[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44528-44548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19017]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9983-00--Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of three state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act'') requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin
Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. First, the EPA is
proposing to approve the portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008
8-Hour Ozone Standard (``2016 Ozone Plan'') that address the
requirements to demonstrate attainment by the applicable attainment
date and implementation of reasonably available control measures, among
other requirements. Second, the EPA is proposing to approve the
portions of the Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan (``2016 State Strategy'') related to the ozone
control strategy for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards,
including a specific aggregate emissions reduction commitment. Lastly,
the EPA is proposing to approve an air district rule addressing the
emission statement requirement for ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA
is not taking action at this time on the portions of the San Joaquin
Valley 2016 Ozone Plan that address the requirements for a reasonable
further progress (RFP) demonstration, motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs), a base year emissions inventory, and contingency measures for
failure to attain or to meet reasonable further progress milestones. We
intend to address these remaining elements in a forthcoming proposal.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before October 1, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0535 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Regulatory Context
A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations and SIPs
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 Ozone Nonattainment
Area SIPs
II. Submissions From the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone
Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley
A. Summary of Submissions
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and
Submission of SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan
A. Emissions Inventories
B. Emission Statement
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and
Control Strategy
D. Attainment Demonstration
E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures To Offset
Emissions Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled
G. Contingency Measures To Provide for RFP and Attainment
H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
IV. Other Commitments To Reduce Emissions
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Regulatory Context
A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations and SIPs
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants,
referred
[[Page 44529]]
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including
on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment
and paints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of California typically refers to reactive organic
gases (ROG) in its ozone-related submissions since VOC in general
can include both reactive and unreactive gases. However, since ROG
and VOC inventories pertain to common chemical species (e.g.,
benzene, xylene, etc.), we refer to this set of gases as VOC in this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for
pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997.\3\ In 2008, the EPA
revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by setting the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ Although the EPA further
tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this action
relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202
(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\4\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\5\ Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The San Joaquin Valley
was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards on May 21,
2012, and classified as Extreme.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, after the EPA designates areas as nonattainment for
a NAAQS, states with nonattainment areas are required to submit SIP
revisions that provide for, among other things, attainment of the NAAQS
within certain prescribed periods that vary depending on the severity
of nonattainment. Areas classified as Extreme must attain the NAAQS
within 20 years of the effective date of the nonattainment
designation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See CAA section 181(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.1102 and 51.1103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and
submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP revisions, and it has
broad authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements
for mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts
in California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources
and are generally responsible for the development of regional air
quality plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or ``District'') develops and
adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning
requirements applicable to that region. Such plans are then submitted
to CARB for adoption and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the
California SIP.
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standards consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area stretches over 250 miles from
north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over
23,000 square miles. 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The population of the San Joaquin Valley in 2015 was estimated to
be nearly 4.2 million people, and is projected to increase by 25.3
percent in 2030 to over 5.2 million people.\9\ Ambient 8-hour ozone
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley are above the level of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maximum design value for the area, based
on certified data at the Parlier monitor (Air Quality System ID: 06-
019-4001), is 0.092 ppm for the 2015-2017 period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The population estimates and projections include all of Kern
County, not just the portion of Kern County within the jurisdiction
of the SJVAPCD. See Chapter 1 and table 1-1 of the District's 2016
Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.
\10\ See Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report,
20180621_DVRpt_SJV_2008-8hrO3_2015-2017.pdf in the docket for this
proposed action. The AQS is a database containing ambient air
pollution data collected by the EPA and state, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies from over thousands of monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area SIPs
States must implement the 2008 ozone standards under Title 1, part
D of the CAA, which includes section 172 (``Nonattainment plan
provisions in general'') and sections 181-185 of subpart 2
(``Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas''). To assist
states in developing effective plans to address ozone nonattainment
problems, in 2015 the EPA issued a SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for the
2008 ozone standards (``2008 Ozone SRR'') that addresses e.g.,
attainment dates, requirements for emissions inventories, attainment
and RFP demonstrations, and the transition from the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards to the 2008 8-hour ozone standards and associated anti-
backsliding requirements.\11\ The 2008 Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart AA. We discuss each of the CAA and regulatory
requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR was challenged, and on February 16, 2018,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'')
published its decision in South Coast Air Quality Management. District
v. EPA \12\ vacating portions of the 2008 Ozone SRR. The 2008 Ozone SRR
required the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans to be the
emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a
triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under
subpart A (``Air Emissions Reporting Requirements'') of 40 CFR part 51,
and it allowed states to use an alternative year, between 2008 and
2012, for the baseline emissions inventory provided the state
demonstrates why the alternative baseline year is appropriate. In the
South Coast decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the provisions of the
2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to justify and use an alternative
baseline year for demonstrating RFP. The RFP demonstrations in several
California ozone plans developed to address nonattainment area
requirements for the 2008 ozone standards, including the ozone plan for
the South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley, are based on the
alternative baseline year of 2012. In response to the South Coast
decision regarding alternative baseline years, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit
requesting rehearing on the RFP
[[Page 44530]]
baseline year issue to clarify that nonattainment areas may use the
year of the nonattainment designation (i.e., 2012 for the 2008 ozone
standards) as the baseline year for calculating RFP.\13\ Because the
D.C. Circuit has not yet issued a response to the petitions filed for
rehearing, the EPA is not proposing action at this time on the San
Joaquin Valley's RFP demonstration for the 2008 ozone standards.\14\
Several required attainment plan elements are related to the RFP
demonstration, namely the MVEBs, the base year emissions inventory, and
contingency measures. Therefore, the EPA is also not proposing action
at this time on these three elements. For completeness, however, in
this proposed action, we provide a summary of all the required
elements, including those for which we will be proposing action at a
later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South Coast'').
\13\ See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast Air Quality
Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, docket item #1727571,
filed April 20, 2018.
\14\ The EPA also filed a petition for rehearing in the D.C.
Circuit but did not request rehearing of the RFP baseline year
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Submissions From the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone
Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley
A. Summary of Submissions
On August 24, 2016, in response to the area's designation as
nonattainment and classification of Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
CARB submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP.\15\ Prior to submittal to the EPA, CARB approved the
2016 Ozone Plan, which had previously been adopted by the District and
forwarded to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan submittal consists of documents originating
from the District (e.g., the 2016 Ozone Plan with Appendices and the
District Governing Board Resolution) and CARB (e.g., the CARB Staff
Report and Appendices, and the CARB Resolution adopting the 2016 Ozone
Plan and CARB Staff Report as a SIP revision).\16\ The 2016 Ozone Plan
addresses the requirements for base year and projected future year
emissions inventories, air quality modeling demonstrating attainment of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment year, provisions
demonstrating implementation of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers,
provisions for transportation control strategies and measures, a
demonstration of RFP, and contingency measures for failure to make RFP
or attain, among other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See four enclosures to the August 24, 2016 letter from CARB
to EPA Region 9: (I) District Submittal, including letter from
Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives for the District,
to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, and five appendices
titled: (1) ARB SIP Completeness Checklist, (2) 2016 Ozone Plan with
Appendices, (3) Governing Board Resolution Adopting the 2016 Ozone
Plan, (4) Governing Board Memo, and (5) Evidence of Public Hearing;
(II) CARB Evidence of Public Notice and Transcript; (III) CARB Staff
Report; (IV) CARB Resolution 16-8 adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan and
CARB Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses compliance with the emission
statement requirement under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) in terms of
District Rule 1160, ``Emission Statements.'' District Rule 1160 was
adopted by the District on November 18, 1992, and submitted to the EPA
by CARB on January 11, 1993, as a revision to the California SIP.\17\
The EPA has not yet taken action on the January 11, 1993 submittal of
District Rule 1160 but is proposing to do so as part of today's
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See letter from Michael H. Scheible, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Daniel W. McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
dated January 11, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In approving the 2016 Ozone Plan, CARB anticipated the subsequent
adoption of a commitment by CARB to achieve an aggregate emission
reduction of 8 tons per day (tpd) of NOX in San Joaquin
Valley by 2031. On March 23, 2017, CARB approved the 2016 State
Strategy as a revision to the California SIP and submitted the 2016
State Strategy to the EPA on April 27, 2017.\18\ The 2016 State
Strategy, as approved and submitted by CARB, includes an 8 tpd
NOX emission reduction commitment for San Joaquin Valley.
The 2016 State Strategy commits to certain regulatory initiatives
(e.g., new California low-NOX standards for on-road heavy-
duty engines and low-emission diesel requirements for off-road
equipment) in addition to aggregate emissions reductions by certain
years in specific areas, such as San Joaquin Valley.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
April 27, 2017.
\19\ See table 5 of the 2016 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of
SIP Revisions
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations
in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing
prior to the adoption and submittal of the 2016 Ozone Plan, the 2016
State Strategy, and District Rule 1160. With respect to the 2016 Ozone
Plan, the District conducted a public workshop on May 23, 2014, and
held two additional workshops on March 22, 2016, on the Draft 2016
Ozone Plan. On May 11, 2016, the District published notices in several
local newspapers of a public hearing to be held on June 16, 2016, for
the adoption of the 2016 Ozone Plan.\20\ On June 16, 2016, the District
held the public hearing, and, through Resolution No. 16-6-20, adopted
the 2016 Ozone Plan and directed the Executive Officer to forward the
plan to CARB for inclusion in the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See the August 24, 2016 SIP submittal package, item I.E,
``Evidence of Public Hearing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also provided the required public notice and opportunity for
public comment on the 2016 Ozone Plan. On June 17, 2016, CARB released
for public review its staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan and
published a notice of public meeting to be held on July 21, 2016, to
consider approval of the 2016 Ozone Plan.\21\ On July 21, 2016, CARB
held the hearing and approved the staff report and directed its
Executive Officer to submit the CARB staff report and the 2016 Ozone
Plan to the EPA for approval into the California SIP.\22\ On August 24,
2016, the Executive Officer of CARB submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan to
the EPA and included the transcript of the hearing held on July 21,
2016.\23\ On December 19, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal
was complete.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/2016/sjvsip2016.pdf.
\22\ See CARB Resolution 16-8.
\23\ See transcript of the July 21, 2016 Meeting of the State of
California Air Resources Board.
\24\ See letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA Region IX to
Richard W. Corey, CARB, dated December 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the 2016 State Strategy, on May 17, 2016, CARB
circulated for public review and comment the Proposed State SIP
Strategy, provided a 60-day comment period, and provided notice of a
public hearing by the CARB Board to be held on September 22, 2016. On
March 7, 2017, in response to comments received during the public
comment period and
[[Page 44531]]
later during public workshops, and based on Board direction provided to
staff during the September 22, 2016 CARB Board meeting, CARB released a
Revised Proposed State SIP Strategy. On March 23, 2017, through
Resolution 17-7, CARB adopted the Revised Proposed State SIP Strategy
(herein referred to as the ``2016 State Strategy'') after a duly-
noticed public hearing. On April 27, 2017, CARB submitted the 2016
State Strategy to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
With respect to District Rule 1160, the District conducted four
public workshops to receive comment, and published notices in several
local newspapers of a public hearing to be held on November 18, 1992.
The District adopted the rule on November 18, 1992, and forwarded the
rule to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP. CARB did so by letter dated January 11, 1993.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See CARB submittal ``State of California Implementation
Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Exhibit A,'' January 11, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in each SIP revision and summarized
above, the EPA has determined that all hearings were properly noticed.
Therefore, we find that the submittals of the 2016 Ozone Plan, the 2016
State Strategy, and District Rule 1160 meet the procedural requirements
for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40
CFR 51.102.
III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan
A. Emissions Inventories
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require states to submit for
each ozone nonattainment area a ``base year inventory'' that is a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. In
addition, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires that the inventory year be
selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP demonstration,
which is usually the most recent calendar year for which a complete
triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements.\26\ The EPA has issued guidance
on the development of base year and future year emissions inventories
for 8-hour ozone and other pollutants.\27\ Emissions inventories for
ozone must include emissions of VOC and NOX and represent
emissions for a typical ozone season weekday.\28\ States should include
documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In
estimating mobile source emissions, states should use the latest
emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP
is developed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 2008 Ozone SRR at 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A.
\27\ See ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' (``EI Guidance''), EPA-454/
B-17-002, May 2017. At the time the 2016 Ozone Plan was developed,
the following EPA emissions inventory guidance applied: ``Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional
Haze Regulations'' (``EI Guidance''), EPA-454-R-05-001, November
2005.
\28\ 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 51.1100(bb) and (cc).
\29\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12290 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The base year and future year baseline inventories for
NOX and VOC for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone
nonattainment area, together with additional documentation for the
inventories, are found in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the 2016 Ozone
Plan. Because ozone levels in San Joaquin Valley are typically higher
from May through October, these inventories represent average summer
day emissions. The 2016 Ozone Plan includes a base year inventory for
2012 and future year inventories for the RFP milestone years. The
inventories reflect reductions from adopted federal, state, and
district measures. All inventories include emissions from point, area,
on-road, and non-road sources. Both base year and projected future year
inventories use the most current version of California's mobile source
emissions model, EMFAC2014, for estimating on-road motor vehicle
emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventories in the 2016 Ozone Plan were developed
jointly by CARB and the District, based on data from these two
agencies, combined with data from the California Department of
Transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of
Pesticide Regulation, the California Energy Commission and regional
transportation agencies. The emissions inventories reflect actual
emission reports for point sources, and estimates for mobile and area-
wide sources are based on the most recent models and methodologies.
CARB and the District also reviewed the growth profiles for point and
area-wide source categories and updated them as necessary to ensure
that the emission projections are based on data that reflect historical
trends, current conditions, and recent economic and demographic
forecasts.
CARB developed the emissions inventory for on-road and off-road
mobile sources. On-road mobile source emissions, which include
passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks, were estimated using CARB's
EMFAC2014 model. The on-road emissions were calculated by applying
EMFAC2014 emission factors to the transportation activity data provided
by the local San Joaquin Valley transportation agencies from their 2014
adopted Regional Transportation Plan. The EPA has approved this model
for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analyses.\31\ Non-road
mobile source emissions were estimated using either newer category-
specific models or, where a new model was not available, the
OFFROAD2007 model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2012 inventory was projected to 2015 and future years using
CARB's California Emission Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM). The
District identified several measures that achieve emissions reductions
from stationary sources in and after 2012, including rules for open
burning, boilers, flares, solid fuel boilers, and glass melting
furnaces, among others.\32\ Table 1 provides a summary of the emission
estimates prepared for the 2016 Ozone Plan for the base year (2012) and
the attainment year (2031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See table 5-1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. All the rules listed
in table 5-1 have been approved as revision to the SIP.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Base Year and Attainment Year Emissions Inventory Summary
[Summer average tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NOX (2012) NOX (2031) VOC (2012) VOC (2031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............................. 42.4 29.5 85.3 100.0
Area Sources.................................... 4.7 4.9 147.0 152.7
[[Page 44532]]
On-road Mobile.................................. 187.7 45.1 60.5 18.3
Off-road Mobile................................. 104.7 52.4 44.5 25.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 339.6 131.9 337.3 296.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix B (note that because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total
of all categories).
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As described elsewhere, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires the base year
inventory to be consistent with the RFP baseline year inventory;
accordingly, the 2016 Ozone Plan uses the year 2012 for the base year
inventory and the RFP baseline year inventory. The EPA has evaluated
the 2012 base year inventory and the methodologies used by the District
and CARB, and we find them to be comprehensive, accurate, and current.
However, as discussed elsewhere, we are not taking action at this time
to approve the base year emissions inventory or the emissions
inventories for any of the RFP milestone years in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
We intend to take action on the base year emissions inventory at a
later time, together with the RFP demonstration, and other elements
affected by the South Coast decision.
However, we note that the attainment demonstration and VMT offset
demonstration rely on the 2012 base year inventory. As discussed in
section III.D of this proposed action, the EPA's draft modeling
guidance states that the EPA does not require a particular year to be
used for the base year for modeling purposes. The most appropriate base
year may be the most recent year of the National Emissions Inventory,
or it may be selected in view of unusual meteorology, transport
patterns, or other factors that may vary from year to year.\33\ Based
on our review of the emissions inventories provided in the 2016 Ozone
Plan, we find that the 2012 base year emissions inventory and future
year emissions inventories that are derived therefrom provide an
acceptable basis for the attainment demonstration and VMT offset
demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See section 2.7.1 of Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
December 2014 Draft, EPA OAQPS; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Emission Statement
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or
NOX to provide the state with statements of actual emissions
from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and
must contain a certification that the information contained in the
statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual
certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows
states to waive the emission statement requirement for any class or
category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year
(tpy) of VOC or NOX, if the state provides an inventory of
emissions from such class or category of sources as part of the base
year or periodic inventories required under CAA sections 182(a)(1) and
182(a)(3)(A), based on the use of emission factors established by the
EPA or other methods acceptable to the EPA.
The preamble of the 2008 Ozone SRR states that if an area has a
previously approved emission statement rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for
purposes of the emission statement requirement for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\34\ The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is
adequate and, if so, may rely on it to meet the emission statement
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Where an existing emission
statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of
this rule, states can provide the rationale for that determination to
the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement.
States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by
the existing emission statement program. Where an emission statement
requirement is modified for any reason, states must provide the
revisions to the emission statement as part of their SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The District adopted Rule 1160, ``Emission Statements,'' on
November 18, 1992, to address the SIP submittal requirements for
emission statements for areas such as San Joaquin Valley that were
designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under the CAA
Amendments of 1990. CARB submitted District Rule 1160 to the EPA on
January 11, 1993.
District Rule 1160 applies to all owners and operators of any
stationary source category that emits or may emit VOC or
NOX, but allows the District to waive the requirements for
any class or category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy
of VOC or NOX under certain circumstances. Under District
Rule 1160, owners or operators must provide the District, on an annual
basis, with a written statement in such form as the District
prescribes, showing actual emissions of VOC and NOX from the
source. Owners or operators may comply with the requirement by
completing and returning either an Emission Statement or an Emission
Data Survey Form. Both the emission statement and the data survey form
are intended to provide an estimate of actual emissions from the given
stationary source. Lastly, District Rule 1160 requires certification by
the responsible official that the information is accurate to the best
knowledge of the individual certifying the information.
The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that District Rule 1160 continues to
meet the emission statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)
and relies on that rule to meet the emission statement requirements for
the 2008 ozone standards.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See section 3.11.2 (``Emission Reporting Programs'') in the
2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As noted previously, the EPA has not taken action on CARB's January
11, 1993 submittal of District Rule 1160 but is proposing to do so
herein. First, we
[[Page 44533]]
have evaluated District Rule 1160 for compliance with the specific
requirements for emission statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
We find that District Rule 1160 applies within the entire ozone
nonattainment area; applies to all permitted sources of VOC and
NOX; requires the submittal, on an annual basis, of the
types of information necessary to estimate actual emissions from the
subject stationary sources; and requires certification by the
responsible officials representing the owners and operators of
stationary sources. As such, we find that District Rule 1160 meets the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
We also note that, while District Rule 1160 provides authority to
the District to waive the requirement for any class or category of
stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy, such a waiver is allowed
under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) so long as the state includes
estimates of such class or category of stationary sources in base year
emissions inventories and periodic inventories submitted under CAA
sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), based on EPA emissions factors or
other methods acceptable to the EPA. We recognize that emissions
inventories developed by CARB for San Joaquin Valley routinely include
actual emissions estimates for all stationary sources or classes or
categories of such sources, including those less than 25 tpy, and that
such inventories provide the basis for inventories submitted to meet
the requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). By
approval of emissions inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), the EPA is implicitly accepting
the methods and factors used by CARB to develop those emissions
estimates. Our most recent approval of a base year emissions inventory
for San Joaquin Valley is found at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012)
(approval of base year emissions inventory for the 1997 ozone NAAQS).
Thus, for the reasons stated above, we propose to approve District
Rule 1160, which CARB submitted on January 11, 1993, as meeting the
emission statement requirements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). For
more detailed information concerning our evaluation of District Rule
1160, please see the related technical support document.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA's
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 1160 Emission
Statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and Control
Technology
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through implementation of reasonably available
control technology), and also provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The
2008 Ozone SRR requires that, for each nonattainment area required to
submit an attainment demonstration, the state concurrently submit a SIP
revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any
RFP requirements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM
requirement in the General Preamble for the Implementation of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and in a memorandum entitled ``Guidance on
the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' \38\ In
summary, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states should
consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's
attainment date by one year or more.\39\ Any measures that are
necessary to meet these requirements that are not already either
federally promulgated, or part of the state's SIP, or otherwise
creditable in the SIP, must be submitted in enforceable form as part of
the state's attainment plan for the area.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 1992)
and Memorandum dated November 30, 1999, from John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, titled ``Guidance on the
Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
\39\ Ibid. See also 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), and memorandum
dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to
Regional Air Directors, titled ``Additional Submission on RACM From
States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
\40\ For ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or
above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of RACT
for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for
which the EPA has issued a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA
section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply
to major stationary sources of NOX. In Extreme areas, a
major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential
to emit at least 10 tpy of VOC or NOX (see CAA section
182(e) and (f)). Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, states were required to
submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT requirements of CAA sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 24 months after the effective
date of designation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and to implement the
required RACT measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of
designation (see 40 CFR 51.1112(a)). California submitted the CAA
section 182 RACT SIP for San Joaquin Valley on July 18, 2014, and
the EPA fully approved this submission on July 12, 2018. See 83 FR
41006 (August 17, 2018). We are not addressing the section 182 RACT
requirements in today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 172(c)(6) requires that nonattainment area plans
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as
fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS.\41\ Under
the 2008 Ozone SRR, all control measures needed for attainment must be
implemented no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone
season.\42\ The attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone
season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's maximum attainment
date.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
\42\ See 40 CFR 51.1108(d).
\43\ See 40 CFR 51.1100(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
For the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District, CARB, and the local
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) each undertook a process to
identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to
expeditious attainment of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley. We describe each agency's efforts below.
a. District's RACM Analysis
The District's RACM demonstration and control strategy for the 2008
ozone NAAQS focuses on stationary and area source controls and is
described in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone
Plan. To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed 59 control
measures for a number of source categories and compared its measures
against federal requirements and regulations implemented by the State
and other air districts. In the years prior to the adoption of the 2016
Ozone Plan, the District developed and implemented comprehensive plans
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS
[[Page 44534]]
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., the 2012
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) and ozone
(e.g., the 2004 Ozone Plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2007 Ozone
Plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 2013 Ozone Plan for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).\44\ These plans have resulted in the District's adoption
of many new rules and amendments to existing rules for stationary and
area sources. In addition, although the District does not have
authority to directly regulate emissions from mobile sources, the
District has implemented control strategies to indirectly reduce
emissions from mobile sources.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See the EPA's approval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan at
81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016), the EPA's approval of the 2004 Ozone
Plan and 2013 Ozone Plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) and 81 FR
2140 (January 15, 2016), and the EPA's approval of the 2007 Ozone
Plan at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
\45\ See, e.g., Rule 9410 (Employer-Based Trip Reduction),
approved into the California SIP at 81 FR 6761 (February 9, 2016);
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review), approved into the California SIP
at 89 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011); and Rule 9310 (School Bus Fleets),
approved into the California SIP at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 identifies the District control measures listed in table 5-
1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan, which contribute toward attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS by 2031. The EPA has approved all of these measures
into the California SIP.
Table 2--District Rules Achieving Emissions Reductions in or After 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date adopted
Rule No. Rule title or last Citation for EPA approval into SIP
amended \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4103................... Open Burning.............. 4/15/10 77 FR 214 (1/4/12)
4307................... Boilers, Steam Generators, 4/21/16 82 FR 37817 (8/14/17)
and Process Heaters 2 to
5 MMBtu per hour \b\.
4308................... Boilers, Steam Generators, 11/14/13 80 FR 7803 (2/12/15)
and Process Heaters 0.075
to less than 2 MMBtu per
hour.
4311................... Flares.................... 6/18/09 76 FR 68106 (11/3/11)
4306/4320.............. Boilers, Steam Generators, 10/16/08 75 FR 1715 (1/13/2010)/ 76 FR 16696 (3/25/
and Process Heaters 11)
greater than 5 MMBtu per
hour.
4352................... Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam 12/15/11 77 FR 66548 (11/6/12)
Generators, and Process
Heaters.
4354................... Glass Melting Furnaces.... 5/19/11 78 FR 6740 (1/31/13)
4565................... Biosolids, Animal Manure, 3/15/07 77 FR 2228 (1/17/12)
Poultry Litter Operations.
4566................... Organic Material 8/18/11 77 FR 71129 (11/29/12)
Composting Operations.
4601................... Architectural Coatings.... 12/17/09 76 FR 69135 (11/8/11)
4605................... Aerospace Assembly and 6/16/11 76 FR 70886 (11/16/11)
Component Coating
Operations.
4653................... Adhesives and Sealants.... 9/16/10 77 FR 7536 (2/13/12)
4682................... Polystyrene, Polyethylene, 9/20/07 77 FR 58312 (9/20/12)
and Polypropylene
Products Manufacturing.
4684................... Polyester Resin Operations 8/18/2011 77 FR 5709 (2/6/12)
4702................... Internal Combustion 11/14/13 81 FR 24029 (4/25/16)
Engines.
4905................... Natural Gas-Fired, Fan- 1/22/15 81 FR 17390 (3/29/16)
Type Residential Central
Furnaces.
9610................... State Implementation Plan 6/20/13 80 FR 19020 (4/9/15)
Credit for Emission
Reductions Generated
Through Incentive
Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Reflects more recent submittals for rules 4307, 4605, 4684 and 4702 than reflected in table 5-1 of the 2016
Ozone Plan.
\b\ Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu).
Source: Table 5-1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
The District provides a more comprehensive evaluation of its RACM
control strategy in Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan, which provides
the following:
Description of the sources within the category or sources
subject to the rule;
Base year and projected baseline year emissions for the
source category affected by the rule;
Discussion of the current requirements of the rule; and
Discussion of potential additional control measures,
including, in many cases, a discussion of the technological and
economic feasibility of the additional control measures. This includes
comparison of each District rule to analogous control measures adopted
by other agencies (including the EPA, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District).
We provide more detailed information about these control measures
in our technical support document.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document: Proposed
Approval of Portions of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan:
District Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its evaluation of all of these measures, the District
concludes that it is implementing all RACM for sources under the
District's jurisdiction.
b. CARB's RACM Analysis
Chapters 5 and 6 of the 2016 Ozone Plan contain CARB's evaluation
of mobile source and other statewide control measures that reduce
emissions of NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin Valley. Source
categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for reducing
emissions in California include most new and existing on- and off-road
engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer products. The
California Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for
regulating the application of pesticides, which is a significant source
of VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.
Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has been a leader in the development of stringent
control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209
(subject to a waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emission
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new
and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
Historically, the EPA has allowed California to take into account
emissions reductions from CARB regulations for which the EPA has issued
waiver or authorizations under CAA section 209, notwithstanding the
fact that these regulations have not been approved as part of the
California SIP. However, in response to the decision by
[[Page 44535]]
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Ninth
Circuit'') in Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, the EPA has since
approved mobile source regulations for which waiver authorizations have
been issued as revisions to the California SIP.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017), and 83 FR 8404 (February 27, 2018). See also Committee
for a Better Arvin, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's mobile source program extends beyond regulations that are
subject to the waiver or authorization process set forth in CAA section
209 to include standards and other requirements to control emissions
from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel
specifications, and many other types of mobile sources. Generally,
these regulations have been submitted and approved as revisions to the
California SIP.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-
powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), revisions to the
California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations
at 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the California motor
vehicle I/M program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While all of the identified State control measures contribute to
some degree to attainment of the 2008 ozone standards in the San
Joaquin Valley, some measures are identified in particular in the 2016
Ozone Plan as providing significant emissions reductions relied upon
for attainment of the 2008 ozone standards. These measures include the
On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Regulation, the Low Emission Vehicle
III and Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation, and the Heavy-Duty Truck
Idling Requirements.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See action approving into the SIP the On-Road Heavy-Duty
Diesel Regulation, the Low Emission Vehicle and Zero Emission
Vehicle Regulation, and the Heavy-Duty Truck Idling Requirements at
81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that, in light of the
comprehensiveness and stringency of CARB's mobile source program, all
RACM for mobile sources under CARB's jurisdiction are being
implemented, and that no additional measure would advance attainment of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by at least a year.
c. Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis and Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs)
The local jurisdictions' RACM analysis was conducted by the eight
MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley and is provided in Appendix D of the
2016 Ozone Plan.\50\ This analysis focuses on the MPOs' efforts to
implement Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) as part of the adopted
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality cost-effectiveness policy and in
the development of each Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTPs
include improvements to each component of the transportation system
including: Transit, passenger rail, goods movement, aviation and
airport ground access, and highways; and include TCM projects that
reduce vehicle use, or change traffic flow or congestion conditions.
The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that no additional local RACM measures,
beyond those measures already adopted, would advance attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS by at least a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: 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, The Kings
County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of
Governments, and the Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
The process followed by the District in the 2016 Ozone Plan to
identify RACM is generally consistent with the EPA's recommendations in
the General Preamble. The process included compiling a comprehensive
list of potential control measures for sources of NOX and
VOC in the San Joaquin Valley.\51\ As part of this process, the
District evaluated potential controls for all relevant source
categories for economic and technological feasibility and provided
justifications for the rejection of certain identified measures. The
District concluded in its RACM evaluation that no additional measures,
individually or in combination, could advance attainment by one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the District's determination in the 2016 Ozone
Plan that its stationary and area source control measures represent
RACM for NOX and VOC. In our review, we also considered our
previous evaluations of the District's rules in connection with our
approval of the San Joaquin Valley Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) SIP demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\52\ Based
on this review, we believe the District's rules provide for the
implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of
NOX and VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 83 FR 41006 (August 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to mobile sources, we recognize CARB as a leader in
the development and implementation of stringent control measures for
on-road and off-road mobile sources, and its current program addresses
the full range of mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley through
regulatory programs for both new and in-use vehicles. With respect to
transportation controls, we note that the MPOs have a program to fund
cost-effective TCMs. Overall, we believe that the programs developed
and administered by CARB and the MPOs provide for the implementation of
RACM for NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin Valley.
In the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District estimated that it would take a
reduction of 2.7 tpd of NOX to advance attainment by one
year from 2031 to 2030.\53\ Based on our review of the results of these
RACM analyses, we agree with the State's and District's conclusion that
there are no additional reasonably available measures that would
advance attainment of the 2008 ozone standards in the San Joaquin
Valley by at least one year. For the foregoing reasons, we propose to
find that the 2016 Ozone Plan provides for the implementation of all
RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Attainment Demonstration
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act requires that a plan for
an ozone nonattainment area classified Serious or above include a
``demonstration that the plan . . . will provide for attainment of the
ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date. This attainment
demonstration must be based on photochemical grid modeling or any other
analytical method determined . . . to be at least as effective.'' The
attainment demonstration predicts future ambient concentrations for
comparison to the NAAQS, making use of available information on
measured concentrations, meteorology, and current and projected
emissions inventories of ozone precursors, including the effect of
control measures in the plan.
Areas classified Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS must demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 20 years
after the effective date of designation as nonattainment. The San
Joaquin Valley was designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012,
and the area must demonstrate attainment of the standards by July 20,
2032.\54\ An attainment demonstration must show attainment of the
standards for a full calendar year
[[Page 44536]]
before the attainment date, so in practice, Extreme nonattainment areas
must demonstrate attainment in 2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See 80 FR 12264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's recommended procedures for modeling ozone as part of an
attainment demonstration are contained in Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze (``Modeling Guidance'').\55\ The
Modeling Guidance includes recommendations for a modeling protocol,
model input preparation, model performance evaluation, use of model
output for the numerical NAAQS attainment test, and modeling
documentation. Air quality modeling is performed using meteorology and
emissions from a base year, and the predicted concentrations from this
base case modeling are compared to air quality monitoring data from
that year to evaluate model performance. At a minimum, a model
performance evaluation should include an operational evaluation, with
statistics and graphical plots assessing the ability of the model to
replicate observed ozone concentrations. Where possible, performance of
other chemical species participating in ozone formation chemistry, such
as NO2 and peroxyacetyl nitrate, should also be examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
December 2014 Draft, EPA OAQPS; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. This updates, but is largely consistent with, the earlier
Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007. Additional EPA
modeling guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, Guideline on
Air Quality Models, 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017; available at
https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the model achieves accurate results based on
relevant atmospheric phenomena, without errors that compensate each
other to give just the appearance of accuracy, and to guide refinement
of model inputs, it is also recommended to assess, at least to some
extent, if the model correctly represents the underlying physical and
chemical processes. This can be done via diagnostic evaluation, such as
assessing model sensitivity to changes in inputs and process analysis.
It can also be done via dynamic evaluation, such as assessing the
modeled concentration change between different historical periods. Once
the model performance is determined to be acceptable, future year
emissions are simulated with the model. The relative (or percent)
change in modeled concentration due to future emissions reductions
provides a Relative Response Factor (RRF). Each monitoring site's RRF
is applied to its monitored base year design value to provide the
future design value for comparison to the NAAQS. The Modeling Guidance
also recommends supplemental air quality analyses, which may be used as
part of a Weight of Evidence (WOE) analysis. A WOE analysis
corroborates the attainment demonstration by considering evidence other
than the main air quality modeling attainment test, such as trends and
additional monitoring and modeling analyses.
Unlike the RFP demonstration and the emissions inventory
requirements, the 2008 SRR does not specify that a specific year must
be used for the modeled base year for the attainment demonstration. The
Modeling Guidance also does not require a particular year to be used as
the base year for 8-hour ozone plans.\56\ The Modeling Guidance
explains that the most recent year of the National Emissions Inventory
may be appropriate for use as the base year for modeling, but that
other years may be more appropriate when considering meteorology,
transport patterns, exceptional events, or other factors that may vary
from year to year.\57\ Therefore, the base year used for the attainment
demonstration need not be the same year used to meet the requirements
for emissions inventories and RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Modeling Guidance at section 2.7.1.
\57\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
CARB performed the air quality modeling for the 2016 Ozone Plan
with assistance from the District. The modeling relies on a 2012 base
year and demonstrates attainment in 2031. The Plan's modeling protocol
is in Appendix I of the 2016 Ozone Plan and contains all the elements
recommended in the Modeling Guidance. Those include: Selection of
model, time period to model, modeling domain, and model boundary
conditions and initialization procedures; a discussion of emissions
inventory development and other model input preparation procedures;
model performance evaluation procedures; selection of days and other
details for calculating RRFs; and provisions for archival and access to
raw model inputs and outputs.
The modeling and modeled attainment demonstration are described in
Chapter 4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan and in more detail in Appendix H,
which provides a description of model input preparation procedures and
various model configuration options. Appendix J of the 2016 Ozone Plan
provides the coordinates of the modeling domain and thoroughly
describes the development of the modeling emissions inventory,
including its chemical speciation, its spatial and temporal allocation,
its temperature dependence, and quality assurance procedures. The
modeling analysis used version 5 of the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) photochemical model, developed by the EPA. The 2007
version of the State-wide Air Pollution Research Center chemical
mechanism (SAPRC07) was used within CMAQ. SAPRC07 is an update to a
mechanism that has been used for the San Joaquin Valley and other areas
of the US, and it has been peer-reviewed as discussed in the protocol.
To prepare meteorological input for CMAQ, the Weather and Research
Forecasting model version 3.6 (WRF) from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research was used. The overall WRF meteorological modeling
domain covers California's neighboring states, and major portions of
the next outer ring of states, with 36-kilometer (km) resolution (i.e.,
grid cell size); it has nested domains with 12 km and 4 km resolution,
with the latter, innermost covering the entire State of California; and
it has 30 vertical layers extending up to 16 km. The overall CMAQ air
quality modeling domain includes the entire State of California with 12
km resolution and a nested domain with finer 4 km resolution covering
California's Central Valley, including the San Joaquin Valley; and it
has 18 vertical layers that overlap the WRF layers. The WRF modeling
uses routinely available meteorological and air quality data collected
during 2012. Those data cover May through September, a period that
spans the period of highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin
Valley. Two analyses in the WOE analysis in Appendix K section 4
provide the justification for the choice of 2012 as model base year,
based on ozone concentrations and various meteorological measures of
the ozone forming potential of candidate years 2010-2013. CMAQ and WRF
are both recognized in the Modeling Guidance as technically sound,
state-of-the-art models. The areal extent and the horizontal and
vertical resolution used in these models were adequate for modeling San
Joaquin Valley ozone.
The WRF meteorological model results and performance statistics are
described in Appendix H, section 3.2. Supplemental figures S.1-S.20
provide hourly time series graphs of wind speed, direction, and
temperature for the Northern, Central, and Southern sub-
[[Page 44537]]
regions of the San Joaquin Valley for each month that was modeled. The
modeling shows a positive bias in wind speed, and various biases in
temperature (negative in Southern & Central, positive in Northern) and
in humidity (opposite direction to temperature).\58\ These biases are
also seen in the hourly supplemental figures. For example, peak wind
speeds are often higher than observed (positive bias) but the
overprediction decreases at moderate and low wind speeds and in the
later months of the simulation, while the overall diurnal pattern
matches consistently. At first glance the biases in wind speed and in
relative humidity seem large relative to their base values.\59\
However, the 2016 Ozone Plan states that the bias and error are
relatively small and are comparable to those seen in previous
meteorological modeling of central California and cited in the 2016
Ozone Plan. The 2016 Ozone Plan compared statistics for wind speed,
relative humidity, and temperature to benchmarks from a study cited in
the Modeling Guidance. The comparison shows that the mean bias in the
2016 Ozone Plan's meteorological modeling is on the high side but
within the benchmarks, the mean error is lower, and the Index of
Agreement \60\ is quite good, especially for temperature. The Modeling
Guidance cautions against using comparisons to performance benchmarks
as pass/fail tests, and stresses their use in assessing general
confidence and in guiding refinement of model inputs when statistics
fall outside benchmark ranges.\61\ In summary, the 2016 Ozone Plan's
meteorological modeling performance statistics appear satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Appendix H, table H-7, Figures H-3 and H-5.
\59\ See, e.g., table H-7 Southern San Joaquin Valley wind speed
bias of 0.5 relative to base speed 2.4 meters per second, and
relative humidity bias of 18 percent relative to 55 percent.
\60\ The Index of Agreement is a statistical metric. See page 47
of the Modeling Protocol to the 2016 Ozone Plan.
\61\ See page 30 of the Modeling Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recommended in the Modeling Guidance, the 2016 Ozone Plan also
provided a phenomenological evaluation of the meteorological modeling,
assessing its ability to replicate qualitative features of the area's
meteorological phenomena that could be important for ozone
concentrations. The 2016 Ozone Plan's evaluation confirmed that the
model was able to capture important phenomena such as up-slope and
down-slope flows in the mountain ranges surrounding the Central Valley,
and the split in flow toward north and south as winds enter the Central
Valley through the Sacramento River delta area.
Ozone model performance statistics are described in the 2016 Ozone
Plan at Appendix H, section 5.2. That section includes tables of
statistics recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 8-hour and 1-hour
daily maximum ozone for the three San Joaquin Valley sub-regions.
Supplemental figures S.21-S.102 provide frequency distributions,
scatterplots, and hourly time series graphs of ozone concentrations for
each of the 25 monitors located in the San Joaquin Valley. The
supplemental hourly time series show generally good performance, though
many individual daily ozone peaks are underpredicted. This is confirmed
by the ozone frequency distributions (e.g., figure S.1), scatter plots
(e.g., figure S.22), and plots of bias against concentration (e.g.,
figure S.25). The highest concentrations also have the largest negative
bias. The 2016 Ozone Plan states that the performance statistics are
comparable to those seen in previous modeling of ozone in central
California and cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan. It also found the
statistics to be within the ranges for other modeling applications
discussed in a study cited by the Modeling Guidance. The 2016 Ozone
Plan's corresponding graphic (figure 11) shows that for negative bias
(underprediction), the 2016 Ozone Plan's modeling is among the poorer
performing in the range, but for overall error it is among the best
performing. Note that, because only relative changes are used from the
modeling, the underprediction of absolute ozone concentrations does not
mean that future concentrations will be underestimated.
As noted in the 2016 Ozone Plan's modeling protocol, the Modeling
Guidance recognizes that limited time and resources can constrain the
extent of the diagnostic and dynamic evaluation of model performance
undertaken.\62\ No diagnostic evaluation, as that term is used in the
Modeling Guidance, was described in the 2016 Ozone Plan. Appendix H to
the 2016 Ozone Plan includes section 5.2.1 entitled ``Diagnostic
Evaluation,'' though it actually describes a dynamic evaluation in
which model predictions of ozone concentrations for weekdays and
weekends were compared to each other and to observed concentrations.
Since NOX emissions are substantially less on weekends,
these comparisons provide useful information on how the model responds
to emission changes. The 2016 Ozone Plan notes that for the modeled
year 2012, the model-predicted relationship of weekday and weekend
concentrations tends to match the observed (i.e., the predicted amount
of ``weekend effect,'' or increase in weekend ozone despite decrease in
NOX emissions, matches the observed concentrations). The
modeled weekend response is also consistent with an independent
analysis cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan of the historical response of
ozone to reductions in NOX.\63\ The dynamic evaluation
provides strong evidence that the model is working well at simulating
ozone and how it responds to emission changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See page 51 of the Modeling Protocol to the 2016 Ozone
Plan, and page 63 of the Modeling Guidance.
\63\ See 2016 Ozone Plan Appendix K, Weight of Evidence, section
7 ``Weekend Effect in the San Joaquin Valley'' provides additional
information on the observed concentrations and how the weekday-
weekend difference has changed over the years. Section 9
``Corroborating Studies'' provides additional information on the
trend in ozone formation regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for meteorological performance, the Modeling Guidance cautions
against pass/fail tests, in favor of an overall confidence assessment
and identification of causes of poor performance to help guide
refinement of model input.\64\ Confidence in the model's ability to
correctly simulate emission changes would have been enhanced if the
2016 Ozone Plan had discussed any input refinement and performance
improvement process that was undertaken, and if it had provided some
performance assessment of non-ozone chemical species participating in
ozone formation chemistry. The 2016 Ozone Plan contains a good
operational evaluation showing good model performance, and also a
useful dynamic evaluation. Some diagnostic evaluations as described in
the Modeling Guidance would have provided additional confidence in the
model. The information provided in the 2016 Ozone Plan supports the
adequacy of the modeling for the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Modeling Guidance, pages 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After model performance for the 2012 base case was accepted, the
model was applied to develop RRFs for the attainment demonstration.\65\
This entailed running the model with the same meteorological inputs as
before, but with adjusted emissions inventories to reflect the expected
changes between 2012 and the 2031 attainment year. These modeling
inventories excluded ``emissions events which are either random and/or
cannot be projected to the future . . . wildfires, . . . and the
[[Page 44538]]
[San Francisco Bay Area] Chevron refinery fire.'' \66\ The base year or
``reference year'' modeling inventory was the same as the inventory for
the modeling base case except for these exclusions. The 2031 inventory
projects the base year with these exclusions into the future by
including the effect of economic growth and emissions control
measures.\67\ To include the fires in the base year but not the future
year would effectively credit the 2016 Ozone Plan's control measures
with eliminating emissions from the fire; therefore, it makes more
sense to treat the base year and future year consistently with respect
to fire or other unpredictable emissions events. The Modeling Guidance
recommends that day-specific wildfire emissions be used in modeling of
both base and future years, possibly with spatial and temporal
averaging to create ``average'' fire emissions that avoid acute effects
from large fires, but it also notes that other approaches may be
appropriate.\68\ The 2016 Ozone Plan's approach of excluding wildfires
altogether avoids uncertainties in fire emissions and meteorology. It
has the drawback that the model response to 2012-2031 emission changes
does not reflect the effect of wildfires, which occur in most years and
could affect the atmospheric chemistry and its response to those
emission changes. The approach used in the 2016 Ozone Plan is
reasonable, but would be stronger with a more complete rationale in the
modeling protocol or the Plan documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, section 4.4, and Appendix H, section
4.2.
\66\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, page H-11.
\67\ In general, the ``reference year'' could be a different
calendar year than the modeling base case. The base case modeling
replicates a particular year's measured concentrations using that
same year's meteorology and emissions. Modeling of e.g., a
regulatorily required year used as the reference year would still
use the same meteorology, but emissions from the required year.
\68\ See Modeling Guidance, page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan carried out the attainment test procedure
consistent with the Modeling Guidance. The RRFs were calculated as the
ratio of future to base year concentrations. This was done for each
monitor using the top 10 ozone days over 0.060 ppm,\69\ using the base
year concentration in the highest of the three by three modeling grid
cells centered on the monitor, and the future concentration from the
same day and grid cell, with some exclusions, e.g., if there were too
few days above 0.060 ppm. The resulting RRFs were then applied to 2012
weighted base year design values \70\ for each monitor to arrive at
2031 future year design values.\71\ The highest 2031 ozone design value
is 0.074 ppm, which occurs at the Clovis-N Villa Avenue site; this is
below the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, thus demonstrating
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The Modeling Guidance and the 2016 Ozone Plan state
concentrations in terms of parts per billion.
\70\ The Modeling Guidance recommends that RRFs be applied to
the average of three three-year design values centered on the base
year, in this case the design values for 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and
2012-2015. This amounts to a 5-year weighted average of individual
year 4th high concentrations, centered on the base year of 2012, and
so is referred to as a weighted design value.
\71\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, tables 4-4 and H-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan includes an additional attainment demonstration
using ``banded'' RRFs.\72\ The banded approach is described more fully
in a study cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan. The underlying idea is to
divide ozone concentrations into ranges or bands and compute RRFs for
each band separately. This allows different ozone concentrations to
respond differently to emission changes. The Modeling Guidance
procedure instead assumes that the relative response is the same for
all ozone concentrations. The banded RRF approach is a reasonable
refinement, since higher concentrations generally are more responsive
to emissions changes.\73\ This approach was used in the 2013 1-hour
Ozone San Joaquin Valley Plan approved by the EPA, and it is cited by
the Modeling Guidance as an alternative approach.\74\ In this case, the
banded approach increased design values for some monitors and decreased
them for others; for Clovis, the site with the highest 2031 design
value, the design value decreased from 0.074 ppm to 0.072 ppm. This
provides corroboration for the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Id. Appendix H, section 5.5 and Appendix K, section 8.2
\73\ See Modeling Guidance, page 100.
\74\ 81 FR 19492, April 5, 2016; see also proposal 81 FR 2140,
January 15, 2016 at 2151. See also Modeling Guidance section 4.1.2,
page 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 2016 Ozone Plan modeling includes an ``Unmonitored
Area Analysis'' to assess the attainment status of locations other than
monitoring sites.\75\ The Modeling Guidance describes a ``gradient
adjusted spatial fields'' procedure along with the EPA software
(``Modeled Attainment Test Software'' or MATS) used to carry it
out.\76\ This procedure uses a form of interpolation, combining
monitored concentrations and modeled gradients (modeled changes in
concentration with distance from a monitor) to estimate future
concentrations at locations without a monitor. The 2016 Ozone Plan
states that an Unmonitored Area Analysis was carried out using software
developed by CARB. The procedure was described to be the same as that
outlined in the Modeling Guidance, with the exception that it was
restricted to locations spanned by monitors (i.e., within a convex
shape enclosing the monitors) rather than extrapolating beyond to the
full rectangular modeling domain as in the EPA procedure. The stated
reason for this restriction is that it avoids the inherent uncertainty
associated with extrapolation outside the monitoring network. Most of
the nonattainment area is nevertheless covered in the analysis, since
there are monitors outside the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
However, a strip along the eastern edge, from the foothills to the
crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains, is not included in the
analysis.\77\ The method used is an improvement over the simpler
interpolation used in some previous plans. The 2016 Ozone Plan states
that the results showed concentrations below the NAAQS for all
locations, with concentrations under 70 ppb except for small regions
near Tracy and Fresno. This Unmonitored Area Analysis supports the
demonstration that all locations in the San Joaquin Valley will attain
the NAAQS by 2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, section 5.4.
\76\ See section 4.7 of the Modeling Guidance.
\77\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, figure J-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the formal attainment demonstration, the Plan also
contains a WOE analysis in Appendix K. Some of the contents of Appendix
K have already been discussed above, e.g., section 4 ``Suitability of
2012 as a Base Year for Modeling'', section 7 ``Weekend Effect in the
San Joaquin Valley,'' section 8 ``Modeled Attainment Projections'' with
a comparison of the standard attainment demonstration RRFs and the band
RRFs emissions reductions. These all add support and corroboration for
the modeling used in the attainment demonstration and the credibility
of attainment in 2031. Other sections also add support to the
attainment demonstration, mainly by showing long term downward trends
that continue through 2014, the latest year available prior to 2016
Ozone Plan development. Downward trends are demonstrated for measured
ozone concentrations, number of days above the ozone NAAQS, measured
concentrations of the ozone precursors NOX and VOC, and
emissions of NOX and VOC. The downward measured ozone trends
are seen even when they are adjusted for meteorology (using
Classification and Regression Trees to identify the meteorological
variables that affect ozone, followed by multiple
[[Page 44539]]
regression of ozone on those variables). These all show the substantial
air quality progress made in the San Joaquin Valley and add support to
the attainment demonstration for 2031.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
The modeling shows that existing CARB and District control measures
are sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS by 2031 at all
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Given the extensive
discussion of modeling procedures, tests, and performance analyses
called for in the Modeling Protocol and the good model performance, the
EPA finds that the modeling is adequate for purposes of supporting the
attainment demonstration. The EPA finds that the State has demonstrated
attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and we
propose to approve the attainment demonstration provided in the 2016
Ozone Plan.
E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for RFP are specified in CAA sections 172(c)(2),
182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B). CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans
for nonattainment areas provide for RFP, which is defined as such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required under part D (``Plan Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas'') or may reasonably be required by the EPA for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the
applicable date. CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone
nonattainment areas that are classified as Moderate or above
demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC between the years of 1990 and
1996. The EPA has typically referred to section 182(b)(1) as the Rate
of Progress (ROP) requirement. For ozone nonattainment areas classified
as Serious or higher, section 182(c)(2)(B) requires reductions averaged
over each consecutive 3-year period beginning 6 years after the
baseline year until the attainment date of at least 3 percent of
baseline emissions per year. The provisions in CAA section
182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allow an amount less than 3 percent of such baseline
emissions each year if the state demonstrates to the EPA that the plan
includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the area in
light of technological achievability.
The 2008 Ozone SRR considers areas classified Moderate or higher to
have met the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) if the area has
a fully approved 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour or 1997 8-hour
ozone standards, provided the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment
areas are the same.\78\ For such areas, the RFP requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2) require areas classified as Moderate to provide a 15
percent emission reduction of ozone precursors within 6 years of the
baseline year. Areas classified as Serious or higher must meet the RFP
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) by providing an 18 percent
reduction of ozone precursors in the first 6-year period, and an
average ozone precursor emission reduction of 3 percent per year for
all remaining 3-year periods thereafter.\79\ Under the CAA 172(c)(2)
and CAA 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, NOX emissions
reductions may be substituted for VOC reductions.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
\79\ Ibid.
\80\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(C) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(ii)(B); and 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C),
emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally promulgated, or
otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the baseline are
creditable for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are met.
Because the EPA has determined that the passage of time has caused the
effect of certain exclusions to be de minimis, the RFP demonstration is
no longer required to calculate and specifically exclude reductions
from measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions
promulgated by January 1, 1990; regulations concerning Reid vapor
pressure promulgated by November 15, 1990; measures to correct previous
RACT requirements; and, measures required to correct previous
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 Ozone SRR requires the RFP baseline year to be the most
recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is
required to be submitted to the EPA (i.e., 2011), but it also allows
states to use an alternative baseline year between 2008 and 2012 if the
state demonstrates why the alternative baseline year is
appropriate.\82\ As discussed previously, in the South Coast decision
issued on February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's RFP
baseline year based on the year of the most recent triennial emissions
inventory (i.e., 2011), but it vacated the provisions of the 2008 Ozone
SRR that allowed states to justify and use an alternative baseline year
between 2008 and 2012 for demonstrating RFP because the EPA had not
provided a statutory basis for allowing use of alternative baseline
years. On April 20, 2018, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District submitted a petition for rehearing on the RFP baseline year
issue, arguing that 2012 has a valid statutory basis because it was the
year of designation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(b).
\83\ See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast Air Quality
Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, docket item #1727571,
filed April 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the 15 percent ROP requirement by
noting that the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley in 1997, and that the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area covers the entire nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone standards.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See Chapter 6 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. See also 62 FR 1150
(January 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the RFP requirements, the 2016 Ozone Plan selected 2012
as the RFP baseline year and provided emissions inventories for the RFP
baseline, milestone and attainment years.\85\ The RFP demonstration in
the 2016 Ozone Plan uses NOX substitution beginning in
milestone year 2018 to meet VOC emission targets and concluded that the
RFP demonstration meets the applicable requirements for each milestone
year and the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See the discussion beginning on page 6-10 and table 6-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
We have reviewed the 2016 Ozone Plan and agree that the EPA has
approved a 15 percent ROP demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
fulfilling the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 62 FR 1150, at 1183 (January 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the RFP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
182(c)(2)(B), the Ozone SRR established 2011 as the RFP baseline year.
As discussed previously, the D.C. Circuit vacated provisions of the
2008 Ozone SRR allowing states to use an alternative RPF baseline year
between 2008 and 2012 in lieu of 2011. Because the 2016 Ozone Plan used
2012 as the RFP baseline year, we are not taking action at this time on
the RFP demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
[[Page 44540]]
F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures To Offset Emissions
Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires the state, if subject to
its requirements for a given area, to submit a revision that identifies
and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and
transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or number of vehicle trips in
such area.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements.
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt
transportation control strategies and measures (1) to offset growth
in emissions from growth in VMT, and, (2) in combination with other
emission reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP, and (3) to
demonstrate attainment. For more information on the EPA's
interpretation of the three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), please
see 77 FR 58067, at 58068 (September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal
of approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit
ruled that additional transportation control measures are required
whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would
have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions
are actually decreasing.\88\ In response to the Ninth Circuit's
decision, the EPA issued a memorandum titled ``Guidance on Implementing
Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and
Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled'' (herein referred to as the ``August
2012 guidance'').\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d.
584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27,
2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (``Association
of Irritated Residents'').
\89\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl
Edlund, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region VI, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region
IX, August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 guidance discusses the meaning of Transportation
Control Strategies (TCSs) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations
made for the purpose of determining the degree to which any
hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset.
Generally, TCSs encompass many types of controls including, for
example, motor vehicle emissions limitations, I/M programs, alternative
fuel programs, other technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would
fit within the regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' \90\ Such
measures include, but are not limited to, those listed in CAA section
108(f). TCMs generally refer to programs intended to reduce VMT, the
number of vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, including, e.g.,
programs for improved public transit, designation of certain lanes for
passenger buses and high-occupancy vehicles, and trip reduction
ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR
51.100(r) as meaning any measure that is directed toward reducing
emissions of air pollutants from transportation sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The August 2012 guidance recommends that
states estimate emissions for the nonattainment area's base year and
attainment year. One emissions inventory is developed for the base
year, and three different emissions inventory scenarios are developed
for the attainment year. For the attainment year, the state would
present three emissions estimates, two of which would represent
hypothetical emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to
identify the growth in emissions due solely to the growth in VMT, and
one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after
fully accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions
reductions obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August
2012 guidance for specific details on how states might conduct the
calculations.
The base year on-road VOC emissions should be calculated using VMT
in that year, and should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place
in the base year. This would include vehicle emissions standards, state
and local control programs, such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any
additional implemented TCSs and TCMs that were already required by or
credited in the SIP as of that base year.
The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year
would be based on the projected VMT and trips for that year and assume
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year
inventory have been put in place since the base year. This calculation
demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs
or TCMs were implemented, and VMT and trips were allowed to grow at the
projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT and
trips. This represents a ``no action'' scenario. Emissions in the
attainment year in this scenario may be lower than those in the base
year due to fleet turnover; however, if VMT and/or numbers of vehicle
trips are projected to increase in the attainment year, emissions would
still likely be higher than if VMT had held constant.
The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations would
assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been
put in place since the base year, but it would also assume that there
was no growth in VMT and trips between the base year and attainment
year. This estimate reflects the hypothetical emissions level that
would have occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs had been put in place
and if VMT and trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like
the ``no action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions
in the attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to
fleet turnover, but in this case emissions would not be influenced by
any growth in VMT or trips. This emissions estimate would reflect a
ceiling on the attainment emissions that should be allowed to occur
under the statute as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit because it shows
what would happen under a scenario in which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs
have yet been put in place and VMT and trips are held constant during
the period from the area's base year to its attainment year. This
represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. These two hypothetical
status quo estimates are necessary steps in identifying the target
level of emissions from which states determine whether further TCMs or
TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and implemented in reality,
would need to be adopted and implemented in order to fully offset any
increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips identified in the
``no action'' scenario.
Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually
expected to occur in the area's attainment year after taking into
account reductions from all enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in reality
were put in place after the baseline year. This estimate would be based
on the VMT and trip levels expected to occur in the attainment year
(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the first estimate) and all of the
TCSs and TCMs expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take
credit in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs put
in place since the base year. This represents the ``projected
[[Page 44541]]
actual'' attainment year scenario. If this emissions estimate is less
than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the
second of the attainment year calculations, the TCSs or TCMs for the
attainment year would be sufficient to fully offset the identified
hypothetical growth in emissions.
If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year
emissions are still greater than the ceiling that was established in
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the
growth in emissions. The additional TCSs or TCMs would need to bring
the actual emissions down to at least the ``had VMT and trips held
constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of the attainment year
calculations, in order to meet the VMT offset requirement of section
182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit.
2. Summary of the State's Submission
CARB prepared the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset
demonstration, which is included as section D.3 (``VMT Offsets'') of
Appendix D (``Mobile Source Control Strategy'') of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
For the demonstration, CARB used EMFAC2014, the latest EPA-approved
motor vehicle emissions model for California. The EMFAC2014 model
estimates the on-road emissions from two combustion processes (i.e.,
running exhaust and start exhaust) and four evaporative processes
(i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal losses, and resting losses).
The EMFAC2014 model combines trip-based VMT data from the eight San
Joaquin Valley MPOs (e.g., Council of Fresno County Governments),
starts data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle population
data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These sets of
data are combined with corresponding emission rates to calculate
emissions.
Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is driven. As such,
emissions from these processes are directly related to VMT and vehicle
trips, and CARB included emissions from them in the calculations that
provide the basis for the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset
demonstration. CARB did not include emissions from resting loss and
diurnal loss processes in the analysis because such emissions are
related to vehicle population, not to VMT or vehicle trips, and thus
are not part of ``any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area'' (emphasis added)
under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
The San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstration uses 2012
as the base year and also includes the previously described three
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset
ceiling, and projected actual). The San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan
provides a demonstration of attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone
standards in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2031, based on
emissions projections for year 2031 reflecting adopted controls. As
described in section III.D of this notice, the EPA is proposing to
approve this attainment demonstration. Accordingly, we find CARB's
selection of year 2031 as the attainment year for the VMT emissions
offset demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to be appropriate.
Table 3 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates for the demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Table 3--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the 2008 Ozone Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT Starts Controls VOC
---------------------------------------------------------------------- emissions
Scenario -------------
Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year................... 2012 96,934 2012 16,624 2012 50
No Action................... 2031 131,835 2031 20,572 2012 22
VMT Offset Ceiling.......... 2031 96,934 2012 16,624 2012 17
Projected Actual............ 2031 131,835 2031 20,572 2031 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Appendix D, pages D-22 and D-24. Year 2031 VMT is based
on 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs.
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014 model for the
applicable base year (i.e., 2012 for the 2008 8-hour ozone standards)
using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As shown in table
3, CARB estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 50 tpd in
2012.
For the ``no action'' scenario, CARB first identified the on-road
motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in place since
the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2014 and then ran EMFAC2014
with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the applicable attainment
year (i.e., 2031 for the 2008 8-hour ozone standards) without the
emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control programs
put in place after the base year. Thus, the no action scenario reflects
the hypothetical VOC emissions that would occur in the attainment year
in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB had not put in place any additional
TCSs or TCMs after 2012. As shown in table 3, CARB estimates the no
action San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 22 tpd in 2031.
For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014
model for the attainment years but with VMT and starts data
corresponding to base year values. Like the no action scenarios, the
EMFAC2014 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the
attainment years without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road
motor vehicle control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario
reflects hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB
had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and
the attainment year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the no action scenario and the corresponding estimates
under the VMT offset ceiling scenario. Based on the values in table 3,
the hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips in
the San Joaquin Valley would have been 5 tpd (i.e., 22 tpd minus 17
tpd) for purposes of the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for
the 8-hour ozone
[[Page 44542]]
standards. This hypothetical difference establishes the level of VMT
growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the combination of
post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs and any necessary additional TCMs and
TCSs.
For the ``projected actual'' scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2014 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in place since
the base year. The most significant measures reducing VOC emissions
during the 2012 to 2031 timeframe include the Advanced Clean Cars
program, Low Emission Vehicles II and III standards, Zero Emissions
Vehicle standards, On-Board Diagnostics, Smog Check Improvements, and
California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See attachment A of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan
includes a list of transportation control strategies. See also EPA
final action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424
(June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May
18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in table 3, the calculation of the projected actual
attainment-year VOC emissions resulted in 14 tpd for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS demonstration. CARB then compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions are less than the corresponding VMT
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that there are
sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from
the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the
2008 8-hour standards. In fact, taking into account the creditable
post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs, CARB showed that they offset the
hypothetical difference by 8 tpd for the 2008 8-hour standards, rather
than the required 5 tpd, respectively.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and
TCMs put in place after the respective base year can be determined
by subtracting the projected actual emissions estimates from the no
action emissions estimates in table 3. For the purposes of the 2008
8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions
(i.e., 8 tpd based on 22 tpd minus 14 tpd) exceed the growth in
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (i.e., 5 tpd based on
22 tpd minus 17 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
Based on our review of the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset
demonstration in Appendix D of the 2016 Ozone Plan, we find CARB's
analysis to be acceptable and agree that CARB has adopted sufficient
TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and
vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 2008 8-
hour ozone standards. As such, we find that the San Joaquin Valley VMT
emissions offset demonstration complies with the VMT emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we propose approval
of the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstration portion of
the 2016 Ozone Plan.
G. Contingency Measures To Provide for RFP and Attainment
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2 as Moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency
measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency
measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the
event the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain
the NAAQS by the attainment date. The SIP should contain trigger
mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for
implementation, and indicate that the measure will be implemented
without significant further action by the state or the EPA.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 2008 Ozone
SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a
specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR
reiterates the EPA's policy that contingency measures should provide
for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth
progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
172(c)(9) that states may rely on federal measures (e.g., federal
mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the motor
vehicle fleet each year) and local measures already scheduled for
implementation that provide emissions reductions in excess of those
needed to provide for RFP or expeditious attainment. The key is that
the statute requires that contingency measures provide for additional
emissions reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and
that are not included in the RFP or attainment demonstrations as
meeting part or all of the contingency measure requirements. The
purpose of contingency measures is to provide continued emissions
reductions while the plan is being revised to meet the missed
milestone.
The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation--i.e.,
SIPs that use as contingency measures one or more federal or local
measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess of
the reductions required by the attainment demonstration or RFP
plan,\95\ and there is case law supporting the EPA's interpretation in
this regard.\96\ However, in Bahr v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit rejected
the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early
implementation of contingency measures.\97\ The Ninth Circuit concluded
that contingency measures must take effect at the time the area fails
to make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not
before.\98\ Thus, within the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth
Circuit, states cannot rely on early-implemented measures to comply
with the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule
approving an Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
1997) (final rule approving an Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR
30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a 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 a
Connecticut ozone SIP revision).
\96\ See, e.g., 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).
\97\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
\98\ Id. at 1235-1237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
In its 2016 Ozone Plan, the District set aside NOX
emissions reductions from the attainment demonstration and reserves
those reductions to meet the contingency measure requirement for a
failure to attain the 2008 ozone standards.\99\ Similarly, to satisfy
the requirement for RFP contingency measures, the 2016 Ozone Plan sets
aside 3 percent excess emissions reductions in the first RFP milestone
year and reserves those reductions for
[[Page 44543]]
contingency measures for failure to make RFP.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.4.
\100\ Id. at section 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
The magnitude of contingency measure reductions in the 2016 Ozone
Plan is affected by the South Coast decision (regarding the appropriate
baseline year for RFP) because, for ozone purposes, the required
emission reductions are generally calculated as a portion of the
baseline emissions inventory. For this reason, we are not taking action
at this time on the contingency measures in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs for Extreme nonattainment
areas require each new, modified, and existing electric utility and
industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of
NOX to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas,
methanol, or ethanol (or a comparably low-polluting fuel), or use
advanced control technology, such as catalytic control technologies or
other comparably effective control methods.
Additional guidance on this requirement is provided in the General
Preamble at 13523. According to the General Preamble, a boiler should
generally be considered as any combustion equipment used to produce
steam and generally does not include a process heater that transfers
heat from combustion gases to process streams.\101\ In addition,
boilers with rated heat inputs less than 15 million British Thermal
Units (MMBtu) per hour that are oil- or gas-fired may generally be
considered de minimus and exempt from these requirements because it is
unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX emission
limit.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13523 (April 16,
1992).
\102\ Id at 13524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the requirements of CAA section
182(e)(3) in section 3.17 (``Clean Fuels'') of Chapter 3, and states
that District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOX
emission limits for boilers and that these rules meet the requirements
of the CAA. Additional information on these rules is also provided in
Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan. Specifically, the 2016 Ozone Plan
indicates that most of the boilers under District Rules 4305 and 4306
are fired on natural gas and, as such, meet the requirements of CAA
section 182(e)(3) for those boilers subject to those rules. Liquid
fuel-fired boilers are also addressed by Rule 4305 and 4306, and the
2016 Ozone Plan concludes that the applicable NOX emissions
in the rules necessitate use of advanced technology. The 2016 Ozone
Plan concludes likewise for solid fuel-fired boilers addressed by Rule
4352.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
Rule 4305 (now titled ``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 2'') was adopted by the District in 1993 and was
superseded by Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 3''). Both Rules 4305 and 4306 apply to any gaseous
fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater
with a rated heat input greater than 5 MMBtu per hour. Rule 4305, as
amended on August 21, 2003, was approved by the EPA in 2004, and Rule
4306, as revised on October 16, 2008, was approved by the EPA in
2010.\103\ The emission limits in Rule 4306 (5 ppm to 30 ppm for
gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without
the use of advanced control technologies.\104\ All units subject to
Rule 4306 were required to comply with the limits in the rule no later
than December 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See 69 FR 28061 (May 18, 2004) (approval of Rule 4305) and
75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) (approval of Rule 4306).
\104\ See ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--
NOX Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
Boilers,'' EPA, March 1994. See also 76 FR 57846 at 57864-57865
(September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652 at 12670 (March 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4352, titled ``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters'' was last approved by the EPA on November 6,
2012.\105\ Rule 4352 applies to any boiler, steam generator, or process
heater fired on solid fuel at a source that has the potential to emit
more than 10 tpy of NOX or VOC. All units subject to Rule
4352 were required to comply with the rule's most stringent limits no
later than January 1, 2013. In an EPA action on an earlier version of
Rule 4352, we determined that all of the NOX emission limits
in Rule 4352 effectively require operation of selective noncatalytic
reduction control technology, which, for the affected sources, is
comparably effective to selective catalytic reduction, and comparable
to the combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers. Therefore,
we concluded that Rule 4352 satisfied the requirements of section
182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in the San Joaquin Valley.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
\106\ See 74 FR 65042 (December 9, 2009) (proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4352) and 75 FR 60623
(October 1, 2010) (final limited approval and limited disapproval of
Rule 4352).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, new and modified boilers that will emit or have the
potential to emit 25 tpy or more of NOX are subject to the
District's new source permitting rule, Rule 2201, titled ``New and
Modified Stationary Source Review.'' This rule requires new and
modified sources to install and operate lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) technology. The EPA last approved Rule 2201 in 2014.\107\ In
previous actions on the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the EPA reviewed Rules 4306, 4352, and 2201, and concluded that
the rules satisfy the requirements for clean fuel or advanced control
technology for boilers in CAA section 182(e)(3). We find that the
emission limitations in the District's rules continue to meet the clean
fuel or advanced control technology for boilers requirement in CAA
section 182(e)(3), and thus, we propose to approve the Clean Fuels for
Boilers portion of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
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, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's
regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from
[[Page 44544]]
existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') contained
in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally established for
specific years and specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone plans
should identify budgets for on-road emissions of ozone precursors
(NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP milestone year and
the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates attainment.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See 40 CFR 93.12(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must
meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and (5)) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. To
meet these requirements, the MVEBs must be consistent with the
approvable attainment and RFP demonstrations and reflect all of the
motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP
demonstrations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the
MVEB during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of
adequacy or inadequacy.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ozone Plan includes budgets for the 2018, 2021, 2024,
2027, and 2030 RFP milestone years, and the 2031 attainment year. The
budgets were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB's latest approved version
of the EMFAC model for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles
operating in California, and reflect average summer weekday emissions
consistent with the RFP milestone years and the 2031 attainment year
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\111\ The conformity budgets for
NOX and VOC for each county in the nonattainment area are
provided in table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014 model
for use in SIP development and transportation conformity in
California on December 14, 2015 (80 FR 77337). The 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.
Table 4--Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2031
County -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................ 8.0 27.7 6.4 22.2 5.4 14.1 4.9 13.2 4.5 12.6 4.3 12.5
Kern (SJV)........................................ 6.6 25.4 5.5 20.4 4.8 12.6 4.5 11.7 4.2 10.9 4.1 10.8
Kings............................................. 1.3 5.1 1.1 4.2 0.9 2.6 0.9 2.5 0.8 2.3 0.8 2.3
Madera............................................ 1.9 5.1 1.5 4.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 2.3 0.9 2.0 0.9 2.0
Merced............................................ 2.5 9.4 2.0 7.8 1.6 4.8 1.5 4.4 1.3 4.2 1.3 4.1
San Joaquin....................................... 5.9 13.0 4.9 10.3 4.2 6.9 3.8 6.2 3.5 5.7 3.3 5.5
Stanislaus........................................ 3.8 10.5 3.0 8.3 2.6 5.6 2.3 5.1 2.1 4.7 2.0 4.7
Tulare............................................ 3.7 9.5 2.9 7.2 2.4 4.7 2.2 4.1 1.9 3.8 1.9 3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tables D-4 through D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As discussed above, the MVEBs for 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027 and 2030
derive from the RFP baseline year and the associated RFP milestone
years. As such, the budgets are affected by the South Coast decision,
and therefore, the EPA is not taking action at this time on the budgets
for these years. We plan to propose action for these MVEBs in a future
rulemaking. However, in today's notice we are proposing to approve the
budgets for the 2031 attainment year for transportation conformity
purposes.
The EPA has previously determined that the 2031 budgets in 2016
Ozone Plan are adequate for use for transportation conformity purposes.
On February 23, 2017, the EPA announced the availability of the 2016
Ozone Plan and budgets, which were available for a 30-day public
comment period that ended on March 27, 2017.\112\ The EPA received no
comments from the public. On June 13, 2017, the EPA determined the
2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2030 and 2031 MVEBs were adequate.\113\ On June
29, 2017, the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal
Register.\114\ The new budgets became effective on July 14, 2017. After
the effective date of the adequacy finding, the new budgets must be
used in future transportation conformity determinations in the San
Joaquin Valley area. The EPA is not required under its transportation
conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of
them, but in this instance, we have completed the adequacy review of
these budgets prior to our final action on the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
\113\ See June 13, 2017 letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB.
\114\ See 82 FR 29547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's notice, the EPA is proposing to approve only the 2031
budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for transportation conformity purposes.
The EPA has determined through its review of the submitted 2016 Ozone
Plan that the 2031 budgets are consistent with emission control
measures in the SIP and attainment in 2031 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. For the reasons discussed in section III.D of this proposed
rule, we are proposing to approve the attainment demonstration in the
2016 Ozone Plan. The 2031 budgets, as given in table 5, are consistent
with the attainment demonstration, 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 in table 5.
[[Page 44545]]
Table 5--2031 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for
2031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
County VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno................................................. 4.3 12.5
Kern (SJV)............................................. 4.1 10.8
Kings.................................................. 0.8 2.3
Madera................................................. 0.9 2.0
Merced................................................. 1.3 4.1
San Joaquin............................................ 3.3 5.5
Stanislaus............................................. 2.0 4.7
Tulare................................................. 1.9 3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.
CARB has requested that we limit the duration of our approval of
the budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\115\ The transportation
conformity rule allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\116\
However, we will consider a state's request to limit an approval of its
MVEB only if the request includes the following elements: \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, August 24, 2016.
\116\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
\117\ 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 a commitment to update the
budgets or an explanation of why the budgets have become outdated or
deficient, 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 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 2016
Ozone 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.
J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D
of the CAA includes other provisions applicable to Extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We describe these
provisions and their current status below for informational purposes
only.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to
implement an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in those areas. The
requirements for those programs are provided in CAA section 182(c)(3)
and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, the 2016 Ozone Plan states that
no new I/M programs are currently required for nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone standards.\118\ The EPA has previously approved
California's I/M program in the San Joaquin Valley as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA regulations for enhanced I/M
programs.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12283 (March 6, 2015),
and section 3.6 of Chapter 3 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
\119\ See 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reformulated Gasoline Program
In accordance with CAA section 211, the federal reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program requires certain areas to use gasoline that has
been reformulated to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. As an
Extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the San
Joaquin Valley was included in the federal RFG program.\120\ As a
nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, the San
Joaquin Valley continues to be included in the program.\121\ California
also has its own RFG program (i.e., California Phase III RFG, or
CaRFG3), which applies within the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA approved
CaRFG3 into the SIP on May 12, 2010.\122\ In our action proposing
approval of CaRFG3, we noted that the EPA had previously determined
that emissions reductions from CaRFG3 would be equal to or greater than
the emissions reductions from the corresponding federal RFG
program.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).
\121\ See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685 (November 29,
2005).
\122\ See 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
\123\ See 74 FR 33196, at 33198 (July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. New Source Review Rules
Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop SIP
revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary
source for VOC and NOX anywhere in the nonattainment
area.\124\ The 2008 Ozone SRR includes provisions and guidance for
nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs.\125\ The EPA has
previously approved the District's NSR rules into the SIP based in part
on a conclusion that the rules adequately addressed the NSR
requirements specific to extreme areas.\126\ On June 19, 2018, CARB
submitted on behalf of the District a certification that the NSR
program previously approved into the SIP is adequate to meet the
requirements for the 2008 ozone standards.\127\ The EPA is proposing to
approve the District's NSR certification in a separate rulemaking.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See also CAA sections 182(e).
\125\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\126\ See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).
\127\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
June 19, 2018.
\128\ See EPA, ``Revisions to California State Implementation
Plan; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' pre-publication final rule signed
August 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to
submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP measures to implement a
Clean Fuels Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows
states to opt-out of the federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by
submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will
result in at least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors
and toxic air emissions.
In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt-out of the
federal clean-fuel fleet program, and included a demonstration that
California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved emissions
reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the federal
program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt-out of the federal
[[Page 44546]]
program on August 27, 1999.\129\ There have been no changes to the
federal Clean Fuels Fleet program since the EPA approved the California
SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, and thus, no
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Thus, we find that the
California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, as approved
in 1999, meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246
for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP
revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13514 (April 16,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 202(a)(6) requires the EPA to promulgate standards
requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first set of ORVR
system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on vehicle
manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new gasoline-
powered light and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.\131\ Section
202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the SIP requirement under
CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage II vapor recovery
systems after such time as the EPA determines that ORVR systems are in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Effective May 16,
2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section 182(b)(3) for Stage
II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification. See 40 CFR 51.126(b). Thus, a SIP submittal meeting CAA
section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required
for the 2008 ozone standards, under California State law (i.e., Health
and Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures
and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from
gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and storage
operations. State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local
air districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective
equipment and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous
revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations and continues to
rely on its vapor recovery program to achieve emissions reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas in California.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See e.g., Chapter 5, table 5-4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-
certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by District
Rules 4621 (``Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers,
Delivery Vessels and Bulk Plants'') and 4622 (``Gasoline Transfer into
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks''). The most recent versions of Rules 4621 and
4622, amended on December 19, 2013, have been approved into the
California SIP.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See 80 FR 7345 (February 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX,
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and
VOC. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network. The EPA
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in
California, including the San Joaquin Valley, to meet the enhanced
monitoring requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The EPA determined
that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements for enhanced
monitoring and the EPA PAMS regulations and approved the PAMS submittal
into the California SIP.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses compliance with the EPA's enhanced
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58, and concludes that, based on
the EPA's approval of the District's air monitoring network plan, the
San Joaquin Valley meets all federal ambient monitoring
requirements.\136\ Chapter 4 (section 4.2.2) of the 2016 Ozone Plan
describes the San Joaquin Valley's PAMS network. The District's PAMS
network is composed of two smaller networks located in the Fresno and
Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Each network in the
MSA consists of three PAMS sites. The District's July 2017 Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Network Plan (ANP) also provides more detail about
the PAMS network.\137\ The EPA has approved the District's PAMS network
as part of our annual approval of the District's ANP.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See section 3.12 (Ambient Monitoring Requirements) of the
2016 Ozone Plan.
\137\ See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2017
Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 28, 2017).
\138\ See letter from Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX to Sheraz
Gill, SJVAPCD, dated October 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ozone Plan reports that the Arvin-Bear Mountain PAMS
monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA was closed in 2010, and would
resume once a permanent air monitoring site in the area was
established. The closed monitoring site at Arvin-Bear Mountain was
relocated to a new site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school.
CARB's staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan includes, for approval by
the EPA, provisions to address ambient ozone monitoring in the
Bakersfield MSA.\139\ The EPA approved the relocation of the monitoring
site and approved into the SIP these provisions of the 2016 Ozone Plan
for ozone monitoring in Bakersfield.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See section V-H of the ARB Review of the San Joaquin
Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, July 21, 2016.
\140\ See 82 FR 47145 (October 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\141\ Under
revised 40 CFR part 58 SIP revisions are no longer required; rather,
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\142\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\143\ As such, based on our
review and approval of the most recent ANP for San Joaquin Valley, we
find that the 2016 Ozone Plan adequately addresses the enhanced
monitoring requirements under CAA section 182(c)(1), and we propose to
approve that portion of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
\142\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides: The requirements pertaining
to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in the SIP are
contained in this part.
\143\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at
80 FR 12264, at 12291, (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44547]]
7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
Section 185 of the CAA requires that the SIP for each Severe and
Extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area fails to
attain by its applicable attainment date, each major stationary source
of VOC and NOX located in the area shall pay a fee to the
state as a penalty for such failure for each calendar year beginning
after the attainment date, until the area is redesignated as an
attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to submit a SIP
revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 185 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See 40 CFR 51.1117. For San Joaquin Valley, a section 185
SIP revision for the 2008 ozone standards will be due on July 20,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Other Commitments To Reduce Emissions
The 2016 Ozone Plan relies on control measures, such as state and
district rules and regulations, that have been adopted and are being
implemented to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2031.
However, in the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District also notes that newer
NAAQS, e.g., the ozone NAAQS established in 2015, would require the
development and submission of new plans with additional emissions
reductions. In anticipation of these future requirements, the District
included in the 2016 Ozone Plan commitments to amend two existing
measures for flares and wine fermentation and storage tanks.\145\ As
summarized in table 6, the District committed to implement emission
reduction technologies to the extent those controls are technologically
achievable and economically feasible; therefore, any emissions
reductions resulting from these evaluations, to the extent those
evaluations have not yet been completed, are uncertain. Because of this
uncertainty, and because these amended measures are not required to
meet RACM or other plan requirements, the District did not project
emissions reductions or implementation dates for these amended
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See Chapter 5, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone
Plan.
Table 6--District Committal Measures in 2016 Ozone Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule title District commitment Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4311................ Flares................ 1. Amend Rule 4311 to By December 31, 2017.
include additional ultra-
low NOX flare emissions
limitations for existing
and new flaring activities
to the extent that such
controls are
technologically achievable
and economically feasible.
2. Amend Rule 4311 to
include additional flare
minimization requirements
to the extent such
controls are
technologically achievable
and economically feasible.
4694................ Wine Fermentation and 1. Evaluate the By December 31, 2018.
Storage Tanks. technological
achievability and economic
feasibility of
implementing emissions
control technologies to
reduce VOC emissions and
potential benefits to help
reduce ozone
concentrations.
2. Upon completion of (1),
amend Rule 4694 to include
additional requirements to
further reduce emissions
from wine fermentation as
appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-3 and sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
The District has committed to amend Rule 4311 for flares and Rule
4694 for wine fermentation and storage tanks to include additional
requirements to reduce emissions to the extent those controls are
technologically achievable or economically feasible; however, these
commitments were made in the context of attainment of future ozone and
PM2.5 standards. Although these commitments are not needed
to meet any requirements for the 2008 ozone standards, the EPA is
proposing to approve the commitments described in table 6 above, to
further strengthen the San Joaquin Valley's portion of the California
SIP.
The 2016 Ozone Plan references additional reductions anticipated
from CARB's mobile source state strategy, a draft of which was released
in October 2015.\146\ The State Strategy was adopted by CARB in 2017,
and in its resolution adopting the 2016 State Strategy, CARB adopted a
commitment to bring to the Board for consideration a list of regulatory
measures included as Attachment A to the resolution of adoption (i.e.,
Resolution 17-7), according to the schedule set forth in Attachment A,
and a commitment to achieve an aggregate emission reduction of 8 tpd of
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley by 2031 to accelerate progress
toward the 2008 ozone standards.\147\ The 2016 State Strategy
anticipates reducing emissions to meet the aggregate commitment through
such measures as new California low-NOX standards for on-
road heavy-duty engines and more stringent diesel fuel requirements for
off-road equipment.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.
\147\ See page 7, CARB Resolution 17-7, March 23, 2017.
\148\ See table 5 (on page 34) of the 2016 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the attainment demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan
relies on adopted measures, rather than committal measures. Thus,
CARB's regulatory initiative commitment and aggregate emission
reduction commitment for San Joaquin Valley are not needed as part of
the control strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley.
However, the commitments by CARB for San Joaquin Valley in the 2016
State Strategy will strengthen the SIP by providing emissions
reductions that supplement the reductions from the adopted controls;
therefore, we are proposing to approve the San Joaquin Valley portions
of the 2016 State Strategy into the SIP.
V. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the
EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the California SIP the
following portions of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan \149\
submitted by CARB on August 24, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ As noted previously, the EPA has already approved the
portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan (section 3.4 (``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration'') and Appendix C
(``Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations'')) that
relate to the RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40
CFR 51.1112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);
ROP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(b)(1);
Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
Enhanced monitoring as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs as
meeting the
[[Page 44548]]
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1102;
VMT emissions offset demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102; and
Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of
2031 (see table 5, above) because they are consistent with the
attainment demonstration proposed for approval herein and meet the
other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).
In addition, we are proposing to approve District Rule 1160 titled
``Emission Statements'' submitted by CARB on January 11, 1993, as a
revision to the California SIP because it meets all the applicable
requirements for emission statements and to approve the Emission
Statement section of the 2016 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102.
Finally, we are proposing to approve, as additional measures that
strengthen the SIP, the San Joaquin Valley portions of the 2016 State
Strategy and CARB's aggregate emission reduction commitment of 8 tpd of
NOX by 2031 submitted on April 27, 2017, as a revision to
the California SIP and the two commitments by the District in the 2016
Ozone Plan to amend Rules 4311 (Flares) and 4694 (Wine Fermentation and
Storage).
We are not taking action at this time on the base year emissions
inventory, the RFP demonstration, the motor vehicle emissions budgets
for RFP milestone years, and contingency measures portions of the 2016
Ozone Plan. We intend to propose action on these elements at a later
time.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final
action.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference District Rule 1160 as described in section III.B of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans and an air district rule as meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 20, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-19017 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P