81_FR_2150 81 FR 2140 - Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California

81 FR 2140 - Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 10 (January 15, 2016)

Page Range2140-2159
FR Document2016-00089

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area and to meet other Clean Air Act requirements. Specifically, with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing to find the emissions inventories to be acceptable and to approve the reasonably available control measures demonstration, the rate of progress demonstrations, the attainment demonstration, contingency measures for failure to meet rate of progress milestones, the provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, and the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing to approve the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2140-2159]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00089]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048; FRL-9940-95-Region 9]


Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 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 a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley, 
California ozone nonattainment area and to meet other Clean Air Act 
requirements. Specifically, with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, 
the EPA is proposing to find the emissions inventories to be acceptable 
and to approve the reasonably available control measures demonstration, 
the rate of progress demonstrations, the attainment demonstration, 
contingency measures for failure to meet rate of progress milestones, 
the provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, and the 
demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control 
strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases 
in motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA 
is proposing to approve the demonstration that the plan provides 
sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset 
emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2015-0048, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
anonymous access system, and the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email directly to the EPA, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 
cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.

[[Page 2141]]

    Docket: The index to the docket and documents in the docket for 
this action are generally available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket 
are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, 
large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location 
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-
3963, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory Context
    A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area Designations
    B. The San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area
II. CARB's SIP Revision Submittal To Address Remaining 1-Hour and 
1997 8-Hour Ozone Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley
    A. CARB's SIP Submittal
    B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP 
Revisions
III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and 
Control Strategy
    C. Rate of Progress Demonstration
    D. Attainment Demonstration
    E. Contingency Measures
    F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers
    G. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 
Measures to Offset Growth in Emissions from Growth in Vehicle Miles 
Traveled or Number of Vehicle Trips
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Regulatory Context

A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area Designations

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the 
presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants, referred to as ozone 
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution 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. 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. See 
``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic 
Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For 
simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA promulgates 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for 
pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. In 1979, the EPA established 
the NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-
hour period (``1-hour ozone standard''). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 
An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard if 
there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance 
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on three consecutive 
calendar years of complete, quality assured and certified monitoring 
data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring 
data show greater than one (1.0) ``expected number'' of exceedances per 
year at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive 
calendar years.\2\ An exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone 
concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information, 
see ``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality 
standards for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour 
Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical term 
that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of 
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances 
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR 
part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term 
``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily maximum 
hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible 
number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap 
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable 
level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour 
period (``1997 8-hour ozone standard''). 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). 
The EPA determined that the 1997 8-hour standard would be more 
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are 
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory 
disease, such as asthma. In 2008, the EPA revised and further 
strengthened the NAAQS for ozone by setting the acceptable level of 
ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period 
(``2008 8-hour ozone standard''). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In 
2015, the EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 
80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). While both the 1979 1-hour ozone 
standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard have been revoked, certain 
requirements that had applied under the revoked standards continue to 
apply under the anti-backsliding provisions of CAA section 172(e).
    Once the EPA has promulgated a NAAQS, states are required to 
develop and submit plans that provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(1). 
The content requirements for such plans, which are referred to as state 
implementation plans (SIPs) are found in CAA section 110(a)(2). Under 
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, the EPA designated all areas of 
the country as ``attainment,'' ``nonattainment,'' or ``unclassifiable'' 
for the various NAAQS depending upon the availability of ambient 
concentration data and depending upon whether violations of the NAAQS 
were occurring in a given area. The CAA further requires states with 
``nonattainment'' areas to submit revisions to their SIPs that provide 
for, among other things, attainment of the relevant standard within 
certain prescribed periods.
    In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is 
responsible for adoption and submittal to the EPA of California SIPs 
and California SIP revisions and is the primary State agency 
responsible for regulation of mobile sources. Local and regional air 
pollution control districts are responsible for developing regional air 
quality plans and for regulation of stationary sources. For the San 
Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') develops and adopts air quality 
management plans to address CAA SIP 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 Nonattainment Area

    Under the 1977 CAA Amendments, the EPA designated the San Joaquin 
Valley Air Basin (``San Joaquin Valley'' or ``Valley'') as a 
``nonattainment'' area for the photochemical oxidant (later, the 1-hour 
ozone) NAAQS. 43 FR 8962, at

[[Page 2142]]

8972 (March 3, 1978). Initially, eight entire counties comprised the 
San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 
Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties. In 2001, however, the EPA approved a 
request to revise the boundary of the San Joaquin Valley to exclude 
eastern Kern County. 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001). As such, the San 
Joaquin Valley ozone 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. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the nation's 
leading agricultural areas, and in recent decades, has experienced a 
high rate of growth in population. From 1990 to 2010, the population in 
the Valley increased from approximately 2.7 million to 4 million 
people. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the 
San Joaquin Valley, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    The CAA, as amended in 1977, required states to submit SIP 
revisions for nonattainment areas that, among other requirements, 
provided for attainment no later than 1987; however, like many areas of 
the country, the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the ozone NAAQS by 
1987. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress established a classification 
system for ozone nonattainment areas under which areas with more severe 
ozone problems were given a higher classification and more time to 
attain the standard but were subject to a greater number of, and more 
stringent, SIP requirements. The classifications include ``Marginal,'' 
``Moderate,'' ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' and ``Extreme.'' See CAA section 
181(a)(1).
    Under this classification system, the San Joaquin Valley was 
classified as a ``Serious'' ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour 
ozone standard with an attainment date of no later than November 15, 
1999. 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). In response, in 1994, CARB 
submitted The California Ozone State Implementation Plan (``1994 
California Ozone Plan''), a comprehensive ozone plan for the State of 
California that included a state strategy as well as certain regional 
ozone plans, such as the regional plan for the San Joaquin Valley. The 
EPA approved the 1994 California Ozone Plan in 1997. 62 FR 1150 
(January 8, 1997).
    In 2001, the EPA found that the San Joaquin Valley had failed to 
attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the ``Serious'' area deadline and 
reclassified the area to ``Severe.'' 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001). In 
2004, the EPA granted the State's request to voluntarily reclassify the 
San Joaquin Valley from ``Severe'' to ``Extreme'' for the 1-hour ozone 
standard and required the state to submit a SIP revision providing for 
the ``Extreme'' area SIP elements in CAA section 182(e), which include 
a demonstration of attainment of the standard as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than November 15, 2010. 69 FR 20550 (April 
16, 2004).
    In response, CARB and the District developed and adopted the 
Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (``2004 Ozone Plan'') for 
the San Joaquin Valley, and, in 2004, CARB submitted the 2004 Ozone 
Plan to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. The 2004 Ozone 
Plan was supported by certain measures and commitments contained in the 
state's ``2003 State Strategy.'' The 2004 Ozone Plan was later amended 
and clarified, and the EPA approved the plan, as amended and clarified, 
in 2010. 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010).
    Specifically, we approved the following elements of the 2004 Ozone 
Plan: (1) Rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR 
51.905(a)(1)(i) and 51.900(f)(4); (2) ROP contingency measures as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) 
the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of 
182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii); (4) the attainment 
contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(9); and (5), along with certain measures contained in the 2003 
State Strategy, the demonstration of implementation of reasonably 
available control measures (RACM)(exclusive of RACT) \3\ as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Id., at 
10436-10437. In connection with the control strategy of the attainment 
demonstration, we approved certain committal measures and aggregate 
emission reduction commitments made by CARB and the District. Id. We 
also found that the 2004 Ozone Plan met the following requirements: (1) 
CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 51.900(f)(7) for 
clean fuel/clean technology boilers; and (2) CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 
and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 51.900(f)(11) for transportation control 
measures (TCMs) sufficient to offset growth in emissions from growth in 
vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) or the number of vehicle trips. Lastly, in 
our approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan, we approved a specific rule, 
District Rule 9310, related to school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We addressed the SIP requirements related to implementation 
of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the 1-hour 
ozone standard in separately rulemakings. See, e.g., 77 FR 1417 
(January 10, 2012)(final partial approval and partial disapproval of 
the San Joaquin Valley RACT SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan was challenged, and the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the approval of the 
plan back to the EPA based on its conclusion that the EPA had not 
adequately considered and addressed the implications of more recent 
emissions data in determining that the 2004 Ozone Plan had met all 
applicable CAA requirements. Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 
2012) (``Sierra Club'').\4\ In response to the Sierra Club decision, 
the EPA withdrew its approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan. 77 FR 70376 
(November 26, 2012).\5\ CARB indicated that it intended to withdraw the 
plan upon EPA's approval withdrawal action, and thus, in the same 
Federal Register document as the withdrawal of approval, the EPA issued 
a finding of failure to submit required SIP revisions to provide for 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For further background on this court decision, see our 
proposed rule at 77 FR 58078 (September 19, 2012).
    \5\ The EPA's March 8, 2010 final rule taking action on the 2004 
Ozone Plan also took final approval action on SJVUAPCD Rule 9310 
(``School Bus Fleets''). Approval of District Rule 9310 was not 
affected by the decision in Sierra Club, and thus the EPA did not 
withdraw its approval of that rule when it withdrew its approval of 
the rest of the action taken on March 8, 2010. However, the EPA did 
intend to withdraw approval of all of the elements of the 2004 Ozone 
Plan but inadvertently failed to withdraw its approval of the 2008 
Clarification submitted by CARB in support of the 2004 Ozone Plan. 
See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371), and the EPA intends to fix this error by 
withdrawing that paragraph from 40 CFR 52.220(c) when it takes final 
action on the 2013 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, as noted above, in 1997, the EPA established an 8-hour 
ozone standard to replace the 1-hour ozone standard, and in 2004, the 
EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as a ``Serious'' nonattainment 
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858, at 23888-23899 
(April 30, 2004). In 2010, the EPA approved a request by CARB to 
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as ``Extreme'' for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). In 2004, the EPA also 
established regulations governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone 
standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and under these 
regulations, the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in most areas of the 
country, including the San Joaquin Valley, effective June 15, 2005, but 
the SIP revision requirements that applied at the time of revocation of 
the standard continue to apply after revocation

[[Page 2143]]

consistent with the anti-backsliding provisions in section 172(e). This 
means that, notwithstanding revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard, 
the San Joaquin Valley remained subject to ``Extreme'' area 
requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard and is also subject to the 
``Extreme'' area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    In 2007, in response to SIP revision requirements for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, CARB and the District developed and adopted the 
2007 Ozone Plan (``2007 Ozone Plan'') and related portions of the 2007 
State Strategy and submitted them to the EPA as revisions to the SIP. 
The 2007 Ozone Plan was revised in 2008 and 2011, and in 2012, the EPA 
approved the plan, as revised, together with the related portions of 
the 2007 State Strategy. 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). Our approval of 
the 2007 Ozone Plan and related portions of the 2007 State Strategy 
were challenged in the Ninth Circuit. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit upheld 
the EPA's approval of CARB's and the District's committal measures but 
rejected the EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA as allowing 
California to take emissions reduction credit for mobile source 
regulations that the EPA has waived or authorized under CAA section 209 
notwithstanding their absence from the federally enforceable California 
SIP. See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 
2015) (``Committee for a Better Arvin''). In light of the decision in 
Committee for a Better Arvin, the EPA has proposed approval as a 
revision to the California SIP of a number of CARB's mobile source 
regulations for which preemption has been waived or authorized under 
CAA section 209. 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
    As part of the approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the EPA approved 
the demonstration that the plan provides for transportation control 
strategies (TCS) and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions 
from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). Id., at 12670.\6\ In 
approving the VMT emissions offset demonstration in 2012, the EPA 
applied its then-longstanding interpretation of the VMT emissions 
offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), first explained in 
guidance in the General Preamble to Title I of the CAA (see 57 FR 
13498, at 13521-13523, April 16, 1992) (herein referred to as the 
``General Preamble''), that no transportation control measures are 
necessary if aggregate motor vehicle emissions are projected to decline 
each year from the base year of the plan to the attainment year. See 76 
FR 57872, at 57889 (September 16, 2011). The EPA approved the plan as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) because the 
emissions inventories in the 2007 Ozone Plan showed decreases in 
aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the San Joaquin 
Valley from a base year through the applicable attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), which, in relevant part, requires 
the state, if subject to its requirements, 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 or numbers 
of vehicle trips in such area.'' Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to 
vehicle miles traveled, and refer to the related SIP requirement as 
the ``VMT emissions offset requirement.'' In addition, we refer to 
the SIP revision intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT 
emissions offset requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset 
demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, between the time when the EPA's approval of the 2007 Ozone 
Plan was signed and when it was published in the Federal Register, the 
EPA's petition for rehearing in a case challenging the EPA's 
longstanding interpretation of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) was denied. 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''). In the Association of Irritated Residents case, the Court 
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. In light of the Association of Irritated 
Residents decision, the EPA withdrew its determination that the 2007 
Ozone Plan provided sufficient TCMs to offset the growth in emissions 
from the growth in VMT in the same Federal Register document as the 
Agency's withdrawal of the approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan and finding 
of failure to submit required SIP revisions. 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 
2012).
    In 2013, in response to the EPA's withdrawal of approval of the 
2004 Ozone Plan and the VMT emission offset demonstration for the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard and the related finding of failure to submit, 
CARB and the District prepared, adopted, and submitted the 2013 Plan 
for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard (``2013 Ozone Plan''). The 2013 
Ozone Plan addresses the various 1-hour ozone SIP elements for which 
the EPA had withdrawn approval (i.e., RACM, ROP and attainment 
demonstrations, ROP and attainment contingency measures, clean fuels/
clean technology boilers, and VMT emissions offset demonstration) and 
also addresses the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. The 2013 Ozone Plan builds upon the regulatory 
foundation built by previous San Joaquin Valley attainment plans for 
ozone as well as for other nonattainment pollutants, including 
PM10 and PM2.5, including, but not limited to, 
dozens of District rules establishing VOC or NOX emissions 
limits and other requirements for various types of stationary sources, 
and dozens of state regulations establishing such limits and 
requirements for various types of mobile sources, for vehicle 
inspection and maintenance, for gasoline and diesel fuels, for consumer 
products and pesticides. These various regulatory programs have 
resulted in significant emissions reductions of ozone precursors and 
corresponding ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley despite 
high rates of growth in population and regional VMT. For instance, 1-
hour ozone exceedance days within the Valley (i.e., number of days in a 
year during which the 0.12 ppm standard was violated at a (i.e., at 
least one) monitoring site) have decreased from 45 in 1990 to 3 in 
2012. See table A-1 of 2013 Ozone Plan. However, as of 2012, the Valley 
continued to experience violations of the 1-hour ozone standard, and 
the 2013 Ozone Plan was developed to demonstrate attainment of that 
standard, and to meet the other remaining 1-hour ozone SIP obligations 
(and the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard).
    Lastly, as noted above, the EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone standard 
in 2008 and tightened the standard further in 2015. The EPA has 
designated the San Joaquin Valley as an ``Extreme'' area for the 2008 
8-hour ozone standard. 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The ``Extreme'' area 
plan for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standard is due in 
2016. In establishing final implementation rules for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone standard, the EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 
includes anti-backsliding requirements that apply upon revocation of 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). 
Consistent with the application of anti-backsliding provisions upon 
revocation of the 1-hour ozone standards, areas that remain designated 
as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the time of 
revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard continue to be subject to 
certain SIP requirements that had

[[Page 2144]]

applied by virtue of the area's classifications for the now-revoked 
1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as the revoked 1-hour ozone 
standard. Id. at 12296; 40 CFR 51.1105 and 51.1100(o). For the purposes 
of this proposed action, this means that outstanding SIP requirements 
linked to the San Joaquin Valley's ``Extreme'' nonattainment area 
classifications for the 1-hour ozone standard and 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard continue to apply notwithstanding the revocation of these two 
ozone NAAQS. The EPA has not yet established area designations for the 
2015 8-hour ozone standard.

II. CARB's SIP Revision Submittal To Address Remaining 1-Hour and 1997 
8-Hour Ozone Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley

A. CARB's SIP Submittal

    The District adopted the 2013 Ozone Plan on September 19, 2013, and 
CARB approved the plan as a revision to the California SIP on November 
21, 2013.\7\ CARB submitted the 2013 Ozone Plan to the EPA on December 
20, 2013.\8\ The 2013 Ozone Plan includes base year and projected 
future year emissions inventories, air quality modeling, provisions 
demonstrating implementation of RACM, provisions for advanced 
technology/clean fuels for boilers, provisions for transportation 
control strategies and measures, an ROP demonstration, an attainment 
demonstration, and contingency measures for failure to make ROP or 
attain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2013-09-13: In the 
Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District 2013 Plan For The Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, 
September 19, 2013; CARB Resolution No. 13-45, November 21, 2013.
    \8\ Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, December 20, 2013 
with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan contains the VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 
June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a technical supplement to the VMT 
emissions offset demonstrations submitted as part of the 2013 Ozone 
Plan.\9\ CARB's technical supplement includes a revised set of motor 
vehicle emissions estimates reflecting technical changes to the inputs 
used to develop the original set of calculations.\10\ While the vehicle 
emissions estimates in CARB's technical supplement differ from those 
contained in the demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan, the conclusions 
of the analyses remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See June 19, 2014 letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, 
Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 
Division, EPA Region 9. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent the EPA a 
revised technical supplement that corrected a minor typographical 
error. See record of July 25, 2014 email and attachment from Jon 
Taylor, CARB, to Matt Lakin, EPA Region 9, included in the docket.
    \10\ The principal difference between the two sets of 
calculations is that CARB's technical supplement includes running 
exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and running loss emissions of VOCs 
in all of the emissions scenarios. These processes are directly 
related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised calculation excludes 
diurnal and resting loss emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions 
scenarios because such evaporative emissions are related to vehicle 
population rather than to VMT or vehicle trips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal 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 submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet 
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that 
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations 
in 40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior 
to adoption and submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan. The District 
conducted a public workshop on April 16, 2013. On August 20, 2013, the 
District posted on its Web site an announcement and supporting 
documents for a September 19, 2013 public hearing and also sent out an 
email to [email protected] informing interested individuals 
and parties about the public hearing and links to key documents and 
participation via webcast.\11\ The District thereby provided the 
required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its 
public hearing on the 2013 Ozone Plan. On September 19, 2013, the 
District held a public hearing to adopt the 2013 Ozone Plan and adopted 
the plan on that date. See 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix J (``Summary of 
Significant Comments and Responses'') and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 
Resolution 2013-9-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ January 30, 2015 email from Elizabeth Melgoza, CARB, to 
John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9; May 13, 2015 and May 19, 2015 emails 
from SJVUAPCD staff to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB also provided the required public notice and opportunity for 
public comment prior to its November 21, 2013 public hearing and 
approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan as a revision to the California SIP. 
See CARB ``Notice of Public Meeting'' dated October 21, 2013, and CARB 
Resolution No. 13-45. As noted previously, on December 20, 2013, CARB 
submitted the 2013 Ozone Plan and related public process documentation 
to the EPA. The EPA determined that CARB's December 20, 2013 SIP 
revision submittal was complete on May 19, 2014.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA 
Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated May 
19, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information in the December 20, 2013 SIP submittal and 
subsequent email communication with District staff, the EPA has 
determined that all hearings were properly noticed. We find, therefore, 
that the submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan meets the procedural 
requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 
110(l).

III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan

A. Emissions Inventories

    We have evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2013 Ozone Plan 
to determine if they are consistent with EPA guidance (General Preamble 
at 13502) and adequate to support that plan's RACM, ROP and attainment 
demonstrations. Appendix B of the 2013 Ozone Plan presents the base 
year and projected emission inventories relied on for the ROP and 
attainment demonstrations. Appendix B also discusses the methodology 
used to determine base year (2007) emissions and identifies the growth 
and control factors used to project emissions for the 2013 and 2016 
(ROP milestone years) and 2017 (ROP increment and attainment) projected 
year inventories. The plan includes summer (May through October) 
average daily inventories for the base year of 2007 and projected 
inventories for years 2013 through 2022 for all major source categories 
(stationary sources, area sources, and on-road and nonroad mobile 
sources). Emissions are calculated for the two major ozone precursors--
NOX and VOC. See tables B-1 and B-2 of appendix B of the 
2013 Ozone Plan. Additional documentation for the inventories prepared 
for the 2013 Ozone Plan are found in appendix E, section 6 of the 2013 
Ozone Plan.
    The emissions inventories in the 2013 Ozone Plan were developed 
using data provided by CARB, the California Department of 
Transportation, and the San Joaquin Valley's eight metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO).\13\ These

[[Page 2145]]

agencies collect data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic 
projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission 
speciation profiles, and emissions) and develop methodologies (e.g., 
model and demographic forecast improvements) used to generate 
comprehensive emissions inventories. CARB maintains statewide 
inventories in its California Emissions Inventory Development and 
Reporting System (CEIDARS) and uses the California Emission Forecasting 
and Planning Inventory System (CEFS) to forecast or backcast emissions. 
CEFS is designed to generate year-specific emissions estimates for each 
county/air basin/district combination taking into account two factors: 
the effects of growth, and the effects of adopted emission control 
rules. It does this by linking these growth and control factors 
directly to CEIDARS emission categories for a particular base year. The 
2007 inventory was used to project future years using CARB's CEFS v 
1.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 
Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin Council of Governments, 
the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association 
of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the 
Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County Association of 
Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments, and the 
Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB also conducts periodic evaluations and updates of the growth 
profiles to ensure that emission forecasts are based on data that 
reflect historical trends, current conditions, and recent forecasts. 
CARB staff conducted a category-by-category review and update of the 
growth profile data for source categories that, in aggregate, comprise 
more than 95 percent of the NOX or VOC emissions in the San 
Joaquin Valley. To capture the effects of the economic recession, CARB 
staff ensured that the growth profiles included historical data through 
at least 2008 (data through 2009 or 2010 were included when available). 
Growth forecasts for the years 2009 and beyond were obtained primarily 
from government entities with expertise in developing forecasts for 
specific sectors, or in some cases, from econometric models.
    Motor vehicle emissions were based on estimates of VMT provided by 
the regional transportation planning agencies and the California 
Department of Transportation. The plan uses CARB's Emission FACtor 
(EMFAC) model, version EMFAC2011, to calculate the emission factors for 
cars, trucks and buses. At the time that the 2013 Ozone Plan was 
developed, EMFAC2011 was the mobile source model approved for use in 
California SIPs.\14\ Nonroad emissions estimates were based on CARB's 
OFFROAD model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding the EPA approval 
of the 2011 version of the California EMFAC model and announcement 
of its availability. The software and detailed information on the 
EMFAC vehicle emission model can be found on the following CARB Web 
site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. EMFAC2011 was the 
approved version of EMFAC at the time of adoption and submittal of 
the 2013 Ozone Plan. Recently, the EPA approved an updated version 
of the model, EMFAC2014. 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides a summary of the emissions estimates prepared for 
the 2013 Ozone Plan for the base year (2007) and ROP and attainment 
years 2013, 2016, and 2017.

                                Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Ozone Precursor Base Year and Projected Future Year Emissions
                                                                  [Summer average, tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      NOX                                         VOC
                            Category                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2007       2013       2016       2017       2007       2013       2016       2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary......................................................         57         40         30         30        100         96         97         97
Area............................................................         11         11         11         11        221        186        191        193
On-road Mobile..................................................        273        158        119        110         71         49         35         33
Off-road Mobile.................................................        144        108         99         97         65         49         45         43
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................        485        316        259        247        457        381        368        366
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix B.
Note: Because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total of categories.

    We have determined that the 2007 base year emission inventory in 
the 2013 Ozone Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current and that 
this inventory as well as the 2013, 2016, and 2017 projected 
inventories have been prepared consistent with EPA guidance. 
Accordingly, we propose to find that these inventories provide an 
appropriate basis for the various other elements of the 2013 Ozone 
Plan, including RACM, and the ROP and attainment demonstrations.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and Control 
Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM and Control Strategies
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to provide 
for the implementation of all RACM. The RACM demonstration requirement 
is a continuing applicable requirement for the San Joaquin Valley 
``Extreme'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under EPA's anti-
backsliding rules that apply once a standard has been revoked. See 40 
CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17).
    The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM 
requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 and a memorandum entitled 
``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and 
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' 
John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 
1999 (Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance provides that states, in 
addressing the RACM requirement, should consider all potential measures 
for source categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether 
they are reasonably available for implementation in that area and 
whether they would advance the area's attainment date by one or more 
years.
2. RACM and Control Strategy in the 2013 Ozone Plan
    The District's RACM demonstration and control strategy for the 1-
hour ozone standard in the 2013 Ozone Plan relies on control measures 
that have been adopted by CARB and the District under previous 
attainment plans. In the more recent years prior to the adoption of the 
2013 Ozone Plan, CARB and the District have developed and implemented 
comprehensive plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, 1997 
PM2.5 standards, and 2006 PM2.5 standards that 
resulted in the adoption of many new rules and revisions to

[[Page 2146]]

existing rules for stationary, area, and mobile sources. These 
previously adopted measures generated significant reductions in 
NOX and VOC emissions. The measures are listed in the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) for today's action. The control 
measures were developed and adopted under previous San Joaquin Valley 
attainment plans, including the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 
(adopted April 30, 2008) (``2008 PM2.5 Plan''), and the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan (adopted December 20, 2012) (``2012 PM2.5 
Plan''), which were developed to provide, among other things, for 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 
standards, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard, respectively, and 
which relied on adoption and implementation by CARB of new or tightened 
mobile source regulations under CARB's 2007 State Strategy.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The EPA approved the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and 
related portions of the 2007 State Strategy at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 
2012); the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and related 
portions of the 2007 State Strategy at 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 
2011). The EPA proposed to approve portions of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan on January 13, 2015 (80 FR 1816).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. The District's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    The District's RACM analysis builds on previously adopted measures. 
Table 3-1 (p. 3-3) in the 2013 Ozone Plan lists currently adopted 
District rules that are contributing towards attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard. The 2013 Ozone Plan's RACM evaluation for 
NOX and VOC sources is summarized in section 4.2 (p. 4-2) 
and detailed in appendix C (``Stationary and Area Source Control 
Strategy Evaluation'') of the 2013 Ozone Plan. The evaluation of 
potential controls in the 2013 Ozone Plan is presented by source 
category. For stationary and area source categories, the evaluation is 
broken down by the current District rule or rules that fall within a 
given source category.
    The following information is provided in appendix C of the 2013 
Ozone Plan for each stationary or area source category or District 
rule:
     A description of the sources within the category or 
sources subject to the rule;
     Base year (2007) and projected baseline year emissions 
(for every year from 2013 to 2022) in the source category or affected 
by the rule;
     A discussion of the current rule requirements and/or 
listing and discussion of existing rules, regulations, or other control 
efforts that address the source category; and
     Identification and discussion of potential new controls, 
including in many cases, a discussion of the technological and economic 
feasibility of the new controls. Rules adopted by other agencies 
(including the EPA, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), 
and Bay Area AQMD) are discussed and compared to existing SJVUAPCD 
rules. Measures proposed by the public for the source category/rule are 
also identified and discussed. In addition, non-regulatory approaches 
to reducing emissions in each stationary and area source category are 
discussed, including the use of incentives, opportunities for 
technology advancement programs, policy initiatives, and education/
outreach programs.
    Through its RACM evaluation process, the District identified two 
new control measures for adoption, and through adoption of the 2013 
Ozone Plan, the District committed to adopt and submit these measures 
as a revision to the California SIP (see District Resolution 2013-9-13, 
page 5), although the District and State do not rely on reductions from 
these commitments in their attainment demonstration. See 2013 Ozone 
Plan, section 3.1.3 (p. 3-8).
    The District's commitments have been fulfilled in that the 
anticipated rule amendments have been adopted and the rules have been 
submitted to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. The current 
status of the rules is shown in table 2, and as shown there, the EPA 
has approved one of the two rules and has proposed approval of the 
other. We expect to take final action on the second rule prior to final 
action on the 2013 Ozone Plan.

                       Table 2--Status of Rule Adoption Commitments in the 2013 Ozone Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Measure                                          Emission
             Rule                description     Adoption date  Submittal date     reductions         Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4308.........................  Boilers, Steam         11/14/13         5/13/14  Minimal in 2017  Approved 2/12/
                                Generators,                                                       15 (80 FR
                                and Process                                                       7803).
                                Heaters 0.075
                                to <2 MMBtu/hr.
4905.........................  Natural Gas-            1/22/15          4/7/15  To Be            Proposed
                                Fired, Fan                                       Determined.      Approval 11/5/
                                Type                                                              15 (80 FR
                                Residential                                                       68484).
                                Central
                                Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3-9, table 3-3.

    In light of the comprehensiveness of the District's stationary and 
area source program, and the stringency of the District's regulations, 
the 2013 Ozone Plan concludes that RACM is being implemented for 
sources under the District's jurisdiction. See section 4.2.1 of the 
2013 Ozone Plan.
    The District also identified a number of source categories for 
which existing information is inadequate to determine the feasibility 
of additional controls. These categories and the additional controls to 
be studied are discussed in section 3.1.4. (p. 3-9). The schedule for 
these studies is given in table 3-4 (see 2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3-10).
    The TSD for today's action includes additional information on each 
District rule, including its status in terms of federal approval and 
the net inventory changes between 2007 and 2017.
b. CARB and Metropolitan Planning Organizations' RACM Analysis and 
Adopted Control Strategy
    Given the need for significant emissions reductions in California 
nonattainment areas, CARB has been a leader in the development and 
adoption of stringent mobile source control measures nationwide and has 
unique authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a waiver or 
authorization by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emissions 
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new 
and in-use off-road engines. CARB has adopted standards and other 
requirements related to the control of emissions from numerous types of 
on-road motor vehicles and new and in-use off-road vehicles, such as 
passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, off-road engines (gasoline 
and diesel-powered), in-use off-road diesel fueled fleets, portable 
equipment, marine engines, and many others.
    Historically, the EPA has allowed California to take into account 
emissions reductions from CARB regulations for which the EPA has issued 
waivers or authorizations under

[[Page 2147]]

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 the Ninth Circuit in Committee for a Better Arvin v. 
EPA, discussed previously, the EPA has now proposed to approve the 
current set of mobile source regulations for which waivers or 
authorizations have been issued as a revision to the California SIP. 80 
FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). We expect to take final action on 
California's mobile source regulations prior to final action on the 
2013 Ozone Plan.
    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. See, e.g., 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012) (EPA approval of 
standards and other requirements to control emissions from in-use 
heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks).
    Section 3.1.1.2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan discusses the emissions 
reductions from CARB's mobile source program and includes a table 
(table 3-2) that lists all of the regulations adopted or amended by 
CARB from 2000 through early 2012. While all of the listed measures 
contribute to some degree to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in 
the San Joaquin Valley, some are called out in particular as providing 
significant emissions reductions relied upon for attainment of the 
ozone standard under the 2013 Ozone Plan. These measures include the 
in-use heavy-duty diesel-powered truck regulation, the in-use off-road 
equipment regulation, and the advanced clean car program, among others. 
The 2013 Ozone Plan concludes that, in light of the comprehensiveness 
and stringency of CARB's mobile source program, all reasonable control 
measures under CARB's jurisdiction are being implemented.
    With respect to TCMs, the 2013 Ozone Plan relies on the 
documentation found in appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 
conclude that all reasonably available control measures under the 
jurisdiction of the Valley's MPOs are being implemented. Appendix C of 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan describes the efforts by the San Joaquin 
Valley's eight MPOs to implement cost-effective transportation control 
measures (TCMs). See section C.11.4 (p. C-33) of appendix C of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan. While no additional TCMs were identified by the 
MPOs, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan includes a discussion of the on-
going implementation of a broad range of TCMs in the Valley. There is 
also a discussion of the MPOs' Congestion Management and Air Quality 
funding policy, which is a standardized process across the Valley for 
distributing 20 percent of the Congestion Management and Air Quality 
funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. During the 
comment period for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, a number of TCMs 
were suggested by the public for consideration. See appendix I, pp. I-
10 to I-13 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The feasibility of these 
measures is discussed in the District's responses to comments. Id.
c. RACM Demonstration
    The 2013 Ozone Plan concludes that the RACM requirement is met 
through implementation of the measures described above under the 
District's jurisdiction, CARB's jurisdiction, and the MPOs' 
jurisdiction for stationary and area sources, mobile sources, and TCMs, 
respectively. The plan also concludes that to advance the attainment 
date by one year (i.e., from 2017 to 2016) would require an additional 
reduction of 12.1 tpd of NOX, and that there are no 
reasonable measures that collectively would reduce emissions in the 
Valley by that amount by 2016. In support for that conclusion, the plan 
notes that about 90 percent of NOX emission reductions 
occurring between the 2007 base year and the 2017 attainment year come 
from mobile sources and that such reductions cannot be expedited 
through additional District action because, generally, the District 
does not have jurisdiction over mobile sources.
3. Proposed Action on RACM Demonstration
    The process followed by the District in the 2013 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 controls measures for sources of NOX and 
VOC in the San Joaquin Valley. This list included measures suggested in 
public comments on the 2013 Ozone Plan. See 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix 
J. 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. Id. After completing this evaluation, the District 
committed to adopt and submit two measures (i.e., Rules 4308 and 4905), 
which it has now done. See 2013 Ozone Plan, table 3-3, p. 3-10 and 
table 2 above.
    We have reviewed the District's determination in the 2013 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 RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, our comments on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 
and our comments on the District's RACT SIP demonstration for the 2008 
8-hour ozone standard.\16\ We also reviewed measures suggested by the 
public in comments on the 2013 Ozone Plan. Based on this review, we 
believe that the District's rules provide for the implementation of 
RACM for stationary and area sources of NOX and VOC.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); EPA Region 9, Technical 
Support Document for the EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 
California State Implementation Plan--EPA's Evaluation of the San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), Adopted April 16, 2009 (dated August 29, 
2011); letter dated October 19, 2012, from Kerry Drake, Associate 
Director, Air Division EPA--Region 9 to Samir Sheikh, SJVUAPCD; and 
letter dated June 4, 2014, from Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office, 
EPA Region 9 to Errol Villegas, Planning Manager, SJVUAPCD.
    \17\ A full list of the District's rules, including cites to our 
most recent final or proposed rulemaking on each can be found in the 
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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. See 2013 Ozone 
Plan, table 3-2 and appendix A of the TSD. With respect to 
transportation controls, we note that the MPOs have a program to fund 
cost-effective TCMs. See appendix C, p. C-33 of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan. Overall, we believe that CARB's and the MPOs' 
programs provide for the implementation of RACM for NOX and 
VOC from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
    Based on our review of the results of these RACM analyses, the 
District's and CARB's adopted rules, we propose to find that there are, 
at this time, no additional reasonably available measures that would 
advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin 
Valley. In the 2013 Ozone Plan, the District estimates that it would 
take a reduction between of 12.1 tpd of NOX to advance 
attainment from

[[Page 2148]]

2017 to 2016 in the San Joaquin Valley. See section 4.2 (p. 4-3). We 
find that no reasonably available and unadopted measures identified in 
the 2013 Ozone Plan, either individually or collectively, could deliver 
this additional increment of reductions in 2016 because of the extent 
to which the emissions inventory reflects mobile sources (see table 1 
above) and the extent to which the mobile source inventory already 
reflects CARB's emissions standards and other requirements for new and 
in-use on-road and off-road vehicles and engines.
    For the foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the 2013 Ozone 
Plan provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA 
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17).

C. Rate of Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for Rate of Progress Demonstrations
    CAA section 172(c) requires nonattainment area plans to provide for 
reasonable further progress (RFP) which is defined in section 171(1) as 
such annual incremental reductions in emissions as are required in part 
D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator in order to ensure 
attainment of the relevant ambient standard by the applicable date. CAA 
sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require that ``Serious'' and above area SIPs 
include ROP quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every 3 
years after 1996 until attainment. For ozone areas classified as 
Serious and above, section 182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must provide 
for reductions in ozone-season, weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 
percent per year net of growth averaged over each consecutive 3-year 
period. This is in addition to the 15 percent reduction over the first 
6-year period required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for areas classified as 
moderate and above. The CAA requires that these milestones be 
calculated from the 1990 inventory after excluding, among other things, 
emission reductions from ``[a]ny measure related to motor vehicle 
exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by the Administrator by 
January 1, 1990'' and emission reductions from certain federal gasoline 
volatility requirements. CAA section 182(b)(1)(B)-(D). The EPA has 
issued guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP requirements. See General 
Preamble at 13516 and ``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan 
and the Attainment Demonstration,'' EPA-452/R-93-015, EPA Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, February 18, 1994 (corrected).
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX reductions that 
occur after 1990 to be used to meet the post-1996 ROP emission 
reduction requirements, provided that such NOX reductions 
meet the criteria outlined in the CAA and the EPA guidance. The 
criteria require that: (1) The sum of all creditable VOC and 
NOX reductions must meet the 3 percent per year ROP 
requirement; (2) the substitution is on a percent-for-percent of 
adjusted base year emissions for the relevant pollutant; and (3) the 
sum of all substituted NOX reductions cannot be greater than 
the cumulative NOX reductions required by the modeled 
attainment demonstration. See General Preamble at 13517 and 
``NOX Substitution Guidance,'' EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, December 1993. Our guidance in the General 
Preamble states that by meeting the specific ROP milestones discussed 
above, the general RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2) will also 
be satisfied. General Preamble at 13518.
    The ROP demonstration requirement is a continuing applicable 
requirement for the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area under the EPA's anti-backsliding rules that apply 
once a standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 
51.1100(o)(4).
2. ROP Demonstration in the 2013 Ozone Plan
    Section 4.3.2 (beginning on page 4-5) of the 2013 Ozone Plan 
provides a demonstration that the San Joaquin Valley meets the 2010, 
2013, and 2016 ROP milestones and 2017 increment.\18\ We have 
summarized the ROP demonstrations in table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In later 2014, i.e., after adoption and submittal of the 
2013 Ozone Plan, CARB revised the state's Truck and Bus regulation 
(see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/truckbus14.htm). 
The 2014 revisions resulted in a temporary emission reduction 
disbenefit of approximately 5 tpd of NOX in the 2016 and 
2017 milestone years in the San Joaquin Valley. See letter from 
Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to 
Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, dated 
April 23, 2015. The EPA has determined that because the 2013 Ozone 
Plan demonstrates that ROP milestones are met by a significant 
margin in 2016 and 2017, even if the 5 tpd NOX disbenefit 
was added back into the 2016 and 2017 baselines, the 2013 Ozone Plan 
would still exceed the 2016 and 2017 ROP milestones by approximately 
33% for both years.

                                     Table 3--San Joaquin ROP Demonstrations
                                                [Tpd or percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2007            2010            2013            2016            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            VOC Emission Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline VOC inventory..........           457.2           440.5           380.5             368           366.3
Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP          ..............             5.6             3.7             2.7             0.7
 adjustments....................
Adjusted baseline VOC inventory   ..............           451.6           447.9           445.2           444.5
 in baseline year (Line 1-Line
 2).............................
Basis for required VOC            ..............           451.6           407.3           367.9           334.1
 reductions.....................
RFP Percent Reduction Required    ..............              9%              9%              9%              3%
 from prior milestone...........
Target level....................  ..............           411.0           370.6           334.8           324.1
Apparent Shortfall..............  ..............            29.5             9.9            33.2            42.2
Forecasted Percent VOC shortfall  ..............            6.5%            2.2%            7.5%            9.5%
VOC percent shortfall previously  ..............              0%            6.5%            2.2%            7.5%
 addressed provided by NOX
 substitution...................
Actual VOC percent shortfall....  ..............            6.5%           -4.3%            5.2%            2.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NOX Emission Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NOX inventory..........           484.9           368.2           316.0           259.2           247.1
Non-creditable FMVCP adjustments  ..............             4.9            -1.9             6.3             0.4
Adjusted baseline NOX inventory   ..............           480.0           481.9           475.6           475.2
 for milestones.................

[[Page 2149]]

 
Change since 2007...............  ..............           111.8           165.9           216.4           228.1
Forecasted Percent NOX            ..............           23.3%           34.4%           45.5%           48.0%
 creditable reductions since
 2007...........................
NOX percent previously used for   ..............              0%            6.5%            6.5%           11.7%
 VOC shortfall by NOX
 substitution...................
NOX percent available for VOC     ..............           23.3%           27.9%           39.0%           36.3%
 shortfall by NOX substitution
 and contingency................
NOX percent substitution needed   ..............            6.5%            0.0%            5.2%            2.0%
 for VOC shortfall..............
Forecasted NOX percent reduction  ..............           16.7%           27.9%           33.8%           34.2%
 surplus........................
Contingency measure reserve       ..............             Yes             Yes             Yes             Yes
 achieved?......................
ROP achieved?...................  ..............             Yes             Yes             Yes             Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, table 4-2 (page 4-6).

3. Proposed Action on the ROP Demonstration
    Based on our review of the ROP calculations in the 2013 Ozone Plan, 
summarized in table 3 above, we conclude the 2013 Ozone Plan 
demonstrates that sufficient emission reductions have or will be 
achieved to meet the 2010, 2013, and 2016 ROP milestones and the 2017 
increment. Therefore, we propose to approve the ROP demonstration in 
the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4).

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires states with ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as ``Serious'' or above to submit plans that 
demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable 
attainment date. Under the CAA, as amended in 1990, the San Joaquin 
Valley ``Extreme'' nonattainment area was to have attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard by November 15, 2010. In 2011, we determined that the 
San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the standard by the 2010 
attainment date. 76 FR 82133 (December 30, 2011). Given that the 
original statutory attainment date had passed and the 1-hour ozone 
standard had been revoked, in our 2012 final action withdrawing our 
approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan and issuing findings of failure to 
submit, we set a new attainment date by reference to CAA section 
172(a)(2). 77 FR 70376, at 70377 (November 26, 2012), effective 
November 26, 2012. Application of the attainment date formulation in 
section 172(a)(2) means that the state was required to submit a revised 
San Joaquin Valley plan demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years 
from the effective date of the findings of failure to submit, or, in 
this case, no later than November 26, 2017.
    An attainment demonstration should include a control strategy that 
identifies specific measures to reduce emissions and photochemical 
modelling results showing that the emissions reductions from 
implementation of the control strategy is sufficient to attain the 
standard by the applicable attainment date. The attainment 
demonstration requirement is a continuing applicable requirement for 
the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
under the EPA's anti-backsliding rules that apply once a standard has 
been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12).
2. One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration in the 2013 Ozone Plan
a. Control Strategy for Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard
    The 2013 Ozone Plan relies entirely on reductions from previously 
adopted measures. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in the 2013 Ozone Plan documents 
District and State measures that contribute to attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in 2017. Although the 2013 Ozone Plan includes two 
commitment measures (see table 3-3 in 2013 Ozone Plan), reductions from 
those measures were not relied on for attainment. Moreover, the two 
measures have been adopted and submitted to the EPA.
    The future year inventories, which include reductions from adopted 
and creditable measures, were used in the 2013 Ozone Plan's modeling 
analysis described in appendix E of the 2013 Ozone Plan. Based on the 
modeling analysis, the District determined that the 1-hour ozone 
standard could be attained in 2017. A summary of the base year (2007) 
and 2017 attainment-year emissions inventories is shown in table 1 
above. It reflects reductions of 238 tpd of NOX and 91 tpd 
of VOCs from the 2007 base year emissions inventory. For a more 
detailed comparison of the 2007 base year and 2017 attainment year 
inventories, see appendix B of the 2013 Ozone Plan and the TSD for 
today's action.
    For purposes of evaluating the 2013 Ozone Plan, all of the measures 
relied on to satisfy the applicable control requirements are baseline 
measures. As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, 
State, and District rules and regulations adopted prior by the end of 
January 2012 (i.e., prior to the development of 2013 Ozone Plan) that 
continue to achieve emissions reductions through the projected 2017 
attainment year and beyond.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These measures are typically rules that may have compliance 
dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and mobile source 
measures that achieve reductions as older engines are replaced 
through attrition (e.g., through fleet turnover). On December 31, 
2014 and subsequent to the submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan, the 
State of California's Office of Administrative Law approved 
revisions to CARB's Truck and Bus regulation (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/truckbus14.htm). The revisions 
resulted in a temporary emission reduction disbenefit of 
approximately 5 tpd of NOX in 2017. In an April 23, 2015 
letter from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Branch, CARB to 
Matt Lakin, Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, the State 
provides an adequate technical justification showing that the 
demonstration of attainment in 2017 is not affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has adopted more than 50 prohibitory rules that limit 
emissions of either VOC or NOX. These rules include controls 
for a variety of sources including boilers, oil field and refinery 
equipment, surface coatings operations, and open burning. The 2013 
Ozone Plan lists many of these measures in table 3-1. Reductions from 
these measures are incorporated into the future year baseline 
inventories. Appendix C of the 2013 Ozone Plan includes inventory 
information that allows for a comparison of 2007 rule-specific 
emissions inventory data for stationary and area sources against future 
year rule-specific inventories. The net

[[Page 2150]]

inventory impact of the rule reductions and growth is included in the 
TSD for today's proposal. We have also provided in the TSD a list of 
the District's prohibitory NOX and VOC rules and SIP 
approval status.
    The state's baseline measures fall within two categories: Measures 
for which the State has obtained a waiver or authorization of federal 
pre-emption under CAA section 209 (``waiver'' measures) and those for 
which the state is not required to obtain a waiver (``non-waiver'' 
measures). Non-waiver measures include: Improvements to California's 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck; cleaner burning 
gasoline and diesel regulations; and limits on the VOC content and 
reactivity of consumer products. Table 3-2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan lists 
many of the state's measures adopted since 2006 that are contributing 
to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Over the years, the EPA has approved the non-waiver measures and 
amendments to those measures as part of the California SIP. 
Historically, the EPA has allowed California to take credit for waiver 
measures (to meet CAA SIP requirements including ROP and attainment 
demonstrations) notwithstanding the fact that the regulations 
themselves have not been submitted or approved into the California SIP. 
However, in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Committee for a 
Better Arvin v. EPA, as discussed above, CARB has submitted the most 
recent set of waiver measures that contribute emissions reductions to 
the state's attainment plans as part of the SIP, and the EPA has 
proposed approval of the measures. 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). We 
anticipate final action on the CARB mobile source SIP submittal prior 
to final action on the 2013 Ozone Plan.
    The 2013 Ozone Plan also includes reductions from federal measures. 
These measures include, for example, the EPA's national emission 
standards for heavy duty diesel trucks,\20\ certain new construction 
and farm equipment,\21\ and locomotives.\22\ States are allowed to rely 
on reductions from federal measures in attainment and ROP 
demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001). CARB estimates that 
interstate trucks registered outside of California represent over 50 
percent of the heavy duty trucks in California. See Table III-1 in 
``Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reason for Proposed Rulemaking, 
Proposed Regulation for In-Use, On-road Diesel Vehicles,'' 
California Air Resources Board (October 2008).
    \21\ Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 
(October, 23 1998); Tier 4 diesel non-road engine standard, 69 FR 
38958 (June 29, 2004).
    \22\ 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 (June 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Air Quality Modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires SIPs for ozone nonattainment 
areas to include a ``demonstration that the plan, as revised, 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 
by the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least 
as effective.'' Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions 
attainment targets, that is, the combination of emissions of ozone 
precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the relevant 
standard, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will 
result in attainment of that standard. The procedures for modeling 
ozone as part of an attainment demonstration are contained in the EPA's 
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 (``Modeling Guidance'').\23\ 
The Modeling Guidance recommends for a modeling protocol to be reviewed 
by the EPA prior to performance of the modeling. The Guidance includes 
recommendations for model input preparation, model performance 
evaluation, use of the model output for the attainment demonstration, 
and modeling documentation. Air quality modeling is performed using 
meteorology and emissions from a base year, and the modeled 
concentrations are compared to air quality monitoring data from that 
year to evaluate model performance. Once the 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). For 
each monitoring site, the 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 assesses attainment by considering 
evidence other than the main air quality modeling attainment test, such 
as trends and additional monitoring and modeling analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``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 the 
``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Older guidance for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was provided in Guideline 
for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model; \24\ however, 
much of its content is outdated. Most importantly, formerly 
photochemical models were used in an absolute sense for the modeled 
attainment test, whereas currently the EPA recommends that models be 
used in a relative sense. That is, formerly the modeled concentration 
due to future emissions (absolute model prediction) was used directly 
to compare to the NAAQS. Currently, the EPA recommends that the 
relative change in modeled concentration (RRF) due to future emission 
reductions be used; this is applied to the monitored design value and 
the result compared to the NAAQS. Given that the current guidance is 
aimed at the 8-hour standard, whereas the older guidance is aimed at 
the 1-hour standard but is outdated, the State has flexibility in the 
approach to be used. Discussions between the EPA, CARB, and the 
District resulted in the approach described in the Plan's Modeling 
Protocol, which mainly followed the more recent Modeling Guidance, but 
accommodated the form and level of the 1-hour standard and incorporated 
model performance goals from the older 1-hour guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 
Model,'' EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB performed the air quality modeling for the 2013 Ozone Plan, 
with assistance from the District. The 2013 Ozone Plan's modeling 
protocol is contained in appendix E (``Modeling Protocol''). This 
protocol was reviewed by the EPA, and contains all of the elements 
recommended in the Guidance, including selection of model, and modeling 
period, modeling domain, and model boundary conditions and 
initialization procedures; a thorough discussion of emission inventory 
development and their spatial and temporal allocation; and other model 
input preparation procedures, model performance evaluation procedures; 
selection of days and other details for calculating RRFs; and 
provisions for the archiving of and access to raw model inputs and 
outputs. While some additional detail on the input meteorological data 
could have been useful, overall the protocol adequately addresses all 
of the expected elements.

[[Page 2151]]

    The modeling analysis uses the Community Multiscale Air Quality 
(CMAQ) photochemical model, developed by the EPA. The SAPRC99 (State-
wide Air Pollution Research Center, 1999 version) chemical mechanism 
was used in CMAQ, based on CARB's historical experience with it, its 
favorable scientific review and good performance over the years. The 
modeling incorporates routinely available meteorological and air 
quality data collected during 2007, the base year for the 2013 Ozone 
Plan. The WRF model (Weather and Research Forecasting model, from the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research) was used to prepare 
meteorological input for CMAQ. CMAQ and WRF are both recognized in the 
Modeling Guidance as technically sound, state-of-the-art models. Air 
quality modeling was performed for May through September, 2007, a 
period that spans the ozone season in the San Joaquin Valley. The 
overall air quality modeling domain includes the entire State of 
California with 12 km resolution, and a nested domain of finer 4 km 
resolution that covers the San Joaquin Valley. The overall 
meteorological modeling covers California's neighboring states, and 
major portions of the next outer ring of states, with 35 km resolution; 
it has nested domains at 12 km and 4 km, with the latter, innermost 
covering the entire State of California. The areal extent, and the 
horizontal and vertical resolution used in these models were more than 
adequate for modeling San Joaquin Valley ozone.
    Model performance information is provided in appendix F of the 2013 
Ozone Plan in the form of time series and scatter plots of modeled 
ozone compared to monitored ozone, for the May-September, 2007 period. 
The time series show a good match between predicted and observed 
concentrations. While there is some underprediction during the second 
half of the period (mid-July through September), performance is 
generally good, and the overall peaks were captured by the model. 
Scatter plots also show good performance, with very few outliers. 
Modeled values are generally within 20% of observations, and root-mean-
square error (RMSE) values are typically near 0.7, showing good 
correlation between modeled and monitored concentrations. While current 
Modeling Guidance does not prescribe specific performance goals, the 
Modeling Protocol adopted goals from the older, 1991 EPA 1-hour ozone 
modeling guidance, section 5.2: Unpaired highest prediction accuracy: 
Within 20 percent; Normalized bias within 15 percent; and Gross error 
of all pairs above 60 parts per billion (ppb) (i.e., 0.060 ppm) within 
35 percent (appendix F, section 1.4.1). The Modeling Protocol mentions 
evaluation of model performance within multiple geographic subregions, 
as well as additional performance statistics and spatial plots for 
ozone and precursor species, but these were not provided in the SIP 
submittal. The CARB Staff Report stated that all the performance goals 
were met. See CARB's ``Staff Report, San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan for 
the Federal 1-Hour Ozone Standard,'' dated November 8, 2013, page 8. 
The EPA agrees that the model performance is adequate for the San 
Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration.
    The 2013 Ozone Plan used a ``band-RRF'' approach for the use of 
modeling results in the modeled attainment test. This a refinement of 
the approach in the Modeling Guidance, and is described in appendix F 
(``Modeling Approach and Results,'' section 1.4.1) of the 2013 Ozone 
Plan, as well as in the Modeling Protocol and in a journal paper.\25\ 
The Modeling Guidance approach is briefly reviewed here before the 
band-RRF approach is described. As mentioned above, in simplest terms, 
an RRF is the relative model response to emissions changes, that is, 
the ratio of future modeled concentration to base year modeled 
concentration. Since the model provides concentrations for every grid 
square, for every hour of the simulated period, in actually 
implementing an RRF, a choice must be made of which particular model 
concentrations should be included in the calculation. The Modeling 
Guidance recommends that high concentration days selected from grid 
cells near the monitor be used; these will be most relevant for 
estimating the future design value at the monitor. Specifically, for 
the 1997 0.08 ppm (80 ppb) 8-hour ozone NAAQS in effect at the time, 
the Modeling Guidance recommends that the highest concentration among 
grid cells within 15 km of the monitor be used to represent the 
monitor, and that all modeled maximum daily 8-hour concentrations at or 
above 085 ppb \26\ (0.085 ppm) be averaged. The RRF is the average for 
future days divided by the average for base year days; this ratio 
reflects the average response of high ozone concentrations near the 
monitor to future emission changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Sarika Kulkarni, Ajith P. Kaduwela, Jeremy C. Avise, John 
A. DaMassa & Daniel Chau (2014), ``An extended approach to calculate 
the ozone relative response factors used in the attainment 
demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards'', 
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 64:10, 1204-1213, 
DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2014.936984.
    \26\ The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is actually 0.08 ppm; 
concentrations of 84.999 ppb or below round to 80 and comply with 
the NAAQS, and concentrations of 85.0 or higher exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Ozone Plan band-RRF approach parallels the Modeling 
Guidance, but differs in several specifics, especially in the choice of 
concentration levels to include in calculating the RRF. The 2013 Ozone 
Plan applied an initial performance screen: Only days that meet the 
model performance criteria cited above were retained for the 
calculation. For the choice of grid cell to represent the monitor, the 
2013 Ozone Plan used the grid cell containing the monitor itself, 
rather than the maximum cell within 15 km; this puts a somewhat greater 
reliance on the spatial accuracy of the model, but is not necessarily 
less conservative. The 2013 Ozone Plan's choice of concentration days 
to include is more complex than in the Guidance. Instead of using an 
average over all high concentration days, in the band-RRF approach 
there is a different RRF for each 10 ppb-wide (0.010 ppm) band of ozone 
concentrations; the RRF used for a particular monitored day is computed 
from future and base year averages only within the concentration band 
relevant for that day, rather than from all high days.\27\ This 
refinement has the advantage of allowing the model response to vary 
depending on the concentration, instead of assuming the relative 
response is always the same, as the Modeling Guidance procedure does. 
The Modeling Guidance acknowledges that there tends to be a greater 
model response to emission changes at higher ozone concentrations 
(Modeling Guidance, page 37), so the use of RRF bands is a reasonable 
refinement. The use of band-RRFs requires that each day be scaled by 
its corresponding RRF, and that the future design value be estimated 
from those scaled values concentrations. This is different than the 
Modeling

[[Page 2152]]

Guidance approach, in which a single RRF is applied to the monitored 
design value itself. The ``design value'' for the 1-hour ozone standard 
is nearly equivalent to the 4th highest concentration.\28\ In the 2013 
Ozone Plan's approach, the 10 days with the highest observed 
concentration were multiplied by their respective RRFs, and the 4th 
highest resulting concentration was used as the predicted future design 
value for the monitor. The inclusion of 10 candidate days accommodates 
any shifts in the concentration rank of the days as the result of 
controls; it ensures the inclusion of days that could contribute to the 
post-control design value. Applying different RRFs to different days 
and estimating the design value afterward is very similar to the EPA's 
updated guidance procedure for PM2.5 attainment 
demonstrations.\29\ The band-RRF approach is a refinement to the 8-hour 
ozone approach recommended in the Modeling Guidance for the modeled 
attainment test, and is adequate for the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Specifically, a linear regression between observed and 
modeled concentrations was used to choose a modeled concentration 
for each observed day; that modeled concentration predicted from the 
linear fit was then used to select a ppb band and the corresponding 
RRF. This indirect procedure avoids quirks of individual days, 
providing a typical model response appropriate for future 
projections. It also avoids introducing any inconsistency and model 
bias into the RRF calculation. If the observed value were used 
directly to choose a band, and the model happened to underpredict on 
that day, then the RRF, chosen on the basis of the higher observed 
value, would be the model response appropriate for a higher ozone 
concentration, rather than for the modeled base year concentration. 
In short, it keeps both the RRF numerator and denominator both as 
modeled values, consistent with the definition of an RRF.
    \28\ The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the ``expected number of 
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations 
above 0.12 parts per million . . . is equal to or less than 1'' (40 
CFR 50.9); 40 CFR part 50, appendix H describes the procedure for 
calculating this, based on three calendar years. This is 
approximately the same as allowing one exceedance per year over 
three years, that is, the three highest values are allowed to exceed 
0.12 ppm. Thus, the fourth highest concentration is a unbiased 
single-year value to use for comparison to the NAAQS level in a 
modeling context.
    \29\ ``Update to the 24 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Modeled 
Attainment Test,'' EPA memorandum dated June 28, 2011, from Tyler 
Fox, Air Quality Modeling Group, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. The updated guidance allowed for the shifting of 
PM2.5 day ranks. A shift is possible since emission 
controls affect PM2.5 species components differently, and 
species composition may be different for different seasons: Control 
could affect mainly winter days, with summer days little affected 
and so becoming higher ranked. The 2013 Ozone Plan's RRF procedure 
was carried out for the top 10 observed days. This accommodates 
differences in ranking between the observed days and their 
corresponding modeled days and bands, ensuring that days that were 
not the highest before controls, but are so after control, are 
available for the design value calculation. It also accommodates the 
fact that applying controls may result in shifting in the ranks of 
the days; the particular day that is 4th highest before controls may 
not be the 4th highest post-control day. The 2013 Ozone Plan does 
explicitly state whether such rank shifts actually occurred in 
applying the band-RRF approach, but table 4 in appendix G of the 
2013 Ozone Plan does not appear to show such shifts: The 2017 design 
values remain sorted from high to low as are the 2007 design values. 
Shifts might be expected to occur if a concentration near the bottom 
of a band with a relatively small RRF was reduced more than a 
concentration at the top of the next lower band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional difference between the 2013 Ozone Plan modeled 
attainment test and the Modeling Guidance is that it uses only the 
single 2005-2007 design value as the starting point, whereas for a 2007 
base year the Modeling Guidance would recommend the average of the 
three design values for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2009. It is not 
clear how to use band-RRF approach in conjunction with this Guidance 
recommendation, but presumably it would involve using ozone 
observations from a longer period than 2005 through 2007. Using a 
longer period might make for more stable design value estimates, less 
subject to year-to-year meteorological variability; conversely it also 
introduces some inconsistency given that emissions changes during a 
longer period would generally be larger. The EPA estimated the effect 
of using an alternative starting point by applying modeled percent 
change in design value from the 2013 Ozone Plan to the 2006-2008 design 
value, and to the three-design value average mentioned above. The 
results were 120.2 and 119.6 ppb (0.1202 and 0.1196 ppm), respectively, 
both slightly higher than the 2013 Ozone Plan's 119.3 ppb (0.1193 ppm), 
but both less than the NAAQS-compliant value of 124 ppb (or 0.124 ppm, 
which rounds to 0.12 ppm). Documentation on the rationale for the 2013 
Ozone Plan choice of the 2005-2007 design value starting point would 
have strengthened the support for the attainment demonstration, but 
even in its absence, the EPA finds the procedure followed to be 
adequate for the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration.
    The final model results appear in chapter 2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan 
(and are repeated in appendix F, section 1.4.2 ``Attainment 
Demonstration''). These are tables of three-year design values for base 
year 2007 and for the projected year 2017. The highest monitored 2007 
design value was 135 ppb (0.135 ppm) at the Edison monitor. The highest 
projected 2017 design value, accounting for emission reductions 
occurring during 2007-2017 was 119.3 ppb (0.1193 ppm) at Edison 
monitor. This is comfortably below the maximum 124 ppb (0.124 ppm) 
consistent with NAAQS attainment. The next highest 2017 design value 
was substantially less, 107.4 ppb (0.1074 ppm) at the Arvin monitor.
    The 2013 Ozone Plan contains a ``Weight of Evidence'' (WOE) section 
in its appendix G. This section includes analyses of ambient 
concentration and emission trends, and additional analyses that 
strengthen the 2013 Ozone Plan's attainment demonstration conclusion 
that NAAQS attainment will be achieved in 2017. The overall San Joaquin 
Valley design value trend from 1994 through 2012 is downward, despite 
some individual multi-year periods of little progress, and corroborates 
the projection of attainment in 2017 (appendix G, figure 1, page G-2). 
This pattern is also seen for individual monitoring site design values 
trends (appendix G, figures 4-6 and 8-10, pages G-6--G-10). An 
exception to this is the Fresno-Drummond site, for which the 2007-2011 
trend is upward, though the number of NAAQS exceedance days remains 
small (appendix G, figure 6, page G-7). Since VOC and especially 
NOX emission trends have been steadily downward (appendix G, 
figures 18-22, pages G-20--G-23), these stagnant periods are likely due 
to unfavorable meteorology. The 2013 Ozone Plan also includes trends 
adjusted for the effect of meteorology, based on a statistical analysis 
that estimates what ozone would have been had wind speeds and 
temperatures been more typical (appendix G, section G-2). Since a 
statistical analysis requires numerous data points, 20-day averages 
were examined rather than the design values, of which there are only 
one per year. While this means that the results cannot be used to 
directly adjust the design value trends, it is clear that for 2008-
2011, unfavorable meteorology resulted in higher ozone concentrations 
(appendix G, figure 12, page G-14), and partly explains the slower 
recent progress in the design values at some monitoring sites.
    The 2013 Ozone Plan includes NOX vs. VOC diagrams 
showing the modeled sensitivity of ozone to reductions at each 
monitoring site (appendix G, figure 23, pages G-34--G-39.). The 
relatively flat slopes mean that ozone changes relatively little with 
VOC reductions. While the relative effectiveness varies by site and 
reduction amount, on a tpd basis NOX reductions 
approximately 20 times as effective as VOC reductions; for the Edison 
design value site, the relative effectiveness is closer to 7. In 
conjunction with the pronounced downward NOX emission trend 
referred to above, these findings provide confidence in the attainment 
strategy.
    Finally, the 2013 Ozone Plan provides a supplemental attainment 
demonstration using a traditional ``single RRF'' approach, in addition 
to the ``band-RRF'' approach (appendix G, sections 6.1 and 6.2, pages 
G-26--G-33). (As described above, in the former approach, described in 
the Modeling Guidance for 8-hour ozone, a single RRF is used regardless 
of the ozone concentration. In the latter approach there is a different 
RRF for each ``band'' or range of ozone values.) The single

[[Page 2153]]

RRF approach is more conservative, giving slightly higher future 
concentrations; this was expected since the RRF includes model results 
from lower, less responsive, ozone levels. The single RRF approach 
nevertheless also shows 2017 attainment.
    The various analyses provided in appendix G of the 2013 Ozone Plan 
provide assurance in the attainment demonstration's conclusion that the 
1-hr ozone NAAQS will be attained in 2017.
c. Evaluation of the Air Quality Modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan
    The modeling showed that existing State and District control 
measures are sufficient to attain the 1979 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by 2017 
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 
1-hour ozone attainment demonstration.
3. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration
    To approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, the EPA must make 
several findings: First, we must find that the demonstration's 
technical bases--emissions inventories and air quality modeling--are 
adequate. As discussed above in section III.A, we propose to find that 
the inventories in the 2013 Ozone Plan provide an appropriate basis for 
the various other elements of the 2013 Ozone Plan, including the 
attainment demonstration, and for the reasons discussed above, we find 
the air quality modeling adequate to support the attainment 
demonstration.
    Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious 
attainment through the implementation of all RACM. As discussed above 
in section III.B, we are proposing to approve the RACM demonstration in 
the 2013 Ozone Plan.
    Third, we must find that the emissions reductions that are relied 
on for attainment are creditable and are sufficient to provide for 
attainment. As stated previously in today's action, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone Plan in part based on the 
permanence and enforceability of the waiver measures flowing from the 
approval of the measures as part of the SIP. Thus, the EPA will not 
finalize approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan until the Agency takes final 
action to approve the waiver measures as part of the California SIP. 
Once that occurs, the 2013 Ozone Plan will rely entirely on adopted and 
approved rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 
1-hour ozone standards in the San Joaquin Valley in 2017.

E. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA require that SIPs 
contain contingency measures that will take effect without further 
action by the state or the EPA if an area fails to attain the ozone 
standard by the applicable attainment date (section 172(c)(9)) or fails 
to meet an ROP milestone (section 182(c)(9)). This requirement is a 
continuing applicable requirement for the San Joaquin Valley 
``Extreme'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under the EPA's anti-
backsliding rules that apply once a standard has been revoked. See 40 
CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13).
    The Act does not specify how many contingency measures are needed 
or the magnitude of emission reductions that must be provided by these 
measures. However, the EPA provided initial guidance interpreting the 
contingency measure requirements in the General Preamble at 13510. Our 
interpretation is based upon the language in sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) in conjunction with the control measure requirements of 
sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), the reclassification and 
failure to attain provisions of section 181(b) and other provisions. In 
the General Preamble, the EPA indicated that states with moderate and 
above ozone nonattainment areas should include sufficient contingency 
measures so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional 
emissions reductions of three percent of the emissions in the adjusted 
base year inventory (or such lesser percentage what will cure the 
identified failure) would be achieved in the year following the year in 
which the failure is identified. These reductions should be beyond what 
is needed to meet the attainment and/or ROP requirement. States may use 
reductions of either VOC or NOX or a combination of both to 
meet the contingency measure requirements. General Preamble at 13520, 
footnote 6. The states must show that the contingency measures can be 
implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no 
additional rulemaking actions.
    In subsequent guidance,\30\ the EPA indicated that contingency 
measures could be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or 
attainment date. Consistent with this policy, states are allowed to use 
excess reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA 
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measures requirement. This 
is because the purpose of contingency measures is to provide extra 
reductions that are not relied on for ROP or attainment that will 
provide continued progress while the plan is being revised to fully 
address the failure to meet the required milestone. Nothing in the CAA 
precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are 
triggered. This approach has been approved by the EPA in numerous SIPs. 
See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana portion of the 
Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) 
(approval of the Illinois portion of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP 
plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed approval of the Rhode 
Island post-1996 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 
2001) (approval of the Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstrations). In the only adjudicated challenge to this 
approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 
2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, 
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, memorandum titled 
``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' August 13, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Contingency Measures in the 2013 Ozone Plan
    Contingency measure provisions are described in Section 4.4 of the 
2013 Ozone Plan. To provide for contingency measures for failure to 
meet the ROP milestones, the SIP relies on surplus NOX 
reductions in the ROP demonstration. See 2013 Ozone Plan, table 4-2. 
See also table 3 above.
    For the failure to attainment contingency measure, the 3 percent 
reduction from the 2007 baseline can come from either VOC or 
NOX. A three percent reduction from the 2007 baseline is 
equivalent to 14.5 tpd of NOX. VOC emission reductions are 
only 0.3 tpd between 2017 and 2018; thus, NOX emission 
reductions are necessary to satisfy the attainment contingency measure 
requirement. Fleet turnover in 2018 is expected to reduce 
NOX emissions by 11.0 tpd. See 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix B, 
Tables B-1 and B-2. In the 2013 Ozone Plan, the District relies on 3.5 
tpd of NOX reductions from unspecified incentive programs 
plus the NOX reductions from fleet turnover to achieve the 
14.5 tpd of NOX necessary for the failure to attainment 
contingency

[[Page 2154]]

measure. See 2013 Ozone Plan, table 4-4.
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
    Contingency measures for ROP. As discussed above in section III.C, 
we are proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone Plan's ROP demonstration. As 
seen in the second to last line on table 3 above (in the ROP 
demonstration), there are sufficient excess reductions of 
NOX in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the 
next ROP percent reduction requirement to provide the 3 percent of 
adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the RFP 
contingency measure requirement for 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017. 
Accordingly, we propose to approve the ROP contingency measures in the 
2013 Ozone Plan under CAA section 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) 
and 51.1100(o)(13).
    Contingency measures for failure to attain. We are not proposing 
action on the plan's attainment contingency measures at this time. 
Attainment contingency measures are a distinct provision of the CAA 
that we may act on separately from the attainment demonstration.

F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers

1. Requirements for Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for 
Boilers
    CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs must require each new, 
modified, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial 
boiler that emits more than 25 tons per year (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 technology or other comparably effective 
control methods). This requirement is a continuing applicable 
requirement for the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area under the EPA's anti-backsliding rules that apply 
once a standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 
51.1100(o)(6).
    Further 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. General Preamble at 
13523. In addition, boilers with rated heat inputs less than 15 million 
Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are oil or gas fired may generally be 
considered de minimis and exempt from these requirements since it is 
unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX emission 
limit. General Preamble at 13524.
2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in the San Joaquin Valley 
District Rules
    The 2013 Ozone Plan, which addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) 
requirements on page 4-10, states that District Rules 4306 and 4352 
address NOX from affected boilers and that these rules meet 
the requirements of the CAA.
    Rule 4306 ``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--Phase 
3'' as revised on October 16, 2008, applies to any gaseous fuel or 
liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a 
total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The 
emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 
ppm for liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without the use of advanced 
control technologies. See ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--
NOX Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) 
Boilers,'' Emissions Standards Division, EPA, March 1994; see also 76 
FR 57846 at 57864-57865 (September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652 at 12670 
(March 1, 2012) (proposed and final rules approving 2007 Ozone Plan for 
the San Joaquin Valley). All units subject to Rule 4306 were required 
to comply with the limits in the rule no later than December 1, 2008. 
See Rule 4306, section 7.0. We most recently approved Rule 4306 as a 
SIP revision at 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
    Rule 4352 ``Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And Process 
Heaters'' as revised December 15, 2011, applies to any boiler, steam 
generator or process heater fired on solid fuel at a source that has a 
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. Rule 4352, section 5.1. 
We most recently approved Rule 4352 into the California SIP at 77 FR 
66548 (November 6, 2012). In an EPA action on the previous version of 
Rule 4352, we determined that all of the NOX emission limits 
in Rule 4352 effectively require operation of Selective Noncatalytic 
Reduction (SNCR) control systems, which are comparably effective to 
Selective Catalytic Reduction for the affected sources. SNCR also 
appears to achieve NOX emission reductions comparable to 
combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers. We therefore 
concluded that Rule 4352 satisfies the requirements of section 
182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in the San Joaquin Valley. 75 FR 
60623 (October 10, 2010).
    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 ``New and Modified Stationary Source 
Review Rule.'' This rule requires new and modified source to install 
and operate best available control technology/lowest achievable 
emissions reductions technology. The EPA most recently approved Rule 
2201 into the California SIP at 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).
3. Proposed Finding on the Clean Fuel/Advanced Technology for Boilers
    Based on our review of, and previous approval of, the emission 
limitations in the District's rules discussed above, we propose to find 
that the 2013 Ozone Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced control 
technology for boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 
40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).

G. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 
Measures To Offset Growth in Emissions From Growth in Vehicle Miles 
Traveled or Number of Vehicle Trips

1. Requirements for VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires, in relevant part, 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 or number of 
vehicle trips in such area.'' \31\ This requirement is a continuing 
applicable requirement for the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' ozone 
nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour standards under the 
EPA's

[[Page 2155]]

anti-backsliding rules that apply once a standard has been revoked. See 
40 CFR 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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). The 
decision by the Ninth Circuit in the Association of Irritated 
Residents case, and the EPA's related withdrawal of the San Joaquin 
Valley approvals and finding of failure to submit, relate only to 
the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)(i.e., the VMT 
emissions offset requirement). Accordingly, this proposed action 
relates only to the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, in 2012, 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012), the 
EPA withdrew the Agency's approvals of the VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 
8-hour ozone standards. In both instances, the EPA had based its 
approvals on the Agency's long-standing interpretation of the VMT 
emissions offset requirement that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in 
the Association of Irritated Residents case. In response to the Court'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'').\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and 
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl 
Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA 
Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, 
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of the terms, 
``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 is a broad term that encompasses 
many types of controls including, for example, motor vehicle emission 
limitations, inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative 
fuel programs, other technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would 
fit within the regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' 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. Such measures include, but are 
not limited to those listed in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]'' 
and generally refer to programs intended to reduce the VMT, the number 
of vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved 
public transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and 
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction ordinances, and the 
like.
    The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that 
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with 
the Court's ruling. States are recommended to estimate emissions for 
the nonattainment area's base year and the attainment year. One 
emission 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 based on VMT in that 
year and it 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'' taken scenario. Emissions in the 
attainment year in this scenario may be lower than those in the base 
year due to the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually 
being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided VMT and/or 
numbers of vehicle trips will in fact increase by the attainment year, 
they would still likely be higher than they would have been assuming 
VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations would 
also assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have 
been put in place since the base year, but 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 
the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually being 
replaced by cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this case 
they 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 
Court 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 would 
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 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 which 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

[[Page 2156]]

growth in emissions and 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 Court.
2. Revised San Joaquin Valley VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
    For the revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations, the State used EMFAC2011, the latest EPA-approved motor 
vehicle emissions model for California. The EMFAC2011 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 
EMFAC2011 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 the State included emissions from them in the calculations 
that provide the basis for the revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions 
offset demonstrations. The State 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 revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations 
address both the 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard and include two different ``base year'' scenarios: 1990, for 
the purposes of the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour 
ozone standard, and 2002, for the purposes of the VMT emissions offset 
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The ``base year'' for 
VMT emissions offset demonstration purposes should generally be the 
same ``base year'' used for nonattainment planning purposes. In 2012, 
the EPA approved the 2002 base year inventory for the San Joaquin 
Valley for the purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 77 FR 12652, 
at 12670 (March 1, 2012), and thus, the State's selection of 2002 as 
the base year for the revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is appropriate. With 
respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, the attainment demonstration in 
the 2013 Ozone Plan relies on a base year of 2007, rather than 1990; 
however, the State's selection of 1990 as the base year for the VMT 
offset demonstration is appropriate because 1990 was used as the base 
year for 1-hour ozone SIP planning purposes under the CAA Amendments of 
1990, which established, among other requirements, the VMT emissions 
offset requirement in section 182(d)(1)(A).
    The demonstrations also include the previously described three 
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset 
ceiling, and projected actual) but the attainment year differs between 
the two demonstrations. Year 2017 was selected as the attainment year 
for the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard, and year 2023 was selected as the attainment year for the 
revised demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, the State's selection of 2023 is appropriate 
given that the approved San Joaquin Valley 1997 8-hour ozone plan 
demonstrates attainment by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 
2024 based on the 2023 controlled emissions inventory. See 76 FR 57846, 
at 57856-57861 (September 16, 2011) and 77 FR 12652, at 12670 (March 1, 
2012).
    The San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan, which includes the revised 
VMT emissions offset demonstrations in appendix D, provides a 
demonstration of attainment by 2017. The revised San Joaquin Valley 1-
hour ozone attainment demonstration thus provides a demonstration of 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley by 
2017 based on the controlled 2017 emissions inventory. As described in 
section III.D of this document, the EPA is proposing to approve 2017 as 
the attainment year for the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin 
Valley.\33\ Based on the proposed approval of 2017 as the attainment 
year for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone standard, we find 
CARB's selection of year 2017 as the attainment year for the revised 
VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard to be 
acceptable. For additional background and justification regarding the 
2017 attainment year, please see section III.D in today's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In this context, ``attainment year'' refers to the ozone 
season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date. 
In the case of the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone standard, 
the proposed applicable attainment date is November 26, 2017, and 
the ozone season immediately preceding that date will occur in year 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 4 and 5 summarize the relevant distinguishing parameters for 
each of the emissions scenarios and show the State's corresponding VOC 
emissions estimates. Table 4 provides the parameters and emissions 
estimates for the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-
hour ozone standard, and table 5 provides the corresponding values for 
the revised demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

                                 Table 4--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Year          1000/day          Year          1000/day          Year             tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year...............................................            1990          52,199            1990           7,730            1990             196
No Action...............................................            2017         115,070            2017          17,133            1990             178
VMT Offset Ceiling......................................            1990          52,199            1990           7,730            1990              81
Projected Actual........................................            2017         115,070            2017          17,133            2017              30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB's Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2017 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley
  MPOs.


[[Page 2157]]


                              Table 5--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Year          1000/day          Year          1000/day          Year             tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year...............................................            2002          78,400            2002          11,307            2002              76
No Action...............................................            2023         130,431            2023          19,466            2002              49
VMT Offset Ceiling......................................            2002          78,400            2002          11,307            2002              28
Projected Actual........................................            2023         130,431            2023          19,466            2023              24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB's Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2023 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley
  MPOs.

    For the two ``base year'' scenarios, the State ran the EMFAC2011 
model for the applicable base year (i.e., 1990 for the 1-hour ozone 
standard and 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) using VMT and 
starts data corresponding to those years. As shown in tables 5 and 6, 
the State estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 196 tpd in 
1990 and 76 tpd in 2002.
    For the two ``no action'' scenarios, the State first identified the 
on-road motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in 
place since the base years and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and then ran 
EMFAC2011 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the applicable 
attainment year (i.e., 2017 for the 1-hour ozone standard and 2023 for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) without the emissions reductions from 
the on-road motor vehicle control programs put in place after the base 
year. Thus, the ``no action'' scenarios reflect the hypothetical VOC 
emissions that would occur in the attainment years in the San Joaquin 
Valley if the State had not put in place any additional TCSs or TCMs 
after 1990 (for the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset demonstration) or 
after 2002 (for the 8-hour ozone demonstration). As shown in tables 5 
and 6, the State estimates the ``no action'' San Joaquin Valley VOC 
emissions at 178 tpd in 2017 and 49 tpd in 2023. The principal 
difference between the two estimates is that the latter value (used for 
the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 8-hour ozone 
standard) reflects the emissions reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in 
place by the end of 2002 whereas the former value (used for the revised 
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard) reflects only the 
emissions reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in place by the end of 
1990. The most significant of the measures adopted since 1990 and 
relied upon for the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset demonstration 
include tiered (series of increasingly stringent limits) emissions 
standards for new motor vehicles (i.e., Low Emissions Vehicles I, II, 
and III standards), content specifications for gasoline (i.e., 
California Reformulated Gasoline Phases 1, 2, and 3), and enhancements 
to the State's I/M program (i.e., Smog Check II). See attachments A and 
B to appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan for lists of TCSs and TCMs 
adopted by the State and MPOs since 1990.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The docket for today's action includes an updated list of 
the post-1990 transportation control strategies in attachment A of 
appendix D to the 2013 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenarios, the State ran the 
EMFAC2011 model for the attainment years but with VMT and starts data 
corresponding to base year values. Like the ``no action'' scenarios, 
the EMFAC2011 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'' 
scenarios reflect hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 
if the State had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base years 
and if there had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the 
base years and the attainment years.
    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'' scenarios and the corresponding 
estimates under the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenarios. Based on the 
values in tables 5 and 6, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to 
growth in VMT and trips in the San Joaquin Valley would have been 97 
tpd (i.e., 178 tpd minus 81 tpd) for the purposes of the revised VMT 
emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard, and 21 
tpd (i.e., 49 tpd minus 28 tpd) for the purposes of the corresponding 
demonstration for the 8-hour ozone standard. These hypothetical 
differences establish the levels 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 calculations, the State ran 
the EMFAC2011 model for the attainment years 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, 
the State included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in 
place since the base year. The most significant measures put in place 
during the 2002 to 2023 time frame include Low Emission Vehicles II and 
III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, and California 
Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3. These measures are also relied upon for 
the revised 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration (proposed for 
approval herein) and the approved 8-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration.
    As shown in tables 5 and 6, the results from these calculations 
establish projected actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 30 tpd for 
the 1-hour standard demonstration and 24 tpd for the 1997 8-hour 
standard demonstration. The State then compared these values against 
the corresponding VMT offset ceiling values 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, the State 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 both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 
standards. In fact, taking into account of the creditable post-baseline 
year TCMs and TCSs, the State showed that they offset the hypothetical 
differences by 148 tpd for the 1-hour standard and by 25 tpd for the 
1997 8-hour standards,

[[Page 2158]]

rather than merely the required 97 tpd and 21 tpd, respectively.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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 tables 5 and 6. For the 
purposes of the 1-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions 
reductions, 148 tpd (178 tpd minus 30 tpd), exceed the growth in 
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (97 tpd). For the 
purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions 
reductions, 25 tpd (49 tpd minus 24 tpd), exceed the growth in 
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (21 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Action on the VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
    Based on our review of revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions 
offset demonstrations in appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan and the 
related technical supplement, we find the State's analysis to be 
acceptable and agree that the State 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 1-hour ozone 
and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. As such, we find that the revised San 
Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations comply with the VMT 
emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we 
propose approval of the revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as 
a revision to the California SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve, 
under CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB's submittal dated December 20, 2013 
of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan as a revision to the 
California SIP.\36\ In so doing, the EPA is proposing to approve the 
following elements of the plan as meeting the specified requirements 
for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In our final action, we also intend to remove a certain 
paragraph from the ``Identification of Plan'' section of 40 CFR part 
52 for the State of California. In withdrawing our approval of the 
2004 Ozone Plan, as revised and clarified, 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 
2012), we inadvertently failed to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which 
codified our March 8, 2010 final approval of the ``2008 
Clarifications'' for the 2004 San Joaquin Valley (1-hour ozone) 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17);
     ROP demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 
51.1100(o)(4);
     Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of 
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12);
     ROP contingency measures as meeting the requirements of 
CAA sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and
     Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology 
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 
CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).
    The EPA is also proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting 
the specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard and 
the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
     VMT emissions offset demonstrations as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 
51.1100(o)(10).
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments 
from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider 
these comments before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 
8-hours ozone standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 
California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, 
the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune 
Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria 
of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, 
the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule 
River Reservation.
    The EPA's proposed approval of the various SIP elements submitted 
by CARB to address the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone standards in 
the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications because the 
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 
other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 
SIP approvals do not have tribal implications and will not

[[Page 2159]]

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the proposed action will 
not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, 
and would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor 
would it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in 
the San Joaquin Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs 
under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 24, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-00089 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                2140                     Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)                     H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That                 and to meet other Clean Air Act
                                                                                                        Significantly Affect Energy Supply,                    requirements. Specifically, with respect
                                                   I certify that this action will not have             Distribution, or Use                                   to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA
                                                a significant economic impact on a                                                                             is proposing to find the emissions
                                                substantial number of small entities                      This action is not subject to Executive
                                                                                                        Order 13211, because it is not a                       inventories to be acceptable and to
                                                under the RFA. This action will not                                                                            approve the reasonably available control
                                                                                                        significant regulatory action under
                                                impose any requirements on small                                                                               measures demonstration, the rate of
                                                                                                        Executive Order 12866.
                                                entities beyond those imposed by state                                                                         progress demonstrations, the attainment
                                                law.                                                    I. National Technology Transfer and                    demonstration, contingency measures
                                                                                                        Advancement Act (NTTAA)                                for failure to meet rate of progress
                                                D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                                                                                          Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs                   milestones, the provisions for advanced
                                                (UMRA)                                                                                                         technology/clean fuels for boilers, and
                                                                                                        the EPA to use voluntary consensus
                                                  This action does not contain any                      standards in its regulatory activities                 the demonstration that the plan
                                                unfunded mandate as described in                        unless to do so would be inconsistent                  provides sufficient transportation
                                                UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does                      with applicable law or otherwise                       control strategies and measures to offset
                                                not significantly or uniquely affect small              impractical. The EPA believes that this                emissions increases due to increases in
                                                                                                        action is not subject to the requirements              motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8-
                                                governments. This action does not
                                                                                                        of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because                  hour ozone standard, the EPA is
                                                impose additional requirements beyond
                                                                                                        application of those requirements would                proposing to approve the demonstration
                                                those imposed by state law.
                                                                                                        be inconsistent with the CAA.                          that the plan provides sufficient
                                                Accordingly, no additional costs to                                                                            transportation control strategies and
                                                State, local, or tribal governments, or to              J. Executive Order 12898: Federal                      measures to offset emissions increases
                                                the private sector, will result from this               Actions To Address Environmental                       due to increases in motor vehicle
                                                action.                                                 Justice in Minority Populations and                    activity.
                                                                                                        Low-Income Population
                                                E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism                                                                           DATES:  Any comments must arrive by
                                                                                                          The EPA lacks the discretionary                      February 16, 2016.
                                                  This action does not have federalism                  authority to address environmental
                                                implications. It will not have substantial              justice in this rulemaking.                            ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
                                                direct effects on the states, on the                                                                           identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
                                                                                                        List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                     R09–OAR–2015–0048, by one of the
                                                relationship between the national
                                                government and the states, or on the                      Environmental protection, Air                        following methods:
                                                distribution of power and                               pollution control, Incorporation by                      1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
                                                responsibilities among the various                      reference, Intergovernmental relations,                the on-line instructions for submitting
                                                levels of government.                                   Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and                 comments.
                                                                                                        recordkeeping requirements, Volatile                     2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
                                                F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination                  organic compounds.                                       3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky
                                                With Indian Tribal Governments                            Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                    (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
                                                                                                                                                               Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
                                                  This action does not have tribal                        Dated: December 11, 2015.
                                                                                                                                                               Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
                                                implications, as specified in Executive                 Jared Blumenfeld,
                                                                                                                                                               Deliveries are only accepted during the
                                                Order 13175, because the SIP is not                     Regional Administrator, Region IX.                     Regional Office’s normal hours of
                                                approved to apply on any Indian                         [FR Doc. 2016–00571 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am]            operation.
                                                reservation land or in any other area                   BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                   Instructions: All comments will be
                                                where the EPA or an Indian tribe has                                                                           included in the public docket without
                                                demonstrated that a tribe has                                                                                  change and may be made available
                                                jurisdiction, and will not impose                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                               online at http://www.regulations.gov,
                                                substantial direct costs on tribal                      AGENCY                                                 including any personal information
                                                governments or preempt tribal law.                                                                             provided, unless the comment includes
                                                Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not                    40 CFR Part 52
                                                                                                                                                               Confidential Business Information (CBI)
                                                apply to this action.                                   [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0048; FRL–9940–95–                   or other information whose disclosure is
                                                                                                        Region 9]                                              restricted by statute. Information that
                                                G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
                                                                                                                                                               you consider CBI or otherwise protected
                                                Children From Environmental Health                      Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-                    should be clearly identified as such and
                                                Risks and Safety Risks                                  Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area                          should not be submitted through
                                                                                                        Requirements; San Joaquin Valley,                      http://www.regulations.gov or email.
                                                  The EPA interprets Executive Order                    California
                                                13045 as applying only to those                                                                                http://www.regulations.gov is an
                                                regulatory actions that concern                         AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                      anonymous access system, and the EPA
                                                environmental health or safety risks that               Agency (EPA).                                          will not know your identity or contact
                                                the EPA has reason to believe may                       ACTION: Proposed rule.                                 information unless you provide it in the
                                                                                                                                                               body of your comment. If you send an
                                                disproportionately affect children, per
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                        SUMMARY:   The Environmental Protection                email directly to the EPA, your email
                                                the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
                                                                                                        Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a                 address will be automatically captured
                                                action’’ in section 2–202 of the
                                                                                                        state implementation plan (SIP) revision               and included as part of the public
                                                Executive Order. This action is not                     submitted by the State of California to                comment. If the EPA cannot read your
                                                subject to Executive Order 13045                        provide for attainment of the 1-hour                   comment due to technical difficulties
                                                because it does not impose additional                   ozone national ambient air quality                     and cannot contact you for clarification,
                                                requirements beyond those imposed by                    standard in the San Joaquin Valley,                    the EPA may not be able to consider
                                                state law.                                              California ozone nonattainment area                    your comment.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00030   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                               2141

                                                   Docket: The index to the docket and                  road motor vehicles and engines, power                   pre-existing respiratory disease, such as
                                                documents in the docket for this action                 plants and industrial facilities, and                    asthma. In 2008, the EPA revised and
                                                are generally available electronically at               smaller area sources such as lawn and                    further strengthened the NAAQS for
                                                www.regulations.gov and in hard copy                    garden equipment and paints. Scientific                  ozone by setting the acceptable level of
                                                at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,                  evidence indicates that adverse public                   ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm,
                                                San Francisco, California. While all                    health effects occur following exposure                  averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘2008
                                                documents in the docket are listed at                   to ozone, particularly in children and                   8-hour ozone standard’’). 73 FR 16436
                                                www.regulations.gov, some information                   adults with lung disease. Breathing air                  (March 27, 2008). In 2015, the EPA
                                                may be publicly available only at the                   containing ozone can reduce lung                         further tightened the 8-hour ozone
                                                hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted                   function and inflame airways, which                      standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292
                                                material, large maps), and some may not                 can increase respiratory symptoms and                    (October 26, 2015). While both the 1979
                                                be publicly available in either location                aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.                 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-
                                                (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy                   See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the                 hour ozone standard have been revoked,
                                                materials, please schedule an                           National Ambient Air Quality Standards                   certain requirements that had applied
                                                appointment during normal business                      for Ozone,’’ January 6, 2010 and 75 FR                   under the revoked standards continue to
                                                hours with the contact listed in the FOR                2938 (January 19, 2010).                                 apply under the anti-backsliding
                                                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.                       Under section 109 of the Clean Air                    provisions of CAA section 172(e).
                                                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
                                                                                                        Act (CAA), the EPA promulgates                              Once the EPA has promulgated a
                                                Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),                 national ambient air quality standards                   NAAQS, states are required to develop
                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,                   (NAAQS or standards) for pervasive air                   and submit plans that provide for the
                                                Region 9, (415) 972–3963,                               pollutants, such as ozone. In 1979, the                  implementation, maintenance, and
                                                ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.                                 EPA established the NAAQS for ozone                      enforcement of the NAAQS under CAA
                                                                                                        at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged                 section 110(a)(1). The content
                                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                                                                        over a 1-hour period (‘‘1-hour ozone                     requirements for such plans, which are
                                                Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’                standard’’). 44 FR 8202 (February 8,                     referred to as state implementation
                                                and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.                           1979). An area is considered to have                     plans (SIPs) are found in CAA section
                                                Table of Contents                                       attained the 1-hour ozone standard if                    110(a)(2). Under the Clean Air Act, as
                                                                                                        there are no violations of the standard,                 amended in 1977, the EPA designated
                                                I. Regulatory Context
                                                                                                        as determined in accordance with the                     all areas of the country as ‘‘attainment,’’
                                                   A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area
                                                      Designations                                      regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9,                      ‘‘nonattainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for
                                                   B. The San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment              based on three consecutive calendar                      the various NAAQS depending upon the
                                                      Area                                              years of complete, quality assured and                   availability of ambient concentration
                                                II. CARB’s SIP Revision Submittal To                    certified monitoring data. A violation                   data and depending upon whether
                                                      Address Remaining 1-Hour and 1997 8-              occurs when the ambient ozone air                        violations of the NAAQS were occurring
                                                      Hour Ozone Requirements in the San                quality monitoring data show greater                     in a given area. The CAA further
                                                      Joaquin Valley                                    than one (1.0) ‘‘expected number’’ of                    requires states with ‘‘nonattainment’’
                                                   A. CARB’s SIP Submittal                              exceedances per year at any site in the                  areas to submit revisions to their SIPs
                                                   B. CAA Procedural Requirements for                   area, when averaged over three                           that provide for, among other things,
                                                      Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions
                                                                                                        consecutive calendar years.2 An                          attainment of the relevant standard
                                                III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                   A. Emissions Inventories                             exceedance occurs when the maximum                       within certain prescribed periods.
                                                   B. Reasonably Available Control Measures             hourly ozone concentration during any                       In California, the California Air
                                                      Demonstration and Control Strategy                day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more                          Resources Board (CARB) is responsible
                                                   C. Rate of Progress Demonstration                    information, see ‘‘National 1-hour                       for adoption and submittal to the EPA
                                                   D. Attainment Demonstration                          primary and secondary ambient air                        of California SIPs and California SIP
                                                   E. Contingency Measures                              quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR                    revisions and is the primary State
                                                   F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control                   50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour                 agency responsible for regulation of
                                                      Technology for Boilers                            Primary and Secondary National                           mobile sources. Local and regional air
                                                   G. Transportation Control Strategies and             Ambient Air Quality Standards for                        pollution control districts are
                                                      Transportation Control Measures to                                                                         responsible for developing regional air
                                                      Offset Growth in Emissions from Growth
                                                                                                        Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
                                                      in Vehicle Miles Traveled or Number of
                                                                                                           In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS                    quality plans and for regulation of
                                                      Vehicle Trips                                     for ozone to set the acceptable level of                 stationary sources. For the San Joaquin
                                                IV. Proposed Action                                     ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,                    Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Unified
                                                V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews                averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘1997                   Air Pollution Control District
                                                                                                        8-hour ozone standard’’). 62 FR 38856                    (SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) develops and
                                                I. Regulatory Context                                   (July 18, 1997). The EPA determined                      adopts air quality management plans to
                                                A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area                      that the 1997 8-hour standard would be                   address CAA SIP planning requirements
                                                Designations                                            more protective of human health,                         applicable to that region. Such plans are
                                                                                                        especially children and adults who are                   then submitted to CARB for adoption
                                                  Ground-level ozone is formed when                     active outdoors, and individuals with a                  and submittal to the EPA as revisions to
                                                oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
                                                                                                                                                                 the California SIP.
                                                organic compounds (VOC) react in the                      2 An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances is a
                                                presence of sunlight.1 These two                        statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average.   B. The San Joaquin Valley
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                pollutants, referred to as ozone                        An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances may be             Nonattainment Area
                                                precursors, are emitted by many types of                equivalent to the number of observed exceedances
                                                                                                        plus an increment that accounts for incomplete             Under the 1977 CAA Amendments,
                                                pollution sources, including on- and off-               sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.               the EPA designated the San Joaquin
                                                                                                        Because, in this context, the term ‘‘exceedances’’       Valley Air Basin (‘‘San Joaquin Valley’’
                                                  1 California plans sometimes use the term             refers to days (during which the daily maximum
                                                Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms       hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm),
                                                                                                                                                                 or ‘‘Valley’’) as a ‘‘nonattainment’’ area
                                                are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use      the maximum possible number of exceedances in a          for the photochemical oxidant (later, the
                                                the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.          given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year).               1-hour ozone) NAAQS. 43 FR 8962, at


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00031   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2142                     Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                8972 (March 3, 1978). Initially, eight                  2001). In 2004, the EPA granted the                     in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) or the
                                                entire counties comprised the San                       State’s request to voluntarily reclassify               number of vehicle trips. Lastly, in our
                                                Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,                the San Joaquin Valley from ‘‘Severe’’ to               approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan, we
                                                Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings,                  ‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1-hour ozone                        approved a specific rule, District Rule
                                                and Kern counties. In 2001, however,                    standard and required the state to                      9310, related to school buses.
                                                the EPA approved a request to revise the                submit a SIP revision providing for the                    Our approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan
                                                boundary of the San Joaquin Valley to                   ‘‘Extreme’’ area SIP elements in CAA                    was challenged, and the U.S. Court of
                                                exclude eastern Kern County. 66 FR                      section 182(e), which include a                         Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded
                                                56476 (November 8, 2001). As such, the                  demonstration of attainment of the                      the approval of the plan back to the EPA
                                                San Joaquin Valley ozone                                standard as expeditiously as practicable,               based on its conclusion that the EPA
                                                nonattainment area stretches over 250                   but no later than November 15, 2010. 69                 had not adequately considered and
                                                miles from north to south, averages a                   FR 20550 (April 16, 2004).                              addressed the implications of more
                                                width of 80 miles, and encompasses                         In response, CARB and the District                   recent emissions data in determining
                                                over 23,000 square miles. It is partially               developed and adopted the Extreme                       that the 2004 Ozone Plan had met all
                                                enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to                 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan                     applicable CAA requirements. Sierra
                                                the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to                    (‘‘2004 Ozone Plan’’) for the San Joaquin               Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.
                                                the south, and the Sierra Nevada range                  Valley, and, in 2004, CARB submitted                    2012) (‘‘Sierra Club’’).4 In response to
                                                to the east. The San Joaquin Valley is                  the 2004 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a                     the Sierra Club decision, the EPA
                                                one of the nation’s leading agricultural                revision to the California SIP. The 2004                withdrew its approval of the 2004
                                                areas, and in recent decades, has                       Ozone Plan was supported by certain                     Ozone Plan. 77 FR 70376 (November 26,
                                                experienced a high rate of growth in                    measures and commitments contained                      2012).5 CARB indicated that it intended
                                                population. From 1990 to 2010, the                      in the state’s ‘‘2003 State Strategy.’’ The             to withdraw the plan upon EPA’s
                                                population in the Valley increased from                 2004 Ozone Plan was later amended and                   approval withdrawal action, and thus,
                                                approximately 2.7 million to 4 million                  clarified, and the EPA approved the                     in the same Federal Register document
                                                people. For a precise description of the                plan, as amended and clarified, in 2010.                as the withdrawal of approval, the EPA
                                                geographic boundaries of the San                        75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010).                            issued a finding of failure to submit
                                                Joaquin Valley, see 40 CFR 81.305.                         Specifically, we approved the                        required SIP revisions to provide for
                                                   The CAA, as amended in 1977,                         following elements of the 2004 Ozone                    attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
                                                required states to submit SIP revisions                 Plan: (1) Rate-of-progress (ROP)                        in the San Joaquin Valley.
                                                for nonattainment areas that, among                     demonstration as meeting the                               Meanwhile, as noted above, in 1997,
                                                other requirements, provided for                        requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2)                   the EPA established an 8-hour ozone
                                                attainment no later than 1987; however,                 and 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i)                standard to replace the 1-hour ozone
                                                like many areas of the country, the San                 and 51.900(f)(4); (2) ROP contingency                   standard, and in 2004, the EPA
                                                Joaquin Valley failed to attain the ozone               measures as meeting the requirements of                 designated the San Joaquin Valley as a
                                                NAAQS by 1987. In the 1990 CAA                          CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3)                ‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment area for the
                                                Amendments, Congress established a                      the attainment demonstration as                         1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR
                                                classification system for ozone                         meeting the requirements of 182(c)(2)(A)                23858, at 23888–23899 (April 30, 2004).
                                                nonattainment areas under which areas                   and 181(a) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii);                 In 2010, the EPA approved a request by
                                                with more severe ozone problems were                    (4) the attainment contingency measures                 CARB to reclassify the San Joaquin
                                                given a higher classification and more                  as meeting the requirements of CAA                      Valley as ‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1997 8-hour
                                                time to attain the standard but were                    section 172(c)(9); and (5), along with                  ozone standard. 75 FR 24409 (May 5,
                                                subject to a greater number of, and more                certain measures contained in the 2003                  2010). In 2004, the EPA also established
                                                stringent, SIP requirements. The                        State Strategy, the demonstration of                    regulations governing the transition
                                                classifications include ‘‘Marginal,’’                   implementation of reasonably available                  from the 1-hour ozone standard to the
                                                ‘‘Moderate,’’ ‘‘Serious,’’ ‘‘Severe,’’ and              control measures (RACM)(exclusive of                    1997 8-hour ozone standard, and under
                                                ‘‘Extreme.’’ See CAA section 181(a)(1).                 RACT) 3 as meeting the requirements of                  these regulations, the 1-hour ozone
                                                   Under this classification system, the                CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR                           standard was revoked in most areas of
                                                San Joaquin Valley was classified as a                  51.905(a)(1)(ii). Id., at 10436–10437. In               the country, including the San Joaquin
                                                ‘‘Serious’’ ozone nonattainment area for                connection with the control strategy of                 Valley, effective June 15, 2005, but the
                                                the 1-hour ozone standard with an                       the attainment demonstration, we                        SIP revision requirements that applied
                                                attainment date of no later than                        approved certain committal measures                     at the time of revocation of the standard
                                                November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694                          and aggregate emission reduction                        continue to apply after revocation
                                                (November 6, 1991). In response, in                     commitments made by CARB and the
                                                1994, CARB submitted The California                     District. Id. We also found that the 2004                  4 For further background on this court decision,
                                                Ozone State Implementation Plan                         Ozone Plan met the following                            see our proposed rule at 77 FR 58078 (September
                                                (‘‘1994 California Ozone Plan’’), a                     requirements: (1) CAA section 182(e)(3)                 19, 2012).
                                                comprehensive ozone plan for the State                  and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and                             5 The EPA’s March 8, 2010 final rule taking action

                                                of California that included a state                     51.900(f)(7) for clean fuel/clean                       on the 2004 Ozone Plan also took final approval
                                                                                                                                                                action on SJVUAPCD Rule 9310 (‘‘School Bus
                                                strategy as well as certain regional                    technology boilers; and (2) CAA section                 Fleets’’). Approval of District Rule 9310 was not
                                                ozone plans, such as the regional plan                  182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i)                 affected by the decision in Sierra Club, and thus the
                                                for the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA                     and 51.900(f)(11) for transportation                    EPA did not withdraw its approval of that rule
                                                                                                                                                                when it withdrew its approval of the rest of the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                approved the 1994 California Ozone                      control measures (TCMs) sufficient to
                                                                                                                                                                action taken on March 8, 2010. However, the EPA
                                                Plan in 1997. 62 FR 1150 (January 8,                    offset growth in emissions from growth                  did intend to withdraw approval of all of the
                                                1997).                                                                                                          elements of the 2004 Ozone Plan but inadvertently
                                                   In 2001, the EPA found that the San                     3 We addressed the SIP requirements related to       failed to withdraw its approval of the 2008
                                                Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the                 implementation of reasonably available control          Clarification submitted by CARB in support of the
                                                                                                        technology (RACT) for the 1-hour ozone standard in      2004 Ozone Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371), and
                                                1-hour ozone standard by the ‘‘Serious’’                separately rulemakings. See, e.g., 77 FR 1417           the EPA intends to fix this error by withdrawing
                                                area deadline and reclassified the area                 (January 10, 2012)(final partial approval and partial   that paragraph from 40 CFR 52.220(c) when it takes
                                                to ‘‘Severe.’’ 66 FR 56476 (November 8,                 disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley RACT SIP).        final action on the 2013 Ozone Plan.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00032   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                           2143

                                                consistent with the anti-backsliding                     demonstration in 2012, the EPA applied                 attainment contingency measures, clean
                                                provisions in section 172(e). This means                 its then-longstanding interpretation of                fuels/clean technology boilers, and VMT
                                                that, notwithstanding revocation of the                  the VMT emissions offset requirement                   emissions offset demonstration) and
                                                1-hour ozone standard, the San Joaquin                   in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), first                     also addresses the VMT emissions offset
                                                Valley remained subject to ‘‘Extreme’’                   explained in guidance in the General                   requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone
                                                area requirements for the 1-hour ozone                   Preamble to Title I of the CAA (see 57                 standard. The 2013 Ozone Plan builds
                                                standard and is also subject to the                      FR 13498, at 13521–13523, April 16,                    upon the regulatory foundation built by
                                                ‘‘Extreme’’ area requirements for the                    1992) (herein referred to as the ‘‘General             previous San Joaquin Valley attainment
                                                1997 8-hour ozone standard.                              Preamble’’), that no transportation                    plans for ozone as well as for other
                                                   In 2007, in response to SIP revision                  control measures are necessary if                      nonattainment pollutants, including
                                                requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone                   aggregate motor vehicle emissions are                  PM10 and PM2.5, including, but not
                                                standard, CARB and the District                          projected to decline each year from the                limited to, dozens of District rules
                                                developed and adopted the 2007 Ozone                     base year of the plan to the attainment                establishing VOC or NOX emissions
                                                Plan (‘‘2007 Ozone Plan’’) and related                   year. See 76 FR 57872, at 57889                        limits and other requirements for
                                                portions of the 2007 State Strategy and                  (September 16, 2011). The EPA                          various types of stationary sources, and
                                                submitted them to the EPA as revisions                   approved the plan as meeting the                       dozens of state regulations establishing
                                                to the SIP. The 2007 Ozone Plan was                      requirements of CAA section                            such limits and requirements for various
                                                revised in 2008 and 2011, and in 2012,                   182(d)(1)(A) because the emissions                     types of mobile sources, for vehicle
                                                the EPA approved the plan, as revised,                   inventories in the 2007 Ozone Plan                     inspection and maintenance, for
                                                together with the related portions of the                showed decreases in aggregate year-                    gasoline and diesel fuels, for consumer
                                                2007 State Strategy. 77 FR 12652 (March                  over-year motor vehicle emissions in the               products and pesticides. These various
                                                1, 2012). Our approval of the 2007                       San Joaquin Valley from a base year                    regulatory programs have resulted in
                                                Ozone Plan and related portions of the                   through the applicable attainment year.                significant emissions reductions of
                                                2007 State Strategy were challenged in                      However, between the time when the                  ozone precursors and corresponding
                                                the Ninth Circuit. In 2015, the Ninth                    EPA’s approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan                  ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin
                                                Circuit upheld the EPA’s approval of                     was signed and when it was published                   Valley despite high rates of growth in
                                                CARB’s and the District’s committal                      in the Federal Register, the EPA’s                     population and regional VMT. For
                                                measures but rejected the EPA’s                          petition for rehearing in a case                       instance, 1-hour ozone exceedance days
                                                longstanding interpretation of the CAA                   challenging the EPA’s longstanding                     within the Valley (i.e., number of days
                                                as allowing California to take emissions                 interpretation of CAA section                          in a year during which the 0.12 ppm
                                                reduction credit for mobile source                       182(d)(1)(A) was denied. See                           standard was violated at a (i.e., at least
                                                regulations that the EPA has waived or                   Association of Irritated Residents v.                  one) monitoring site) have decreased
                                                authorized under CAA section 209                         EPA, 632 F.3d. 584, at 596–597 (9th Cir.               from 45 in 1990 to 3 in 2012. See table
                                                notwithstanding their absence from the                   2011), reprinted as amended on January                 A–1 of 2013 Ozone Plan. However, as of
                                                federally enforceable California SIP. See                27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended                2012, the Valley continued to
                                                Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA,                     February 13, 2012 (‘‘Association of                    experience violations of the 1-hour
                                                786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)                            Irritated Residents’’). In the Association             ozone standard, and the 2013 Ozone
                                                (‘‘Committee for a Better Arvin’’). In                   of Irritated Residents case, the Court                 Plan was developed to demonstrate
                                                light of the decision in Committee for a                 ruled that additional transportation                   attainment of that standard, and to meet
                                                Better Arvin, the EPA has proposed                       control measures are required whenever
                                                                                                                                                                the other remaining 1-hour ozone SIP
                                                approval as a revision to the California                 vehicle emissions are projected to be
                                                                                                                                                                obligations (and the VMT emissions
                                                SIP of a number of CARB’s mobile                         higher than they would have been had
                                                                                                                                                                offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour
                                                source regulations for which                             VMT not increased, even when
                                                                                                                                                                ozone standard).
                                                preemption has been waived or                            aggregate vehicle emissions are actually
                                                                                                         decreasing. In light of the Association of                Lastly, as noted above, the EPA
                                                authorized under CAA section 209. 80                                                                            tightened the 8-hour ozone standard in
                                                FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).                            Irritated Residents decision, the EPA
                                                                                                         withdrew its determination that the                    2008 and tightened the standard further
                                                   As part of the approval of the 2007                                                                          in 2015. The EPA has designated the
                                                Ozone Plan, the EPA approved the                         2007 Ozone Plan provided sufficient
                                                                                                         TCMs to offset the growth in emissions                 San Joaquin Valley as an ‘‘Extreme’’ area
                                                demonstration that the plan provides for                                                                        for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 77
                                                transportation control strategies (TCS)                  from the growth in VMT in the same
                                                                                                         Federal Register document as the                       FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The
                                                and TCMs sufficient to offset any                                                                               ‘‘Extreme’’ area plan for the San Joaquin
                                                growth in emissions from growth in                       Agency’s withdrawal of the approval of
                                                                                                         the 2004 Ozone Plan and finding of                     Valley for the 2008 ozone standard is
                                                VMT or the number of vehicle trips as                                                                           due in 2016. In establishing final
                                                meeting the requirements of CAA                          failure to submit required SIP revisions.
                                                                                                         77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012).                       implementation rules for the 2008 8-
                                                section 182(d)(1)(A). Id., at 12670.6 In                                                                        hour ozone standard, the EPA revoked
                                                                                                            In 2013, in response to the EPA’s
                                                approving the VMT emissions offset                                                                              the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and
                                                                                                         withdrawal of approval of the 2004
                                                  6 CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), which, in relevant
                                                                                                         Ozone Plan and the VMT emission                        includes anti-backsliding requirements
                                                part, requires the state, if subject to its              offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour               that apply upon revocation of the 1997
                                                requirements, to ‘‘submit a revision that identifies     ozone standard and the related finding                 8-hour ozone standards. 80 FR 12264
                                                and adopts specific enforceable transportation           of failure to submit, CARB and the                     (March 6, 2015). Consistent with the
                                                control strategies and transportation control
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                         District prepared, adopted, and                        application of anti-backsliding
                                                measures to offset any growth in emissions from
                                                growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of
                                                                                                         submitted the 2013 Plan for the Revoked                provisions upon revocation of the 1-
                                                vehicle trips in such area.’’ Herein, we use ‘‘VMT’’     1-Hour Ozone Standard (‘‘2013 Ozone                    hour ozone standards, areas that remain
                                                to refer to vehicle miles traveled, and refer to the     Plan’’). The 2013 Ozone Plan addresses                 designated as nonattainment for the
                                                related SIP requirement as the ‘‘VMT emissions           the various 1-hour ozone SIP elements                  1997 8-hour ozone standard at the time
                                                offset requirement.’’ In addition, we refer to the SIP
                                                revision intended to demonstrate compliance with
                                                                                                         for which the EPA had withdrawn                        of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
                                                the VMT emissions offset requirement as the ‘‘VMT        approval (i.e., RACM, ROP and                          standard continue to be subject to
                                                emissions offset demonstration.’’                        attainment demonstrations, ROP and                     certain SIP requirements that had


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014    16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00033   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2144                     Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                applied by virtue of the area’s                         the original set of calculations.10 While              Public Meeting’’ dated October 21, 2013,
                                                classifications for the now-revoked 1997                the vehicle emissions estimates in                     and CARB Resolution No. 13–45. As
                                                8-hour ozone standard as well as the                    CARB’s technical supplement differ                     noted previously, on December 20,
                                                revoked 1-hour ozone standard. Id. at                   from those contained in the                            2013, CARB submitted the 2013 Ozone
                                                12296; 40 CFR 51.1105 and 51.1100(o).                   demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan,                 Plan and related public process
                                                For the purposes of this proposed                       the conclusions of the analyses remain                 documentation to the EPA. The EPA
                                                action, this means that outstanding SIP                 the same.                                              determined that CARB’s December 20,
                                                requirements linked to the San Joaquin                  B. CAA Procedural Requirements for                     2013 SIP revision submittal was
                                                Valley’s ‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment area                 Adoption and Submittal of SIP                          complete on May 19, 2014.12
                                                classifications for the 1-hour ozone                    Revisions                                                 Based on information in the December
                                                standard and 1997 8-hour ozone                                                                                 20, 2013 SIP submittal and subsequent
                                                standard continue to apply                                 CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and                  email communication with District staff,
                                                notwithstanding the revocation of these                 110(l) require a state to provide                      the EPA has determined that all
                                                two ozone NAAQS. The EPA has not yet                    reasonable public notice and                           hearings were properly noticed. We
                                                established area designations for the                   opportunity for public hearing prior to                find, therefore, that the submittal of the
                                                2015 8-hour ozone standard.                             the adoption and submittal of a SIP or                 2013 Ozone Plan meets the procedural
                                                                                                        SIP revision. To meet this requirement,                requirements for public notice and
                                                II. CARB’s SIP Revision Submittal To                    every SIP submittal should include                     hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and
                                                Address Remaining 1-Hour and 1997 8-                    evidence that adequate public notice                   110(l).
                                                Hour Ozone Requirements in the San                      was given and an opportunity for a
                                                Joaquin Valley                                          public hearing was provided consistent                 III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                A. CARB’s SIP Submittal                                 with the EPA’s implementing                            A. Emissions Inventories
                                                                                                        regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
                                                   The District adopted the 2013 Ozone                     Both the District and CARB have                        We have evaluated the emissions
                                                Plan on September 19, 2013, and CARB                    satisfied applicable statutory and                     inventories in the 2013 Ozone Plan to
                                                approved the plan as a revision to the                  regulatory requirements for reasonable                 determine if they are consistent with
                                                California SIP on November 21, 2013.7                   public notice and hearing prior to                     EPA guidance (General Preamble at
                                                CARB submitted the 2013 Ozone Plan to                   adoption and submittal of the 2013                     13502) and adequate to support that
                                                the EPA on December 20, 2013.8 The                      Ozone Plan. The District conducted a                   plan’s RACM, ROP and attainment
                                                2013 Ozone Plan includes base year and                  public workshop on April 16, 2013. On                  demonstrations. Appendix B of the 2013
                                                projected future year emissions                         August 20, 2013, the District posted on                Ozone Plan presents the base year and
                                                inventories, air quality modeling,                      its Web site an announcement and                       projected emission inventories relied on
                                                provisions demonstrating                                supporting documents for a September                   for the ROP and attainment
                                                implementation of RACM, provisions                      19, 2013 public hearing and also sent                  demonstrations. Appendix B also
                                                for advanced technology/clean fuels for                 out an email to ozone_plans@                           discusses the methodology used to
                                                boilers, provisions for transportation                  lists.valley.org informing interested                  determine base year (2007) emissions
                                                control strategies and measures, an ROP                 individuals and parties about the public               and identifies the growth and control
                                                demonstration, an attainment                            hearing and links to key documents and                 factors used to project emissions for the
                                                demonstration, and contingency                          participation via webcast.11 The District              2013 and 2016 (ROP milestone years)
                                                measures for failure to make ROP or                     thereby provided the required public                   and 2017 (ROP increment and
                                                attain.                                                 notice and opportunity for public                      attainment) projected year inventories.
                                                                                                        comment prior to its public hearing on                 The plan includes summer (May
                                                   Appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan                    the 2013 Ozone Plan. On September 19,                  through October) average daily
                                                contains the VMT emissions offset                       2013, the District held a public hearing               inventories for the base year of 2007 and
                                                demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone                     to adopt the 2013 Ozone Plan and                       projected inventories for years 2013
                                                and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On                         adopted the plan on that date. See 2013                through 2022 for all major source
                                                June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a                         Ozone Plan, appendix J (‘‘Summary of                   categories (stationary sources, area
                                                technical supplement to the VMT                         Significant Comments and Responses’’)                  sources, and on-road and nonroad
                                                emissions offset demonstrations                         and SJVUAPCD Governing Board                           mobile sources). Emissions are
                                                submitted as part of the 2013 Ozone                     Resolution 2013–9–13.                                  calculated for the two major ozone
                                                Plan.9 CARB’s technical supplement                         CARB also provided the required                     precursors—NOX and VOC. See tables
                                                includes a revised set of motor vehicle                 public notice and opportunity for public               B–1 and B–2 of appendix B of the 2013
                                                emissions estimates reflecting technical                comment prior to its November 21, 2013                 Ozone Plan. Additional documentation
                                                changes to the inputs used to develop                   public hearing and approval of the 2013                for the inventories prepared for the 2013
                                                                                                        Ozone Plan as a revision to the                        Ozone Plan are found in appendix E,
                                                   7 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution            California SIP. See CARB ‘‘Notice of                   section 6 of the 2013 Ozone Plan.
                                                2013–09–13: In the Matter of Adopting the San
                                                Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
                                                                                                                                                                  The emissions inventories in the 2013
                                                                                                          10 The principal difference between the two sets
                                                District 2013 Plan For The Revoked 1-Hour Ozone                                                                Ozone Plan were developed using data
                                                                                                        of calculations is that CARB’s technical supplement
                                                Standard, September 19, 2013; CARB Resolution           includes running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak,     provided by CARB, the California
                                                No. 13–45, November 21, 2013.                           and running loss emissions of VOCs in all of the       Department of Transportation, and the
                                                   8 Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB
                                                                                                        emissions scenarios. These processes are directly      San Joaquin Valley’s eight metropolitan
                                                to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA        related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                Region 9, December 20, 2013 with enclosures.            calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss
                                                                                                                                                               planning organizations (MPO).13 These
                                                   9 See June 19, 2014 letter and enclosures from       emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions
                                                                                                                                                                 12 See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
                                                Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to          scenarios because such evaporative emissions are
                                                Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region      related to vehicle population rather than to VMT or    Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey,
                                                9. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent the EPA a revised        vehicle trips.                                         Executive Officer, CARB, dated May 19, 2014.
                                                technical supplement that corrected a minor               11 January 30, 2015 email from Elizabeth Melgoza,      13 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties

                                                typographical error. See record of July 25, 2014        CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9; May 13,         in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin
                                                email and attachment from Jon Taylor, CARB, to          2015 and May 19, 2015 emails from SJVUAPCD             Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of
                                                Matt Lakin, EPA Region 9, included in the docket.       staff to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.                 Governments, the Merced County Association of



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00034   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                          2145

                                                agencies collect data (e.g., industry                                     for a particular base year. The 2007                  developing forecasts for specific sectors,
                                                growth factors, socioeconomic                                             inventory was used to project future                  or in some cases, from econometric
                                                projections, travel activity levels,                                      years using CARB’s CEFS v 1.06.                       models.
                                                emission factors, emission speciation                                        CARB also conducts periodic                          Motor vehicle emissions were based
                                                profiles, and emissions) and develop                                      evaluations and updates of the growth                 on estimates of VMT provided by the
                                                methodologies (e.g., model and                                            profiles to ensure that emission                      regional transportation planning
                                                demographic forecast improvements)                                        forecasts are based on data that reflect              agencies and the California Department
                                                used to generate comprehensive                                            historical trends, current conditions,                of Transportation. The plan uses
                                                emissions inventories. CARB maintains                                     and recent forecasts. CARB staff                      CARB’s Emission FACtor (EMFAC)
                                                statewide inventories in its California                                   conducted a category-by-category                      model, version EMFAC2011, to
                                                Emissions Inventory Development and                                       review and update of the growth profile               calculate the emission factors for cars,
                                                Reporting System (CEIDARS) and uses                                       data for source categories that, in                   trucks and buses. At the time that the
                                                the California Emission Forecasting and                                   aggregate, comprise more than 95                      2013 Ozone Plan was developed,
                                                Planning Inventory System (CEFS) to                                       percent of the NOX or VOC emissions in                EMFAC2011 was the mobile source
                                                forecast or backcast emissions. CEFS is                                   the San Joaquin Valley. To capture the                model approved for use in California
                                                designed to generate year-specific                                        effects of the economic recession, CARB               SIPs.14 Nonroad emissions estimates
                                                emissions estimates for each county/air                                   staff ensured that the growth profiles                were based on CARB’s OFFROAD
                                                basin/district combination taking into                                    included historical data through at least             model.
                                                account two factors: the effects of                                       2008 (data through 2009 or 2010 were                    Table 1 provides a summary of the
                                                growth, and the effects of adopted                                        included when available). Growth                      emissions estimates prepared for the
                                                emission control rules. It does this by                                   forecasts for the years 2009 and beyond               2013 Ozone Plan for the base year
                                                linking these growth and control factors                                  were obtained primarily from                          (2007) and ROP and attainment years
                                                directly to CEIDARS emission categories                                   government entities with expertise in                 2013, 2016, and 2017.

                                                           TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE PRECURSOR BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED FUTURE YEAR EMISSIONS
                                                                                                                                       [Summer average, tpd]

                                                                                                                                                 NOX                                                    VOC
                                                                            Category
                                                                                                                            2007          2013         2016           2017        2007           2013         2016       2017

                                                Stationary .........................................................             57            40            30           30            100          96           97          97
                                                Area ..................................................................          11            11            11           11            221         186          191         193
                                                On-road Mobile ................................................                 273           158           119          110             71          49           35          33
                                                Off-road Mobile ................................................                144           108            99           97             65          49           45          43

                                                      Total ..........................................................          485           316           259          247            457         381          368         366
                                                   Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix B.
                                                   NOTE: Because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total of categories.


                                                  We have determined that the 2007                                        RACM demonstration requirement is a                   in the nonattainment area to determine
                                                base year emission inventory in the                                       continuing applicable requirement for                 whether they are reasonably available
                                                2013 Ozone Plan is comprehensive,                                         the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-                 for implementation in that area and
                                                accurate, and current and that this                                       hour ozone nonattainment area under                   whether they would advance the area’s
                                                inventory as well as the 2013, 2016, and                                  EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that apply               attainment date by one or more years.
                                                2017 projected inventories have been                                      once a standard has been revoked. See
                                                prepared consistent with EPA guidance.                                                                                          2. RACM and Control Strategy in the
                                                                                                                          40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
                                                Accordingly, we propose to find that                                                                                            2013 Ozone Plan
                                                                                                                          51.1100(o)(17).
                                                these inventories provide an appropriate                                                                                          The District’s RACM demonstration
                                                                                                                             The EPA has previously provided
                                                basis for the various other elements of                                                                                         and control strategy for the 1-hour
                                                                                                                          guidance interpreting the RACM
                                                the 2013 Ozone Plan, including RACM,                                                                                            ozone standard in the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                                                                                          requirement in the General Preamble at
                                                and the ROP and attainment
                                                                                                                          13560 and a memorandum entitled                       relies on control measures that have
                                                demonstrations.
                                                                                                                          ‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available                been adopted by CARB and the District
                                                B. Reasonably Available Control                                           Control Measure Requirement and                       under previous attainment plans. In the
                                                Measures Demonstration and Control                                        Attainment Demonstration Submissions                  more recent years prior to the adoption
                                                Strategy                                                                  for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John                 of the 2013 Ozone Plan, CARB and the
                                                                                                                          Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air                District have developed and
                                                1. Requirements for RACM and Control
                                                                                                                          Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz                   implemented comprehensive plans for
                                                Strategies
                                                                                                                          memo). In summary, EPA guidance                       the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, 1997
                                                  CAA section 172(c)(1) requires                                          provides that states, in addressing the               PM2.5 standards, and 2006 PM2.5
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                nonattainment area plans to provide for                                   RACM requirement, should consider all                 standards that resulted in the adoption
                                                the implementation of all RACM. The                                       potential measures for source categories              of many new rules and revisions to

                                                Governments, the Madera County Transportation                               14 See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding the    www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. EMFAC2011 was
                                                Commission, the Council of Fresno County                                  EPA approval of the 2011 version of the California    the approved version of EMFAC at the time of
                                                Governments, Kings County Association of                                  EMFAC model and announcement of its                   adoption and submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan.
                                                Governments, the Tulare County Association of                             availability. The software and detailed information   Recently, the EPA approved an updated version of
                                                Governments, and the Kern Council of                                      on the EMFAC vehicle emission model can be            the model, EMFAC2014. 80 FR 77337 (December
                                                Governments.                                                              found on the following CARB Web site: http://         14, 2015).



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:51 Jan 14, 2016         Jkt 238001      PO 00000    Frm 00035   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702    E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2146                      Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                existing rules for stationary, area, and                 (‘‘Stationary and Area Source Control                   the public for the source category/rule
                                                mobile sources. These previously                         Strategy Evaluation’’) of the 2013 Ozone                are also identified and discussed. In
                                                adopted measures generated significant                   Plan. The evaluation of potential                       addition, non-regulatory approaches to
                                                reductions in NOX and VOC emissions.                     controls in the 2013 Ozone Plan is                      reducing emissions in each stationary
                                                The measures are listed in the Technical                 presented by source category. For                       and area source category are discussed,
                                                Support Document (TSD) for today’s                       stationary and area source categories,                  including the use of incentives,
                                                action. The control measures were                        the evaluation is broken down by the                    opportunities for technology
                                                developed and adopted under previous                     current District rule or rules that fall                advancement programs, policy
                                                San Joaquin Valley attainment plans,                     within a given source category.                         initiatives, and education/outreach
                                                including the 2007 Ozone Plan, the                          The following information is provided                programs.
                                                2008 PM2.5 Plan (adopted April 30,                       in appendix C of the 2013 Ozone Plan                       Through its RACM evaluation
                                                2008) (‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’), and the 2012                for each stationary or area source                      process, the District identified two new
                                                PM2.5 Plan (adopted December 20, 2012)                   category or District rule:                              control measures for adoption, and
                                                (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’), which were                           • A description of the sources within
                                                                                                                                                                 through adoption of the 2013 Ozone
                                                developed to provide, among other                        the category or sources subject to the
                                                                                                                                                                 Plan, the District committed to adopt
                                                things, for attainment of the 1997 8-hour                rule;
                                                                                                                                                                 and submit these measures as a revision
                                                ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5                              • Base year (2007) and projected
                                                                                                                                                                 to the California SIP (see District
                                                standards, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard,                  baseline year emissions (for every year
                                                                                                                                                                 Resolution 2013–9–13, page 5), although
                                                respectively, and which relied on                        from 2013 to 2022) in the source
                                                                                                                                                                 the District and State do not rely on
                                                adoption and implementation by CARB                      category or affected by the rule;
                                                                                                            • A discussion of the current rule                   reductions from these commitments in
                                                of new or tightened mobile source
                                                                                                         requirements and/or listing and                         their attainment demonstration. See
                                                regulations under CARB’s 2007 State
                                                                                                         discussion of existing rules, regulations,              2013 Ozone Plan, section 3.1.3 (p. 3–8).
                                                Strategy.15
                                                                                                         or other control efforts that address the                  The District’s commitments have been
                                                a. The District’s RACM Analysis and                      source category; and                                    fulfilled in that the anticipated rule
                                                Adopted Control Strategy                                    • Identification and discussion of                   amendments have been adopted and the
                                                   The District’s RACM analysis builds                   potential new controls, including in                    rules have been submitted to the EPA as
                                                on previously adopted measures. Table                    many cases, a discussion of the                         a revision to the California SIP. The
                                                3–1 (p. 3–3) in the 2013 Ozone Plan lists                technological and economic feasibility                  current status of the rules is shown in
                                                currently adopted District rules that are                of the new controls. Rules adopted by                   table 2, and as shown there, the EPA has
                                                contributing towards attainment of the                   other agencies (including the EPA,                      approved one of the two rules and has
                                                1-hour ozone standard. The 2013 Ozone                    South Coast Air Quality Management                      proposed approval of the other. We
                                                Plan’s RACM evaluation for NOX and                       District (AQMD), and Bay Area AQMD)                     expect to take final action on the second
                                                VOC sources is summarized in section                     are discussed and compared to existing                  rule prior to final action on the 2013
                                                4.2 (p. 4–2) and detailed in appendix C                  SJVUAPCD rules. Measures proposed by                    Ozone Plan.

                                                                            TABLE 2—STATUS OF RULE ADOPTION COMMITMENTS IN THE 2013 OZONE PLAN
                                                    Rule                 Measure description               Adoption date       Submittal date       Emission reductions                       Status

                                                4308 ..........   Boilers, Steam Generators, and                  11/14/13              5/13/14    Minimal in 2017 ..........   Approved 2/12/15 (80 FR 7803).
                                                                    Process Heaters 0.075 to <2
                                                                    MMBtu/hr.
                                                4905 ..........   Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Res-                  1/22/15              4/7/15    To Be Determined ......      Proposed Approval 11/5/15 (80
                                                                    idential Central Furnaces.                                                                                    FR 68484).
                                                   Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3–9, table 3–3.


                                                  In light of the comprehensiveness of                     The TSD for today’s action includes                   emissions standards for many categories
                                                the District’s stationary and area source                additional information on each District                 of on-road vehicles and engines and
                                                program, and the stringency of the                       rule, including its status in terms of                  new and in-use off-road engines. CARB
                                                District’s regulations, the 2013 Ozone                   federal approval and the net inventory                  has adopted standards and other
                                                Plan concludes that RACM is being                        changes between 2007 and 2017.                          requirements related to the control of
                                                implemented for sources under the                                                                                emissions from numerous types of on-
                                                                                                         b. CARB and Metropolitan Planning                       road motor vehicles and new and in-use
                                                District’s jurisdiction. See section 4.2.1               Organizations’ RACM Analysis and
                                                of the 2013 Ozone Plan.                                                                                          off-road vehicles, such as passenger
                                                                                                         Adopted Control Strategy                                cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, off-road
                                                  The District also identified a number                     Given the need for significant                       engines (gasoline and diesel-powered),
                                                of source categories for which existing                  emissions reductions in California                      in-use off-road diesel fueled fleets,
                                                information is inadequate to determine                   nonattainment areas, CARB has been a                    portable equipment, marine engines,
                                                the feasibility of additional controls.                  leader in the development and adoption                  and many others.
                                                These categories and the additional                      of stringent mobile source control                         Historically, the EPA has allowed
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                controls to be studied are discussed in                  measures nationwide and has unique                      California to take into account
                                                section 3.1.4. (p. 3–9). The schedule for                authority under CAA section 209                         emissions reductions from CARB
                                                these studies is given in table 3–4 (see                 (subject to a waiver or authorization by                regulations for which the EPA has
                                                2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3–10).                               the EPA) to adopt and implement new                     issued waivers or authorizations under
                                                  15 The EPA approved the San Joaquin Valley 2007        Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and related portions     portions of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on January 13, 2015
                                                Ozone Plan and related portions of the 2007 State        of the 2007 State Strategy at 76 FR 69896               (80 FR 1816).
                                                Strategy at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012); the San         (November 9, 2011). The EPA proposed to approve



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014    16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00036   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM    15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                          2147

                                                CAA section 209 notwithstanding the                     TCMs were identified by the MPOs, the                  4905), which it has now done. See 2013
                                                fact that these regulations have not been               2012 PM2.5 Plan includes a discussion of               Ozone Plan, table 3–3, p. 3–10 and table
                                                approved as part of the California SIP.                 the on-going implementation of a broad                 2 above.
                                                However, in response to the decision by                 range of TCMs in the Valley. There is                     We have reviewed the District’s
                                                the Ninth Circuit in Committee for a                    also a discussion of the MPOs’                         determination in the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                Better Arvin v. EPA, discussed                          Congestion Management and Air                          that its stationary and area source
                                                previously, the EPA has now proposed                    Quality funding policy, which is a                     control measures represent RACM for
                                                to approve the current set of mobile                    standardized process across the Valley                 NOX and VOC. In our review, we also
                                                source regulations for which waivers or                 for distributing 20 percent of the                     considered our previous evaluations of
                                                authorizations have been issued as a                    Congestion Management and Air                          the District’s rules in connection with
                                                revision to the California SIP. 80 FR                   Quality funds to projects that meet a                  our approval of the San Joaquin Valley
                                                69915 (November 12, 2015). We expect                    minimum cost-effectiveness. During the                 RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 8-
                                                to take final action on California’s                    comment period for the 2012 PM2.5                      hour ozone standard, our comments on
                                                mobile source regulations prior to final                Plan, a number of TCMs were suggested                  the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and our comments
                                                action on the 2013 Ozone Plan.                          by the public for consideration. See                   on the District’s RACT SIP
                                                   CARB’s mobile source program                         appendix I, pp. I–10 to I–13 of the 2012               demonstration for the 2008 8-hour
                                                extends beyond regulations that are                     PM2.5 Plan. The feasibility of these                   ozone standard.16 We also reviewed
                                                subject to the waiver or authorization                  measures is discussed in the District’s                measures suggested by the public in
                                                process set forth in CAA section 209 to                 responses to comments. Id.                             comments on the 2013 Ozone Plan.
                                                include standards and other                                                                                    Based on this review, we believe that
                                                requirements to control emissions from                  c. RACM Demonstration                                  the District’s rules provide for the
                                                in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses,                        The 2013 Ozone Plan concludes that                  implementation of RACM for stationary
                                                gasoline and diesel fuel specifications,                the RACM requirement is met through                    and area sources of NOX and VOC.17
                                                and many other types of mobile sources.                 implementation of the measures                            With respect to mobile sources, we
                                                Generally, these regulations have been                  described above under the District’s                   recognize CARB as a leader in the
                                                submitted and approved as revisions to                  jurisdiction, CARB’s jurisdiction, and                 development and implementation of
                                                the California SIP. See, e.g., 77 FR 20308              the MPOs’ jurisdiction for stationary                  stringent control measures for on-road
                                                (April 4, 2012) (EPA approval of                        and area sources, mobile sources, and                  and off-road mobile sources. Its current
                                                standards and other requirements to                     TCMs, respectively. The plan also                      program addresses the full range of
                                                control emissions from in-use heavy-                    concludes that to advance the                          mobile sources in the San Joaquin
                                                duty diesel-powered trucks).                            attainment date by one year (i.e., from                Valley through regulatory programs for
                                                   Section 3.1.1.2 of the 2013 Ozone                    2017 to 2016) would require an                         both new and in-use vehicles. See 2013
                                                Plan discusses the emissions reductions                 additional reduction of 12.1 tpd of NOX,               Ozone Plan, table 3–2 and appendix A
                                                from CARB’s mobile source program                       and that there are no reasonable                       of the TSD. With respect to
                                                and includes a table (table 3–2) that lists             measures that collectively would reduce                transportation controls, we note that the
                                                all of the regulations adopted or                       emissions in the Valley by that amount                 MPOs have a program to fund cost-
                                                amended by CARB from 2000 through                       by 2016. In support for that conclusion,               effective TCMs. See appendix C, p. C–
                                                early 2012. While all of the listed                     the plan notes that about 90 percent of                33 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. Overall, we
                                                measures contribute to some degree to                   NOX emission reductions occurring                      believe that CARB’s and the MPOs’
                                                attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard                 between the 2007 base year and the                     programs provide for the
                                                in the San Joaquin Valley, some are                     2017 attainment year come from mobile                  implementation of RACM for NOX and
                                                called out in particular as providing                   sources and that such reductions cannot                VOC from mobile sources in the San
                                                significant emissions reductions relied                 be expedited through additional District               Joaquin Valley.
                                                upon for attainment of the ozone                        action because, generally, the District                   Based on our review of the results of
                                                standard under the 2013 Ozone Plan.                     does not have jurisdiction over mobile                 these RACM analyses, the District’s and
                                                These measures include the in-use                       sources.                                               CARB’s adopted rules, we propose to
                                                heavy-duty diesel-powered truck                                                                                find that there are, at this time, no
                                                                                                        3. Proposed Action on RACM
                                                regulation, the in-use off-road                                                                                additional reasonably available
                                                                                                        Demonstration
                                                equipment regulation, and the advanced                                                                         measures that would advance
                                                clean car program, among others. The                       The process followed by the District                attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
                                                2013 Ozone Plan concludes that, in light                in the 2013 Ozone Plan to identify                     in the San Joaquin Valley. In the 2013
                                                of the comprehensiveness and                            RACM is generally consistent with the                  Ozone Plan, the District estimates that it
                                                stringency of CARB’s mobile source                      EPA’s recommendations in the General                   would take a reduction between of 12.1
                                                program, all reasonable control                         Preamble. The process included                         tpd of NOX to advance attainment from
                                                measures under CARB’s jurisdiction are                  compiling a comprehensive list of
                                                being implemented.                                      potential controls measures for sources                   16 See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); EPA Region

                                                   With respect to TCMs, the 2013                       of NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin                      9, Technical Support Document for the EPA’s
                                                Ozone Plan relies on the documentation                  Valley. This list included measures                    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California
                                                                                                                                                               State Implementation Plan—EPA’s Evaluation of
                                                found in appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5                   suggested in public comments on the                    the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
                                                Plan to conclude that all reasonably                    2013 Ozone Plan. See 2013 Ozone Plan,                  Control District’s Reasonably Available Control
                                                available control measures under the                    appendix J. As part of this process, the               Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State
                                                                                                                                                               Implementation Plan (SIP), Adopted April 16, 2009
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                jurisdiction of the Valley’s MPOs are                   District evaluated potential controls for
                                                                                                                                                               (dated August 29, 2011); letter dated October 19,
                                                being implemented. Appendix C of the                    all relevant source categories for                     2012, from Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air
                                                2012 PM2.5 Plan describes the efforts by                economic and technological feasibility                 Division EPA—Region 9 to Samir Sheikh,
                                                the San Joaquin Valley’s eight MPOs to                  and provided justifications for the                    SJVUAPCD; and letter dated June 4, 2014, from
                                                implement cost-effective transportation                 rejection of certain identified measures.              Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office, EPA Region 9
                                                                                                                                                               to Errol Villegas, Planning Manager, SJVUAPCD.
                                                control measures (TCMs). See section                    Id. After completing this evaluation, the                 17 A full list of the District’s rules, including cites
                                                C.11.4 (p. C–33) of appendix C of the                   District committed to adopt and submit                 to our most recent final or proposed rulemaking on
                                                2012 PM2.5 Plan. While no additional                    two measures (i.e., Rules 4308 and                     each can be found in the TSD.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00037   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2148                             Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                2017 to 2016 in the San Joaquin Valley.                                  until attainment. For ozone areas                               creditable VOC and NOX reductions
                                                See section 4.2 (p. 4–3). We find that no                                classified as Serious and above, section                        must meet the 3 percent per year ROP
                                                reasonably available and unadopted                                       182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must                            requirement; (2) the substitution is on a
                                                measures identified in the 2013 Ozone                                    provide for reductions in ozone-season,                         percent-for-percent of adjusted base year
                                                Plan, either individually or collectively,                               weekday VOC emissions of at least 3                             emissions for the relevant pollutant; and
                                                could deliver this additional increment                                  percent per year net of growth averaged                         (3) the sum of all substituted NOX
                                                of reductions in 2016 because of the                                     over each consecutive 3-year period.                            reductions cannot be greater than the
                                                extent to which the emissions inventory                                  This is in addition to the 15 percent                           cumulative NOX reductions required by
                                                reflects mobile sources (see table 1                                     reduction over the first 6-year period                          the modeled attainment demonstration.
                                                above) and the extent to which the                                       required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for                           See General Preamble at 13517 and
                                                mobile source inventory already reflects                                 areas classified as moderate and above.                         ‘‘NOX Substitution Guidance,’’ EPA
                                                CARB’s emissions standards and other                                     The CAA requires that these milestones                          Office of Air Quality Planning and
                                                requirements for new and in-use on-                                      be calculated from the 1990 inventory                           Standards, December 1993. Our
                                                road and off-road vehicles and engines.                                  after excluding, among other things,                            guidance in the General Preamble states
                                                  For the foregoing reasons, we propose                                  emission reductions from ‘‘[a]ny                                that by meeting the specific ROP
                                                to find that the 2013 Ozone Plan                                         measure related to motor vehicle                                milestones discussed above, the general
                                                provides for the implementation of all                                   exhaust or evaporative emissions                                RFP requirements in CAA section
                                                RACM as required by CAA section                                          promulgated by the Administrator by                             172(c)(2) will also be satisfied. General
                                                172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and                                   January 1, 1990’’ and emission                                  Preamble at 13518.
                                                51.1100(o)(17).                                                          reductions from certain federal gasoline
                                                                                                                                                                                            The ROP demonstration requirement
                                                C. Rate of Progress Demonstration                                        volatility requirements. CAA section
                                                                                                                                                                                         is a continuing applicable requirement
                                                                                                                         182(b)(1)(B)–(D). The EPA has issued
                                                1. Requirements for Rate of Progress                                                                                                     for the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-
                                                                                                                         guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP
                                                Demonstrations                                                           requirements. See General Preamble at                           hour ozone nonattainment area under
                                                                                                                         13516 and ‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996                           the EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that
                                                   CAA section 172(c) requires
                                                                                                                         Rate-of-Progress Plan and the                                   apply once a standard has been revoked.
                                                nonattainment area plans to provide for
                                                reasonable further progress (RFP) which                                  Attainment Demonstration,’’ EPA–452/                            See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
                                                is defined in section 171(1) as such                                     R–93–015, EPA Office of Air Quality                             51.1100(o)(4).
                                                annual incremental reductions in                                         Planning and Standards, February 18,                            2. ROP Demonstration in the 2013
                                                emissions as are required in part D or                                   1994 (corrected).                                               Ozone Plan
                                                may reasonably be required by the                                           CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for
                                                Administrator in order to ensure                                         NOX reductions that occur after 1990 to                           Section 4.3.2 (beginning on page 4–5)
                                                attainment of the relevant ambient                                       be used to meet the post-1996 ROP                               of the 2013 Ozone Plan provides a
                                                standard by the applicable date. CAA                                     emission reduction requirements,                                demonstration that the San Joaquin
                                                sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require that                                  provided that such NOX reductions                               Valley meets the 2010, 2013, and 2016
                                                ‘‘Serious’’ and above area SIPs include                                  meet the criteria outlined in the CAA                           ROP milestones and 2017 increment.18
                                                ROP quantitative milestones that are to                                  and the EPA guidance. The criteria                              We have summarized the ROP
                                                be achieved every 3 years after 1996                                     require that: (1) The sum of all                                demonstrations in table 3.

                                                                                                                 TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN ROP DEMONSTRATIONS
                                                                                                                                                [Tpd or percent]

                                                                                                                                                  2007                     2010            2013              2016               2017

                                                                                                                                      VOC Emission Calculations

                                                Baseline VOC inventory .......................................................                            457.2               440.5              380.5              368              366.3
                                                Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments ...........................                           ........................             5.6                3.7              2.7                0.7
                                                Adjusted baseline VOC inventory in baseline year (Line 1–
                                                  Line 2) ..............................................................................   ........................           451.6              447.9            445.2              444.5
                                                Basis for required VOC reductions ......................................                   ........................           451.6              407.3            367.9              334.1
                                                RFP Percent Reduction Required from prior milestone ......                                 ........................             9%                 9%               9%                 3%
                                                Target level ..........................................................................    ........................           411.0              370.6            334.8              324.1
                                                Apparent Shortfall ................................................................        ........................            29.5                9.9             33.2               42.2
                                                Forecasted Percent VOC shortfall .......................................                   ........................           6.5%               2.2%             7.5%               9.5%
                                                VOC percent shortfall previously addressed provided by
                                                  NOX substitution ...............................................................         ........................              0%            6.5%                2.2%              7.5%
                                                Actual VOC percent shortfall ...............................................               ........................            6.5%           ¥4.3%                5.2%              2.0%

                                                                                                                                       NOX Emission Calculations

                                                Baseline NOX inventory .......................................................                            484.9               368.2              316.0            259.2              247.1
                                                Non-creditable FMVCP adjustments ...................................                       ........................             4.9              ¥1.9               6.3                0.4
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                Adjusted baseline NOX inventory for milestones ................                            ........................           480.0              481.9            475.6              475.2

                                                  18 In later 2014, i.e., after adoption and submittal                   milestone years in the San Joaquin Valley. See letter           2016 and 2017, even if the 5 tpd NOX disbenefit
                                                of the 2013 Ozone Plan, CARB revised the state’s                         from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality                      was added back into the 2016 and 2017 baselines,
                                                Truck and Bus regulation (see http://                                    Planning Branch, CARB, to Matthew Lakin,                        the 2013 Ozone Plan would still exceed the 2016
                                                www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/                                   Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, dated               and 2017 ROP milestones by approximately 33%
                                                truckbus14.htm). The 2014 revisions resulted in a                        April 23, 2015. The EPA has determined that
                                                                                                                                                                                         for both years.
                                                temporary emission reduction disbenefit of                               because the 2013 Ozone Plan demonstrates that
                                                approximately 5 tpd of NOX in the 2016 and 2017                          ROP milestones are met by a significant margin in



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014        16:51 Jan 14, 2016         Jkt 238001      PO 00000       Frm 00038       Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                                     2149

                                                                                                    TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN ROP DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued
                                                                                                                                              [Tpd or percent]

                                                                                                                                                2007                     2010            2013               2016                2017

                                                Change since 2007 ..............................................................         ........................           111.8               165.9             216.4              228.1
                                                Forecasted Percent NOX creditable reductions since 2007                                  ........................          23.3%               34.4%             45.5%              48.0%
                                                NOX percent previously used for VOC shortfall by NOX
                                                  substitution .......................................................................   ........................               0%              6.5%              6.5%              11.7%
                                                NOX percent available for VOC shortfall by NOX substi-
                                                  tution and contingency .....................................................           ........................          23.3%               27.9%             39.0%              36.3%
                                                NOX percent substitution needed for VOC shortfall ............                           ........................           6.5%                0.0%              5.2%               2.0%
                                                Forecasted NOX percent reduction surplus .........................                       ........................          16.7%               27.9%             33.8%              34.2%
                                                Contingency measure reserve achieved? ...........................                        ........................            Yes                 Yes               Yes                Yes
                                                ROP achieved? ....................................................................       ........................            Yes                 Yes               Yes                Yes
                                                   Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, table 4–2 (page 4–6).


                                                3. Proposed Action on the ROP                                           expeditiously as practicable, but no later                     of NOX and 91 tpd of VOCs from the
                                                Demonstration                                                           than five years from the effective date of                     2007 base year emissions inventory. For
                                                                                                                        the findings of failure to submit, or, in                      a more detailed comparison of the 2007
                                                  Based on our review of the ROP
                                                                                                                        this case, no later than November 26,                          base year and 2017 attainment year
                                                calculations in the 2013 Ozone Plan,
                                                                                                                        2017.                                                          inventories, see appendix B of the 2013
                                                summarized in table 3 above, we                                            An attainment demonstration should                          Ozone Plan and the TSD for today’s
                                                conclude the 2013 Ozone Plan                                            include a control strategy that identifies                     action.
                                                demonstrates that sufficient emission                                   specific measures to reduce emissions                             For purposes of evaluating the 2013
                                                reductions have or will be achieved to                                  and photochemical modelling results                            Ozone Plan, all of the measures relied
                                                meet the 2010, 2013, and 2016 ROP                                       showing that the emissions reductions                          on to satisfy the applicable control
                                                milestones and the 2017 increment.                                      from implementation of the control                             requirements are baseline measures. As
                                                Therefore, we propose to approve the                                    strategy is sufficient to attain the                           the term is used here, baseline measures
                                                ROP demonstration in the 2013 Ozone                                     standard by the applicable attainment                          are federal, State, and District rules and
                                                Plan as meeting the requirements of                                     date. The attainment demonstration                             regulations adopted prior by the end of
                                                CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B),                                 requirement is a continuing applicable                         January 2012 (i.e., prior to the
                                                and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and                                            requirement for the San Joaquin Valley                         development of 2013 Ozone Plan) that
                                                51.1100(o)(4).                                                          ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-hour ozone nonattainment                         continue to achieve emissions
                                                D. Attainment Demonstration                                             area under the EPA’s anti-backsliding                          reductions through the projected 2017
                                                                                                                        rules that apply once a standard has                           attainment year and beyond.19
                                                1. Requirements for Attainment                                          been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1)                            The District has adopted more than 50
                                                Demonstrations                                                          and 51.1100(o)(12).                                            prohibitory rules that limit emissions of
                                                   CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires                                                                                                   either VOC or NOX. These rules include
                                                                                                                        2. One-Hour Ozone Attainment                                   controls for a variety of sources
                                                states with ozone nonattainment areas                                   Demonstration in the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                classified as ‘‘Serious’’ or above to                                                                                                  including boilers, oil field and refinery
                                                submit plans that demonstrate                                           a. Control Strategy for Attainment of the                      equipment, surface coatings operations,
                                                attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard                                 1-Hour Ozone Standard                                          and open burning. The 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                by the applicable attainment date.                                         The 2013 Ozone Plan relies entirely                         lists many of these measures in table 3–
                                                Under the CAA, as amended in 1990,                                      on reductions from previously adopted                          1. Reductions from these measures are
                                                the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’                                      measures. Tables 3–1 and 3–2 in the                            incorporated into the future year
                                                nonattainment area was to have attained                                 2013 Ozone Plan documents District                             baseline inventories. Appendix C of the
                                                the 1-hour ozone standard by November                                   and State measures that contribute to                          2013 Ozone Plan includes inventory
                                                15, 2010. In 2011, we determined that                                                                                                  information that allows for a
                                                                                                                        attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
                                                the San Joaquin Valley had failed to                                                                                                   comparison of 2007 rule-specific
                                                                                                                        in 2017. Although the 2013 Ozone Plan
                                                attain the standard by the 2010                                                                                                        emissions inventory data for stationary
                                                                                                                        includes two commitment measures (see
                                                attainment date. 76 FR 82133 (December                                                                                                 and area sources against future year
                                                                                                                        table 3–3 in 2013 Ozone Plan),
                                                30, 2011). Given that the original                                                                                                     rule-specific inventories. The net
                                                                                                                        reductions from those measures were
                                                statutory attainment date had passed                                    not relied on for attainment. Moreover,                          19 These measures are typically rules that may
                                                and the 1-hour ozone standard had been                                  the two measures have been adopted                             have compliance dates that occur after the adoption
                                                revoked, in our 2012 final action                                       and submitted to the EPA.                                      date of a plan and mobile source measures that
                                                withdrawing our approval of the 2004                                       The future year inventories, which                          achieve reductions as older engines are replaced
                                                Ozone Plan and issuing findings of                                      include reductions from adopted and                            through attrition (e.g., through fleet turnover). On
                                                                                                                                                                                       December 31, 2014 and subsequent to the submittal
                                                failure to submit, we set a new                                         creditable measures, were used in the                          of the 2013 Ozone Plan, the State of California’s
                                                attainment date by reference to CAA                                     2013 Ozone Plan’s modeling analysis                            Office of Administrative Law approved revisions to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                section 172(a)(2). 77 FR 70376, at 70377                                described in appendix E of the 2013                            CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation (see http://
                                                                                                                                                                                       www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/
                                                (November 26, 2012), effective                                          Ozone Plan. Based on the modeling                              truckbus14.htm). The revisions resulted in a
                                                November 26, 2012. Application of the                                   analysis, the District determined that                         temporary emission reduction disbenefit of
                                                attainment date formulation in section                                  the 1-hour ozone standard could be                             approximately 5 tpd of NOX in 2017. In an April
                                                172(a)(2) means that the state was                                      attained in 2017. A summary of the base                        23, 2015 letter from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air
                                                                                                                                                                                       Quality Branch, CARB to Matt Lakin, Manager, Air
                                                required to submit a revised San Joaquin                                year (2007) and 2017 attainment-year                           Planning Office, EPA Region IX, the State provides
                                                Valley plan demonstrating attainment of                                 emissions inventories is shown in table                        an adequate technical justification showing that the
                                                the 1-hour ozone standard as                                            1 above. It reflects reductions of 238 tpd                     demonstration of attainment in 2017 is not affected.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014        16:51 Jan 14, 2016       Jkt 238001      PO 00000       Frm 00039       Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2150                       Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                inventory impact of the rule reductions                     on reductions from federal measures in                analysis assesses attainment by
                                                and growth is included in the TSD for                       attainment and ROP demonstrations.                    considering evidence other than the
                                                today’s proposal. We have also provided                                                                           main air quality modeling attainment
                                                                                                            b. Air Quality Modeling in the 2013
                                                in the TSD a list of the District’s                                                                               test, such as trends and additional
                                                                                                            Ozone Plan
                                                prohibitory NOX and VOC rules and SIP                                                                             monitoring and modeling analyses.
                                                approval status.                                               CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires
                                                                                                                                                                     Older guidance for the 1-hour ozone
                                                                                                            SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to
                                                   The state’s baseline measures fall                                                                             NAAQS was provided in Guideline for
                                                                                                            include a ‘‘demonstration that the plan,
                                                within two categories: Measures for                                                                               Regulatory Application of the Urban
                                                                                                            as revised, will provide for attainment
                                                which the State has obtained a waiver                                                                             Airshed Model; 24 however, much of its
                                                                                                            of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable
                                                or authorization of federal pre-emption                                                                           content is outdated. Most importantly,
                                                                                                            attainment date. This attainment
                                                under CAA section 209 (‘‘waiver’’                                                                                 formerly photochemical models were
                                                                                                            demonstration must be based on
                                                measures) and those for which the state                                                                           used in an absolute sense for the
                                                                                                            photochemical grid modeling or any
                                                is not required to obtain a waiver (‘‘non-                                                                        modeled attainment test, whereas
                                                                                                            other analytical method determined by
                                                waiver’’ measures). Non-waiver                              the Administrator, in the                             currently the EPA recommends that
                                                measures include: Improvements to                           Administrator’s discretion, to be at least            models be used in a relative sense. That
                                                California’s inspection and maintenance                     as effective.’’ Air quality modeling is               is, formerly the modeled concentration
                                                (I/M) program, SmogCheck; cleaner                           used to establish emissions attainment                due to future emissions (absolute model
                                                burning gasoline and diesel regulations;                    targets, that is, the combination of                  prediction) was used directly to
                                                and limits on the VOC content and                           emissions of ozone precursors that the                compare to the NAAQS. Currently, the
                                                reactivity of consumer products. Table                      area can accommodate without                          EPA recommends that the relative
                                                3–2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan lists many                       exceeding the relevant standard, and to               change in modeled concentration (RRF)
                                                of the state’s measures adopted since                       assess whether the proposed control                   due to future emission reductions be
                                                2006 that are contributing to attainment                    strategy will result in attainment of that            used; this is applied to the monitored
                                                of the 1-hour ozone standard.                               standard. The procedures for modeling                 design value and the result compared to
                                                                                                            ozone as part of an attainment                        the NAAQS. Given that the current
                                                   Over the years, the EPA has approved                                                                           guidance is aimed at the 8-hour
                                                the non-waiver measures and                                 demonstration are contained in the
                                                                                                            EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models                   standard, whereas the older guidance is
                                                amendments to those measures as part                                                                              aimed at the 1-hour standard but is
                                                of the California SIP. Historically, the                    and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
                                                                                                            Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the               outdated, the State has flexibility in the
                                                EPA has allowed California to take                                                                                approach to be used. Discussions
                                                credit for waiver measures (to meet CAA                     8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and
                                                                                                            Regional Haze (‘‘Modeling                             between the EPA, CARB, and the
                                                SIP requirements including ROP and                                                                                District resulted in the approach
                                                attainment demonstrations)                                  Guidance’’).23 The Modeling Guidance
                                                                                                            recommends for a modeling protocol to                 described in the Plan’s Modeling
                                                notwithstanding the fact that the                                                                                 Protocol, which mainly followed the
                                                                                                            be reviewed by the EPA prior to
                                                regulations themselves have not been                                                                              more recent Modeling Guidance, but
                                                                                                            performance of the modeling. The
                                                submitted or approved into the                                                                                    accommodated the form and level of the
                                                                                                            Guidance includes recommendations for
                                                California SIP. However, in light of the                                                                          1-hour standard and incorporated model
                                                                                                            model input preparation, model
                                                Ninth Circuit’s decision in Committee                                                                             performance goals from the older 1-hour
                                                                                                            performance evaluation, use of the
                                                for a Better Arvin v. EPA, as discussed                                                                           guidance.
                                                                                                            model output for the attainment
                                                above, CARB has submitted the most
                                                                                                            demonstration, and modeling                              CARB performed the air quality
                                                recent set of waiver measures that
                                                                                                            documentation. Air quality modeling is                modeling for the 2013 Ozone Plan, with
                                                contribute emissions reductions to the
                                                                                                            performed using meteorology and                       assistance from the District. The 2013
                                                state’s attainment plans as part of the
                                                                                                            emissions from a base year, and the                   Ozone Plan’s modeling protocol is
                                                SIP, and the EPA has proposed approval
                                                                                                            modeled concentrations are compared                   contained in appendix E (‘‘Modeling
                                                of the measures. 80 FR 69915
                                                                                                            to air quality monitoring data from that              Protocol’’). This protocol was reviewed
                                                (November 12, 2015). We anticipate
                                                                                                            year to evaluate model performance.                   by the EPA, and contains all of the
                                                final action on the CARB mobile source
                                                                                                            Once the performance is determined to                 elements recommended in the
                                                SIP submittal prior to final action on the
                                                                                                            be acceptable, future year emissions are              Guidance, including selection of model,
                                                2013 Ozone Plan.
                                                                                                            simulated with the model. The relative                and modeling period, modeling domain,
                                                   The 2013 Ozone Plan also includes                        (or percent) change in modeled                        and model boundary conditions and
                                                reductions from federal measures. These                     concentration due to future emissions                 initialization procedures; a thorough
                                                measures include, for example, the                          reductions provides a Relative Response               discussion of emission inventory
                                                EPA’s national emission standards for                       Factor (RRF). For each monitoring site,               development and their spatial and
                                                heavy duty diesel trucks,20 certain new                     the site’s RRF is applied to its                      temporal allocation; and other model
                                                construction and farm equipment,21 and                      monitored base year design value to                   input preparation procedures, model
                                                locomotives.22 States are allowed to rely                   provide the future design value for                   performance evaluation procedures;
                                                                                                            comparison to the NAAQS. The                          selection of days and other details for
                                                   20 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001). CARB estimates
                                                                                                            Modeling Guidance also recommends                     calculating RRFs; and provisions for the
                                                that interstate trucks registered outside of California     supplemental air quality analyses,                    archiving of and access to raw model
                                                represent over 50 percent of the heavy duty trucks
                                                in California. See Table III–1 in ‘‘Staff Report: Initial   which may be used as part of a Weight                 inputs and outputs. While some
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                Statement of Reason for Proposed Rulemaking,                of Evidence (WOE) analysis. A WOE                     additional detail on the input
                                                Proposed Regulation for In-Use, On-road Diesel                                                                    meteorological data could have been
                                                Vehicles,’’ California Air Resources Board (October           23 ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
                                                                                                                                                                  useful, overall the protocol adequately
                                                2008).                                                      Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
                                                   21 Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR                                                              addresses all of the expected elements.
                                                                                                            Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
                                                56968 (October, 23 1998); Tier 4 diesel non-road            NAAQS and Regional Haze,’’ EPA–454/B–07–002,
                                                engine standard, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).               April 2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can        24 ‘‘Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
                                                   22 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045            be found in the ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’   Urban Airshed Model,’’ EPA–450/4–91–013, July
                                                (June 30, 2008).                                            in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.                        1991.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014    16:51 Jan 14, 2016    Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00040   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                     2151

                                                   The modeling analysis uses the                       Normalized bias within 15 percent; and                 (0.085 ppm) be averaged. The RRF is the
                                                Community Multiscale Air Quality                        Gross error of all pairs above 60 parts                average for future days divided by the
                                                (CMAQ) photochemical model,                             per billion (ppb) (i.e., 0.060 ppm) within             average for base year days; this ratio
                                                developed by the EPA. The SAPRC99                       35 percent (appendix F, section 1.4.1).                reflects the average response of high
                                                (State-wide Air Pollution Research                      The Modeling Protocol mentions                         ozone concentrations near the monitor
                                                Center, 1999 version) chemical                          evaluation of model performance within                 to future emission changes.
                                                mechanism was used in CMAQ, based                       multiple geographic subregions, as well                   The 2013 Ozone Plan band-RRF
                                                on CARB’s historical experience with it,                as additional performance statistics and               approach parallels the Modeling
                                                its favorable scientific review and good                spatial plots for ozone and precursor                  Guidance, but differs in several
                                                performance over the years. The                         species, but these were not provided in                specifics, especially in the choice of
                                                modeling incorporates routinely                         the SIP submittal. The CARB Staff                      concentration levels to include in
                                                available meteorological and air quality                Report stated that all the performance                 calculating the RRF. The 2013 Ozone
                                                data collected during 2007, the base                    goals were met. See CARB’s ‘‘Staff                     Plan applied an initial performance
                                                year for the 2013 Ozone Plan. The WRF                   Report, San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan                   screen: Only days that meet the model
                                                model (Weather and Research                             for the Federal 1-Hour Ozone                           performance criteria cited above were
                                                Forecasting model, from the National                    Standard,’’ dated November 8, 2013,                    retained for the calculation. For the
                                                Center for Atmospheric Research) was                    page 8. The EPA agrees that the model                  choice of grid cell to represent the
                                                used to prepare meteorological input for                performance is adequate for the San                    monitor, the 2013 Ozone Plan used the
                                                CMAQ. CMAQ and WRF are both                             Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment                 grid cell containing the monitor itself,
                                                recognized in the Modeling Guidance as                  demonstration.                                         rather than the maximum cell within 15
                                                technically sound, state-of-the-art                        The 2013 Ozone Plan used a ‘‘band-                  km; this puts a somewhat greater
                                                models. Air quality modeling was                        RRF’’ approach for the use of modeling                 reliance on the spatial accuracy of the
                                                performed for May through September,                    results in the modeled attainment test.                model, but is not necessarily less
                                                2007, a period that spans the ozone                     This a refinement of the approach in the               conservative. The 2013 Ozone Plan’s
                                                season in the San Joaquin Valley. The                   Modeling Guidance, and is described in                 choice of concentration days to include
                                                overall air quality modeling domain                     appendix F (‘‘Modeling Approach and                    is more complex than in the Guidance.
                                                includes the entire State of California                 Results,’’ section 1.4.1) of the 2013                  Instead of using an average over all high
                                                with 12 km resolution, and a nested                     Ozone Plan, as well as in the Modeling                 concentration days, in the band-RRF
                                                domain of finer 4 km resolution that                    Protocol and in a journal paper.25 The                 approach there is a different RRF for
                                                covers the San Joaquin Valley. The                      Modeling Guidance approach is briefly                  each 10 ppb-wide (0.010 ppm) band of
                                                overall meteorological modeling covers                  reviewed here before the band-RRF                      ozone concentrations; the RRF used for
                                                California’s neighboring states, and                    approach is described. As mentioned                    a particular monitored day is computed
                                                major portions of the next outer ring of                above, in simplest terms, an RRF is the                from future and base year averages only
                                                states, with 35 km resolution; it has                   relative model response to emissions                   within the concentration band relevant
                                                nested domains at 12 km and 4 km, with                  changes, that is, the ratio of future                  for that day, rather than from all high
                                                the latter, innermost covering the entire               modeled concentration to base year                     days.27 This refinement has the
                                                State of California. The areal extent, and              modeled concentration. Since the model                 advantage of allowing the model
                                                the horizontal and vertical resolution                  provides concentrations for every grid                 response to vary depending on the
                                                used in these models were more than                     square, for every hour of the simulated                concentration, instead of assuming the
                                                adequate for modeling San Joaquin                       period, in actually implementing an                    relative response is always the same, as
                                                Valley ozone.                                           RRF, a choice must be made of which                    the Modeling Guidance procedure does.
                                                                                                        particular model concentrations should                 The Modeling Guidance acknowledges
                                                   Model performance information is                     be included in the calculation. The
                                                provided in appendix F of the 2013                                                                             that there tends to be a greater model
                                                                                                        Modeling Guidance recommends that                      response to emission changes at higher
                                                Ozone Plan in the form of time series                   high concentration days selected from
                                                and scatter plots of modeled ozone                                                                             ozone concentrations (Modeling
                                                                                                        grid cells near the monitor be used;                   Guidance, page 37), so the use of RRF
                                                compared to monitored ozone, for the                    these will be most relevant for
                                                May–September, 2007 period. The time                                                                           bands is a reasonable refinement. The
                                                                                                        estimating the future design value at the              use of band-RRFs requires that each day
                                                series show a good match between                        monitor. Specifically, for the 1997 0.08
                                                predicted and observed concentrations.                                                                         be scaled by its corresponding RRF, and
                                                                                                        ppm (80 ppb) 8-hour ozone NAAQS in                     that the future design value be estimated
                                                While there is some underprediction                     effect at the time, the Modeling
                                                during the second half of the period                                                                           from those scaled values concentrations.
                                                                                                        Guidance recommends that the highest                   This is different than the Modeling
                                                (mid-July through September),                           concentration among grid cells within
                                                performance is generally good, and the                  15 km of the monitor be used to                           27 Specifically, a linear regression between
                                                overall peaks were captured by the                      represent the monitor, and that all                    observed and modeled concentrations was used to
                                                model. Scatter plots also show good                     modeled maximum daily 8-hour                           choose a modeled concentration for each observed
                                                performance, with very few outliers.                    concentrations at or above 085 ppb 26                  day; that modeled concentration predicted from the
                                                Modeled values are generally within                                                                            linear fit was then used to select a ppb band and
                                                                                                                                                               the corresponding RRF. This indirect procedure
                                                20% of observations, and root-mean-                       25 Sarika Kulkarni, Ajith P. Kaduwela, Jeremy C.
                                                                                                                                                               avoids quirks of individual days, providing a
                                                square error (RMSE) values are typically                Avise, John A. DaMassa & Daniel Chau (2014), ‘‘An      typical model response appropriate for future
                                                near 0.7, showing good correlation                      extended approach to calculate the ozone relative      projections. It also avoids introducing any
                                                                                                        response factors used in the attainment                inconsistency and model bias into the RRF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                between modeled and monitored
                                                                                                        demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality     calculation. If the observed value were used directly
                                                concentrations. While current Modeling                  Standards’’, Journal of the Air & Waste Management     to choose a band, and the model happened to
                                                Guidance does not prescribe specific                    Association, 64:10, 1204–1213, DOI: 10.1080/           underpredict on that day, then the RRF, chosen on
                                                performance goals, the Modeling                         10962247.2014.936984.                                  the basis of the higher observed value, would be the
                                                                                                          26 The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is actually 0.08      model response appropriate for a higher ozone
                                                Protocol adopted goals from the older,
                                                                                                        ppm; concentrations of 84.999 ppb or below round       concentration, rather than for the modeled base year
                                                1991 EPA 1-hour ozone modeling                          to 80 and comply with the NAAQS, and                   concentration. In short, it keeps both the RRF
                                                guidance, section 5.2: Unpaired highest                 concentrations of 85.0 or higher exceed the            numerator and denominator both as modeled
                                                prediction accuracy: Within 20 percent;                 NAAQS.                                                 values, consistent with the definition of an RRF.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00041   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2152                      Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                Guidance approach, in which a single                     it uses only the single 2005–2007 design              1994 through 2012 is downward,
                                                RRF is applied to the monitored design                   value as the starting point, whereas for              despite some individual multi-year
                                                value itself. The ‘‘design value’’ for the               a 2007 base year the Modeling Guidance                periods of little progress, and
                                                1-hour ozone standard is nearly                          would recommend the average of the                    corroborates the projection of
                                                equivalent to the 4th highest                            three design values for 2005–2007,                    attainment in 2017 (appendix G, figure
                                                concentration.28 In the 2013 Ozone                       2006–2008, and 2007–2009. It is not                   1, page G–2). This pattern is also seen
                                                Plan’s approach, the 10 days with the                    clear how to use band-RRF approach in                 for individual monitoring site design
                                                highest observed concentration were                      conjunction with this Guidance                        values trends (appendix G, figures 4–6
                                                multiplied by their respective RRFs, and                 recommendation, but presumably it                     and 8–10, pages G–6—G–10). An
                                                the 4th highest resulting concentration                  would involve using ozone observations                exception to this is the Fresno-
                                                was used as the predicted future design                  from a longer period than 2005 through                Drummond site, for which the 2007–
                                                value for the monitor. The inclusion of                  2007. Using a longer period might make                2011 trend is upward, though the
                                                10 candidate days accommodates any                       for more stable design value estimates,               number of NAAQS exceedance days
                                                shifts in the concentration rank of the                  less subject to year-to-year                          remains small (appendix G, figure 6,
                                                days as the result of controls; it ensures               meteorological variability; conversely it             page G–7). Since VOC and especially
                                                the inclusion of days that could                         also introduces some inconsistency                    NOX emission trends have been steadily
                                                contribute to the post-control design                    given that emissions changes during a                 downward (appendix G, figures 18–22,
                                                value. Applying different RRFs to                        longer period would generally be larger.              pages G–20—G–23), these stagnant
                                                different days and estimating the design                 The EPA estimated the effect of using an              periods are likely due to unfavorable
                                                value afterward is very similar to the                   alternative starting point by applying                meteorology. The 2013 Ozone Plan also
                                                EPA’s updated guidance procedure for                     modeled percent change in design value                includes trends adjusted for the effect of
                                                PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.29 The                   from the 2013 Ozone Plan to the 2006–                 meteorology, based on a statistical
                                                band-RRF approach is a refinement to                     2008 design value, and to the three-                  analysis that estimates what ozone
                                                the 8-hour ozone approach                                design value average mentioned above.                 would have been had wind speeds and
                                                recommended in the Modeling                              The results were 120.2 and 119.6 ppb                  temperatures been more typical
                                                Guidance for the modeled attainment                      (0.1202 and 0.1196 ppm), respectively,                (appendix G, section G–2). Since a
                                                test, and is adequate for the San Joaquin                both slightly higher than the 2013                    statistical analysis requires numerous
                                                Valley 1-hour ozone attainment                           Ozone Plan’s 119.3 ppb (0.1193 ppm),                  data points, 20-day averages were
                                                demonstration.                                           but both less than the NAAQS-                         examined rather than the design values,
                                                  An additional difference between the                   compliant value of 124 ppb (or 0.124                  of which there are only one per year.
                                                2013 Ozone Plan modeled attainment                       ppm, which rounds to 0.12 ppm).                       While this means that the results cannot
                                                test and the Modeling Guidance is that                   Documentation on the rationale for the                be used to directly adjust the design
                                                                                                         2013 Ozone Plan choice of the 2005–                   value trends, it is clear that for 2008–
                                                   28 The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the             2007 design value starting point would                2011, unfavorable meteorology resulted
                                                ‘‘expected number of days per calendar year with         have strengthened the support for the                 in higher ozone concentrations
                                                maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12
                                                parts per million . . . is equal to or less than 1’’
                                                                                                         attainment demonstration, but even in                 (appendix G, figure 12, page G–14), and
                                                (40 CFR 50.9); 40 CFR part 50, appendix H                its absence, the EPA finds the procedure              partly explains the slower recent
                                                describes the procedure for calculating this, based      followed to be adequate for the San                   progress in the design values at some
                                                on three calendar years. This is approximately the       Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment                monitoring sites.
                                                same as allowing one exceedance per year over            demonstration.                                           The 2013 Ozone Plan includes NOX
                                                three years, that is, the three highest values are
                                                allowed to exceed 0.12 ppm. Thus, the fourth
                                                                                                            The final model results appear in                  vs. VOC diagrams showing the modeled
                                                highest concentration is a unbiased single-year          chapter 2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan (and                 sensitivity of ozone to reductions at
                                                value to use for comparison to the NAAQS level in        are repeated in appendix F, section 1.4.2             each monitoring site (appendix G, figure
                                                a modeling context.                                      ‘‘Attainment Demonstration’’). These are              23, pages G–34—G–39.). The relatively
                                                   29 ‘‘Update to the 24 Hour PM
                                                                                   2.5 NAAQS Modeled     tables of three-year design values for                flat slopes mean that ozone changes
                                                Attainment Test,’’ EPA memorandum dated June
                                                28, 2011, from Tyler Fox, Air Quality Modeling           base year 2007 and for the projected                  relatively little with VOC reductions.
                                                Group, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and            year 2017. The highest monitored 2007                 While the relative effectiveness varies
                                                Standards. The updated guidance allowed for the          design value was 135 ppb (0.135 ppm)                  by site and reduction amount, on a tpd
                                                shifting of PM2.5 day ranks. A shift is possible since   at the Edison monitor. The highest                    basis NOX reductions approximately 20
                                                emission controls affect PM2.5 species components
                                                differently, and species composition may be
                                                                                                         projected 2017 design value, accounting               times as effective as VOC reductions; for
                                                different for different seasons: Control could affect    for emission reductions occurring                     the Edison design value site, the relative
                                                mainly winter days, with summer days little              during 2007–2017 was 119.3 ppb                        effectiveness is closer to 7. In
                                                affected and so becoming higher ranked. The 2013         (0.1193 ppm) at Edison monitor. This is               conjunction with the pronounced
                                                Ozone Plan’s RRF procedure was carried out for the
                                                top 10 observed days. This accommodates
                                                                                                         comfortably below the maximum 124                     downward NOX emission trend referred
                                                differences in ranking between the observed days         ppb (0.124 ppm) consistent with                       to above, these findings provide
                                                and their corresponding modeled days and bands,          NAAQS attainment. The next highest                    confidence in the attainment strategy.
                                                ensuring that days that were not the highest before      2017 design value was substantially                      Finally, the 2013 Ozone Plan provides
                                                controls, but are so after control, are available for                                                          a supplemental attainment
                                                the design value calculation. It also accommodates
                                                                                                         less, 107.4 ppb (0.1074 ppm) at the
                                                the fact that applying controls may result in shifting   Arvin monitor.                                        demonstration using a traditional
                                                in the ranks of the days; the particular day that is        The 2013 Ozone Plan contains a                     ‘‘single RRF’’ approach, in addition to
                                                4th highest before controls may not be the 4th           ‘‘Weight of Evidence’’ (WOE) section in               the ‘‘band-RRF’’ approach (appendix G,
                                                highest post-control day. The 2013 Ozone Plan does
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                         its appendix G. This section includes                 sections 6.1 and 6.2, pages G–26—G–
                                                explicitly state whether such rank shifts actually
                                                occurred in applying the band-RRF approach, but
                                                                                                         analyses of ambient concentration and                 33). (As described above, in the former
                                                table 4 in appendix G of the 2013 Ozone Plan does        emission trends, and additional                       approach, described in the Modeling
                                                not appear to show such shifts: The 2017 design          analyses that strengthen the 2013 Ozone               Guidance for 8-hour ozone, a single RRF
                                                values remain sorted from high to low as are the         Plan’s attainment demonstration                       is used regardless of the ozone
                                                2007 design values. Shifts might be expected to
                                                occur if a concentration near the bottom of a band
                                                                                                         conclusion that NAAQS attainment will                 concentration. In the latter approach
                                                with a relatively small RRF was reduced more than        be achieved in 2017. The overall San                  there is a different RRF for each ‘‘band’’
                                                a concentration at the top of the next lower band.       Joaquin Valley design value trend from                or range of ozone values.) The single


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00042   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                 2153

                                                RRF approach is more conservative,                      adopted and approved rules to achieve                  could be implemented early, i.e., prior
                                                giving slightly higher future                           the emissions reductions needed to                     to the milestone or attainment date.
                                                concentrations; this was expected since                 attain the 1-hour ozone standards in the               Consistent with this policy, states are
                                                the RRF includes model results from                     San Joaquin Valley in 2017.                            allowed to use excess reductions from
                                                lower, less responsive, ozone levels. The                                                                      already adopted measures to meet the
                                                                                                        E. Contingency Measures
                                                single RRF approach nevertheless also                                                                          CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
                                                shows 2017 attainment.                                  1. Requirements for Contingency                        contingency measures requirement. This
                                                  The various analyses provided in                      Measures                                               is because the purpose of contingency
                                                appendix G of the 2013 Ozone Plan                          Section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the              measures is to provide extra reductions
                                                provide assurance in the attainment                     CAA require that SIPs contain                          that are not relied on for ROP or
                                                demonstration’s conclusion that the 1-hr                contingency measures that will take                    attainment that will provide continued
                                                ozone NAAQS will be attained in 2017.                   effect without further action by the state             progress while the plan is being revised
                                                c. Evaluation of the Air Quality                        or the EPA if an area fails to attain the              to fully address the failure to meet the
                                                Modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan                         ozone standard by the applicable                       required milestone. Nothing in the CAA
                                                                                                        attainment date (section 172(c)(9)) or                 precludes a state from implementing
                                                   The modeling showed that existing                                                                           such measures before they are triggered.
                                                State and District control measures are                 fails to meet an ROP milestone (section
                                                                                                        182(c)(9)). This requirement is a                      This approach has been approved by the
                                                sufficient to attain the 1979 1-hour                                                                           EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844
                                                Ozone NAAQS by 2017 at all                              continuing applicable requirement for
                                                                                                        the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-                  (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana
                                                monitoring sites in the San Joaquin                                                                            portion of the Chicago area 15 percent
                                                Valley. Given the extensive discussion                  hour ozone nonattainment area under
                                                                                                        the EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that                  ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
                                                of modeling procedures, tests, and                                                                             1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of
                                                                                                        apply once a standard has been revoked.
                                                performance analyses called for in the                                                                         the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan);
                                                                                                        See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
                                                Modeling Protocol and the good model                                                                           66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed
                                                                                                        51.1100(o)(13).
                                                performance, the EPA finds that the                        The Act does not specify how many                   approval of the Rhode Island post-1996
                                                modeling is adequate for purposes of                    contingency measures are needed or the                 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR
                                                supporting the 1-hour ozone attainment                  magnitude of emission reductions that                  634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the
                                                demonstration.                                          must be provided by these measures.                    Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour
                                                3. Proposed Action on the Attainment                    However, the EPA provided initial                      ozone attainment demonstrations). In
                                                Demonstration                                           guidance interpreting the contingency                  the only adjudicated challenge to this
                                                   To approve a SIP’s attainment                        measure requirements in the General                    approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN
                                                demonstration, the EPA must make                        Preamble at 13510. Our interpretation is               v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70
                                                several findings: First, we must find that              based upon the language in sections                    FR 71611, 71651.
                                                the demonstration’s technical bases—                    172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) in conjunction
                                                                                                        with the control measure requirements                  2. Contingency Measures in the 2013
                                                emissions inventories and air quality                                                                          Ozone Plan
                                                                                                        of sections 172(c), 182(b) and
                                                modeling—are adequate. As discussed
                                                                                                        182(c)(2)(B), the reclassification and                   Contingency measure provisions are
                                                above in section III.A, we propose to
                                                                                                        failure to attain provisions of section                described in Section 4.4 of the 2013
                                                find that the inventories in the 2013
                                                                                                        181(b) and other provisions. In the                    Ozone Plan. To provide for contingency
                                                Ozone Plan provide an appropriate basis
                                                                                                        General Preamble, the EPA indicated                    measures for failure to meet the ROP
                                                for the various other elements of the
                                                                                                        that states with moderate and above                    milestones, the SIP relies on surplus
                                                2013 Ozone Plan, including the
                                                                                                        ozone nonattainment areas should                       NOX reductions in the ROP
                                                attainment demonstration, and for the
                                                                                                        include sufficient contingency measures                demonstration. See 2013 Ozone Plan,
                                                reasons discussed above, we find the air
                                                                                                        so that, upon implementation of such                   table 4–2. See also table 3 above.
                                                quality modeling adequate to support                    measures, additional emissions
                                                the attainment demonstration.                           reductions of three percent of the                       For the failure to attainment
                                                   Second, we must find that the SIP                                                                           contingency measure, the 3 percent
                                                                                                        emissions in the adjusted base year
                                                provides for expeditious attainment                                                                            reduction from the 2007 baseline can
                                                                                                        inventory (or such lesser percentage
                                                through the implementation of all                                                                              come from either VOC or NOX. A three
                                                                                                        what will cure the identified failure)
                                                RACM. As discussed above in section                                                                            percent reduction from the 2007
                                                                                                        would be achieved in the year following
                                                III.B, we are proposing to approve the                                                                         baseline is equivalent to 14.5 tpd of
                                                                                                        the year in which the failure is
                                                RACM demonstration in the 2013 Ozone                                                                           NOX. VOC emission reductions are only
                                                                                                        identified. These reductions should be
                                                Plan.                                                                                                          0.3 tpd between 2017 and 2018; thus,
                                                   Third, we must find that the                         beyond what is needed to meet the
                                                                                                        attainment and/or ROP requirement.                     NOX emission reductions are necessary
                                                emissions reductions that are relied on                                                                        to satisfy the attainment contingency
                                                for attainment are creditable and are                   States may use reductions of either VOC
                                                                                                        or NOX or a combination of both to meet                measure requirement. Fleet turnover in
                                                sufficient to provide for attainment. As                                                                       2018 is expected to reduce NOX
                                                stated previously in today’s action, the                the contingency measure requirements.
                                                                                                        General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6.                 emissions by 11.0 tpd. See 2013 Ozone
                                                EPA is proposing to approve the 2013                                                                           Plan, appendix B, Tables B–1 and B–2.
                                                Ozone Plan in part based on the                         The states must show that the
                                                                                                        contingency measures can be                            In the 2013 Ozone Plan, the District
                                                permanence and enforceability of the                                                                           relies on 3.5 tpd of NOX reductions from
                                                                                                        implemented with minimal further
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                waiver measures flowing from the                                                                               unspecified incentive programs plus the
                                                approval of the measures as part of the                 action on their part and with no
                                                                                                        additional rulemaking actions.                         NOX reductions from fleet turnover to
                                                SIP. Thus, the EPA will not finalize                                                                           achieve the 14.5 tpd of NOX necessary
                                                                                                           In subsequent guidance,30 the EPA
                                                approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan until                                                                          for the failure to attainment contingency
                                                                                                        indicated that contingency measures
                                                the Agency takes final action to approve
                                                the waiver measures as part of the                        30 G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide          Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone
                                                California SIP. Once that occurs, the                   Programs Branch, EPA Office of Air Quality             and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
                                                2013 Ozone Plan will rely entirely on                   Planning and Standards, memorandum titled ‘‘Early      August 13, 1993.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00043   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2154                     Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                measure. See 2013 Ozone Plan, table                     are oil or gas fired may generally be                  Joaquin Valley. 75 FR 60623 (October
                                                4–4.                                                    considered de minimis and exempt from                  10, 2010).
                                                                                                        these requirements since it is unlikely                  New and modified boilers that will
                                                3. Proposed Action on the Contingency
                                                                                                        that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX                   emit or have the potential to emit 25 tpy
                                                Measures
                                                                                                        emission limit. General Preamble at                    or more of NOX are subject to the
                                                   Contingency measures for ROP. As                     13524.                                                 District’s new source permitting rule,
                                                discussed above in section III.C, we are                                                                       Rule 2201 ‘‘New and Modified
                                                proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone                     2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in
                                                                                                        the San Joaquin Valley District Rules                  Stationary Source Review Rule.’’ This
                                                Plan’s ROP demonstration. As seen in                                                                           rule requires new and modified source
                                                the second to last line on table 3 above                   The 2013 Ozone Plan, which                          to install and operate best available
                                                (in the ROP demonstration), there are                   addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3)                    control technology/lowest achievable
                                                sufficient excess reductions of NOX in                  requirements on page 4–10, states that                 emissions reductions technology. The
                                                each milestone year beyond those                        District Rules 4306 and 4352 address                   EPA most recently approved Rule 2201
                                                needed to meet the next ROP percent                     NOX from affected boilers and that these               into the California SIP at 79 FR 55637
                                                reduction requirement to provide the 3                  rules meet the requirements of the CAA.                (September 17, 2014).
                                                percent of adjusted baseline emissions                     Rule 4306 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators,
                                                reductions needed to meet the RFP                       and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’ as                       3. Proposed Finding on the Clean Fuel/
                                                contingency measure requirement for                     revised on October 16, 2008, applies to                Advanced Technology for Boilers
                                                2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017.                             any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired                    Based on our review of, and previous
                                                Accordingly, we propose to approve the                  boiler, steam generator, or process                    approval of, the emission limitations in
                                                ROP contingency measures in the 2013                    heater with a total rated heat input                   the District’s rules discussed above, we
                                                Ozone Plan under CAA section 182(c)(9)                  greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The               propose to find that the 2013 Ozone
                                                and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and                            emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30               Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced
                                                51.1100(o)(13).                                         ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for                   control technology for boilers
                                                   Contingency measures for failure to                  liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without               requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3)
                                                attain. We are not proposing action on                  the use of advanced control                            and 40 CFR 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
                                                the plan’s attainment contingency                       technologies. See ‘‘Alternative Control                51.1100(o)(6).
                                                measures at this time. Attainment                       Techniques Document—NOX Emissions
                                                contingency measures are a distinct                     from Industrial/Commercial/                            G. Transportation Control Strategies
                                                provision of the CAA that we may act                    Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ Emissions               and Transportation Control Measures
                                                on separately from the attainment                       Standards Division, EPA, March 1994;                   To Offset Growth in Emissions From
                                                demonstration.                                          see also 76 FR 57846 at 57864–57865                    Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled or
                                                                                                        (September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652                   Number of Vehicle Trips
                                                F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control                      at 12670 (March 1, 2012) (proposed and
                                                Technology for Boilers                                                                                         1. Requirements for VMT Emissions
                                                                                                        final rules approving 2007 Ozone Plan
                                                                                                                                                               Offset Demonstrations
                                                1. Requirements for Clean Fuels or                      for the San Joaquin Valley). All units
                                                                                                        subject to Rule 4306 were required to                     Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act
                                                Advanced Control Technology for
                                                                                                        comply with the limits in the rule no                  requires, in relevant part, the state, if
                                                Boilers
                                                                                                        later than December 1, 2008. See Rule                  subject to its requirements for a given
                                                   CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that                  4306, section 7.0. We most recently                    area, to ‘‘submit a revision that
                                                SIPs must require each new, modified,                   approved Rule 4306 as a SIP revision at                identifies and adopts specific
                                                and existing electric utility and                       75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).                         enforceable transportation control
                                                industrial and commercial boiler that                      Rule 4352 ‘‘Solid Fuel Fired Boilers,               strategies and transportation control
                                                emits more than 25 tons per year (tpy)                  Steam Generators And Process Heaters’’                 measures to offset any growth in
                                                of NOX to either burn as its primary fuel               as revised December 15, 2011, applies to               emissions from growth in vehicle miles
                                                natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a                 any boiler, steam generator or process                 traveled or number of vehicle trips in
                                                comparably low polluting fuel), or use                  heater fired on solid fuel at a source that            such area.’’ 31 This requirement is a
                                                advanced control technology (such as                    has a potential to emit more than 10 tpy               continuing applicable requirement for
                                                catalytic control technology or other                   of NOX or VOC. All units subject to Rule               the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ ozone
                                                comparably effective control methods).                  4352 were required to comply with the                  nonattainment area for the 1-hour and
                                                This requirement is a continuing                        rule’s most stringent limits no later than             1997 8-hour standards under the EPA’s
                                                applicable requirement for the San                      January 1, 2013. Rule 4352, section 5.1.
                                                Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-hour ozone                 We most recently approved Rule 4352                       31 CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three

                                                nonattainment area under the EPA’s                      into the California SIP at 77 FR 66548                 separate elements. In short, under section
                                                                                                                                                               182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt
                                                anti-backsliding rules that apply once a                (November 6, 2012). In an EPA action                   transportation control strategies and measures (1) to
                                                standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR                   on the previous version of Rule 4352,                  offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT,
                                                51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).                        we determined that all of the NOX                      and, (2) in combination with other emission
                                                   Further guidance on this requirement                 emission limits in Rule 4352 effectively               reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP, and
                                                                                                                                                               (3) to demonstrate attainment. For more information
                                                is provided in the General Preamble at                  require operation of Selective                         on the EPA’s interpretation of the three elements of
                                                13523. According to the General                         Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control                  section 182(d)(1)(A), please see 77 FR 58067, at
                                                Preamble, a boiler should generally be                  systems, which are comparably effective                58068 (September 19, 2012)(proposed withdrawal
                                                                                                                                                               of approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                considered as any combustion                            to Selective Catalytic Reduction for the
                                                                                                                                                               demonstrations). The decision by the Ninth Circuit
                                                equipment used to produce steam and                     affected sources. SNCR also appears to                 in the Association of Irritated Residents case, and
                                                generally does not include a process                    achieve NOX emission reductions                        the EPA’s related withdrawal of the San Joaquin
                                                heater that transfers heat from                         comparable to combustion of clean fuels                Valley approvals and finding of failure to submit,
                                                combustion gases to process streams.                    at these types of boilers. We therefore                relate only to the first element of CAA section
                                                                                                                                                               182(d)(1)(A)(i.e., the VMT emissions offset
                                                General Preamble at 13523. In addition,                 concluded that Rule 4352 satisfies the                 requirement). Accordingly, this proposed action
                                                boilers with rated heat inputs less than                requirements of section 182(e)(3) for                  relates only to the first element of CAA section
                                                15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which                   solid fuel-fired boilers in the San                    182(d)(1)(A).



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00044   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                             2155

                                                anti-backsliding rules that apply once a                satisfied in conformance with the                      estimate reflects the hypothetical
                                                standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR                   Court’s ruling. States are recommended                 emissions level that would have
                                                40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and                                to estimate emissions for the                          occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs
                                                51.1100(o)(10).                                         nonattainment area’s base year and the                 had been put in place and if VMT and
                                                   As described above, in 2012, 77 FR                   attainment year. One emission                          trip levels had held constant since the
                                                70376 (November 26, 2012), the EPA                      inventory is developed for the base year,              base year. Like the ‘‘no action’’
                                                withdrew the Agency’s approvals of the                  and three different emissions inventory                attainment year estimate described
                                                VMT emissions offset demonstrations                     scenarios are developed for the                        above, emissions in the attainment year
                                                for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour               attainment year. For the attainment                    may be lower than those in the base year
                                                ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.                  year, the state would present three                    due to the fleet that was on the road in
                                                In both instances, the EPA had based its                emissions estimates, two of which                      the base year gradually being replaced
                                                approvals on the Agency’s long-standing                 would represent hypothetical emissions                 by cleaner vehicles through fleet
                                                interpretation of the VMT emissions                     scenarios that would provide the basis                 turnover, but in this case they would
                                                offset requirement that was rejected by                 to identify the ‘‘growth in emissions’’                not be influenced by any growth in
                                                the Ninth Circuit in the Association of                 due solely to the growth in VMT, and                   VMT or trips. This emissions estimate
                                                Irritated Residents case. In response to                one that would represent projected                     would reflect a ceiling on the attainment
                                                the Court’s decision, the EPA issued a                  actual motor vehicle emissions after                   emissions that should be allowed to
                                                memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance on                         fully accounting for projected VMT                     occur under the statute as interpreted by
                                                Implementing Clean Air Act Section                      growth and offsetting emissions                        the Court because it shows what would
                                                182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control                    reductions obtained by all creditable                  happen under a scenario in which no
                                                Measures and Transportation Control                     TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012                     offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been
                                                Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions                guidance for specific details on how                   put in place and VMT and trips are held
                                                Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles                          states might conduct the calculations.                 constant during the period from the
                                                Travelled’’ (herein referred to as the                     The base year on-road VOC emissions                 area’s base year to its attainment year.
                                                ‘‘August 2012 guidance’’).32                            should be based on VMT in that year                    This represents a ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’
                                                   The August 2012 Guidance discusses                   and it should reflect all enforceable                  scenario. These two hypothetical status
                                                the meaning of the terms,                               TCSs and TCMs in place in the base                     quo estimates are necessary steps in
                                                ‘‘transportation control strategies’’                   year. This would include vehicle                       identifying the target level of emissions
                                                (TCSs) and ‘‘transportation control                     emissions standards, state and local                   from which states would determine
                                                measures’’ (TCMs), and recommends                       control programs such as I/M programs                  whether further TCMs or TCSs, beyond
                                                that both TCSs and TCMs be included                     or fuel rules, and any additional                      those that have been adopted and
                                                in the calculations made for the purpose                implemented TCSs and TCMs that were                    implemented in reality, would need to
                                                of determining the degree to which any                  already required by or credited in the                 be adopted and implemented in order to
                                                hypothetical growth in emissions due to                 SIP as of that base year.                              fully offset any increase in emissions
                                                growth in VMT should be offset.                            The first of the emissions calculations             due solely to VMT and trips identified
                                                Generally, TCSs is a broad term that                    for the attainment year would be based                 in the ‘‘no action’’ scenario.
                                                encompasses many types of controls                      on the projected VMT and trips for that                   Finally, the state would present the
                                                including, for example, motor vehicle                   year, and assume that no new TCSs or                   emissions that are actually expected to
                                                emission limitations, inspection and                    TCMs beyond those already credited in                  occur in the area’s attainment year after
                                                maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative                 the base year inventory have been put                  taking into account reductions from all
                                                fuel programs, other technology-based                   in place since the base year. This                     enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in
                                                measures, and TCMs, that would fit                      calculation demonstrates how emissions                 reality were put in place after the
                                                within the regulatory definition of                     would hypothetically change if no new                  baseline year. This estimate would be
                                                ‘‘control strategy.’’ See, e.g., 40 CFR                 TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and                     based on the VMT and trip levels
                                                51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR                   VMT and trips were allowed to grow at                  expected to occur in the attainment year
                                                51.100(r) as meaning ‘‘any measure that                 the projected rate from the base year.                 (i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the
                                                is directed toward reducing emissions of                This estimate would show the potential                 first estimate) and all of the TCSs and
                                                air pollutants from transportation                      for an increase in emissions due solely                TCMs expected to be in place and for
                                                sources. Such measures include, but are                 to growth in VMT and trips. This                       which the SIP will take credit in the
                                                not limited to those listed in section                  represents a ‘‘no action’’ taken scenario.             area’s attainment year, including any
                                                108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]’’ and                    Emissions in the attainment year in this               TCMs and TCSs put in place since the
                                                generally refer to programs intended to                 scenario may be lower than those in the                base year. This represents the ‘‘projected
                                                reduce the VMT, the number of vehicle                   base year due to the fleet that was on the             actual’’ attainment year scenario. If this
                                                trips, or traffic congestion, such as                   road in the base year gradually being                  emissions estimate is less than or equal
                                                programs for improved public transit,                   replaced through fleet turnover;                       to the emissions ceiling that was
                                                designation of certain lanes for                        however, provided VMT and/or                           established in the second of the
                                                passenger buses and high-occupancy                      numbers of vehicle trips will in fact                  attainment year calculations, the TCSs
                                                vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction                         increase by the attainment year, they                  or TCMs for the attainment year would
                                                ordinances, and the like.                               would still likely be higher than they                 be sufficient to fully offset the identified
                                                   The August 2012 guidance explains                    would have been assuming VMT had                       hypothetical growth in emissions.
                                                how states may demonstrate that the                     held constant.                                            If, instead, the estimated projected
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                VMT emissions offset requirement is                        The second of the attainment year’s                 actual attainment year emissions are
                                                                                                        emissions calculations would also                      still greater than the ceiling which was
                                                  32 Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director,              assume that no new TCSs or TCMs                        established in the second of the
                                                Transportation and Climate Division, Office of          beyond those already credited have                     attainment year emissions calculations,
                                                Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edland,         been put in place since the base year,                 even after accounting for post-baseline
                                                Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
                                                Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan,
                                                                                                        but would also assume that there was no                year TCSs and TCMs, the state would
                                                Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 30,        growth in VMT and trips between the                    need to adopt and implement additional
                                                2012.                                                   base year and attainment year. This                    TCSs or TCMs to further offset the


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00045   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                2156                           Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                growth in emissions and bring the                                  vehicle trips in such area’’ (emphasis                      the revised demonstration for the 1997
                                                actual emissions down to at least the                              added) under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).                      8-hour ozone standard. For the 1997 8-
                                                ‘‘had VMT and trips held constant’’                                   The revised San Joaquin Valley VMT                       hour ozone standard, the State’s
                                                ceiling estimated in the second of the                             emissions offset demonstrations address                     selection of 2023 is appropriate given
                                                attainment year calculations, in order to                          both the 1-hour ozone standard and the                      that the approved San Joaquin Valley
                                                meet the VMT offset requirement of                                 1997 8-hour ozone standard and include                      1997 8-hour ozone plan demonstrates
                                                section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by                             two different ‘‘base year’’ scenarios:                      attainment by the applicable attainment
                                                the Court.                                                         1990, for the purposes of the VMT                           date of June 15, 2024 based on the 2023
                                                                                                                   emissions offset demonstration for the                      controlled emissions inventory. See 76
                                                2. Revised San Joaquin Valley VMT                                  1-hour ozone standard, and 2002, for the                    FR 57846, at 57856–57861 (September
                                                Emissions Offset Demonstrations                                    purposes of the VMT emissions offset                        16, 2011) and 77 FR 12652, at 12670
                                                   For the revised San Joaquin Valley                              demonstration for the 1997 8-hour                           (March 1, 2012).
                                                VMT emissions offset demonstrations,                               ozone standard. The ‘‘base year’’ for                          The San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone
                                                the State used EMFAC2011, the latest                               VMT emissions offset demonstration                          Plan, which includes the revised VMT
                                                EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions                               purposes should generally be the same                       emissions offset demonstrations in
                                                model for California. The EMFAC2011                                ‘‘base year’’ used for nonattainment                        appendix D, provides a demonstration
                                                model estimates the on-road emissions                              planning purposes. In 2012, the EPA                         of attainment by 2017. The revised San
                                                                                                                   approved the 2002 base year inventory                       Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment
                                                from two combustion processes (i.e.,
                                                                                                                   for the San Joaquin Valley for the                          demonstration thus provides a
                                                running exhaust and start exhaust) and
                                                                                                                   purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone                           demonstration of attainment of the 1-
                                                four evaporative processes (i.e., hot
                                                                                                                   standard, 77 FR 12652, at 12670 (March                      hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin
                                                soak, running losses, diurnal losses, and
                                                                                                                   1, 2012), and thus, the State’s selection                   Valley by 2017 based on the controlled
                                                resting losses). The EMFAC2011 model
                                                                                                                   of 2002 as the base year for the revised                    2017 emissions inventory. As described
                                                combines trip-based VMT data from the
                                                                                                                   San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions                            in section III.D of this document, the
                                                eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs (e.g.,
                                                                                                                   offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour                    EPA is proposing to approve 2017 as the
                                                Council of Fresno County
                                                                                                                   ozone standard is appropriate. With                         attainment year for the 1-hour ozone
                                                Governments), starts data based on
                                                                                                                   respect to the 1-hour ozone standard,                       standard in the San Joaquin Valley.33
                                                household travel surveys, and vehicle
                                                                                                                   the attainment demonstration in the                         Based on the proposed approval of 2017
                                                population data from the California
                                                                                                                   2013 Ozone Plan relies on a base year                       as the attainment year for the San
                                                Department of Motor Vehicles. These                                of 2007, rather than 1990; however, the                     Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone
                                                sets of data are combined with                                     State’s selection of 1990 as the base year                  standard, we find CARB’s selection of
                                                corresponding emission rates to                                    for the VMT offset demonstration is                         year 2017 as the attainment year for the
                                                calculate emissions.                                               appropriate because 1990 was used as                        revised VMT emissions offset
                                                   Emissions from running exhaust, start                           the base year for 1-hour ozone SIP                          demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
                                                exhaust, hot soak, and running losses                              planning purposes under the CAA                             standard to be acceptable. For
                                                are a function of how much a vehicle is                            Amendments of 1990, which                                   additional background and justification
                                                driven. As such, emissions from these                              established, among other requirements,                      regarding the 2017 attainment year,
                                                processes are directly related to VMT                              the VMT emissions offset requirement                        please see section III.D in today’s notice.
                                                and vehicle trips, and the State included                          in section 182(d)(1)(A).                                      Tables 4 and 5 summarize the
                                                emissions from them in the calculations                               The demonstrations also include the                      relevant distinguishing parameters for
                                                that provide the basis for the revised                             previously described three different                        each of the emissions scenarios and
                                                San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions                                   attainment year scenarios (i.e., no                         show the State’s corresponding VOC
                                                offset demonstrations. The State did not                           action, VMT offset ceiling, and                             emissions estimates. Table 4 provides
                                                include emissions from resting loss and                            projected actual) but the attainment year                   the parameters and emissions estimates
                                                diurnal loss processes in the analysis                             differs between the two demonstrations.                     for the revised VMT emissions offset
                                                because such emissions are related to                              Year 2017 was selected as the                               demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
                                                vehicle population, not to VMT or                                  attainment year for the revised VMT                         standard, and table 5 provides the
                                                vehicle trips, and thus are not part of                            emissions offset demonstration for the                      corresponding values for the revised
                                                ‘‘any growth in emissions from growth                              1-hour ozone standard, and year 2023                        demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
                                                in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of                            was selected as the attainment year for                     ozone standard.

                                                             TABLE 4—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD
                                                                                                                             VMT                                      Starts                      Controls            VOC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Emissions
                                                                       Scenario
                                                                                                                   Year               1000/day               Year              1000/day             Year                tpd

                                                Base Year ................................................                1990            52,199                    1990             7,730                 1990               196
                                                No Action .................................................               2017           115,070                    2017            17,133                 1990               178
                                                VMT Offset Ceiling ...................................                    1990            52,199                    1990             7,730                 1990                81
                                                Projected Actual .......................................                  2017           115,070                    2017            17,133                 2017                30
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2017 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight
                                                San Joaquin Valley MPOs.


                                                  33 In this context, ‘‘attainment year’’ refers to the            the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone                 immediately preceding that date will occur in year
                                                ozone season immediately preceding a                               standard, the proposed applicable attainment date           2017.
                                                nonattainment area’s attainment date. In the case of               is November 26, 2017, and the ozone season



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:51 Jan 14, 2016       Jkt 238001      PO 00000    Frm 00046   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM      15JAP1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                      2157

                                                       TABLE 5—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD
                                                                                                                             VMT                                      Starts                   Controls         VOC
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Emissions
                                                                       Scenario
                                                                                                                   Year               1000/day               Year              1000/day         Year             tpd

                                                Base Year ................................................                2002            78,400                    2002           11,307              2002            76
                                                No Action .................................................               2023           130,431                    2023           19,466              2002            49
                                                VMT Offset Ceiling ...................................                    2002            78,400                    2002           11,307              2002            28
                                                Projected Actual .......................................                  2023           130,431                    2023           19,466              2023            24
                                                  Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2023 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight
                                                San Joaquin Valley MPOs.


                                                   For the two ‘‘base year’’ scenarios, the                        standards), content specifications for                      and TCSs and any necessary additional
                                                State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the                              gasoline (i.e., California Reformulated                     TCMs and TCSs.
                                                applicable base year (i.e., 1990 for the 1-                        Gasoline Phases 1, 2, and 3), and                              For the ‘‘projected actual’’ scenario
                                                hour ozone standard and 2002 for the                               enhancements to the State’s I/M                             calculations, the State ran the
                                                1997 8-hour ozone standard) using VMT                              program (i.e., Smog Check II). See                          EMFAC2011 model for the attainment
                                                and starts data corresponding to those                             attachments A and B to appendix D of                        years with VMT and starts data at
                                                years. As shown in tables 5 and 6, the                             the 2013 Ozone Plan for lists of TCSs                       attainment year values and with the full
                                                State estimates the San Joaquin Valley                             and TCMs adopted by the State and                           benefits of the relevant post-baseline
                                                VOC emissions at 196 tpd in 1990 and                               MPOs since 1990.34                                          year motor vehicle control programs.
                                                76 tpd in 2002.                                                       For the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’                           For this scenario, the State included the
                                                   For the two ‘‘no action’’ scenarios, the                        scenarios, the State ran the EMFAC2011                      emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs
                                                State first identified the on-road motor                           model for the attainment years but with                     put in place since the base year. The
                                                vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or                            VMT and starts data corresponding to                        most significant measures put in place
                                                TCMs) put in place since the base years                            base year values. Like the ‘‘no action’’                    during the 2002 to 2023 time frame
                                                and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and                                scenarios, the EMFAC2011 model was                          include Low Emission Vehicles II and
                                                then ran EMFAC2011 with the VMT and                                adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions                       III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle
                                                starts data corresponding to the                                   levels in the attainment years without                      standards, and California Reformulated
                                                applicable attainment year (i.e., 2017 for                         the benefits of the post-base-year on-                      Gasoline Phase 3. These measures are
                                                the 1-hour ozone standard and 2023 for                             road motor vehicle control programs.                        also relied upon for the revised 1-hour
                                                the 1997 8-hour ozone standard)                                    Thus, the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’                            ozone attainment demonstration
                                                without the emissions reductions from                              scenarios reflect hypothetical VOC                          (proposed for approval herein) and the
                                                the on-road motor vehicle control                                  emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if                      approved 8-hour ozone attainment
                                                programs put in place after the base                               the State had not put in place any TCSs                     demonstration.
                                                year. Thus, the ‘‘no action’’ scenarios                            or TCMs after the base years and if there                      As shown in tables 5 and 6, the
                                                reflect the hypothetical VOC emissions                             had been no growth in VMT or vehicle                        results from these calculations establish
                                                that would occur in the attainment years                           trips between the base years and the                        projected actual attainment-year VOC
                                                in the San Joaquin Valley if the State                             attainment years.                                           emissions of 30 tpd for the 1-hour
                                                had not put in place any additional
                                                                                                                      The hypothetical growth in emissions                     standard demonstration and 24 tpd for
                                                TCSs or TCMs after 1990 (for the 1-hour
                                                                                                                   due to growth in VMT and trips can be                       the 1997 8-hour standard
                                                ozone VMT emissions offset
                                                                                                                   determined from the difference between                      demonstration. The State then
                                                demonstration) or after 2002 (for the 8-
                                                                                                                   the VOC emissions estimates under the                       compared these values against the
                                                hour ozone demonstration). As shown
                                                                                                                   ‘‘no action’’ scenarios and the                             corresponding VMT offset ceiling values
                                                in tables 5 and 6, the State estimates the
                                                                                                                   corresponding estimates under the                           to determine whether additional TCMs
                                                ‘‘no action’’ San Joaquin Valley VOC
                                                                                                                   ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenarios. Based                     or TCSs would need to be adopted and
                                                emissions at 178 tpd in 2017 and 49 tpd
                                                                                                                   on the values in tables 5 and 6, the                        implemented in order to offset any
                                                in 2023. The principal difference
                                                                                                                   hypothetical growth in emissions due to                     increase in emissions due solely to VMT
                                                between the two estimates is that the
                                                                                                                   growth in VMT and trips in the San                          and trips. Because the ‘‘projected
                                                latter value (used for the revised VMT
                                                                                                                   Joaquin Valley would have been 97 tpd                       actual’’ emissions are less than the
                                                emissions offset demonstration for the
                                                                                                                   (i.e., 178 tpd minus 81 tpd) for the                        corresponding ‘‘VMT Offset Ceiling’’
                                                8-hour ozone standard) reflects the
                                                                                                                   purposes of the revised VMT emissions                       emissions, the State concluded that the
                                                emissions reductions from TCSs and
                                                                                                                   offset demonstration for the 1-hour                         demonstration shows compliance with
                                                TCMs put in place by the end of 2002
                                                                                                                   ozone standard, and 21 tpd (i.e., 49 tpd                    the VMT emissions offset requirement
                                                whereas the former value (used for the
                                                                                                                   minus 28 tpd) for the purposes of the                       and that there are sufficient adopted
                                                revised demonstration for the 1-hour
                                                                                                                   corresponding demonstration for the 8-                      TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in
                                                ozone standard) reflects only the
                                                                                                                   hour ozone standard. These                                  emissions from the growth in VMT and
                                                emissions reductions from TCSs and
                                                                                                                   hypothetical differences establish the                      vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                TCMs put in place by the end of 1990.
                                                                                                                   levels of VMT growth-caused emissions                       for both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
                                                The most significant of the measures
                                                                                                                   that need to be offset by the                               standards. In fact, taking into account of
                                                adopted since 1990 and relied upon for
                                                                                                                   combination of post-baseline year TCMs                      the creditable post-baseline year TCMs
                                                the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset
                                                demonstration include tiered (series of                                                                                        and TCSs, the State showed that they
                                                                                                                      34 The docket for today’s action includes an
                                                increasingly stringent limits) emissions                                                                                       offset the hypothetical differences by
                                                                                                                   updated list of the post-1990 transportation control
                                                standards for new motor vehicles (i.e.,                            strategies in attachment A of appendix D to the
                                                                                                                                                                               148 tpd for the 1-hour standard and by
                                                Low Emissions Vehicles I, II, and III                              2013 Ozone Plan.                                            25 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standards,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:51 Jan 14, 2016       Jkt 238001      PO 00000    Frm 00047   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM     15JAP1


                                                2158                     Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

                                                rather than merely the required 97 tpd                     • Attainment demonstration as                       Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
                                                and 21 tpd, respectively.35                              meeting the requirements of CAA                       1999);
                                                                                                         section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR                         • Is not an economically significant
                                                3. Proposed Action on the VMT                                                                                  regulatory action based on health or
                                                                                                         51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12);
                                                Emissions Offset Demonstrations                            • ROP contingency measures as                       safety risks subject to Executive Order
                                                   Based on our review of revised San                    meeting the requirements of CAA                       13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                                                Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset                      sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR                            • Is not a significant regulatory action
                                                demonstrations in appendix D of the                      51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and                 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
                                                2013 Ozone Plan and the related                            • Provisions for clean fuels or                     28355, May 22, 2001);
                                                technical supplement, we find the                        advanced control technology for boilers                  • Is not subject to requirements of
                                                State’s analysis to be acceptable and                    as meeting the requirements of CAA                    Section 12(d) of the National
                                                agree that the State has adopted                         section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR                          Technology Transfer and Advancement
                                                sufficient TCSs and TCMs to offset the                   51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).                      Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
                                                growth in emissions from growth in                         The EPA is also proposing to approve                application of those requirements would
                                                VMT and vehicle trips in the San                         the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the                    be inconsistent with the CAA; and
                                                Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 1-                specified requirements for the revoked                   • Does not provide the EPA with the
                                                hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone                         1-hour ozone standard and the revoked                 discretionary authority to address
                                                standards. As such, we find that the                     1997 8-hour ozone standard:                           disproportionate human health or
                                                revised San Joaquin Valley VMT                             • VMT emissions offset                              environmental effects with practical,
                                                emissions offset demonstrations comply                   demonstrations as meeting the                         appropriate, and legally permissible
                                                with the VMT emissions offset                            requirements of CAA section                           methods under Executive Order 12898
                                                requirement in CAA section                               182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1)                 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
                                                182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we propose                      and 51.1100(o)(10).                                      Executive Order 13175, entitled
                                                approval of the revised San Joaquin                        The EPA is soliciting public                        ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
                                                Valley VMT emissions offset                              comments on the issues discussed in                   Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
                                                demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone                      this document or on other relevant                    67249, November 9, 2000), requires the
                                                and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a                     matters. We will accept comments from                 EPA to develop an accountable process
                                                                                                         the public on this proposal for the next              to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
                                                revision to the California SIP.
                                                                                                         30 days. We will consider these                       by tribal officials in the development of
                                                IV. Proposed Action                                      comments before taking final action.                  regulatory policies that have tribal
                                                  For the reasons discussed above, the                                                                         implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal
                                                                                                         V. Statutory and Executive Order                      implications’’ is defined in the
                                                EPA is proposing to approve, under
                                                                                                         Reviews                                               Executive Order to include regulations
                                                CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB’s
                                                submittal dated December 20, 2013 of                        Under the CAA, the Administrator is                that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
                                                the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan                   required to approve a SIP submission                  one or more Indian tribes, on the
                                                as a revision to the California SIP.36 In                that complies with the provisions of the              relationship between the Federal
                                                so doing, the EPA is proposing to                        Act and applicable Federal regulations.               government and the Indian tribes, or on
                                                approve the following elements of the                    42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).                   the distribution of power and
                                                plan as meeting the specified                            Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the               responsibilities between the Federal
                                                requirements for the revoked 1-hour                      EPA’s role is to approve State choices,               government and Indian Tribes.’’
                                                ozone standard:                                          provided that they meet the criteria of                  Eight Indian tribes are located within
                                                  • RACM demonstration as meeting                        the CAA. Accordingly, this action                     the boundaries of the San Joaquin
                                                the requirements of CAA section                          merely proposes to approve a state plan               Valley air quality planning area for the
                                                172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and                   as meeting Federal requirements and                   1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone
                                                51.1100(o)(17);                                          does not impose additional                            standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of
                                                  • ROP demonstrations as meeting the                    requirements beyond those imposed by                  Mono Indians of California, the Cold
                                                requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2)                    State law. For that reason, this proposed             Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of
                                                and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR                             action:                                               California, the North Fork Rancheria of
                                                51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4);                            • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory                Mono Indians of California, the
                                                                                                         action’’ subject to review by the Office              Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi
                                                   35 The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from       of Management and Budget under                        Indians of California, the Santa Rosa
                                                the TCSs and TCMs put in place after the respective      Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,                   Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the
                                                base year can be determined by subtracting the           October 4, 1993);                                     Table Mountain Rancheria of California,
                                                ‘‘projected actual’’ emissions estimates from the ‘‘no
                                                action’’ emissions estimates in tables 5 and 6. For         • Does not impose an information                   the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule
                                                the purposes of the 1-hour ozone demonstration,          collection burden under the provisions                River Indian Tribe of the Tule River
                                                the offsetting emissions reductions, 148 tpd (178        of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44                    Reservation.
                                                tpd minus 30 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions        U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);                                    The EPA’s proposed approval of the
                                                from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (97 tpd). For
                                                the purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration,
                                                                                                            • Is certified as not having a                     various SIP elements submitted by
                                                the offsetting emissions reductions, 25 tpd (49 tpd      significant economic impact on a                      CARB to address the 1-hour ozone and
                                                minus 24 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from       substantial number of small entities                  1997 8-hours ozone standards in the San
                                                growth in VMT and vehicle trips (21 tpd).                under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5               Joaquin Valley would not have tribal
                                                   36 In our final action, we also intend to remove
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                         U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                  implications because the SIP is not
                                                a certain paragraph from the ‘‘Identification of
                                                Plan’’ section of 40 CFR part 52 for the State of           • Does not contain any unfunded                    approved to apply on any Indian
                                                California. In withdrawing our approval of the 2004      mandate or significantly or uniquely                  reservation land or in any other area
                                                Ozone Plan, as revised and clarified, 77 FR 70376        affect small governments, as described                where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
                                                (November 26, 2012), we inadvertently failed to          in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                   demonstrated that a tribe has
                                                remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which codified our
                                                March 8, 2010 final approval of the ‘‘2008               of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                              jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
                                                Clarifications’’ for the 2004 San Joaquin Valley (1-        • Does not have Federalism                         country, the proposed SIP approvals do
                                                hour ozone) plan.                                        implications as specified in Executive                not have tribal implications and will not


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00048   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules                                                 2159

                                                impose substantial direct costs on tribal               revisions update the emissions fee for                 direct final rule without prior proposal
                                                governments or preempt tribal law as                    permitted sources as set by Missouri                   because the Agency views this as a
                                                specified by Executive Order 13175 (65                  Statute from $40 to $48 per ton of air                 noncontroversial revision amendment
                                                FR 67249, November 9, 2000).                            pollution emitted annually, effective                  and anticipates no relevant adverse
                                                Therefore, the EPA has concluded that                   January 1, 2016.                                       comments to this action. A detailed
                                                the proposed action will not have tribal                DATES: Comments on this proposed                       rationale for the approval is set forth in
                                                implications for the purposes of                        action must be received in writing by                  the direct final rule. If no relevant
                                                Executive Order 13175, and would not                    February 16, 2016.                                     adverse comments are received in
                                                impose substantial direct costs upon the                ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,                       response to this action, no further
                                                tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law.                identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–                   activity is contemplated in relation to
                                                We note that none of the tribes located                 OAR–2015–0790, to http://                              this action. If EPA receives relevant
                                                in the San Joaquin Valley has requested                 www.regulations.gov. Follow the online                 adverse comments, the direct final rule
                                                eligibility to administer programs under                instructions for submitting comments.                  will be withdrawn and all public
                                                the CAA.                                                Once submitted, comments cannot be                     comments received will be addressed in
                                                List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                      edited or removed from Regulations.gov.                a subsequent final rule based on this
                                                                                                        The EPA may publish any comment                        proposed action. EPA will not institute
                                                  Environmental protection, Air                                                                                a second comment period on this action.
                                                                                                        received to its public docket. Do not
                                                pollution control, Incorporation by                                                                            Any parties interested in commenting
                                                                                                        submit electronically any information
                                                reference, Intergovernmental                                                                                   on this action should do so at this time.
                                                                                                        you consider to be Confidential
                                                regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,                                                                          Please note that if EPA receives adverse
                                                                                                        Business Information (CBI) or other
                                                Reporting and recordkeeping                                                                                    comment on part of this rule and if that
                                                                                                        information whose disclosure is
                                                requirements, Volatile organic                                                                                 part can be severed from the remainder
                                                                                                        restricted by statute. Multimedia
                                                compounds.                                                                                                     of the rule, EPA may adopt as final
                                                                                                        submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
                                                   Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                    accompanied by a written comment.                      those parts of the rule that are not the
                                                   Dated: December 24, 2015.                            The written comment is considered the                  subject of an adverse comment. For
                                                Alexis Strauss,                                         official comment and should include                    additional information, see the direct
                                                                                                        discussion of all points you wish to                   final rule which is located in the rules
                                                Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
                                                9.                                                      make. The EPA will generally not                       section of this Federal Register.
                                                [FR Doc. 2016–00089 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am]             consider comments or comment                           List of Subjects
                                                BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                                                                        contents located outside of the primary
                                                                                                        submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or                 40 CFR Part 52
                                                                                                        other file sharing system). For                          Environmental protection, Air
                                                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                additional submission methods, the full                pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
                                                AGENCY                                                  EPA public comment policy,                             Incorporation by reference,
                                                                                                        information about CBI or multimedia                    Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
                                                40 CFR Parts 52 and 70                                  submissions, and general guidance on                   Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
                                                [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0790; FRL–9941–02–                    making effective comments, please visit                matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
                                                Region 7]                                               http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/                           requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
                                                                                                        commenting-epa-dockets.                                organic compounds.
                                                Approval of Missouri’s Air Quality                      FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                Implementation Plans; Reporting                         Stephen Krabbe, Environmental                          40 CFR Part 70
                                                Emission Data, Emission Fees and                        Protection Agency, Air Planning and
                                                Process Information                                                                                              Administrative practice and
                                                                                                        Development Branch, 11201 Renner                       procedure, Air pollution control,
                                                AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                       Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at                     Intergovernmental relations, Operating
                                                Agency (EPA).                                           913–551–7991, or by email at                           permits, Reporting and recordkeeping
                                                                                                        krabbe.stephen@epa.gov.                                requirements.
                                                ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                                                                        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
                                                                                                                                                                 Dated: December 23, 2015.
                                                SUMMARY:   The Environmental Protection                 final rules section of this Federal
                                                Agency (EPA) proposes to approve                        Register, EPA is approving the state’s                 Mark Hague,
                                                revisions to the Operating Permits                      Title V revision to 10 C.S.R. 10–6.110                 Regional Administrator, Region 7.
                                                Program for the State of Missouri                       ‘‘Reporting Emission Data, Emission                    [FR Doc. 2016–00190 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am]
                                                submitted on March 16, 2015. These                      Fees, and Process Information’’ as a                   BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:51 Jan 14, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00049   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM   15JAP1



Document Created: 2018-02-02 12:31:49
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 12:31:49
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesAny comments must arrive by February 16, 2016.
ContactJohn Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972- 3963, [email protected]
FR Citation81 FR 2140 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Regulations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR