measures that continue to
achieve emission reductions and four additional control measures that
the District either recently revised or, in one case, has committed to
revise in 2016. With respect to baseline measures for stationary and
area sources, the District identified the source categories under its
jurisdiction and their projected emission levels in Appendix B, section
B.2.2 (``Emissions Inventory Documentation'') and described each of the
District measures that apply to these source categories in section
B.2.2.3 of the Plan (``Control Profiles'').\420\ All but one of the 55
District control measures listed in section B.2.2.3 of the Plan have
been approved into the California SIP.\421\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\420\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-23 to B-31.
See also, within this section, Table B-8 (``District Rules Included
in the SIP Inventory'').
\421\ See EPA Region 9's Web site for information on District
control measures that have been approved into the California SIP,
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=San+Joaquin+Valley+Unified+APCD-Agency-Wide+Provisions. Of the District measures
identified in Appendix B of the Plan, only Rule 4691 (``Vegetable
Oil Processing Operations''), which limits VOC emissions from
vegetable oil processing operations, is not currently approved into
the California SIP. EPA approved a previous version of this rule
(Rule 461.2) into the SIP on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2535).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to mobile sources, the State identified the source
categories and described the EMFAC2014 emission factor model used to
project their future emission levels in Appendix B, sections B.2.2.4
through B.2.2.7 of the Plan.\422\ As explained in section V.D of this
proposed rule, in a separate rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve
CARB's submitted waiver measures into the SIP and intends to finalize
that rulemaking before taking final action on the 2015 PM2.5
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\422\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-31 to B-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 below summarizes the emission reductions needed in the SJV
to attain the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the end
of 2018 and 2020, respectively.
Table 8--Summary of Direct PM2.5 and NOX Emission Reductions Needed for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan Attainment
Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour Standard Attainment by Annual Standard Attainment by
2018 (tpd annual average) 2020 (tpd winter average)
---------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2012 emissions inventory \a\.................. 61.0 318.5 66.0 332.2
B Emissions inventory after baseline measures... 57.7 213.9 62.8 206.9
C Emissions inventory needed to attain.......... 54.4 213.7 60.8 206.5
D Total emission reductions needed by attainment 6.6 104.8 5.2 125.7
year (A--C)....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9, except as otherwise noted.
\a\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2.
[[Page 6974]]
The Plan identifies four District measures that will achieve
additional emission reductions beyond baseline measures and contribute
to expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\423\
First, Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters
0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr''), as amended November 14, 2013, limits
NOX emissions from boilers, steam generators, and process
heaters sized between 0.075 and 2 MMBtu/hr and is projected to achieve
0.0007 tpd of NOX emission reductions by 2018 and 0.0011 tpd
of NOX emission reductions by 2020.\424\ EPA approved this
rule into the California SIP on February 12, 2015.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1
and 2, p. 9.
\424\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-3 and CARB
Staff Report at p. 9.
\425\ 80 FR 7803 (February 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the District has committed to amend Rule 4692 (``Commercial
Charbroiling'') in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired
charbroilers, with an anticipated compliance date in 2017.\426\ Rule
4692, as approved into the SIP on November 3, 2011, regulates emissions
from chain-driven charbroilers but does not regulate under-fired
charbroilers.\427\ The District projects that its anticipated revisions
to Rule 4692 to regulate under-fired charbroilers will achieve an
additional 0.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions in
2018 and 2020.\428\ EPA recently proposed to approve this commitment
into the California SIP.\429\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p.
7-6 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A (April 16, 2015)
at paragraph 7.
\427\ 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011).
\428\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7 at p. 7-6.
\429\ 80 FR 1816 at 1833 and 1844 (January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reductions of 0.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 represent
6.1% of the total PM2.5 emission reductions needed to attain
the 1997 24-hour standard by 2018 and 7.7% of the total
PM2.5 emission reductions needed to attain the 1997 annual
standard by 2020.\430\ These are limited portions of the total
PM2.5 emission reductions needed for expeditious attainment
of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. Based on the
District's history of timely meeting similar rule commitments (see
section V.E.3 of this preamble), we find that the District is capable
of fulfilling this commitment. We also find that the commitment to
adopt the amended rule by 2016 is for a reasonable and appropriate
timeframe given the need for PM2.5 emission reductions to
attain by 2018 and 2020. Accordingly, we propose to approve this rule
commitment as part of the control strategy in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan. For a more detailed discussion of this commitment and the
District's evaluations to date, see the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\430\ 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p.
9, and Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory''), Tables B-1 and B-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the District projects that Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters''), as amended September 18, 2014,
will achieve 2.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by
2018 and 1.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by
2020. Specifically, the District's 2014 rule amendment to lower the
rule's ``no burn threshold'' from 30 [micro]g/m\3\ to 20 [micro]g/m\3\
(24-hour average ambient PM2.5 concentration) for non-EPA
certified, non-District registered wood burning devices is projected to
achieve a winter 24-hour average of 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5
emission reductions by 2018 and an annual average of 1.1 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2020.\431\ The 2015
PM2.5 Plan relies on Rule 4901 for an additional 0.7 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions (winter 24-hour average) by
2018 and an additional 0.5 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions (annual average) by 2020 resulting from homeowners replacing
high-emitting fireplaces and stoves with low-emitting, EPA-certified
devices.\432\ The EPA recently proposed to approve Rule 4901 into the
California SIP.\433\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\431\ The District calculated these estimates using its
estimates of direct PM2.5 emission reductions for the
120-day wood burning season covered by the rule and ratios of 120/
365 days and 120/180 days for the annual average and winter (24-
hour) average emission reductions, respectively. See SJVUAPCD,
``Final Staff Report for Amendments to the District's Residential
Wood Burning Program,'' Appendix B, (``Emission Reduction Analysis
Amendments to Residential Wood Burning Program'') at B-12, September
18, 2014.
\432\ The 0.7 tpd and 0.5 tpd emission reduction estimates
assume that 14% of devices subject to Rule 4901 will be replaced by
2018 and that 20% of such devices will be replaced by 2020,
respectively. For a more detailed discussion of these emission
reduction estimates, see the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
\433\ 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the District projects that Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired,
Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces''), as amended January 22, 2015,
will achieve 0.2 tpd of NOX emission reductions by 2018 and
0.4 tpd of NOX emission reductions by 2020.\434\ This rule
includes a mitigation fee option that allows manufacturers to sell non-
compliant furnaces for 36-month transition periods ranging from 2015 to
2021, depending on unit type.\435\ Based on information in the
District's staff report on Rule 4905, the District estimates emission
reductions of 0.105 tpd of NOX per year from three of the
four types of units, which have compliance dates ranging from April 1,
2015 through October 1, 2016.\436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\434\ 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p.
9.
\435\ SJVUAPCD, ``Final Staff Report Amendments to Rule 4905
(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces,'' January 22, 2015,
p. 9. See also EPA's proposed rule on Rule 4905. 80 FR 68484
(November 5, 2015).
\436\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4905 as amended January 22, 2015, Table 1
(``NOX Emission Limits and Compliance Schedule''). See
also, SJVUAPCD, ``Final Staff Report Amendments to Rule 4905
(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces,'' January 22, 2015,
Appendix B, pp. B-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recently proposed to approve Rule 4905 into the California
SIP.\437\ Because the sale of non-compliant units is allowed to varying
degrees in 2018 by manufacturers paying mitigation fees, we propose to
credit Rule 4905 with 0.035 tpd of NOX emission reductions
in 2018 rather than the 0.105 tpd of emission reductions identified in
the District's staff report for the rule. The amount we propose to not
credit (i.e., 0.16 tpd of NOX) represents only 0.2% of the
total winter average NOX reduction from 2012 to 2018.\438\
Using the 24-hour PM2.5 sensitivity of 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\
per ton of NOX emission reduction at the projected 2018
design value site of Bakersfield-California St., as modeled for the
2012 PM2.5 Plan,\439\ this would result in an ambient 24-
hour PM2.5 concentration increase of about 0.013 [micro]g/
m\3\.\440\ This represents a minimal effect on ambient PM2.5
levels and, therefore, does not undermine the Plan's demonstration of
attainment of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December
31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\437\ 80 FR 68484 (November 5, 2015).
\438\ Percent of total winter average NOX emission
reductions = 0.16 tpd/104.8 tpd = 0.2%.
\439\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B-2 (``Modeled
PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide
precursor emission reductions''), p. A-27.
\440\ Increase in ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentration
= (0.08 [micro]g/m\3\/ton of NOX emission reduction) *
(0.16 tpd) = 0.013 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the attainment demonstration in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan relies on numerous State and District baseline regulations and
four additional District measures that EPA has either approved or
proposed to approve into the California SIP, all of which collectively
are projected to achieve emission reductions sufficient for the SJV
area to attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2018 and
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by 2020. Table 9 provides a
summary of the emission reductions from the four additional District
measures that we propose to credit toward the Plan's attainment control
strategy.
[[Page 6975]]
Table 9--Summary of EPA Proposed Emission Reduction Credits for Additional District Control Measures Needed for
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan Attainment Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Standard Attainment by 24-hour Standard Attainment by
2020 (tpd annual average) 2018 (tpd winter average)
District control measure ---------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4308....................................... 0.0 0.0011 0.0 0.0007
Rule 4692....................................... 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0
Rule 4901....................................... 1.6 0.0 2.9 0.0
Rule 4905....................................... 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's air quality
modeling demonstrates that the SJV will attain the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ by December 31, 2018 and
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ by
December 31, 2020. This demonstration is based on expeditious
implementation of the State's and District's BACM and MSM control
strategy for stationary, area, and mobile sources in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, together with the District's commitment to
achieve additional PM2.5 emission reductions from under-
fired charbroilers through amendments to Rule 4692. Based on these
evaluations, we propose to determine that the 2015 PM2.5
Plan provides for attainment of the 1997 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 standards by the most expeditious alternatives dates
practicable, consistent with the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A).
F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative
Milestones
CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment area plans to provide
for reasonable further progress (RFP). In addition, CAA section 189(c)
requires PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs to include
quantitative milestones to be achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP), as defined in CAA section 171(1). Section 171(1)
defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' Neither subpart 1 nor
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act requires that a set percentage
of emissions reductions be achieved in any given year for purposes of
satisfying the RFP requirement.
RFP has historically been met by showing annual incremental
emission reductions sufficient generally to maintain at least linear
progress toward attainment by the applicable deadline.\441\ As
discussed in EPA guidance in the Addendum, requiring linear progress in
reductions of direct PM2.5 and any individual precursor in a
PM2.5 plan may be appropriate in situations where:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ Addendum at 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of
sources,
the relationship between any individual source or source
category and overall air quality is not well known,
a chemical transformation is involved (e.g., secondary
particulate significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels over
the standard), and/or
the emission reductions necessary to attain the
PM2.5 standard are inventory-wide.\442\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\442\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Addendum states that requiring linear progress may be less
appropriate in other situations, such as:
where there are a limited number of sources of direct
PM2.5 or a precursor,
where the relationships between individual sources and air
quality are relatively well defined, and/or
where the emission control systems utilized (e.g., at
major point sources) will result in swift and dramatic emission
reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter
conditions, RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress as
controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon
thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major sources, EPA guidance indicates that ``RFP
should be met by `adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule' which
is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions of
direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor.'' \443\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\443\ Addendum at 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas should include
detailed schedules for compliance with emission regulations in the area
and provide corresponding annual emission reductions to be realized
from each milestone in the schedule.\444\ In reviewing an attainment
plan under subpart 4, EPA evaluates whether the annual incremental
emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light of the
statutory objective of timely attainment. Although early implementation
of the most cost-effective control measures is often appropriate,
states should consider both cost-effectiveness and pollution reduction
effectiveness when developing implementation schedules for their
control measures and may implement measures that are more effective at
reducing PM2.5 earlier to provide greater public health
benefits.\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ Addendum at 42016.
\445\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(c) requires that attainment plans include quantitative
milestones in order to demonstrate RFP. The purpose of the quantitative
milestones is to allow periodic evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the NAAQS through the RFP requirements. Thus, the
EPA determines an area's compliance with RFP in conjunction with
determining its compliance with the quantitative milestone requirement.
Because RFP is an annual emission reduction requirement and the
quantitative milestones are to be achieved every three years, when a
state demonstrates compliance with the quantitative milestone
requirement, it will demonstrate that RFP has been achieved during each
of the relevant three years. Quantitative milestones should provide an
objective means to evaluate progress toward attainment meaningfully,
e.g., through imposition of emission controls in the attainment plan
and the requirement to quantify those required emission reductions. The
CAA also requires milestone reports (due 90 days after each milestone),
and these reports should include calculations and any assumptions made
concerning how RFP
[[Page 6976]]
has been met, e.g., through quantification of emission reductions to
date.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ Id. at 42016, 42017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-
year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In
the General Preamble and Addendum, EPA interpreted the CAA to require
that the starting point for the first three-year period be the due date
for the Moderate area plan submission.\447\ In keeping with this
historical approach, EPA is proposing to establish December 31, 2014 as
the starting point for the first 3-year period under CAA section 189(c)
for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. This date was the
due date established in the EPA's June 2, 2014 Deadline and
Classification Rule for the State's submission of any additional
attainment-related SIP elements necessary to satisfy the subpart 4
Moderate area requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in
the SJV area.\448\ December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2020 would then
be the milestone dates that the Serious Area plan must address, at
minimum. The EPA believes that establishing December 31, 2017 as the
first quantitative milestone date is an appropriate means for
implementing the requirements of subpart 4 prospectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ General Preamble at 13539, Addendum at 42016.
\448\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishing
subpart 4 moderate area classifications and deadline for related SIP
submissions) (``Classification and Deadline Rule''). Although the
Classification and Deadline Rule did not affect any action that EPA
had previously taken under CAA section 110(k) on a SIP for a
PM2.5 nonattainment area, EPA noted that states may need
to submit additional SIP elements to fully comply with the
applicable requirements of subpart 4, even for areas with previously
approved PM2.5 attainment plans, and that the deadline
for any such additional plan submissions was December 31, 2014. Id.
at 31569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. RFP Demonstration and Quantitative Milestones in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan
The RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones appear in Chapter
6, section 6.3 (pp. 6-6 to 6-8) of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.
Further discussion of the RFP demonstration, particularly with respect
to ammonia, and the establishment of dates, content, and a reporting
commitment for quantitative milestones, appears in CARB's Staff Report
(pp. 25-26). In addition, by letter dated December 15, 2015, CARB's
Executive Officer committed to submit a SIP revision to supplement the
quantitative milestone portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan by
December 31, 2016 (``QM Letter'').\449\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\449\ Letter from R. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to J.
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, December 15,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SOX will decline from the 2012 base year
to 2020 and states that emissions of each of these pollutants will
remain below the levels needed to show ``generally linear progress''
from 2012 to 2020, the year that the Plan projects to be the earliest
practicable attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard.\450\ The Plan's emissions inventory shows that direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX are emitted by a
large number and range of sources in the SJV and the emission
reductions needed for these pollutants are inventory wide.\451\ The
District followed the procedures in the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule to calculate 2014 and 2017 RFP targets (or
``benchmark'' emission levels) for direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SOX and then concluded that projected
emission levels for each pollutant, based on its adopted control
strategy, would be below those targets in both milestone years.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\450\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-8 (``RFP
Target Demonstration (2014 and 2017)''), p. 6-8.
\451\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B.
\452\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BACM control strategy that provides the basis for these
emissions projections is described in Chapters 5 and 7 and Appendices C
and D of the Plan. For stationary and area sources, the Plan highlights
several rules that are projected to contribute to attainment of the
PM2.5 standards.\453\ For example, Rule 4354 (``Glass
Melting Furnaces'') controls emissions of NOX,
SOX, and PM from industrial glass manufacturing--the largest
source of SOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley--and its
emissions projections are presented in Appendix C as part of the Plan's
BACM and MSM analysis.\454\ Similarly, Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') controls emissions from
residential wood burning and addresses the largest combustion source of
direct PM2.5.\455\ Measures to control dust sources of
direct PM2.5 are also presented in the Plan's BACM and MSM
analyses and reflected in the Plan's baseline emission projections.
Examples of such measures include Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management
Practices'') \456\ and Rule 8061 (``Paved and Unpaved Roads'').\457\
For mobile sources, the Plan lists numerous CARB regulations and
discusses the key regulations that limit the emission of direct
PM2.5 and NOX from on-road and non-road mobile
sources.\458\ For instance, the regulations that apply to the two
largest sources of NOX in the San Joaquin Valley--heavy,
heavy-duty diesel trucks and farm equipment--are discussed in Appendix
C and their emission projections are presented in the Plan's emissions
inventory.\459\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.1, pp.
7-2 to 7-6.
\454\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp. 7-3 to 7-4 and
Appendix C, p. C-102.
\455\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-4 and Appendix
C, p. C-157.
\456\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-108.
\457\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-194.
\458\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.3, pp.
7-6 to 7-13.
\459\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-8 to D-12
(for heavy heavy duty trucks) and D-15 (for farm equipment) and
Appendix B, p. B-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to ammonia, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan projects an
increase in annual average ammonia emissions from 329.5 tpd in 2012 to
358.0 tpd in 2020.\460\ The Plan states that both NOX and
ammonia participate in forming ammonium nitrate (i.e., secondary
PM2.5) but that NOX emission reductions are an
order of magnitude more effective at reducing ambient PM2.5
than ammonia reductions.\461\ Based on the relative insensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 levels to ammonia reductions compared to
NOX reductions, the Plan states that ammonia is not a
significant precursor to ambient PM2.5 in the SJV \462\ and
thus that an RFP demonstration for ammonia is not required.\463\ The
Plan also states that NOX emission levels are projected to
be well below the levels needed to show generally linear progress
toward attainment. The CARB Staff Report provides additional analysis
by converting the increase in ammonia emissions into ``NOX
equivalent'' emission levels (using a ``NOX equivalency''
calculation method) and demonstrating that the ``NOX
equivalent'' emissions level continues to show linear progress toward
attainment from 2012 to 2020.\464\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\460\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-19.
\461\ Id. See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-
27, which concludes the District's analysis of the relationship
between ammonia emissions and ambient PM2.5 levels by
stating that ``ammonia reductions at the Bakersfield-California site
are only. . . 10% as effective as NOX reductions.''
\462\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, section 2.6
(``Insignificant Precursors to PM2.5 Concentrations in
the Valley'').
\463\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26.
\464\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX equivalency method used in the Plan relies on
the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to decreases in
ammonia emissions compared to decreases in NOX emissions, as
modeled at the Bakersfield-California monitoring site. The Plan states
that in the San Joaquin Valley ammonia emission reductions are only 10%
as effective as NOX emission reductions, with a
[[Page 6977]]
relative sensitivity factor of 0.1.\465\ Stated alternatively, this is
a 1:10 NOX for ammonia trading ratio, i.e., it takes 1 tpd
of NOX emissions to match the ambient effect of 10 tpd of
ammonia in this area. The State calculates the change in ammonia
emissions from the base year (2012) to each RFP milestone year \466\
(2014 and 2017), and multiplies it by the trading ratio to calculate a
NOX increase equivalent to the ammonia increase, which the
State then adds to the NOX emissions inventory for each RFP
milestone year to calculate the total NOX decrease and
ammonia increase expressed as ``NOX equivalent'' emission
levels.\467\ The CARB Staff Report states that the total NOX
equivalent emissions levels are below the linear reductions in
NOX necessary to demonstrate RFP and, therefore, that the
RFP requirement is met, despite the projected increase in the ammonia
inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-27. Note that
Bakersfield-California is projected to be the design value monitor
for the SJV in 2018 with respect to the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F,
Table F-1 (``Projected 2018 and 2020 Design Values''), p. F-7.
\466\ We use ``RFP milestone year'' to mean each year for which
the Plan provides an RFP analysis and related emissions projections.
\467\ That is, (NOX emissions) 2017 +
[(NH3 emissions) 2017-(NH3
emissions) 2012] * 0.1 = (total NOX equivalent
emissions) 2017. Using values from the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, the 17.5 tpd increase in ammonia emissions
from 2012 to 2017 is equivalent to a 1.8 tpd increase in
NOX emissions, as follows: 235.7 + [347.0-329.5]*0.1 =
237.5 tpd. See CARB Staff Report, p. 26, Table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control measures for ammonia sources are described in Appendix C of
the Plan. For example, ammonia controls resulting from Rule 4570
(``Confined Animal Facilities''), Rule 4565 (``Biosolids, Animal
Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations''), and Rule 4566 (``Organic
Material Composting'') are discussed at length in section C.41 of
Appendix C and their emission projections are presented collectively
under farming operations in the Plan's emissions inventory.\468\ We
discuss these control measures more fully in section V.D of this
preamble (``Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent
Measures'') and in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.41, pp.
C-240 to C-281 and Appendix B, p. B-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to quantitative milestones, the CARB Staff Report
states that the Plan identifies RFP emissions levels for direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX for 2014 and 2017
that show generally linear progress towards attaining the annual
standard in 2020, and that ``[t]hese emission levels for 2017 along
with the 2020 attainment emission levels serve as the quantitative
milestones required under the Act.'' \469\ CARB addresses the projected
increase in ammonia emissions over the planning period by evaluating
those emissions in light of the atmospheric response to NOX
and ammonia emissions in the San Joaquin Valley area and concluding
that ``the combined emission levels of NOX and ammonia that
are projected to occur through the 2020 attainment year provide for the
required generally linear air quality progress.'' \470\ The CARB Staff
Report also states California's commitment to provide letters to EPA
``reporting that the emission inventory milestones have been met and
the status of any emission reduction commitments,'' and to provide
these letters by March 31, 2018 for the 2017 milestone and by March 31,
2021 for the 2020 milestone.\471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26.
\470\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the QM Letter contains the State's commitment to
submit, by December 31, 2016, a SIP revision that supplements the
quantitative milestone portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan by
identifying specific quantitative milestones to be achieved by the 2017
RFP milestone year and 2020 attainment year that demonstrate reasonable
further progress toward timely attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS. The QM Letter states that this SIP revision will include the
following milestones to track implementation of control measures and
emissions levels at each milestone year: (1) A list of measures in the
Plan's BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy and key implementation
requirements through 2017 and 2020, including compliance milestones for
the State's Truck and Bus Rule and the District's residential wood
burning rule (Rule 4901), (2) compliance with the State's and
District's enforceable commitments in the Plan by the 2017 milestone
date, and (3) updated emissions inventories for both 2017 and
2020.\472\ The QM Letter also states that the SIP revision will
identify appropriate air quality quantitative milestones for 2017 and
2020 designed to evaluate air quality progress resulting from
implementation of the Plan's control strategy, including an assessment
of monitored ambient PM2.5 concentrations and other
variables affecting ambient PM2.5 concentrations in each of
those years.\473\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ QM Letter, pp. 1-2.
\473\ Id., p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions
Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
With respect to direct PM2.5, NOX, and
SO2, we agree that ``generally linear progress'' is an
appropriate measure of RFP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV area given that, as the Plan documents, direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SOX are emitted by a large number and
range of sources in the SJV, the emission reductions needed for these
pollutants are inventory wide,\474\ and secondary particulates
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV
area.\475\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\474\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B.
\475\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1
(``Significance Determination Approach'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan documents the State's conclusion
that all BACM, BACT, and MSM for these pollutants are being implemented
as expeditiously as practicable and identifies projected levels of
direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emissions
in 2014 and 2017 that reflect full implementation of the State's and
District's BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy for these
pollutants.\476\ For example, Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management
Practices'') was adopted in 2004 and its requirements to control
PM10 emissions (including PM2.5) from on-field
crop and animal feeding operations are fully implemented.\477\ These
operations represent the largest dust sources of direct
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley.\478\ More recently,
SJVUAPCD revised Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters'') in September 2014 by strengthening the District's
curtailment program for residential wood burning, thereby further
limiting emissions from San Joaquin Valley's largest combustion source
of direct PM2.5.\479\ These rule amendments provide part of
the incremental emission reductions of direct PM2.5 from the
2014 to 2017 RFP milestone years and through the 2018 and 2020
attainment years.\480\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\476\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3, and
Appendix B. See also our discussion of BACM/BACT in section V.D of
this proposed rule.
\477\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-106 to C-
107.
\478\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2, pp. 5-7
to 5-8. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-2,
\479\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-4 and Appendix
C, p. C-156. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-
2.
\480\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6978]]
The Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation became
effective in 2011 and have rolling compliance deadlines based on truck
engine model year. These and other regulations applicable to heavy duty
diesel trucks will continue to reduce emissions of diesel particulate
matter and NOX through the RFP and attainment planning
years.\481\ For instance, model year 1994 and 1995 heavy heavy duty
diesel truck engines must be upgraded to meet the 2010 model year truck
engine emission standards by 2016, and model year 1996-1999 engines
must by upgraded by January 1, 2020.\482\ The emission reductions from
these rules represent the largest portion of the NOX
emission reductions upon which the Plan's attainment and RFP
demonstrations rely.\483\ With respect to SOX emissions,
Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces'') was amended in May 2011,
establishing SOX emission limits with compliance deadlines
through January 1, 2014.\484\ This rule will achieve emission
reductions through the 2017 RFP milestone year and 2018 and 2020
attainment years. As explained in section V.D of this preamble, we are
proposing to find that the State and District are implementing these
BACM, BACT and MSM provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\481\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-9 to 7-10 and
Appendix D, pp. D-8 to D-11.
\482\ Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025
(``Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter,
Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-
Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles''), paragraphs (e), (f), and (g),
effective December 14, 2011. See also EPA's final rule approving
CARB's Truck and Bus Rule. 77 FR 20308 at 20309-20310 (April 4,
2012).
\483\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-7.
\484\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp, 7-3 to 7-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the method used to calculate RFP target (or
``benchmark'') emission levels for direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 is generally consistent with the
method provided in the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule (40
CFR 51.1009(f)). We note that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan calculates
the 2014 and 2017 RFP benchmark emission levels using 2020 attainment
emissions levels that are not consistent with the attainment targets
presented in CARB's Staff Report.\485\ We have, however, re-calculated
the RFP benchmark emissions levels for these years using the attainment
targets found in the CARB Staff Report,\486\ as shown in Table 10
below. The EPA's calculations indicate that the Plan's projected 2014
and 2017 emission levels for direct PM2.5, NOX,
and SOX are below the RFP benchmark emission levels for
these years.\487\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\485\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-6, p. 6-7
vs. CARB Staff Report, p. 9.
\486\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, p.
9.
\487\ For example, the 2017 RFP benchmark for direct
PM2.5 should account for five years' worth of annual
incremental reductions and is calculated as (2012 emission
inventory)-(annual increment reduction)*5 = 66.0 tpd-(0.65 tpd/yr)*5
= 62.75 tpd. The projected emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 in 2017 is 62.5 tpd, which is less than this RFP
benchmark.
Table 10--EPA Calculation of 2015 PM2.5 Plan RFP Demonstration
[tpd, based on annual averages]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2020 Annual 2014 2017
Emissions Attainment incremental 2014 RFP Projected 2017 RFP Projected
inventory \a\ target b reduction \c\ Benchmark emissions \d\ Benchmark emissions \d\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5............................ 66.0 60.8 0.65 64.7 63.3 62.75 62.5
NOX..................................... 332.2 206.5 15.71 300.78 284.2 253.63 235.7
SOX..................................... 8.1 7.8 0.04 8.03 7.4 7.91 7.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-6, p. 6-7.
\b\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, p. 9.
\c\ Annual incremental reduction = (2012 emissions inventory-2020 attainment target)/(2020-2012).
\d\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-8, p. 6-8.
With respect to ammonia, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan shows an
8.6% increase in total ammonia emissions during the 2012 to 2020
period.\488\ Unlike the wide range of sources emitting direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in the Valley,
emissions of ammonia are almost entirely from three source categories:
confined animal facilities (CAFs), fertilizer application, and
composting, with more than half of all emissions coming from CAFs.\489\
Collectively, these three categories emit 95% of all ammonia emissions
in the 2012 annual average base year inventory.\490\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\488\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5.
\489\ In the inventories provided in Appendix B of the Plan,
emissions from these sources are found in the categories ``Farming
Operations'', ``Pesticides/Fertilizers'', and ``Other (Waste
Disposal)'', respectively.
\490\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5
(``Ammonia''), pp. B-16 to B-19. The three categories comprising
this 95% of emissions in the ammonia emission inventory are Other
(Waste Disposal), Pesticides/Fertilizers, and Farming Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several District measures already in the SIP for the SJV area
control ammonia emissions from two of these source categories. District
Rule 4570 (``Confined Animal Facilities'') required implementation of
control measures to reduce VOCs in 2008 and required full compliance by
affected sources by mid-2012.\491\ Many of the VOC control measures
have an ammonia co-benefit, and the District estimates a 100 tpd
reduction in ammonia from this rule, which have been accounted for in
the emissions inventory of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.\492\ The
Plan also indicates that implementation of District Rule 4565
(``Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations''), adopted
March 15, 2007,\493\ and Rule 4566 (``Organic Material Composting
Operations''), adopted August 18, 2011,\494\ resulted in some ammonia
reductions, but these reductions are not reflected in the base year or
baseline inventories. As discussed in section V.D of this proposed
rule, we are proposing to determine that each of these measures
implements BACM and MSM for the control of ammonia as a precursor to
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley for purposes of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\491\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240 to C-
243.
\492\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240 to C-
241. See also, Memo to file, ``Call with California Air Resources
Board regarding VOC and ammonia emissions inventory,'' R. Mays, EPA
Region 9, September 30, 2015.
\493\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-276.
\494\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272 to C-
273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statement in the Plan that ammonia is an insignificant
precursor in the SJV area is based on the State's analysis of the
relative sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to changes in
ammonia emissions as compared to NOX emissions. The State
relies in part on information previously presented in
[[Page 6979]]
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard to justify a NOX for ammonia trading ratio of 0.1.
The 2012 PM2.5 Plan contains modeling results and states
that ``reductions in ammonia are approximately nine times less
effective than NOX.'' \495\ The 2012 PM2.5 Plan
also gives ammonia and NOX sensitivities (ambient
PM2.5 changes in [mu]g/m\3\ per tpd of emission reductions),
based on modeling of the ambient effect of a 25% area-wide reduction in
each pollutant.\496\ The ratios of these sensitivities give an ammonia-
NOX relative sensitivity ratio, or NOX for
ammonia trading ratio, of 0.10 for the Bakersfield-California site, and
0.11 (about 1/9) for the Bakersfield-Planz site.\497\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\495\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G (``Weight of
Evidence Analysis''), p. 64.
\496\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Table 7, p. 65.
\497\ The difference between these two figures is about 0.1%
when carried through in the calculation of the NOX
equivalent of ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan similarly reflects the State's
conclusion that ammonia emission reductions are about 10% as effective
as NOX reductions in decreasing ambient PM2.5
concentrations.\498\ We have reviewed the modeling analysis from which
the State and District derived the 0.1 NOX for ammonia
trading ratio and propose to find that this ratio is a reasonable
estimate of the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to ammonia
reductions relative to NOX reductions, at least for the
Bakersfield-California and Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites for which
the analysis was performed. For further discussion of our evaluation of
this trading ratio for purposes of the Plan's RFP demonstration, see
section IV.A of the EPA's Interpollutant Trading Ratios TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\498\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-27 (stating
that ``ammonia reductions at the Bakersfield-California site are . .
. only 10% as effective as NOX reductions''); see also
CARB Staff Report, p. 26 and Table 12 (expressing NOX and
ammonia emissions combined as ``NOX equivalent'' emission
levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bakersfield-California site is projected to be the design value
site for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2018,\499\ which
addresses the requirement of 40 CFR 51.1009(h) that an equivalent
method for demonstrating RFP must do so at the design value monitoring
site within the nonattainment area. As discussed in section V.E.5 of
this proposed rule, although the State had initially projected the
Madera site to be the design value site for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in 2020, based on weight of evidence, it now
appears the Bakersfield-Planz site will most likely be the design value
site for the annual PM2.5 standard in 2020. Either way, the
0.1 ammonia-NOX relative sensitivity factor is adequate for
the RFP demonstration because it is derived from modeling analyses that
account for emission projections at both of these Bakersfield
monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\499\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1
(``Projected 2018 and 2020 Design Values''), p. F-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking the ammonia emissions increases into account, the
NOX equivalent emission levels presented in the Plan \500\
for the 2014 and 2017 RFP milestone years fall below the benchmark RFP
NOX emissions levels for those same years.\501\ In essence,
the substantial reduction of NOX emissions that is projected
to result from the Plan's control strategy (i.e., 37.8% reduction) from
2012 to 2020 \502\ appears to more than offset the increase in ammonia
emissions (i.e., 8.6% increase) that is projected to occur during that
same period.\503\ More specifically, as shown in Table 11, taking into
account the increase in ammonia emissions during the 2012 to 2020
period, the NOX equivalent emission levels projected in the
Plan for the 2014 and 2017 RFP milestone years are 5-6% lower than the
levels representing generally linear NOX emission reductions
for those same years, thus showing NOX emission reductions
at a rate faster than the benchmark scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26.
\501\ This approach is consistent with the regulatory option of
40 CFR 51.1009(g)(2) that the RFP plan demonstrate emission levels
that are ``projected to result in a generally equivalent improvement
in air quality by the milestone year as would be achieved under the
benchmark RFP plan.''
\502\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-2, p. B-8
and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. Emissions of NOX are project
to decrease from 332.2 tpd in 2012 to 206.5 tpd in 2020 (i.e., a
decrease of 125.7 tpd or 37.8%).
\503\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5, p. B-
19. Emissions of ammonia are project to increase 329.5 tpd in 2012
to 358.0 tpd in 2020 (i.e., an increase of 28.5 tpd or 8.6%).
Table 11--Comparison of NOX Equivalent Emissions to RFP Linear Emissions Level for NOX for RFP Milestone Years
[tpd, except row G]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................... NOX Emissions................ 332.2 284.2 235.7
B......................................... Ammonia Emissions............ 329.5 336.2 347.0
C......................................... NOX equivalent of ammonia ........... 0.7 1.8
increase.
D......................................... Total NOX Equivalent ........... 284.9 237.5
Emissions (A+C).
E......................................... RFP Linear Level for NOX..... ........... 300.9 253.9
F......................................... Total NOX Equivalent Emission ........... 16.0 16.4
Reductions Beyond RFP Linear
Level (E-D).
G......................................... % Below RFP Linear Level (F/ ........... 5.3% 6.5%
E).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 12, p. 26.
As discussed in section V.C of this proposed rule, we are proposing
to determine that VOCs do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 1997 PM2.5 standards
in the SJV and, accordingly, that no RFP demonstration for VOCs is
necessary for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in this
area.
In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan demonstrates that emissions
of direct PM2.5, NOX and SOX will be
reduced at rates representing generally linear progress toward
attainment, and that the increase in ammonia emissions over the 2012-
2020 planning period will be more than offset by substantial
NOX emission reductions exceeding the amounts necessary to
show generally linear progress toward attainment. The Plan also
demonstrates that all BACM, BACT and MSM that provide the bases for the
direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX, and ammonia
emissions projections in the RFP analysis in the Plan are being
implemented as expeditiously as practicable. Accordingly, we propose to
determine that the Plan requires the annual incremental reductions in
emissions of direct PM2.5 and relevant PM2.5
precursors that are necessary for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5
[[Page 6980]]
standards by 2018 and 2020, respectively, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA sections 171(1) and 172(c)(2).
Quantitative Milestones
Although the RFP emission levels identified in the Plan for the
2017 and 2020 milestone years represent generally linear progress
toward attainment by 2018 and 2020, the Plan as originally submitted in
June 2015 does not identify an objective means for evaluating the
area's compliance with these emission targets or progress toward
attainment, other than through 2017 and 2020 emissions levels and
CARB's commitment to report on the ``status of any emission reduction
commitments'' in the Plan. We note that the Plan contains only one
emission reduction commitment: To adopt amendments to District Rule
4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'') in 2016 and to achieve 0.4 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions through implementation of
this amended rule or a substitute rule achieving equivalent emission
reductions.\504\ Such a milestone would not provide an adequate means
to evaluate progress toward attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV, consistent with RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\504\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-6, and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the QM Letter, however, CARB committed to adopt and submit, no
later than December 31, 2016, a revision to the 2015 PM2.5
Plan that identifies specific milestones demonstrating progress toward
attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31,
2018 and the annual PM2.5 standard by December 31, 2020. The
QM Letter describes the specific components of this SIP revision that
CARB will adopt and submit by December 31, 2016, including milestones
to track implementation of specific SIP control measures and
commitments, and air quality milestones to be achieved by the 2017 RFP
milestone year and 2020 attainment year. Two of the control measures
identified in the QM Letter are responsible for a significant portion
of the NOX and direct PM2.5 emission reductions
necessary for RFP and attainment: CARB's Truck and Bus Rule and the
District's residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901). Emissions from
heavy heavy duty trucks and residential wood burning are the largest
combustion sources of NOX and direct PM2.5 in San
Joaquin Valley, and the Truck and Bus Rule and Rule 4901 achieve the
largest amounts of NOX and direct PM2.5 emission
reductions, respectively, identified in the Plan's attainment
demonstration.\505\ The District's commitment in the Plan to amend Rule
4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'') in 2016 and to achieve 0.4 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions through implementation of
this amended rule or a substitute rule achieving equivalent emission
reductions \506\ also accounts for a portion of the direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for RFP and attainment
in the Plan.\507\ These implementation milestones, together with the
updated emission inventories and air quality milestones for 2017 and
2020 that the State has also committed to identify as quantitative
milestones in the SIP revision, would provide an objective means to
evaluate the area's progress in achieving not only the incremental
emissions reductions but also the incremental air quality improvements
necessary to attain the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
2018 and 2020, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\505\ For stationary and area sources, ``Residential Fuel
Combustion'' is the largest combustion source of direct
PM2.5 in San Joaquin Valley (e.g., 9.4 tpd of the total
2012 winter average emissions of 61.0 tpd) and CARB's Staff Report
identifies Rule 4901 as achieving the largest portion of the direct
PM2.5 emission reductions for attaining 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (e.g., 2.9 tpd of the Plan's 6.6 tpd total
winter average emission reductions from 2012 to 2018). 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-2 and CARB Staff Report, p.
9. For all sources, ``Heavy Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (HHDV)'' are
the largest source of NOX in the San Joaquin Valley
(e.g., 120.5 tpd of the total 2012 annual average emissions of 332.2
tpd) and the Plan estimates that the largest emission reductions of
NOX during the attainment planning period, for which the
Truck and Bus Rule is a significant driver, will result from this
source category (e.g., 59.2 tpd of the 125.7 tpd annual average
emission reductions from 2012 to 2020). 2015 PM2.5 Plan,
Appendix B, p. B-7 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9.
\506\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-6, and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 7.
\507\ The Plan estimates that the amendments to Rule 4692 will
achieve 0.4 tpd of the Plan's 5.2 tpd total annual average emission
reductions of direct PM2.5 from 2012 to 2020. 2015
PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 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 1 year after
the date of the plan approval. Based on CARB's commitments to submit
the specific SIP revisions identified in the QM Letter by December 31,
2016, as discussed above, we propose to conditionally approve the
quantitative milestone component of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.
We note that, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
189(c)(2) as interpreted in longstanding EPA policy, each of the
milestone reports due March 31, 2018 (for the December 31, 2017
milestone date) and March 31, 2021 (for the December 31, 2020 milestone
date) should include technical support sufficient to document
completion statistics for appropriate milestones, e.g., calculations
and any assumptions made concerning emission reductions to date.\508\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ Addendum at 42017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM2.5 attainment plans must
include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet
RFP (``RFP contingency measures'') or fails to attain the
PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date
(``attainment contingency measures''). Under subpart 4, however, the
EPA interprets section 172(c)(9) in light of the specific requirements
for particulate matter nonattainment areas. Section 189(b)(1)(A)
differentiates between attainment plans that provide for timely
attainment and those that demonstrate that attainment is impracticable.
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan is a Serious area plan that demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2018 and attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2020, and thus, must include contingency measures for RFP
and attainment.
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP
requirement or to correct continuing nonattainment. The principle
requirements for contingency measures are: \509\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\509\ General Preamble at 13543-13544 and Addendum at 42014-
42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or
control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure
to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.
The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the
contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and
indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action
by the State or by the EPA. In general, we expect all actions needed to
affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days
after EPA notifies the State of a failure.
The contingency measures should consist of other control
measures for the area that are not already relied upon to
[[Page 6981]]
demonstrate attainment (e.g., to meet RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM
requirements) or to meet RFP.
The measures should provide for emissions reductions
equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP
calculated as the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the
attainment year.
Finally, we note that contingency measures can include federal,
state, and local measures that are already scheduled for implementation
or already implemented that provide for additional emissions reductions
that are not relied on to demonstrate RFP or attainment. In other
words, contingency measures are intended to achieve reductions over and
beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations.
Nothing in the CAA precludes a state from implementing such measures
before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP or a failure to
attain by the applicable attainment date. EPA has approved numerous
SIPs under this interpretation.\510\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\510\ See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct
final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279
(December 18, 1997) (final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP
revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving
Rhode Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final
rule approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone
SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule
approving Connecticut ozone SIP revision); see also LEAN v. EPA, 382
F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingency measures that were
previously required and implemented where they were in excess of the
attainment demonstration and RFP SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Contingency Measures in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan addresses the contingency measure
requirement in Chapter 6, section 6.4 (``Contingency Measures'') of the
Plan and in the CARB Staff Report, pages 26-27. Chapter 6, section 6.4
addresses contingency measure requirements for the 2014 and 2017 RFP
milestone years and for the 2020 attainment year by discussing emission
reductions to be achieved by already adopted measures, voluntary
incentive programs, and inter-pollutant trading between
PM2.5 and NOX for the 2020 attainment year. The
CARB Staff Report, p. 26-27, provides a brief statement on contingency
measures for the 2018 attainment year for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and identifies several additional control measures to address the
2020 attainment year for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Chapter 6
states that a year's worth of annual average emission reductions needed
to demonstrate RFP (``One year's worth of RFP'') is calculated by
taking the overall level of emission reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment and dividing it by the number of years between the base year
and attainment year.\511\ Table 6-9 of the Plan (Contingency Emissions
Reductions Target (tpd)) is reproduced below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\511\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6-
9, Table 6-9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency Need
= ``One year's
worth of RFP''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5.......................................... 0.4
NOX................................................... 15.7
SOX................................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-9.
Chapter 6 of the Plan identifies emission reductions to be achieved
by the control strategy in the Plan in 2014 and 2017 that the District
considers ``surplus'' to those reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP.
The District states that these emission reductions are thus available
to meet the contingency measure requirement.\512\ Table 6-10 of the
Plan (Reductions Surplus to RFP for Contingency (tpd)), reproduced
below, identifies the PM2.5 and NOX emission
reductions in 2014 and 2017 that the District considers ``surplus'' to
RFP requirements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year RFP target Projected RFP target Projected
emissions emissions Contingency emissions emissions Contingency
level inventory level inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 65.2 63.3 1.9 64.0 62.5 1.5
NOX..................................................... 300.9 284.2 16.7 253.9 235.7 18.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-10.
For the 2020 attainment year, the Plan provides estimates of
emission reductions projected in 2021 from a combination of adopted
state and local measures, including District Rules 4901, 4306, 4308,
and 4905 for direct PM2.5 and NOX and mobile
source measures for several source categories for NOX.\513\
Table 6-11 of the Plan identifies 1.6 tpd of direct PM2.5
and 12.0 tpd of NOX emission reductions as reductions that
are available to meet the 2020 attainment contingency measure
requirement. In order to address a shortfall of needed NOX
emission reductions, the District relies on inter-pollutant trading of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions for NOX emission
reductions at a ratio of 1:9 and, based on this analysis, concludes
that there are sufficient emission reductions to meet the attainment
contingency requirement.\514\ The CARB Staff Report also addresses
contingency measures for the 2020 attainment year. It identifies
additional direct PM2.5 and NOX emission
reductions to be achieved by the following control measures: ARB mobile
source measures, the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and
Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), Indirect Source Review (ISR) on-
site mitigation (i.e., District Rule 9510), and the AERO \515\ rule
(i.e., District Rule 4320). Based on these analyses, CARB concludes
that the SIP control strategy achieves emission reductions sufficient
to meet the attainment contingency measure requirement for the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\513\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6-
11, Table 6-11.
\514\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-12, Table 6-12.
\515\ AERO stands for Advanced Emission Reduction Options for
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0
MMBtu/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for the 2018 attainment year for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the CARB Staff Report states that ``additional
reductions in 2019 provide 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 and 10 tpd of
NOX reductions'' but does not identify the control measures
that achieve these emission reductions.\516\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\516\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's Contingency
Measures
The contingency measures portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
contains several deficiencies.
First, the Plan incorrectly calculates one year's worth of RFP
emission
[[Page 6982]]
reductions. Although Chapter 6 of the Plan correctly describes the
required steps for calculating one year's worth of annual average
emission reductions needed to demonstrate RFP, the actual calculation
in the Plan is based on 2020 baseline emission reductions estimates
\517\ rather than the attainment targets of 60.8 tpd of direct
PM2.5 and 206.5 tpd NOX.\518\ EPA recalculated
one year's worth of RFP emission reductions based on the attainment
emission levels presented in the Plan, as shown in Table 12 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\517\ See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3,
Table 6-6, Total Reductions Necessary to Reach Attainment (tpd). The
``Attainment Emissions Level'' used in Table 6-6 of the Plan reflect
the projected emission inventory levels found in Appendix B Emission
Inventory Tables, and does not reflect the attainment target levels
identified by the CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment
Emission Levels, Table 1.
\518\ CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment Emission
Levels, p. 9.
Table 12--EPA's Calculation of ``One Year's Worth of RFP'' Using Attainment Emissions Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of ``One Year's Worth of RFP''
Using Attainment Emissions Levels (tpd)
-----------------------------------------------
2012 Base year One year's
emissions 2020 Total emission worth of RFP
(tpd) Attainment reduction emission
emissions (tpd) reductions
(tpd) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5.................................... 66.0 60.8 5.2 0.65
NOX............................................. 332.2 206.5 125.7 15.7
SOX............................................. 8.1 7.8 0.3 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-6 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9.
Thus, according to EPA's calculation, one year's worth of RFP is
0.65 tpd of direct PM2.5, 15.7 tpd of NOX and 0.0
tpd of SOX. The NOX and SOX values are
essentially identical to the values identified in Chapter 6 of the Plan
(and reproduced in Table 6-9 above), but EPA's calculation of the
direct PM2.5 emission reductions representing one year's
worth of RFP is significantly higher than the value identified in
Chapter 6 of Plan. Consequently, the Plan significantly underestimates
the direct PM2.5 emission reductions necessary to satisfy
contingency measure requirements.
Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not provide an adequate
basis for the State's and District's conclusion that the emission
reductions identified for contingency measure purposes are in fact
``surplus'' to the reductions needed to demonstrate RFP and timely
attainment (e.g., for RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM). Section 6.4.2 of
the Plan states that regulatory emission reductions to be achieved by
2014 and 2017 exceed the minimum emission reductions needed to
demonstrate RFP in those years but does not provide a basis for the
District's conclusion that the identified emission reductions are not
relied on to satisfy RFP requirements. Similarly, the Plan provides no
support for either the District's conclusion that ``additional
PM2.5 and NOX reductions occurring between 2020
and 2021 can serve as attainment contingencies'' or the State's
conclusion that ``[f]or the interim 24-hour 2018 attainment deadline,
additional reductions in 2019 provide for 0.2 tpd of PM2.5
and 10 tpd of NOX reductions.'' \519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\519\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2 and
CARB Staff Report, p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, two of the control measures identified in the CARB Staff
Report as contingency measures--SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) and
SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 (ISR On-Site Mitigation)--are not creditable for SIP
purposes at this time. Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) is not SIP-creditable
because it contains provisions that allow owners and operators to pay a
fee in lieu of complying with the rule's emission limits and which
render the NOX emission limits in the rule
unenforceable.\520\ Rule 9510 (ISR On-Site Mitigation) is not SIP-
creditable because it likewise contains provisions that allow project
developers to pay fees instead of implementing on-site pollution
mitigation plans.\521\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\520\ 75 FR 68294 (November 5, 2010) and 76 FR 16696 (March 25,
2011).
\521\ 76 FR 26609 at 26612-26613 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the contingency measure portion of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan indicates that the District is relying on ``SIP-
creditable incentive-based emissions reductions'' to address
contingency measure requirements but does not identify the specific
incentive grant programs expected to provide the requisite emission
reductions, nor does it provide the documentation and related
enforceable commitments necessary to support a SIP submission that
relies on incentive programs for SIP emission reduction credit.\522\
Finally, the contingency measure portion of the 2015 PM2.5
Plan does not discuss ammonia emissions or provide any basis for a
conclusion that contingency measures for purposes of ammonia are not
necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\522\ The CAA requires that emission reductions resulting from
incentive programs be ``quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and
permanent'' in order to qualify for emission reduction credit in a
SIP. See, e.g., ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs,'' U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001; see
also 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final action on SJVUAPCD Rule
9610).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not contain or identify
SIP-creditable measures that are surplus to RFP and attainment needs
and that are sufficient to achieve at least one year's worth of
emission reductions for each of the RFP and attainment years identified
in the Plan. Accordingly, we propose to disapprove the contingency
measure portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for failure to
satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).
H. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the standards in the area.\523\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) permit program meeting the requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(5)
[[Page 6983]]
and 189(b)(3).\524\ As part of our April 7, 2015 final action to
reclassify the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 standards, we established a May 7, 2016 deadline for
the State to submit NNSR SIP revisions addressing the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the Act.\525\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\523\ General Preamble at 13539 and 13541-42.
\524\ CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious area plans
include provisions submitted to meet the requirements for Moderate
areas in section 189(a)(1)).
\525\ 80 FR 18528 at 18533 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has not yet submitted the NNSR SIP revisions required to
satisfy the subpart 4 requirements for Serious nonattainment areas
because they are not yet due. Accordingly, we are not proposing any
action with respect to these requirements at this time. CARB submitted
amendments to the SJVUAPCD's NNSR rules in 2011 to address the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that new and modified major sources of
PM2.5 undergo pre-construction review, and the EPA approved
these NNSR SIP revisions on September 17, 2014.\526\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\526\ 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local
air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to
demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans (RTP) and
transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable
SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets)
contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or
RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required
RFP milestone year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as
appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and
specific pollutants or precursors and must reflect all of the motor
vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP
demonstrations.\527\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\527\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct
PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5
precursors whose on-road emissions are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP
milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates
attainment. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake
wear, and tire wear. A state must also consider whether re-entrained
paved and unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust
are significant contributors and should be included in the direct
PM2.5 budget.\528\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\528\ 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also conformity rule
preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40
CFR 93.124 where a SIP establishes appropriate mechanisms for such
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment
modeling which established the relative contribution of each
PM2.5 precursor pollutant.
In general, only budgets in approved SIPs can be used for
transportation conformity purposes. However, section 93.118(e) of the
transportation conformity rule allows budgets in a SIP submission to
apply for conformity purposes before the SIP submission is approved
under certain circumstances. First, there must not be any other
approved SIP budgets that have been established for the same time
frame, pollutant, and CAA requirement. Second, the EPA must find that
the submitted SIP budgets are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. To be found adequate, the submission must meet the conformity
adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The
transportation conformity rule does, however, allow for replacement of
previously approved budgets by submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets that the EPA has found adequate, if the EPA has limited the
duration of its prior approval to the period before it finds
replacement budgets adequate.\529\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\529\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for 2014 and 2017 (RFP milestone
years), 2018 (projected attainment year for the 1997 24-hour NAAQS),
and 2020 (projected attainment year for the 1997 annual NAAQS).\530\
The budgets were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB's latest version of
the EMFAC model for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles
operating in California.\531\ The SJV has eight separate county-based
MPOs; therefore, separate budgets are provided for each MPO as well as
a total for the nonattainment area as a whole. The budgets for 2014,
2017, and 2020 reflect annual daily average emissions, and the budgets
for 2018 reflect winter daily average emissions. Winter average day
emissions are used for the 2018 budgets because SJV's exceedances of
the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS occur almost exclusively during the
winter months and are linked with the District's 2018 attainment
demonstration for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Annual average
day emissions are used for the 2014 and 2017 budgets because the
District has determined that annual average day budgets are the more
protective of the two budgets options (i.e., annual versus 24-hour
NAAQS) for the RFP milestone years when both standards apply, as is the
case for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. Annual average day emissions
are used for the 2020 budgets because those emissions are linked with
the District's attainment demonstration for the annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\530\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.4 (for
2014, 2017, and 2020 budgets) and 2018 Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP Plan Supplement,''
dated June 19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 23, 2015, p.
4.
\531\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. EPA announced the
availability of the EMFAC2014 model for use in state implementation
plan development and transportation conformity in California on
December 14, 2015. EPA's approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model
for SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the date of
publication of the notice in the Federal Register. EMFAC2014 must be
used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10
and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after
December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for
EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct PM2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions but exclude paved road, unpaved road, and road
construction dust based on the District's conclusion that these source
categories are insignificant contributors to PM2.5 levels in
the SJV.\532\ The Plan does not include budgets for SO2,
VOC, and ammonia. Under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the State
[[Page 6984]]
is not required to include budgets for VOC, sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and/or ammonia (NH3) unless EPA or the State has made
a finding that transportation-related emissions of any of these
precursors within the nonattainment area are a significant contributor
to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem. The District considered
on-road SO2, VOC, and ammonia emissions and concluded that
it is not necessary to control on-road SO2, VOC, and ammonia
emissions to attain the NAAQS. The District states in the Plan that on-
road mobile exhaust estimates of SOX are less than 1 ton per
day Valley-wide in the budget years; VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to the formation of secondary PM2.5 in the
SJV; and on-road mobile exhaust estimates of ammonia are less than 1
ton per day Valley-wide in the budget years.\533\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\532\ Plan at Chapter 6, Section 6.5.3.
\533\ Id.
Table 13--MVEBs for the San Joaquin Valley for 1997 PM2.5 Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2017 2018 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Annual average, tpd Annual average, tpd Winter average, tpd Annual average, tpd
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.......................................... 1.2 41.2 1.0 31.2 0.9 29.9 0.9 25.3
Kern (SJV)...................................... 1.0 36.5 0.8 28.0 0.8 27.7 0.8 23.3
Kings........................................... 0.2 7.6 0.2 5.7 0.1 5.5 0.1 4.8
Madera.......................................... 0.2 7.8 0.2 5.8 0.2 5.5 0.2 4.7
Merced.......................................... 0.4 13.9 0.3 10.7 0.3 10.3 0.3 8.9
San Joaquin..................................... 0.7 19.6 0.6 14.9 0.6 14.4 0.6 11.9
Stanislaus...................................... 0.5 15.6 0.4 11.9 0.4 11.4 0.4 9.6
Tulare.......................................... 0.5 14.9 0.4 11.9 0.4 10.3 0.4 9.6
Totals \a\...................................... 4.8 157.0 3.8 119.0 3.6 115.0 3.5 96.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6-16; and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement, dated June
19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 23, 2015.
\a\ Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a
NOX to PM2.5 ratio of 9:1.\534\ The State is
proposing to use the same 9:1 ratio that was in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan and approved by the EPA.\535\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\534\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6-17.
\535\ 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the same Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling
application \536\ underlying the attainment demonstrations in the prior
SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the current 2015 PM2.5
Plan, CARB previously developed an equivalency ratio between emission
reductions of direct PM2.5 and of NOX. For each
pollutant, CARB modeled the ambient effect of a 10% reduction of
emissions over the modeling domain. The concentration change per
emission change gave a precursor effectiveness value for NOX
and an effectiveness value for direct PM2.5. The ratio of
these two effectiveness values provided the
NOX:PM2.5 trading ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\536\ The EPA approved this air quality modeling as part of its
approval of the attainment demonstration in the SJV PM2.5
Plan. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 76 FR 69896, 69924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the SJV to meet the NOX budget, the NOX emission
reductions available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would
only be those remaining after the NOX budget has been met.
Each MPO responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity must
clearly document the calculations used in the trading, along with any
additional reductions of NOX or PM2.5 emissions
in the conformity analysis.
3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions
We have evaluated the budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) as part of our review of the budgets'
approvability (see section V in the EPA's General TSD for this
proposal) and will complete the adequacy review of these budgets
concurrent with our final action on the 2015 PM2.5
Plan.\537\ On September 18, 2015, the EPA announced the availability of
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day public comment
period. This announcement was posted on EPA's Adequacy Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/reg9sips.htm#ca. The
comment period for this notification ended on October 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\537\ Under the Transportation Conformity regulations, the EPA
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the
submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information about re-entrained road dust in the Plan
and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), we propose to concur with
the District's finding that re-entrained road dust emissions from paved
roads, unpaved roads, and road construction are not significant
contributors to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the
Valley and that these emissions therefore do not need to be addressed
in the MVEBs (see discussion in section V.A.2 of this proposed rule).
Additionally, based on the information about VOC, SO2, and
ammonia emissions in the Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(v), we propose to find that it is not necessary to
establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation-related
emissions of VOC, SO2, and ammonia to attain the 1997
PM2.5 standards in the SJV.
For the reasons discussed in section V.E.2 of this proposed rule,
we are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that it is
impracticable to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by
the applicable Serious area attainment date of December 15, 2015 and
proposing to extend the attainment dates to December 31, 2018 and
December 31, 2020 for the 24-hour and annual NAAQS, respectively.
For the reasons discussed in sections V.E.v and V.F of this
proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment
demonstrations in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. The budgets, as given
in
[[Page 6985]]
Table 13 of this proposed rule, are consistent with these
demonstrations, are clearly identified and precisely quantified, and
meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements
including the adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these
reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the budgets listed in Table 13
above. We provide a more detailed discussion in section V of the EPA's
General TSD, which can be found in the docket for today's action.
CARB has requested that we limit the duration our approval of the
budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for
any subsequently submitted budgets.\538\ The transportation conformity
rule allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\539\ However, we will
consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEB only if the
request includes the following elements: \540\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\538\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, June 25, 2015.
\539\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
\540\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
Because CARB's request does not include all of these elements, we
cannot at this time propose to limit the duration of our approval of
the submitted budgets until new budgets have been found adequate. In
order to limit the approval, we would need the information described
above in order to determine whether such limitation is reasonable and
appropriate in this case. Once CARB has adequately addressed that
information, we intend to review it and take appropriate action. If we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, we will provide the public an opportunity to
comment. The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, would
not be limited until we complete such a rulemaking.
We have previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets for the
1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\541\ These budgets will
continue to apply for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area
until we finalize our approval of the budgets in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan or find them adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\541\ 76 FR 69896, 69923 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used
in transportation conformity analyses that would use the proposed
budgets in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan as allowed for under 40 CFR
93.124. This trading mechanism would allow future decreases in
NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-
road increases in PM2.5, using a NOX for
PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. To ensure that the trading mechanism
does not affect the ability to meet the NOX budget, the Plan
provides that the NOX emission reductions available to
supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining
after the NOX budget has been met. The Plan also provides
that each MPO responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity
shall clearly document the calculations used in the trading, along with
any additional reductions of NOX or PM2.5
emissions in the conformity analysis.
The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as described on page 6-
17 in section 6.5.5 of Chapter 6 the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and
finds it is appropriate for transportation conformity purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that
the 9:1 NOX for PM2.5 ratio the State is
proposing to use for transportation conformity purposes in the 2015
Plan is the same as previously approved by EPA in its action on the SJV
2008 PM2.5 Plan.\542\ We therefore propose to approve the
trading mechanism with a NOX for PM2.5 trading
ratio of 9:1 as enforceable components of the transportation conformity
program for the SJV for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For further
discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1 NOX for
PM2.5 trading ratio for purposes of the Plan's motor vehicle
emission budgets, please see section IV.B of the EPA's Interpollutant
Trading Ratios TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\542\ 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to
approve, conditionally approve, and disapprove SIP revisions submitted
by California to address the Act's Serious area planning requirements
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan:
1. The 2012 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
2. the best available control measures/best available control
technology demonstration as meeting the requirements for RACM/RACT and
BACM/BACT in CAA sections 172(c)(1), 189(a)(1)(C), and 189(b)(1)(B);
3. the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(b)(1)(A);
4. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2);
5. the State's application for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, as meeting the requirements of CAA section
188(e);
6. the District's commitment to amend and implement revisions to
Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'') for under-fired charbroilers in
accordance with the schedule provided on page 7-6 of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan to achieve the emissions reductions identified
therein, as adopted in SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A; and
7. the 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets,
as shown in Table 13 of this proposed rule, because they are derived
from approvable attainment and RFP demonstrations and meet the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
EPA is also proposing to approve the interpollutant trading
mechanism provided in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for use in
transportation conformity analyses, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124,
with the condition that trades are limited to substituting excess
reductions in NOX emissions for direct PM2.5
emission reductions.
Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the quantitative milestones identified in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan because they do not fully satisfy the requirement
for quantitative milestones in section 189(c) of the Act. Section
110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to 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 date
of the plan approval. In this instance, the enforceable measures that
the State must submit are enforceable quantitative milestones that
enable the EPA to determine whether the area is meeting its reasonable
further progress goals as contemplated in the attainment plan and, if
the area is not doing so, that enable the EPA to require the State to
[[Page 6986]]
submit plan revisions to correct the deficiency. On December 15, 2015,
CARB submitted a letter committing to submit a SIP revision containing
specific quantitative milestones no later than December 31, 2016. If we
finalize this proposed conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit
the SIP revisions it has committed to submit by December 31, 2016. If
CARB fails to comply with this commitment, this conditional approval
will convert to a disapproval and start an 18-month clock for sanctions
under CAA section 179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a federal
implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1).
Finally, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to
disapprove the contingency measure portion of the 2015 PM2.5
Plan because it does not fully satisfy the requirement for contingency
measures in section 172(c)(9) of the Act. If we finalize the proposed
disapproval, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply
in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the
effective date of final disapproval and the highway funding sanctions
in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in the area 6 months after the
offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction would apply if California
submits and the EPA approves, prior to the implementation of the
sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in
the EPA's final action. Additionally, the disapproval action would
trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation
plan unless California corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves
the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action.
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments
are provided in the ``Date'' and ``Addresses'' sections at the
beginning of this preamble.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, 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, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 28, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-02325 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P