Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA, 61381-61393 [E8-24416]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Judy
Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–140S, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6497; fax
(425) 917–6590; has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October
6, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–24579 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693; FRL–8729–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone
Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin
Valley, CA
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
state implementation plan revisions
submitted by the State of California to
meet the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements applicable to the San
Joaquin Valley (SJV), California 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. These
requirements applied to the SJV
following its reclassification from severe
to extreme for the 1-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard on April
16, 2004. Although EPA subsequently
revoked the 1-hour ozone standard
effective June 15, 2005, the requirement
to submit a plan for that standard
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
remains in effect for the SJV. EPA is
proposing to approve the SIP revisions
for the SJV as meeting applicable CAA
requirements except for the provision
addressing the reasonably available
control technology requirements that
the State has withdrawn.
DATES: Comments may be submitted
until November 17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2008–0693, by one of the
following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this
electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
3. E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov
4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office
of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://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 the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or
e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous
access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61381
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9,
415–972–3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov
or https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air
quality planning in the SJV?
B. What are the elements in the new plan?
C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply
to this extreme area 1-hour ozone plan?
II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion
of the Final 2003 State Strategy and the
2008 SIP Clarification
A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the
CAA procedural requirements?
B. Do the baseline and projected emissions
inventories meet CAA requirements?
C. Is the air quality modeling consistent
with the CAA and EPA’s modeling
guidelines?
D. Do the control measures meet CAA
requirements?
E. Does the plan show the CAA-required
rate of progress?
F. Does the plan provide for attainment by
the CAA-required deadline?
G. Do the contingency measures meet CAA
requirements?
H. Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets
approvable?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone
air quality planning in the SJV?
The San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area (SJV) includes the
following counties in California’s
central valley: San Joaquin, part of Kern,
Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Stanislaus and Tulare. 40 CFR 81.305.
Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, the SJV was classified
by operation of law as a serious
nonattainment area with an attainment
date of no later than November 15, 1999.
56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On
November 15, 1994, the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) submitted ‘‘The
1994 California State Implementation
Plan for Ozone’’ (1994 SIP), a
comprehensive ozone plan for the State
of California that included a local
nonattainment plan developed for the
SJV by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or
the District). On January 8, 1997, EPA
approved the 1994 SIP. 62 FR 1150.
On November 8, 2001, EPA found that
the SJV had failed to attain the 1-hour
ozone standard by the serious area
deadline of November 15, 1999 and
reclassified the area by operation of law
to severe. 66 FR 56476. In the final
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61382
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
reclassification action to severe, EPA
explained that the State would need to
submit by May 31, 2002 a SIP revision
addressing the severe area requirements
including, but not limited to, a
demonstration of attainment of the 1hour ozone standard by November 15,
2005 and a rate of progress (ROP)
demonstration of creditable ozone
precursor emission reductions of at least
3 percent per year until attainment. Id.
On October 2, 2002, EPA found that
the State failed to submit by May 31,
2002 several severe area SIP revisions
for the SJV including a demonstration of
attainment and a ROP demonstration. 67
FR 61784. The State subsequently
requested a reclassification to extreme
and submitted all of the severe area
requirements except for the attainment
demonstration. See 69 FR 8126
(February 23, 2004).1 On April 16, 2004,
EPA granted the State’s request to
voluntarily reclassify the SJV from a
severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area and required the
State to submit by November 15, 2004
an extreme area plan providing for the
attainment of the ozone standard as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than November 15, 2010. 69 FR 20550.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
B. What are the elements in the new
plan?
The SJVAPCD adopted the ‘‘Extreme
Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan’’
on October 8, 2004 and amended it on
October 20, 2005 to, among other things,
substitute for the original chapter a new
‘‘Chapter 4: Control Strategy.’’ The State
submitted the plan (with the exception
of Chapter 8 2) and amendment on
November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006,
respectively. See letters from Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri,
EPA, November 15, 2004 and March 6,
2006. The plan and amendment,
collectively, will be referred to as the
‘‘2004 SIP’’ in this proposed rule. The
2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements
for extreme 1-hour ozone areas,
1 The submittals included the District’s
‘‘Amended 2002 and 2005 Ozone Rate of Progress
Plan for the San Joaquin Valley’’ (submitted April
10, 2003 and found complete on September 4,
2003). On July 10, 2003, we found adequate for
transportation conformity purposes the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) in this plan.
Letter, Jack P. Broadbent, EPA Region 9 to Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, July 10, 2003. A table attached
to the letter summarized our adequacy
determination. Our notice of adequacy for these
budgets was published in the Federal Register on
July 24, 2003 at 68 FR 43724 and was effective 15
days later, on August 8, 2003.
2 Chapter 8 ‘‘California Clean Air Act Triennial
Progress Report and Plan Review’’ was included in
the plan to meet a State requirement to report every
three years on the area’s progress toward meeting
California’s air quality standards. Nothing in the
chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air
Act requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
including emission inventories,
modeling, control measures,
contingency measures, and ROP and
attainment demonstrations.
The 2004 SIP relies in part on the
‘‘Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation
Plan,’’ which identifies ARB’s
regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and
particulate matter in California and
includes defined statewide control
measures to be reflected in future SIPs
and provisions specific to air quality
plans for the San Joaquin Valley. On
October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the
‘‘Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation
Plan,’’ which consists of two elements:
(1) The Proposed 2003 State and Federal
Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan (released August
25, 2003); and (2) ARB Board Resolution
03–22 which approves the Proposed
2003 State and Federal Strategy with the
revisions to that Strategy set forth in
Attachment A. On January 9, 2004, ARB
submitted to EPA the ‘‘Final 2003 State
and Federal Strategy for the California
State Implementation Plan.’’ Letter from
Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004.3
In this proposed rule we refer to the
two documents comprising the ‘‘Final
State and Federal Strategy for the
California State Implementation Plan’’
after the withdrawal of the South Coast
portions, collectively, as the ‘‘Final 2003
State Strategy’’ or individually as the
‘‘State Strategy’’ and ‘‘ARB Resolution
03–22’’, respectively.
On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD
adopted ‘‘Clarifications Regarding the
2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan’’ (2008 SIP
Clarification). The State submitted the
2008 SIP Clarification on September 5,
2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene,
ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with
enclosures, September 5, 2008. The
2008 SIP Clarification provides updates
to the 2004 SIP related to RACT, control
measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the
rate of progress demonstration, and
contingency measures.
C. What Clean Air Act requirements
apply to this extreme area 1-hour ozone
plan?
The requirements for extreme 1-hour
ozone areas are found in section 182 of
3 On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA
consideration specified portions of the ‘‘Final 2003
State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan’’ as they relate to the 2003 SIP
for the South Coast Air Basin. These withdrawals
do not affect the 2003 Strategy as it relates
specifically to the San Joaquin Valley. Letter from
James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA,
February 13, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the CAA and the general planning and
control requirements for nonattainment
plans are found in sections 110 and 172.
These requirements are discussed in
Section II of this proposed rule. EPA has
issued a General Preamble describing
our preliminary views on how the
Agency intends to review SIPs
submitted to meet the CAA’s
requirements for 1-hour ozone plans.
‘‘General Preamble for Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.’’ 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992). EPA has also issued
other guidance documents related to 1hour ozone plans which we cited as
necessary when discussing our
evaluation of the 2004 SIP.
In an April 30, 2004 final rule, EPA
designated and classified most areas of
the country under the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10.
69 FR 23858. On April 30, 2004, EPA
also issued a final rule entitled ‘‘Final
Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard—Phase 1’’ (Phase 1 Rule). 69
FR 23951. Among other matters, this
rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in the SJV (as well as in most other areas
of the country), effective June 15, 2005.
See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and
70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). The
Phase 1 Rule also set forth antibacksliding principles to ensure
continued progress toward attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying
which 1-hour requirements remain
applicable in an area after revocation of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the
requirements not retained was the
requirement to implement contingency
measures pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to
make reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS
or for failure to attain that NAAQS. See
69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR
30592 (May 26, 2005).
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Rule.
South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir.
2006). Subsequently, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007) in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts
of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. With respect to the
challenges to the anti-backsliding
provisions of the rule (codified in 40
CFR 51.905), the court vacated several
provisions that would have allowed
states to remove from the SIP or to not
adopt several 1-hour obligations once
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked,
among them, contingency measures to
be implemented pursuant to CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)–
(c) remain in effect and areas must
continue to meet those anti-backsliding
requirements for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. However, the contingency
measure provision noted previously,
which is specified in 51.905(e), was
vacated by the court. As a result, states
must continue to meet the obligation for
1-hour ozone contingency measures.
II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV
Elements of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification
A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the
CAA procedural requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
CAA section 110 requires SIP
submissions to be adopted by the state
after reasonable notice and public
hearing. EPA has promulgated specific
requirements for SIP submissions in 40
CFR part 51, subpart F.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
The District provided the requisite
notice and public comment periods
prior to adoption of the 2004 SIP and
2008 SIP Clarification. The State
provided the requisite notice and public
comment period prior to adoption of the
2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and
2008 SIP Clarification. See January 9,
2004, November 15, 2004 and March 6,
2006 letters from Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri,
EPA, with enclosures and September 5,
2008 letter from James. N. Goldstene to
Wayne Nastri, with enclosures.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
procedural requirements for SIP
submissions?
The submittal packages for the 2004
SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and 2008
SIP Clarification include evidence of
public notice and hearing, District and
ARB responses to public comments, and
evidence of District and ARB adoption.
Based on our review of these materials,
we find that the procedural
requirements of CAA section 110 and 40
CFR part 51, subpart F have been met.
4. Are the plan submittals complete?
CAA section 110(k)(1) requires EPA to
determine whether a plan is complete
within 60 days of receipt and any plan
that has not been determined to be
complete or incomplete within 6
months shall be deemed complete by
operation of law. EPA’s completeness
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart V.
The 2004 SIP, comprised of the
original and subsequent amendment,
was deemed complete by operation of
law on May 15, 2005 and September 6,
2006. On February 18, 2004, we
determined the Final 2003 State
Strategy to be complete. Letter from
Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Catherine
Witherspoon, CARB, February 18, 2004.
We found the 2008 SIP Clarification
complete on September 23, 2008. Letter
from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to James N.
Goldstene, ARB, September 23, 2008.
B. Do the baseline and projected
emission inventories meet CAA
requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1)
require nonattainment areas to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources, in accordance with guidance
provided by EPA. The inventory is to
represent weekday emissions during the
ozone season. General Preamble at
13502. EPA guidance for 1-hour ozone
SIP emission inventories includes, in
addition to the General Preamble:
‘‘Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone,
Volume I: General Guidance for
Stationary Sources,’’ EPA—450/4–91–
016; and ‘‘Procedures for Emission
Inventory Preparation, Volume IV:
Mobile Sources,’’ EPA—450/5–91–026d
Revised.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
Chapter 3 of the 2004 SIP presents the
baseline and projected emission
inventories. This chapter also discusses
the methodology used to determine
1999 emissions and identifies the
growth and control factors used to
project emissions for the 2000 baseline
inventory and the 2008 and 2010
projected year inventories. The plan
presents weekday summer inventories
for 2000, 2008 and 2010 for all major
source categories. Emissions are
calculated for the two major ozone
precursors—oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds
(VOC)—as well as for the less significant
precursor, carbon monoxide (CO). 2004
SIP at Table 3–1. Motor vehicle
emissions were based on estimates of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided
by the regional transportation planning
agencies and the California Department
of Transportation. The plan uses ARB’s
EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2002,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61383
version 2.2, to calculate the emission
factors for cars, trucks and buses. On
April 1, 2003, we approved EMFAC
2002 for use in SIP development. 68 FR
15720.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
provisions for the emission inventories?
We have determined that the emission
inventories in the 2004 SIP were
comprehensive, accurate, and current at
the time the SIP was submitted.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the
emissions inventories in the 2004 SIP as
consistent with the CAA and applicable
EPA guidelines.
C. Is the air quality modeling consistent
with the CAA and EPA’s modeling
guidelines?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions and EPA’s guidelines?
Areas classified as extreme for the 1hour ozone standard such as the SJV
must demonstrate attainment ‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable’’ but not
later than November 15, 2010 as
specified in CAA section 181(a). For
purposes of demonstrating attainment,
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires
extreme areas to use photochemical grid
modeling or an analytical method EPA
determines to be as effective.
EPA guidance identifies the features
of a modeling analysis that are essential
to obtain credible results.4 The
photochemical grid modeling analysis is
performed for days when the
meteorological conditions are conducive
to the formation of ozone. For purposes
of developing the information to put
into the model, the state must select
days in the past with elevated ozone
levels that are representative of the
ozone pollution problem in the
nonattainment area and a modeling
domain that encompasses the
nonattainment area. The state must then
develop both meteorological data
describing atmospheric conditions for
the selected days and an emission
inventory to evaluate the model’s ability
to reproduce the monitored air quality
values. Finally, the state needs to verify
4 EPA has issued the following guidance
regarding air quality modeling used to demonstrate
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Guideline
for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed
Model,’’ EPA–450/4–91–013 (July 1991); ‘‘Guidance
on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,’’ EPA–454/B–95–
007 (June 1996); ‘‘Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-ofEvidence for Attainment Demonstrations, MidCourse Review Guidance’’ (March 28, 2002); and
‘‘Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence
Through Identification of Additional Emission
Reductions Not Modeled’’ (Nov 99). Copies of these
documents may be found on EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram and in the docket for
this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61384
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
that the model is properly simulating
the chemistry and atmospheric
conditions through diagnostic analyses
and model performance tests.
Once these steps are satisfactorily
completed, the model can be used to
generate future year air quality estimates
to support an attainment demonstration.
A future-year emissions inventory,
which includes growth and controls
through the attainment year, is
developed for input to the model to
predict air quality in the attainment
year.
For the 1-hour ozone standard, the
modeled attainment test compares
model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum
ozone concentrations in all grid cells for
the attainment year to the level of the
NAAQS. For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
a predicted concentration above 0.124
parts per million (ppm) indicates that
the area is expected to exceed the
standard in the attainment year and a
prediction at or below 0.124 ppm
indicates that the area is expected to
attain the standard.
Attainment is demonstrated when all
predicted concentrations inside the
modeling domain are at or below the
NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit
above the NAAQS permitted under
certain conditions by EPA’s guidance.
When the predicted concentrations are
above the NAAQS, a weight of evidence
determination, which incorporates other
analyses such as air quality and
emissions trends, may be used to
address the uncertainty inherent in the
application of photochemical grid
models.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
EPA recommended that states use the
Urban Airshed Model (UAM) version IV
as the ozone model of choice for the
grid-point modeling required by the
CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstrations.5 Other models are
allowed if the state shows that they are
scientifically valid and they perform
(i.e., are just as reliable) as well as, or
better than, UAM IV. California selected
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions (CAMx) based on
slightly better performance for the SJV
than the other tested models. Details on
the model and its selection can be found
in Appendix D to the 2004 SIP. The
meteorological modeling was based on a
hybrid approach, using the Meso-scale
Model 5 (MM5) and Calmet models,
because of the ability of this modeling
system to reproduce the measured
5 EPA has not recommended a model for
attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
design value near the Fresno monitoring
site.
Information on how the CAMX
modeling meets EPA guidance is
summarized here and detailed in the
State’s submittals. 2004 SIP at Chapter
5 and Appendix D. The air quality
modeling domain extends from the
Oregon border in the north to Los
Angeles County in the south, and from
the Pacific Ocean in the west to Nevada
in the east.
EPA’s Guideline on the use of
photochemical grid models
recommends that areas model three or
more episodes, including the types of
weather conditions most conducive to
ozone formation. The final
photochemical grid modeling submitted
by California focused on the CAMx
modeling for one several day episode,
July 27 to August 2, 2000. This episode
represents high measured ozone, with a
peak measured concentration of 151
parts per billion (ppb) at Bakersfield on
August 2, 2000. The episode was typical
of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the
highest potential for ozone formation) of
episodes in the San Joaquin Valley.
The CAMx model was run using the
MM5/CALMET meteorological
processor with State emission
inventories for the 2000 base year and
with projected emissions representing
grown and controlled emissions for the
attainment year. The projected 2010
emissions inventory was developed for
modeling simulations and included the
effects of projected growth and control
measures, as discussed in section II.B.
above.
The CAMx simulation for July 30,
with the emission inventory for the year
2010, was used to develop targets for
reduction of VOC and NOX in the
attainment year.
3. Does the air quality modeling meet
EPA’s modeling guidelines?
EPA has established the following
guidelines for model performance:
unpaired peak ratio 0.80–1.2,
normalized bias +/¥15%, and gross
error less than 35%. The model
performance is presented in Appendix
D to the 2004 SIP for the Fresno and
Bakersfield areas, representing areas of
highest 1-hour ozone levels in the SJV
and shows that the CAMx model
predicts ozone within the quality limits
set by EPA guidance on most days for
most subregions of the modeling
domain. On those days for which a
subregion had peak measured ozone
concentrations above 125 ppb, the
model performance meets the EPA
criteria.
We conclude that the modeling is
consistent with the CAA and EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
modeling guidance; therefore, we
propose to approve the modeling
analysis that underlies the attainment
demonstration in the 2004 SIP. We
discuss the attainment demonstration in
more detail later in this proposed rule.
See also ‘‘Technical Support Document
for the Extreme One-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan Modeling for the San
Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area,’’
EPA Region 9, September 2008, found
in the docket for this proposed rule.
D. Do the control measures meet CAA
requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
The CAA section 172(c)(1) requires
nonattainment area plans to provide for
the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures (RACM)
including reasonably available control
technology (RACT). 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. In summary, EPA guidance
requires 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.
Under the CAA, RACT is required for
major VOC sources and for all VOC
source categories for which EPA has
issued Control Techniques Guideline
(CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has
issued Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) documents to help states in
making RACT determinations. CAA
sections 172(c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A),
182(b)(2), and 183(a) and (b). CAA
section 182(f) requires that RACT also
apply to major stationary sources of
NOX. In extreme areas, such as the SJV,
a major source is one that emits or has
the potential to emit 10 tons of VOC or
NOX per year. CAA section 182(e).
The CAA also requires that SIPs
‘‘shall include enforceable emission
limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques * * * as
well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for attainment
* * * by the applicable attainment date.
* * *’’ CAA section 172(c)(6). CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) contains almost
identical language.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Finally, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
requires that extreme areas submit
transportation control measures (TCMs)
sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in VMT or the
number of vehicle trips, and to provide
(along with other measures) the
reductions needed to meet ROP. EPA
interprets this CAA provision to allow
areas to meet the requirement by
demonstrating that emissions from
motor vehicles decline each year
through the attainment year. General
Preamble at 13522.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
a. RACM
To determine which measures would
be feasible for the SJV, the District
looked at measures implemented in
other areas (including the South Coast
Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area,
and the Houston-Galveston area),
documents produced by ARB, as well as
measures suggested by the public at
workshops. The District then screened
the identified measures and rejected
those that affected few or no sources in
the SJV, had already been adopted as
rules or were in the process of being
adopted. The remaining measures were
evaluated using baseline inventories,
available control technologies, and
potential emission reductions as well as
whether the measure could be
implemented on a schedule that would
contribute to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard by the deadline of 2010.
2004 SIP at section 4.2.1.
Based on this evaluation, the District
developed an expeditious rule adoption
schedule listing 21 measures involving
adoption of eight new rules and
revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004
SIP, Table 4–1. Since submittal of the
SIP in 2004, the District has completed
action on all of these rules and
submitted all except one of the adopted
rules to EPA for approval. 2008 SIP
Clarification, Table 1 and Table 1
below.6
In addition to the District’s efforts, the
eight San Joaquin Valley Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies
(RPTAs) also conducted a RACM
evaluation for transportation sources.
This evaluation, described in section
4.6.3. of the 2004 SIP, resulted in
extensive local government
commitments to implement programs to
6 The current set of the District’s adopted
regulations is available at: https://www.valleyair.org/
rules/1ruleslist.htm. The current status of EPA
approval of the District’s rules is posted at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&
count=500&state=California&cat=
San+Joaquin+Valley+Unified+APCD-Agency-Wide+
Provisions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
reduce auto travel and improve traffic
flow. 2004 SIP at section 4.6 and
Appendix C. The local governments also
provide reasoned justifications for any
measures that they did not adopt. See
2004 SIP at Appendix C.
The 2004 SIP relies on the Final 2003
State Strategy to address mobile and
area source categories not under the
District’s jurisdiction. 2004 SIP at
section 4.7. Table I–1 in the State
Strategy shows the impressive list of
both mobile and area source measures
that have been adopted by California
between 1994 and 2003, along with the
mobile source rules that have been
adopted by EPA during this period.
Table I–2 lists proposed new State
measures, most of which have already
been adopted.7 This list of new State
measures was developed through a
public process intended to identify and
refine new emission reductions
strategies for California. State Strategy at
ES–5.
b. RACT
The 2004 SIP includes a brief section
4.2.5 discussing the RACT obligation
and specific source categories where
further analysis and potential future
controls may be required in order to
ensure that RACT levels of control are
applied to sources down to the 10 tons
per year (tpy) level. The District
concluded that only a few categories
would need additional work, since the
District’s existing rules already applied
a stringent degree of control to sources
with relatively low levels of emissions.
Subsequently, the District adopted, on
August 17, 2006, and the State
submitted on January 31, 2007, an 8hour ozone RACT SIP addressing
sources down to the 25 tpy size. In
submitting the 2008 SIP Clarification,
the State formally withdrew the RACT
portion of the 2004 SIP, specifically
section 4.2.5, stating that the District
would fill the resulting 1-hour ozone
RACT gap with the revised 8-hour
ozone RACT SIP now under further
development. The District intends to
address sources down to the 10 tpy level
of emissions in this revised 8-hour
RACT SIP. 2008 SIP Clarification, page
3. Because the State has withdrawn this
portion of the 2004 SIP and has not yet
submitted a revised RACT SIP to
address the extreme area requirements,
we are not acting on RACT in this
action.
7 See chapter 3 (page 38) of the ‘‘Air Resources
Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s
2007 State Implementation Plan,’’ Revised Draft
(Release date: April 26, 2007) for a list of adopted
State measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61385
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other
Control Measures
i. Adopted Regulations
The 2004 SIP’s modeling analysis
determined that attainment of the 1hour ozone standard required reducing
2000 baseline emissions from 556.8 tons
per day (tpd) NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC
to 343.5 tpd NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC.
2004 SIP at 3–7 through 3–11 and 5–9
through 5–12 and ‘‘Proposed 2004 State
Implementation Plan for Ozone in the
San Joaquin Valley,’’ September 28,
2004, Air Resources Board Staff Report
(ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP) at
Table III–6.
As shown in Table 3 below, of the
213.3 tpd NOX and 129.1 tpd VOC
needed for attainment, approximately
160 tpd of NOX and 78.4 tpd of VOC
reductions come from rules and
regulations that were already adopted
when the plan was submitted in 2004.
ii. Commitments
The 2004 SIP contains both State and
District commitments to adopt control
measures to achieve specified emissions
reductions. The Final 2003 State
Strategy, adopted prior to the 2004 SIP,
includes an enforceable commitment to
reduce NOX emissions in the SJV by 10
tpd by 2010.8 State Strategy at I–24
through I–26. Possible measures to
achieve these reductions are described
and listed in the State Strategy at I–14
through I–26 and ARB Resolution 03–
22, Attachment A. The State Strategy
also states that beyond its emission
reduction commitment, new
commitments to achieve further VOC 9
and NOX reductions would be needed
for the future SJV 1-hour ozone plan
(which the SJVAPCD and ARB
subsequently adopted as the 2004 SIP)
and would be considered as part of that
plan. State Strategy at I–26. To that end,
the 2004 SIP incorporates the Final 2003
State Strategy as it applies to the SJV
and includes an additional commitment
by the State to achieve by 2010
emissions reductions of 10 tpd NOX and
15 tpd VOC.
Although the Final 2003 State
Strategy identifies possible control
measures that could deliver these
reductions, the State’s commitment is
only to achieve these NOX and VOC
emission reductions in the aggregate by
2010. Thus, the State’s total enforceable
8 The State Strategy makes clear that this
commitment was intended for immediate inclusion
in the 2003 PM–10 plan for the San Joaquin Valley
and for later inclusion in the 1-hour ozone plan for
the SJV. State Strategy at I–23 and I–26.
9 The State uses the term ‘‘reactive organic gases’’
(ROG) in its documents. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, VOC and ROG are interchangeable.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61386
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
commitments in the 2004 SIP are to
achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC
emission reductions in the aggregate by
2010. See State Strategy at I–7 through
I–9 and I–26; ARB Board Resolution 04–
29, October 28, 2004; ARB Staff Report
for the 2004 SIP at 29–30; 2004 SIP at
section 4.7 (including Table 4–3 which
duplicates Table I–2 in the State
Strategy).10
In the 2004 SIP, the District commits
to adopt specific rules by specified dates
(quarter and year), to submit the rules
within one month of adoption to ARB
for submittal to EPA, and to achieve
from each measure the specified
reductions in 2010. 2004 SIP at Table 4–
1 and SJVAPCD Resolution No. 5–10–12
(October 20, 2005) p. 4, item 9. This
information is updated in Table 1 of the
2008 SIP Clarification which shows not
only the original commitment in the
2004 SIP but also the date on which the
District adopted the rule associated with
each commitment and the actual
emissions reductions achieved by each
rule. A summary of the information
found in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification is presented in our Table 1.
Table 1 below also gives the date the
rule was submitted to EPA or the date
on which EPA approved the rule into
the SIP.
TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2004 EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT PLAN ‘‘NEW
MEASURE’’ COMMITMENTS
2004 SIP
commitment
(2010–tpd)
Rule #, description and commitment ID from 2004 SIP
Achieved
emission
reductions
(2010–tpd)
Local
adoption
Submittal date or approval
cite/date
NOX Control Measures
9310 Fleet rule-School buses (C) ...........................................
9510, 3180 Indirect Source Mitigation (D) ..............................
4307 Small Boilers (2–5 MMBTU) (E) ....................................
4352 Solid fuel boilers (G) ......................................................
4702 Stat. IC engines (H) .......................................................
4309 Commercial Dryers (I) ....................................................
New Rule 4308—Water Heaters 0.075 (N) ............................
4103 Open Burning (Q) ..........................................................
4703 Sta. Gas Turbines (S) ....................................................
0.1
4.0
1.0
0.0
8.0
1.0
0.2
1.1
0.6
1.6
4.0
5.1
0.0
16.8
0.7
0.8
1.7
1.9
NOX Totals .......................................................................
16.0
32.6
EPA-Approved NOX Reductions .............................................
NOX Reductions Not Approved by EPA .................................
10.2
5.8
9/21/06
12/15/05
4/20/06
5/18/06
1/18/07
12/15/05
10/20/05
5/17/07
8/17/06
12/29/06
12/29/06
72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)
72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
23.4
9.2
71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
6/16/06
8/24/07
3/7/08
10/5/06
12/29/06
VOC Control Measures
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Rule # and Description:
4409 Oil & Gas Fug. (A) ..................................................
4455 Ref. & Chem. Fug. (B) ............................................
4694 Wineries (F) ............................................................
4565 Composting/Biosolids (J) ........................................
4612 Automotive Coating (incorporates Rule 4602) (K)
4570 CAFO Rule (L) ........................................................
4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing (M)
4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning (M)
4603 Metal Parts/Products (M)
4604 Can and Coil Coating (M) .......................................
4605 Aerospace Coating (M)
4606 Wood Products Coating (M)
4607 Graphic Arts (M)
4612 Automotive Coating (M)
4653 Adhesives (M)
4684 Polyester Resin Operation (M)
4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well (O) .................................
4651 Soil Decontamination (P) ........................................
4103 Open Burning (Q) ...................................................
4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. (R) .......................................
4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage & trans. (T & U) .............
VOC totals ................................................................
EPA-Approved VOC Reductions ............................................
VOC Reductions Not Approved by EPA .................................
4.7
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
15.8
5.1
0.3
0.8
0.3
1.0
17.7
4/20/05
4/20/05
12/15/05
3/15/07
9/20/07
6/15/06
1.3
3.1
9/20/07
3/7/08
1.4
<0.5
2.9
0.1
0.9
28.2
4.9
23.3
0.3
0.0
3.9
0.1
1.9
34.5
5.2
29.3
12/14/06
9/20/07
5/17/07
9/20/07
12/20/07
5/8/07
3/7/08
—
3/7/08
3/7/08
In addition to the emission reductions
associated with the rules listed in Table
1 above, the District also commits to
achieve an additional 5 tpd NOX and 5
tpd VOC reductions in aggregate by
10 In these documents the State’s commitment is
sometimes referred to as 20 tpd NOX and sometimes
as 10 tpd NOX. The 20 tpd reference is to ARB’s
commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the Statewide
Strategy and ARB’s additional commitment for 10
tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB
Board Resolution 04–29. See also ARB Staff Report
for the 2004 SIP at 29. The 10 tpd reference is to
ARB’s additional commitment for 10 tpd NOX in
the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB Resolution 04–
29.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61387
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
2010 from long-term measures. 2004 SIP
at Table 5–1.
motor vehicles in the San Joaquin
Valley decline each year from 2000 to
2011. This demonstration is reproduced
in Table 2 below. 2008 SIP Clarification
at 8. The emissions derive from the
emissions inventory used in the
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor
Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
The 2008 SIP Clarification provides a
demonstration that emissions from
modeling analysis for the 2004 SIP, and
so are calculated using EMFAC2002,
version 2.2, and the same transportation
activity projections used in the 2004
SIP.
TABLE 2—BASELINE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS, 2000–2011
[San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, in tons per day]
Year
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
115
223
107
218
100
211
93
201
88
192
82
184
77
176
72
166
67
157
63
148
59
137
54
127
VOC ..........................................................
NOX ..........................................................
Deborah Jordan, EPA to Seyed Sadredin,
SJVAPCD, September 9, 2008.
a. RACM
As described above, the District
evaluated a range of potentially
available measures for inclusion in its
2004 SIP and committed to adopt those
it found to be feasible for attaining the
1-hour standard. The process and the
criteria the District used to select certain
measures and reject others are
consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance.
We also describe above the measure
evaluation process undertaken by the
RPTAs and the local jurisdictions. This
process is also consistent with EPA’s
RACM guidance. Based on our review of
results of these RACM analyses, the
State Strategy, and the resulting
commitments to adopt and implement
controls, 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 SJV. Therefore,
we also propose to find that the 2004
SIP, together with the Final 2003 State
Strategy, provides for the
implementation of RACM as required by
CAA section 172(c)(1). This proposed
finding does not affect the District’s
continuing obligation under the CAA to
implement RACT for its major sources
of VOC and NOX and sources covered
by an EPA CTG document.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
provisions for control measures?
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other
Control Measures
As stated above, measures already
adopted by the District and State
provide the majority of emission
reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment. The balance of the needed
reductions is in the form of enforceable
commitments by the District and ARB.
EPA believes, consistent with past
practice, that the CAA allows approval
of enforceable commitments that are
limited in scope where circumstances
exist that warrant the use of such
commitments in place of adopted
measures.11 Once EPA determines that
b. RACT
As discussed above, the State has
withdrawn the RACT portion of the
2004 Plan with the intent to fill the
resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap with
the revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP now
under further development by the
District. The District intends that this
revised RACT SIP will, among other
things, address sources down to the 10
tpy level of emissions as required for
extreme areas. We agree with the
District and the State that this approach
is an efficient way to deal with the
remaining RACT issues. See Letter,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
11 Commitments approved by EPA under section
110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by EPA and
citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304
of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced
these actions against states that failed to comply
with those commitments: See, e.g., American Lung
Ass’n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,
Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp.
848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env’t v.
Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for
Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No.
CV 97–6916–HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999).
Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement
the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), which starts an
18-month period for the State to correct the
nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP
‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means or techniques * * *
as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirement of the Act.’’ Section
172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to
nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section
110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the
CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any
‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA determines are
‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet CAA
requirements, such that the area will attain as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the
designated date. Furthermore, the express
allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’
demonstrates that Congress understood that all
required controls might not have to be in place
before a SIP could be fully approved.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
circumstances warrant consideration of
an enforceable commitment, EPA
considers three factors in determining
whether to approve the enforceable
commitment: (a) Does the commitment
address a limited portion of the
statutorily-required program; (b) is the
state capable of fulfilling its
commitment; and (c) is the commitment
for a reasonable and appropriate period
of time.12
We believe that circumstances here
warrant the consideration of enforceable
commitments. As discussed above, the
bulk of emission reductions needed for
attainment comes from regulations
already fully adopted by the District and
the State. These previously adopted
measures include ARB regulations
governing area and mobile sources and
SJVAPCD rules governing stationary
sources.
Moreover, as shown above and
discussed further below, the 2008 SIP
Clarification demonstrates that the
District has fulfilled its commitments in
the 2004 SIP to achieve the identified
emission reductions from specific rules
and to achieve an additional 5 tpd VOC
and 5 tpd NOX reductions in the
aggregate from long-term measures.
As a result of District’s and ARB’s
previous efforts, the vast majority of
sources in the SJV are already subject to
stringent, adopted rules and it is
increasingly difficult to develop
regulations for the remaining universe
of uncontrolled sources. Although the
State is continuing its efforts to increase
the stringency of existing controls on
mobile sources and consumer products,
the diverse nature of these source
categories makes them difficult to
regulate. As a result, rule development
places an increasing burden on the State
12 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency’s use and
application of the three factor test in approving
enforceable commitments in the Houston-Galveston
ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al.,
355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61388
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
to analyze advanced technologies and
develop increasingly complex control
approaches, and several years may be
required to complete the tasks
prerequisite to successful regulation.
We, therefore, believe it is appropriate
to allow an additional short period of
time in order for them to determine
which sources should be regulated and
how.
Finally, the SJV does not rely on these
enforceable commitments to meet the
required rate of progress milestones.
The 2008 SIP Clarification demonstrates
achievement of the required ROP
without the need for any reductions
from commitments. See discussion in
section II.E. below.
Having concluded that the
circumstances warrant consideration of
enforceable commitments, we consider
below the three factors in determining
whether to approve the submitted
commitments.
i. The commitments address a limited
portion of the 2004 SIP. Table 1 in the
2008 SIP Clarification and Table 1 above
show that all of the District’s
commitments in Table 4–1 of the 2004
SIP have been converted to adopted
rules, all but one has been submitted to
EPA, and many have been approved by
EPA. These tables demonstrate that the
rules the District has adopted pursuant
to these commitments will achieve 32.6
tpd NOX and 34.5 tpd VOC. These
reductions amount to 16.6 tpd NOX and
6.3 tpd VOC more than the District
originally committed to achieve in the
2004 Plan and are not only sufficient to
meet all of its original emission
reduction commitments from specified
measures but also to satisfy the District’s
long-term measure commitment to
achieve additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd
VOC by 2010.
The EPA-approved rules in Table 1
account for 23.4 tpd NOX and 5.2 tpd
VOC. Table 3 below shows that the
reductions from commitments needed to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are 17.7
tpd NOX (8.3%) and 43.1 tpd VOC
(33.4%).
TABLE 3—COMMITMENT PORTION OF THE 2004 SIP REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR 2010
NOX
2000 baseline emissions .....................................................................................................................................................
2010 attainment target .........................................................................................................................................................
Reductions needed to attain ................................................................................................................................................
Reductions from baseline measures adopted by 9/02 13 ....................................................................................................
Reductions needed from commitments in 2004 SIP ...........................................................................................................
Reductions achieved from EPA-approved rules 14 ..............................................................................................................
Reductions needed to attain from commitments .................................................................................................................
Percent of reductions needed to attain from commitments (row 3) ....................................................................................
556.8
343.5
213.3
160.0
53.3
35.6
17.7
8.3%
VOC
443.5
314.4
129.1
78.4
50.7
7.6
43.1
33.4%
Sources: ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP, Table III–6; 2008 SIP Clarification, Table 1.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Of the 17.7 tpd NOX commitments,
9.2 tpd are from measures already
adopted by the District but not yet acted
on by EPA. Similarly, of the 43.1 tpd
VOC commitments, 29.3 tpd are from
measures already adopted by the
District. This leaves only 8.5 tpd NOX
and 13.8 tpd VOC (or approximately 3%
NOX and 11% VOC) reductions that are
needed for attainment from the State’s
commitments. The State has committed
to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC
which is more than is needed for
attainment in 2010. Given the difficulty
of controlling the State’s sources and the
near term adoption and implementation
dates, we believe the portion of
reductions from enforceable
commitments in the 2004 SIP is
13 The 2004 SIP at Table 5–1 includes 2010
baseline inventory numbers which reflect control
measures adopted through September 2002. The
ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at Table III–6
refers to the measures adopted as of September
2002 as the adopted measures. Thus, for the 2004
SIP, measures adopted as of September 2002 are
considered to be the baseline adopted measures.
14 Includes the updated VOC and NO emissions
X
reductions from the ‘‘Achieved Emission
Reductions’’ column of Table 1 above and in the
2008 SIP Clarification and 2.4 tpd VOC and 12.2
tpd of NOX from measures adopted after September
2002, but prior to the adoption of the 2004 SIP by
the District and State, and which have since been
approved by EPA. See ARB Staff Report for the
2004 SIP at Tables III–6 and III–7, 68 FR 51187, 68
FR 52510, 69 FR 60962, 69 FR 28061, 70 FR 28826,
69 FR 30006, 30026–30027.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
acceptable and the first factor is
satisfied.
ii. The State and District are capable
of fulfilling their commitments. As
discussed above, the District has already
adopted the rules needed to fulfill the
commitments made in its 2004 SIP and
the only commitment that remains to be
fulfilled is that of the State to achieve
20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions
by 2010. The 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and
State Strategy at I–7 through I–9 and I–
23 through I–26 identify the State’s
development, adoption and
implementation schedule for achieving
its commitment.
Since the development of the 2004
SIP, the State has in fact adopted many
controls that have the potential to
contribute to meeting this obligation.
Previous ARB regulatory achievements
are listed in chronological order in a
table in chapter 3 (page 38) of the ‘‘Air
Resources Board’s Proposed State
Strategy for California’s 2007 State
Implementation Plan,’’ Revised Draft
(Release date: April 26, 2007). The
controls typically represent the most
stringent regulations yet enacted in the
Country and include In-Use Diesel
Agricultural Engine Requirements,
Consumer Product Lower Emission
Limits, Zero Emission Bus Rule
Amendments, etc. Finally, the State has
an ongoing rulemaking agenda for 2008
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
posted at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
2008calfin.pdf.
We believe that this consistent record
of achievement shows that the State will
be able to meet its enforceable
commitments to achieve 20 tpd NOX
and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, therefore,
conclude that the second factor is
satisfied.
iii. The commitments are for a
reasonable and appropriate period of
time. The State is not obligated to fulfill
its emission reduction commitments
until 2010. This schedule is reasonable
given the type of measures that remain
to be pursued, e.g., retrofit controls for
existing heavy-duty off-road diesel
equipment. 2003 State Strategy,
Measure OFF–RD CI–1. These types of
measures typically require substantial
time to develop, adopt and implement.
Therefore, the State’s schedule is
reasonable and appropriate, and we
conclude that the third factor is
satisfied.
iv. Conclusion. For the above reasons,
we believe that the three factors EPA
considers in determining whether to
approve enforceable commitments are
satisfactorily addressed with respect to
the District’s and the State’s
commitments. We are therefore
proposing to approve the State’s
enforceable commitment in the 2004
SIP, ARB Board Resolution 04–29 and
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Final 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20
tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions by
2010. We also propose to approve the
District’s enforceable commitments in
the 2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by
specified dates to achieve in 2010 the
reductions in the column labeled
‘‘Achieved Emission Reductions’’ in
Table 1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification
(and Table 1 above). Final approval of
these commitments would make the
commitments enforceable by EPA and
by citizens.
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor
Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
Additional information submitted in
the 2008 SIP Clarification and
reproduced in Table 2 above show that
on-road mobile source emissions of
VOC and NOX decline steadily from
2000 to 2011. Because emissions decline
each year for both VOC and NOX, the
plan need not include TCMs to offset
growth; therefore, we propose to find
that this CAA requirement is met.
E. Does the plan show the CAA-required
rate of progress?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
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 NAAQS 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). 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, OAQPS, EPA, February 18,
1994 (corrected).
61389
CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for
NOX reductions which 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 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-forpercent 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,’’ OAQPS, EPA,
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.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
Chapter 7 of the 2004 SIP, updated by
Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification,
provides a demonstration that the SJV
meets both the 2008 and 2010 ROP
milestones.15 We have summarized this
ROP demonstration in Table 4.
TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION
[Summer planning tons per day]
Base year
1990
Milestone year
2008
2010
VOC Calculations
A. 1990 Baseline VOC ............................................................................................................................
B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards adjustment .............................................................................................
C. Adjusted 1990 baseline VOC in the milestone year (Line A¥Line B) ..............................................
D. Cumulative VOC reductions needed to meet milestone ....................................................................
E. Target level of VOC needed to meet ROP requirement (Line C¥Line D) ........................................
F. Projected level (baseline) of VOC in milestone year with adopted controls only ..............................
G. VOC ROP shortfall (Line F¥Line E) ..................................................................................................
H. VOC ROP shortfall (% of adjusted baseline) .....................................................................................
633.2
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
633.2
120.1
513.1
261.7
251.4
369.4
118.0
23.0%
633.2
123.8
509.4
209.4
219.0
362.7
143.7
28.2%
805.1
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
805.1
114.0
691.1
411.0
280.1
40.5%
23.0%
805.1
116.6
688.5
384.5
304.0
44.2%
28.2%
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
NOX Calculations
A. 1990 Baseline NOX .............................................................................................................................
B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards adjustment .............................................................................................
C. Adjusted 1990 baseline NOX in the milestone year (Line A¥Line B) ...............................................
D. Projected level (baseline) of NOX in milestone year with adopted controls only ..............................
E. Change in NOX since 1990 (Line C¥Line D) ....................................................................................
F. Change in NOX since 1990 (% of adjusted baseline) ........................................................................
G. VOC ROP shortfall .............................................................................................................................
15 On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150, 1172), we
approved the ROP demonstrations for the 1996 and
1999 milestones in the serious area 1-hour ozone
SIP for the SJV, which was submitted in November
1994 and revised on July 12, 1996. Following
reclassification of the area to severe, ROP
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
demonstrations were prepared and submitted for
the 2002 and 2005 milestones as part of the severe
area SIP. The District prepared and submitted to
EPA milestone compliance reports, as required by
CAA section 182(g)(1) and (2), demonstrating
achievement of the 2002 and 2005 milestones. See
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2004 SIP at section 7.6.2 and letter from Scott
Nestor, SJVAPCD, to Catherine Witherspoon, ARB,
March 30, 2006, with attachment (‘‘San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin Rate of Progress Milestone
Compliance Demonstration for 2005 the 1-hr Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’).
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61390
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION—Continued
[Summer planning tons per day]
Base year
1990
H. % Surplus NOX reductions after offsetting VOC ROP shortfall available for contingency measures
(Line F¥Line G) ..................................................................................................................................
Because there are insufficient VOC
reductions to meet the milestones, the
ROP demonstration relies on NOX
substitution, consistent with EPA’s
guidance, to show that the area meets
the emission reduction requirements for
2008 and 2010. The demonstration does
not depend on reductions from any
measures that are in the 2004 SIP 16 or
on reductions from any measures that
are not creditable under the terms of
section 182(b)(1).
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
provisions for rate of progress?
The 2008 SIP Clarification follows
EPA’s guidance on addressing the pre1990 motor vehicle program
adjustments, using the pre-1990
California motor vehicle exhaust and
evaporative standards in lieu of the
national motor vehicle control
program.17 Because the 2004 SIP and
the 2008 SIP Clarification demonstrate
that sufficient emission reductions have
or will be achieved to meet the 2008 and
2010 ROP milestones, we propose to
approve the ROP provisions in these
documents. As stated above, if the ROP
milestones are met, we deem the general
RFP requirements of CAA section
172(c)(2) to also have been met.
Therefore, we also propose to approve
the ROP provisions as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2).
F. Does the plan provide for attainment
by the CAA-required deadline?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
One-hour ozone nonattainment areas
classified as extreme under CAA section
181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment
‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but
not later than the date specified in CAA
section 181(a), November 15, 2010. CAA
Section 182(c)(2)(A) requires serious,
severe and extreme areas to use
photochemical grid modeling or an
analytical method EPA determines to be
as effective.
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
The 2004 SIP’s air quality modeling
identified the SJV’s ‘‘carrying capacity’’
or 2010 attainment target as 343.5 tpd
NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 SIP at
section 5.6; ARB Staff Report for the
2004 SIP at section III.C. See also Table
3 above. We discuss the modeling in
....................
Milestone year
2008
2010
17.5%
16.0%
section II.C. above. The ‘‘carrying
capacity’’ represents the maximum level
of emissions that can be emitted in the
SJV without causing exceedances of the
1-hour ozone standard. The EPAapproved rules and the commitments in
the 2004 SIP as updated by the 2008 SIP
Clarification and the remaining State
commitments for the SJV in the 2003
State Strategy reduce the 2000 projected
baseline emissions (556.8 tpd NOX and
443.5 tpd VOC) to these levels by the
2010 attainment deadline for extreme
areas. These levels represent a 38% NOX
and 29% VOC decrease in emissions
from the 2000 baseline.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
provisions for attainment?
The 2004 SIP provides an attainment
demonstration that shows sufficient
reductions will be achieved to attain by
the CAA deadline of November 15,
2010. Table 5 provides a summary of the
2004 SIP attainment demonstration.
This attainment demonstration is based
on air quality modeling that is
consistent with the CAA and EPA
modeling guidance. See section II.C. of
this proposed rule.
TABLE 5—2004 SIP ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION SUMMARY AS UPDATED BY 2008 SIP CLARIFICATION
NOX (tpd)
VOC (tpd)
556.8
343.5
443.5
314.4
Total Reductions Needed to Attain in 2010 .............................................................................................................
213.3
129.1
Reductions from 2004 Baseline Measures, pre-9/02 ......................................................................................................
Reductions from 2004 EPA-Approved Rules ..................................................................................................................
Reductions from Remaining District and State Commitments ........................................................................................
160.0
35.6
29.2
78.4
7.6
44.3
Total Reductions Achieved from Approved Rules and Commitments .....................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
2000 Baseline ..................................................................................................................................................................
2010 Attainment Target ...................................................................................................................................................
224.8
130.3
As can be seen from Table 5, the total
reductions achieved from EPA-approved
rules and the commitments in the 2004
SIP as updated by the 2008 SIP
Clarification are greater than the total
reductions needed to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by 2010.
The 2004 SIP attainment reductions
are not ‘‘backloaded’’ but rather derive
from ambitious State and District rule
development projects to adopt or amend
new regulations to tighten controls
expeditiously on existing sources and to
regulate a few previously uncontrolled
sources. Moreover, both agencies
typically set tight compliance schedules
for amended and newly adopted rules,
16 The ROP demonstration relies on ‘‘the emission
control program as it existed when the Valley’s
2004 SIP was submitted * * *.’’ 2008 SIP
Clarification at 6.
17 See ‘‘How to calculate non-creditable
reductions for motor vehicle programs in California
as required for reasonable further progress (RFP)
SIPs,’’ EPA, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Transportation and Regional Program
Division, September 6, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
requiring full compliance in most cases
within one year or less and the District
has been able to achieve considerably
more reductions than the 2004 SIP
anticipated.
Attainment reductions also come from
the benefits of mobile source fleet
turnover to meet increasingly stringent
Federal and State emission standards.
California now has in place ambitious
programs to accelerate this turnover.18
We propose to conclude that the 2004
SIP’s demonstration of attainment meets
the requirements of CAA sections 172
and 181 that areas classified as extreme
demonstrate attainment ‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable’’ but no
later than November 15, 2010.
G. Do the contingency measures meet
CAA requirements?
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
Sections 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 EPA if an area fails to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable date or fails
to meet ROP milestones. 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,
EPA provided initial guidance
interpreting the contingency measure
requirements of 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
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,
EPA indicated that states with moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas
should include sufficient contingency
measures so that, upon implementation
of such measures, additional emission
reductions of up to 3 percent of the
emissions in the adjusted base year
inventory (or such lesser percentage that
will cure the identified failure) would
18 The State and District have a variety of
regulatory and incentive programs to accelerate the
retrofit or replacement of existing sources including
the District’s school bus fleet regulation (Rule
9310), which is given specific emission reductions
in the 2004 SIP. The 2004 SIP does not claim
emission reduction credit for incentive programs
and from the recently adopted State in-use off-road
diesel vehicles rule (available at: https://
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf),
ARB’s various incentive programs (described at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/fininfo.htm#grants), and
the District’s incentive programs (described at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/
GrantPrograms.htm).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
be achieved in the year following the
year in which the failure is identified.
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, EPA stated that
contingency measures could be
implemented early, i.e., prior to the
milestone or attainment date.19
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification
provides an updated ROP
demonstration that shows that, after
meeting the VOC ROP milestones for
2008 and 2010 with NOX substitution,
there are still creditable NOX reductions
for both the 2008 and 2010 milestones
in excess of the 3 percent sufficient to
satisfy the contingency measure
requirement. See also Table 4 in this
proposed rule. Table 2 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification includes reductions from
measures adopted before September
2002 and does not rely on any of the
measures adopted after September 2002,
such as those in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification (and Table 1 above).
In addition, Table 3 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification, which is reproduced as
Table 2 above, shows that onroad fleet
turnover will continue to deliver
substantial reductions in 2011, i.e., an
additional 10 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC
beyond the reductions shown in Tables
1 and 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification.
These reductions are available to serve
as additional contingency reductions in
2011.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
requirements for contingency measures?
We find that there are sufficient
excess NOX reductions shown in Table
2 of the 2008 SIP Clarification and Table
4 above to satisfy the contingency
measure requirement for the milestone
year 2008. These reductions are above
and beyond those needed for ROP for
2008 and occur prior to the year the
milestone demonstrations will be made,
2009.
For the attainment year, 2010, the
requirement is to show that there are
contingency measures that will provide
continued ROP, i.e., 3 percent
reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted
baseline, if attainment is not achieved.
Consistent with the ROP demonstration,
an additional 3 percent in the
attainment year equates to
19 See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to
EPA Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I–X, entitled ‘‘Early
Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
August 13, 1993.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61391
approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC or 20.7
tpd of NOX with NOX substitution.
These contingency measure reductions
would be required by 2011. Table 2
above shows that there are 10 tpd of
additional reductions in 2011 beyond
the 2010 attainment. Table 5 above
shows that there are 11.5 tpd of excess
reductions not needed for attainment in
2010. In addition, Tables 2 and 5 show
that there are excess VOC reductions of
approximately 6 tpd.
Thus, we believe that there are
sufficient excess reductions to satisfy
the contingency measure requirement
for the attainment year which are above
and beyond attainment for 2010 and
will be achieved prior to the year
attainment would be determined, 2011.
As discussed above, the use of excess
reductions from already adopted
measures to meet the CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is consistent
with EPA policy and has been approved
by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR
15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279
(December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June
8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634
(January 3, 2001). The key is that the
CAA requires extra reductions that are
not relied on for ROP or attainment and
that are in the demonstrations to
provide a cushion while the plan is
being revised. Nothing in the CAA
precludes a state from implementing
such measures before they are triggered.
A recent court ruling upheld this
approach. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d
575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.
Thus we propose to approve the
contingency measure provisions in
Tables 2 and 3 of the 2008 SIP
Clarification as meeting the contingency
measure requirements in CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
H. Are the motor vehicle emissions
budgets approvable?
1. What are the applicable CAA
provisions?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA,
transportation plans, programs and
projects in nonattainment or
maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter
53) must conform to the applicable SIP.
In short, a transportation plan and
program are deemed to conform to the
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting
from the implementation of that
transportation plan and program are less
than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) established
in the control strategy SIPs for the
attainment year, ROP years,
maintenance year and other analysis
years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
61392
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
In addition to meeting the criteria for
attainment, as a control strategy SIP,
this ROP and attainment plan must
contain MVEBs that, in conjunction
with emissions from all other sources,
are consistent with attainment. A MVEB
is the total emissions from on-road
vehicles projected to the attainment year
and consistent with the attainment
demonstration. The budget must have
been developed using the latest
planning assumptions and consistent
with the control measures in the
attainment plan. All of the criteria by
which we determine whether a SIP’s
MVEBs are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes are outlined in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described
our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in
the preamble to revisions to EPA’s
conformity regulations. 68 FR 38974
(June 30, 2003) and 69 FR 40004 (July
1, 2004).
2. How does the plan address these
provisions?
The MVEBs for the SJV were
developed using emission factors
generated using ARB’s EMFAC2002
model, version 2.2 (April 2003) and
using the latest assumptions regarding
VMT. EMFAC2002 was approved by
EPA on April 1, 2003, 68 FR 15720, for
use in SIPs and transportation
conformity analyses. EMFAC2002
produces emissions for a wide range of
motor vehicles (passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, buses and motor homes)
for calendar years out to 2040. The
MVEBs were developed for the ROP and
attainment years of 2008 and 2010,
respectively. The MVEBs are for both
VOC and NOX as precursors to ozone
formation, and were applicable for the
SJV upon the effective date of the MVEB
adequacy finding.
The 2004 SIP includes county-bycounty subarea MVEBs for 2008 and
2010 for VOC and NOX. The 2004 SIP
budgets are summarized in the 2004 SIP
at Table 3–4. Additional details
regarding the budgets are presented in
Appendix A to the 2004 SIP.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA
provisions for MVEBs?
On February 7, 2005, we found
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes the MVEBs in the 2004 SIP.
Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA to
Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, February
7, 2005. A table attached to the letter
summarized our adequacy
determination. Our notice of adequacy
for these budgets was published in the
Federal Register on February 15, 2005,
at 70 FR 7734 and was effective 15 days
later, on March 2, 2005.
We are now proposing to approve the
VOC and NOX MVEBs contained in the
2004 SIP (and in Table 5 below) for
transportation conformity purposes. We
propose to approve the budgets because
we conclude that they are consistent
with and clearly related to the emission
inventory and control measures
identified in the 2004 SIP, and that the
2004 SIP as a whole demonstrates
timely attainment with the 1-hour ozone
standard and the required rate of
progress. We also propose to approve
the individual county level subarea
budgets for VOC and NOX, as shown in
Table 5 below, consistent with 40 CFR
93.124(d), which allows for a
nonattainment area with more than one
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) to establish subarea emission
budgets for each MPO. Note that if an
individual MPO lapses, then the
remaining MPOs in the SJV cannot
make new conformity determinations.20
If approved, the 2008 and 2010 MVEBs
must be used for transportation
conformity purposes. As mentioned
earlier, the county subarea motor
vehicle emissions budgets that we are
proposing to approve are listed in Table
5 below.
TABLE 5—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS IN THE 2004 SIP
[Tons per day]
VOC
NOX
County
2008
2010
2008
2010
15.8
11.5
2.5
3.9
5.0
9.3
8.5
8.5
13.0
9.6
2.1
3.3
4.0
7.7
7.0
6.9
33.7
32.7
6.2
8.4
11.4
22.4
17.4
18.8
27.7
27.2
5.4
7.2
9.1
17.9
14.0
15.3
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Fresno ......................................................................................................................................................
Kern (part) ................................................................................................................................................
Kings ........................................................................................................................................................
Madera .....................................................................................................................................................
Merced .....................................................................................................................................................
San Joaquin .............................................................................................................................................
Stanislaus ................................................................................................................................................
Tulare .......................................................................................................................................................
65.0
53.6
151.0
123.8
While we are proposing to approve
these 1-hour ozone budgets into the SIP,
it should be noted that we anticipate
that these motor vehicle emissions
budgets will be used in few, if any,
future transportation conformity
determinations. Because EPA has
revoked the 1-hour ozone standard,
transportation conformity
determinations are no longer required
for that air quality standard.
Additionally, while these budgets have
been used in the initial conformity
determinations in the SJV for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, these budgets
only serve that purpose until motor
vehicle emissions budgets are found
adequate or are approved for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
20 CAA section 176(c) states that conformity
applies to SIPs in nonattainment and maintenance
areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning
areas within a single state. When subarea budgets
area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea
budgets equals the total amount of emissions the
area can have from the transportation sector and
still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one
subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show
that their planned transportation activities would
conform to the SIP for the whole area until the lapse
is resolved. See ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July
1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule:
Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA 420–B–04–
012).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. EPA is proposing to approve
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the 2004 SIP and
the 2008 SIP Clarification:
(1) The emission inventories as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1);
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(2) the rate of progress demonstration
as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2);
(3) the attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements of 182(c)(2)(A)
and 181(a);
(4) the District’s commitments in the
2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by
specified dates to achieve in 2010 the
reductions in the column labeled
‘‘Achieved Emission Reductions’’ in
Table 1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6);
(5) the contingency measures as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); and
(6) the VOC and NOX MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 176(c).
B. EPA is proposing to approve
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3)
section 4.7 in the 2004 SIP and the
provisions of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and ARB Board Resolution 04–
29 that relate to aggregate emission
reductions in the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6).
C. EPA is proposing to approve
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) the
2004 SIP, the Final 2003 State Strategy
and the 2008 SIP Clarification as
meeting the RACM requirements of
CAA section 172(c) only.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Oct 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely proposes
to approve a State-adopted attainment
plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin and does not impose any
additional requirements. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this
proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
proposed rule does not impose any
additional enforceable duty, it 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).
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the plan is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law. This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action
merely proposes to approve a State
adopted ozone attainment plan and does
not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 12898 establishes a
Federal policy for incorporating
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61393
environmental justice into Federal
agency actions by directing agencies to
identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income
populations. Today’s action involves a
proposed approval of a State adopted
ozone attainment plan. It will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
effects on any communities in the area,
including minority and low-income
communities.
This proposed action also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant. The requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This
proposed action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, National
parks, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile organic
compounds, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 7, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8–24416 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61381-61393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693; FRL-8729-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone
Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements applicable to the San Joaquin Valley (SJV),
California 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. These requirements applied
to the SJV following its reclassification from severe to extreme for
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard on April 16,
2004. Although EPA subsequently revoked the 1-hour ozone standard
effective June 15, 2005, the requirement to submit a plan for that
standard remains in effect for the SJV. EPA is proposing to approve the
SIP revisions for the SJV as meeting applicable CAA requirements except
for the provision addressing the reasonably available control
technology requirements that the State has withdrawn.
DATES: Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0693, by one of the following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
3. E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov
4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://
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 the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), 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: Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9,
415-972-3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov or https://www.epa.gov/region09/
air/actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air quality planning in
the SJV?
B. What are the elements in the new plan?
C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to this extreme area 1-
hour ozone plan?
II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification
A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the CAA procedural requirements?
B. Do the baseline and projected emissions inventories meet CAA
requirements?
C. Is the air quality modeling consistent with the CAA and EPA's
modeling guidelines?
D. Do the control measures meet CAA requirements?
E. Does the plan show the CAA-required rate of progress?
F. Does the plan provide for attainment by the CAA-required
deadline?
G. Do the contingency measures meet CAA requirements?
H. Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air quality planning in the SJV?
The San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (SJV)
includes the following counties in California's central valley: San
Joaquin, part of Kern, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and
Tulare. 40 CFR 81.305.
Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the SJV was
classified by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area with an
attainment date of no later than November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). On November 15, 1994, the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) submitted ``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan
for Ozone'' (1994 SIP), a comprehensive ozone plan for the State of
California that included a local nonattainment plan developed for the
SJV by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD
or the District). On January 8, 1997, EPA approved the 1994 SIP. 62 FR
1150.
On November 8, 2001, EPA found that the SJV had failed to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard by the serious area deadline of November 15,
1999 and reclassified the area by operation of law to severe. 66 FR
56476. In the final
[[Page 61382]]
reclassification action to severe, EPA explained that the State would
need to submit by May 31, 2002 a SIP revision addressing the severe
area requirements including, but not limited to, a demonstration of
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2005 and a rate
of progress (ROP) demonstration of creditable ozone precursor emission
reductions of at least 3 percent per year until attainment. Id.
On October 2, 2002, EPA found that the State failed to submit by
May 31, 2002 several severe area SIP revisions for the SJV including a
demonstration of attainment and a ROP demonstration. 67 FR 61784. The
State subsequently requested a reclassification to extreme and
submitted all of the severe area requirements except for the attainment
demonstration. See 69 FR 8126 (February 23, 2004).\1\ On April 16,
2004, EPA granted the State's request to voluntarily reclassify the SJV
from a severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and
required the State to submit by November 15, 2004 an extreme area plan
providing for the attainment of the ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than November 15, 2010. 69 FR 20550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The submittals included the District's ``Amended 2002 and
2005 Ozone Rate of Progress Plan for the San Joaquin Valley''
(submitted April 10, 2003 and found complete on September 4, 2003).
On July 10, 2003, we found adequate for transportation conformity
purposes the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) in this plan.
Letter, Jack P. Broadbent, EPA Region 9 to Catherine Witherspoon,
ARB, July 10, 2003. A table attached to the letter summarized our
adequacy determination. Our notice of adequacy for these budgets was
published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2003 at 68 FR 43724
and was effective 15 days later, on August 8, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the elements in the new plan?
The SJVAPCD adopted the ``Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Plan'' on October 8, 2004 and amended it on October 20, 2005 to, among
other things, substitute for the original chapter a new ``Chapter 4:
Control Strategy.'' The State submitted the plan (with the exception of
Chapter 8 \2\) and amendment on November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006,
respectively. See letters from Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006. The plan and
amendment, collectively, will be referred to as the ``2004 SIP'' in
this proposed rule. The 2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements for extreme
1-hour ozone areas, including emission inventories, modeling, control
measures, contingency measures, and ROP and attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chapter 8 ``California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress
Report and Plan Review'' was included in the plan to meet a State
requirement to report every three years on the area's progress
toward meeting California's air quality standards. Nothing in the
chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air Act requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2004 SIP relies in part on the ``Final 2003 State and Federal
Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,'' which
identifies ARB's regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate
matter in California and includes defined statewide control measures to
be reflected in future SIPs and provisions specific to air quality
plans for the San Joaquin Valley. On October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the
``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan,'' which consists of two elements: (1) The Proposed
2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation
Plan (released August 25, 2003); and (2) ARB Board Resolution 03-22
which approves the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy with the
revisions to that Strategy set forth in Attachment A. On January 9,
2004, ARB submitted to EPA the ``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation Plan.'' Letter from Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA consideration
specified portions of the ``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation Plan'' as they relate to the
2003 SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. These withdrawals do not
affect the 2003 Strategy as it relates specifically to the San
Joaquin Valley. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, February 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposed rule we refer to the two documents comprising the
``Final State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan'' after the withdrawal of the South Coast portions,
collectively, as the ``Final 2003 State Strategy'' or individually as
the ``State Strategy'' and ``ARB Resolution 03-22'', respectively.
On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted ``Clarifications Regarding
the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan'' (2008 SIP
Clarification). The State submitted the 2008 SIP Clarification on
September 5, 2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, September 5, 2008. The 2008 SIP
Clarification provides updates to the 2004 SIP related to RACT, control
measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the rate of progress demonstration,
and contingency measures.
C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to this extreme area 1-hour
ozone plan?
The requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone areas are found in
section 182 of the CAA and the general planning and control
requirements for nonattainment plans are found in sections 110 and 172.
These requirements are discussed in Section II of this proposed rule.
EPA has issued a General Preamble describing our preliminary views on
how the Agency intends to review SIPs submitted to meet the CAA's
requirements for 1-hour ozone plans. ``General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). EPA has also issued other guidance documents
related to 1-hour ozone plans which we cited as necessary when
discussing our evaluation of the 2004 SIP.
In an April 30, 2004 final rule, EPA designated and classified most
areas of the country under the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. 69 FR 23858. On
April 30, 2004, EPA also issued a final rule entitled ``Final Rule to
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
1'' (Phase 1 Rule). 69 FR 23951. Among other matters, this rule revoked
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV (as well as in most other areas of
the country), effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). The Phase 1 Rule also set forth
anti-backsliding principles to ensure continued progress toward
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which 1-hour
requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements not retained was the
requirement to implement contingency measures pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to make reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or for failure to attain
that NAAQS. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 30592 (May 26,
2005).
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir.
2007) in response to several petitions for rehearing, the court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. With respect
to the challenges to the anti-backsliding provisions of the rule
(codified in 40 CFR 51.905), the court vacated several provisions that
would have allowed states to remove from the SIP or to not adopt
several 1-hour obligations once
[[Page 61383]]
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, among them, contingency measures to
be implemented pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) remain in effect and areas
must continue to meet those anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. However, the contingency measure provision noted
previously, which is specified in 51.905(e), was vacated by the court.
As a result, states must continue to meet the obligation for 1-hour
ozone contingency measures.
II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Elements of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification
A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the CAA procedural requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
CAA section 110 requires SIP submissions to be adopted by the state
after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated
specific requirements for SIP submissions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
The District provided the requisite notice and public comment
periods prior to adoption of the 2004 SIP and 2008 SIP Clarification.
The State provided the requisite notice and public comment period prior
to adoption of the 2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and 2008 SIP
Clarification. See January 9, 2004, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006
letters from Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with
enclosures and September 5, 2008 letter from James. N. Goldstene to
Wayne Nastri, with enclosures.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA procedural requirements for SIP
submissions?
The submittal packages for the 2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy
and 2008 SIP Clarification include evidence of public notice and
hearing, District and ARB responses to public comments, and evidence of
District and ARB adoption. Based on our review of these materials, we
find that the procedural requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 CFR
part 51, subpart F have been met.
4. Are the plan submittals complete?
CAA section 110(k)(1) requires EPA to determine whether a plan is
complete within 60 days of receipt and any plan that has not been
determined to be complete or incomplete within 6 months shall be deemed
complete by operation of law. EPA's completeness criteria are found in
40 CFR part 51, subpart V.
The 2004 SIP, comprised of the original and subsequent amendment,
was deemed complete by operation of law on May 15, 2005 and September
6, 2006. On February 18, 2004, we determined the Final 2003 State
Strategy to be complete. Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Catherine
Witherspoon, CARB, February 18, 2004. We found the 2008 SIP
Clarification complete on September 23, 2008. Letter from Deborah
Jordan, EPA, to James N. Goldstene, ARB, September 23, 2008.
B. Do the baseline and projected emission inventories meet CAA
requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require nonattainment areas to
submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources, in accordance with guidance provided by
EPA. The inventory is to represent weekday emissions during the ozone
season. General Preamble at 13502. EPA guidance for 1-hour ozone SIP
emission inventories includes, in addition to the General Preamble:
``Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for
Stationary Sources,'' EPA--450/4-91-016; and ``Procedures for Emission
Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources,'' EPA--450/5-91-026d
Revised.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
Chapter 3 of the 2004 SIP presents the baseline and projected
emission inventories. This chapter also discusses the methodology used
to determine 1999 emissions and identifies the growth and control
factors used to project emissions for the 2000 baseline inventory and
the 2008 and 2010 projected year inventories. The plan presents weekday
summer inventories for 2000, 2008 and 2010 for all major source
categories. Emissions are calculated for the two major ozone
precursors--oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)--as well as for the less significant precursor, carbon
monoxide (CO). 2004 SIP at Table 3-1. Motor vehicle emissions were
based on estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by the
regional transportation planning agencies and the California Department
of Transportation. The plan uses ARB's EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2002,
version 2.2, to calculate the emission factors for cars, trucks and
buses. On April 1, 2003, we approved EMFAC 2002 for use in SIP
development. 68 FR 15720.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for the emission inventories?
We have determined that the emission inventories in the 2004 SIP
were comprehensive, accurate, and current at the time the SIP was
submitted. Accordingly, we propose to approve the emissions inventories
in the 2004 SIP as consistent with the CAA and applicable EPA
guidelines.
C. Is the air quality modeling consistent with the CAA and EPA's
modeling guidelines?
1. What are the applicable CAA provisions and EPA's guidelines?
Areas classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone standard such as
the SJV must demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously as practicable''
but not later than November 15, 2010 as specified in CAA section
181(a). For purposes of demonstrating attainment, CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) requires extreme areas to use photochemical grid modeling
or an analytical method EPA determines to be as effective.
EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis that
are essential to obtain credible results.\4\ The photochemical grid
modeling analysis is performed for days when the meteorological
conditions are conducive to the formation of ozone. For purposes of
developing the information to put into the model, the state must select
days in the past with elevated ozone levels that are representative of
the ozone pollution problem in the nonattainment area and a modeling
domain that encompasses the nonattainment area. The state must then
develop both meteorological data describing atmospheric conditions for
the selected days and an emission inventory to evaluate the model's
ability to reproduce the monitored air quality values. Finally, the
state needs to verify
[[Page 61384]]
that the model is properly simulating the chemistry and atmospheric
conditions through diagnostic analyses and model performance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA has issued the following guidance regarding air quality
modeling used to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS:
``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,''
EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); ``Guidance on Use of Modeled Results
to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,'' EPA-454/B-95-007
(June 1996); ``Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas
that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-
Course Review Guidance'' (March 28, 2002); and ``Guidance for
Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional
Emission Reductions Not Modeled'' (Nov 99). Copies of these
documents may be found on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram and in the docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these steps are satisfactorily completed, the model can be
used to generate future year air quality estimates to support an
attainment demonstration. A future-year emissions inventory, which
includes growth and controls through the attainment year, is developed
for input to the model to predict air quality in the attainment year.
For the 1-hour ozone standard, the modeled attainment test compares
model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations in all grid
cells for the attainment year to the level of the NAAQS. For the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, a predicted concentration above 0.124 parts per million
(ppm) indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that
the area is expected to attain the standard.
Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted concentrations inside
the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an acceptable upper
limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions by EPA's
guidance. When the predicted concentrations are above the NAAQS, a
weight of evidence determination, which incorporates other analyses
such as air quality and emissions trends, may be used to address the
uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid models.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
EPA recommended that states use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
version IV as the ozone model of choice for the grid-point modeling
required by the CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.\5\
Other models are allowed if the state shows that they are
scientifically valid and they perform (i.e., are just as reliable) as
well as, or better than, UAM IV. California selected the Comprehensive
Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) based on slightly better
performance for the SJV than the other tested models. Details on the
model and its selection can be found in Appendix D to the 2004 SIP. The
meteorological modeling was based on a hybrid approach, using the Meso-
scale Model 5 (MM5) and Calmet models, because of the ability of this
modeling system to reproduce the measured design value near the Fresno
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA has not recommended a model for attainment
demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on how the CAMX modeling meets EPA guidance is
summarized here and detailed in the State's submittals. 2004 SIP at
Chapter 5 and Appendix D. The air quality modeling domain extends from
the Oregon border in the north to Los Angeles County in the south, and
from the Pacific Ocean in the west to Nevada in the east.
EPA's Guideline on the use of photochemical grid models recommends
that areas model three or more episodes, including the types of weather
conditions most conducive to ozone formation. The final photochemical
grid modeling submitted by California focused on the CAMx modeling for
one several day episode, July 27 to August 2, 2000. This episode
represents high measured ozone, with a peak measured concentration of
151 parts per billion (ppb) at Bakersfield on August 2, 2000. The
episode was typical of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the highest
potential for ozone formation) of episodes in the San Joaquin Valley.
The CAMx model was run using the MM5/CALMET meteorological
processor with State emission inventories for the 2000 base year and
with projected emissions representing grown and controlled emissions
for the attainment year. The projected 2010 emissions inventory was
developed for modeling simulations and included the effects of
projected growth and control measures, as discussed in section II.B.
above.
The CAMx simulation for July 30, with the emission inventory for
the year 2010, was used to develop targets for reduction of VOC and
NOX in the attainment year.
3. Does the air quality modeling meet EPA's modeling guidelines?
EPA has established the following guidelines for model performance:
unpaired peak ratio 0.80-1.2, normalized bias +/-15%, and gross error
less than 35%. The model performance is presented in Appendix D to the
2004 SIP for the Fresno and Bakersfield areas, representing areas of
highest 1-hour ozone levels in the SJV and shows that the CAMx model
predicts ozone within the quality limits set by EPA guidance on most
days for most subregions of the modeling domain. On those days for
which a subregion had peak measured ozone concentrations above 125 ppb,
the model performance meets the EPA criteria.
We conclude that the modeling is consistent with the CAA and EPA
modeling guidance; therefore, we propose to approve the modeling
analysis that underlies the attainment demonstration in the 2004 SIP.
We discuss the attainment demonstration in more detail later in this
proposed rule. See also ``Technical Support Document for the Extreme
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan Modeling for the San Joaquin Valley
Nonattainment Area,'' EPA Region 9, September 2008, found in the docket
for this proposed rule.
D. Do the control measures meet CAA requirements?
1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
The CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to
provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control
measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology
(RACT). 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. In summary, EPA guidance requires 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.
Under the CAA, RACT is required for major VOC sources and for all
VOC source categories for which EPA has issued Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has issued Alternative
Control Techniques (ACT) documents to help states in making RACT
determinations. CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A), 182(b)(2), and
183(a) and (b). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT also apply to
major stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, such as
the SJV, a major source is one that emits or has the potential to emit
10 tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA section 182(e).
The CAA also requires that SIPs ``shall include enforceable
emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or
techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by the
applicable attainment date. * * *'' CAA section 172(c)(6). CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) contains almost identical language.
[[Page 61385]]
Finally, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that extreme areas
submit transportation control measures (TCMs) sufficient to offset any
growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips,
and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to
meet ROP. EPA interprets this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the
requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline
each year through the attainment year. General Preamble at 13522.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
a. RACM
To determine which measures would be feasible for the SJV, the
District looked at measures implemented in other areas (including the
South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Houston-
Galveston area), documents produced by ARB, as well as measures
suggested by the public at workshops. The District then screened the
identified measures and rejected those that affected few or no sources
in the SJV, had already been adopted as rules or were in the process of
being adopted. The remaining measures were evaluated using baseline
inventories, available control technologies, and potential emission
reductions as well as whether the measure could be implemented on a
schedule that would contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard by the deadline of 2010. 2004 SIP at section 4.2.1.
Based on this evaluation, the District developed an expeditious
rule adoption schedule listing 21 measures involving adoption of eight
new rules and revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 SIP, Table 4-1.
Since submittal of the SIP in 2004, the District has completed action
on all of these rules and submitted all except one of the adopted rules
to EPA for approval. 2008 SIP Clarification, Table 1 and Table 1
below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The current set of the District's adopted regulations is
available at: https://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. The
current status of EPA approval of the District's rules is posted at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/
Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=San+Joaquin+Valley+Uni
fied+APCD-Agency-Wide+Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the District's efforts, the eight San Joaquin Valley
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RPTAs) also conducted a RACM
evaluation for transportation sources. This evaluation, described in
section 4.6.3. of the 2004 SIP, resulted in extensive local government
commitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and improve
traffic flow. 2004 SIP at section 4.6 and Appendix C. The local
governments also provide reasoned justifications for any measures that
they did not adopt. See 2004 SIP at Appendix C.
The 2004 SIP relies on the Final 2003 State Strategy to address
mobile and area source categories not under the District's
jurisdiction. 2004 SIP at section 4.7. Table I-1 in the State Strategy
shows the impressive list of both mobile and area source measures that
have been adopted by California between 1994 and 2003, along with the
mobile source rules that have been adopted by EPA during this period.
Table I-2 lists proposed new State measures, most of which have already
been adopted.\7\ This list of new State measures was developed through
a public process intended to identify and refine new emission
reductions strategies for California. State Strategy at ES-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See chapter 3 (page 38) of the ``Air Resources Board's
Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation
Plan,'' Revised Draft (Release date: April 26, 2007) for a list of
adopted State measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. RACT
The 2004 SIP includes a brief section 4.2.5 discussing the RACT
obligation and specific source categories where further analysis and
potential future controls may be required in order to ensure that RACT
levels of control are applied to sources down to the 10 tons per year
(tpy) level. The District concluded that only a few categories would
need additional work, since the District's existing rules already
applied a stringent degree of control to sources with relatively low
levels of emissions.
Subsequently, the District adopted, on August 17, 2006, and the
State submitted on January 31, 2007, an 8-hour ozone RACT SIP
addressing sources down to the 25 tpy size. In submitting the 2008 SIP
Clarification, the State formally withdrew the RACT portion of the 2004
SIP, specifically section 4.2.5, stating that the District would fill
the resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap with the revised 8-hour ozone RACT
SIP now under further development. The District intends to address
sources down to the 10 tpy level of emissions in this revised 8-hour
RACT SIP. 2008 SIP Clarification, page 3. Because the State has
withdrawn this portion of the 2004 SIP and has not yet submitted a
revised RACT SIP to address the extreme area requirements, we are not
acting on RACT in this action.
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other Control Measures
i. Adopted Regulations
The 2004 SIP's modeling analysis determined that attainment of the
1-hour ozone standard required reducing 2000 baseline emissions from
556.8 tons per day (tpd) NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC to 343.5 tpd
NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 SIP at 3-7 through 3-11 and 5-9
through 5-12 and ``Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan for Ozone in
the San Joaquin Valley,'' September 28, 2004, Air Resources Board Staff
Report (ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP) at Table III-6.
As shown in Table 3 below, of the 213.3 tpd NOX and
129.1 tpd VOC needed for attainment, approximately 160 tpd of
NOX and 78.4 tpd of VOC reductions come from rules and
regulations that were already adopted when the plan was submitted in
2004.
ii. Commitments
The 2004 SIP contains both State and District commitments to adopt
control measures to achieve specified emissions reductions. The Final
2003 State Strategy, adopted prior to the 2004 SIP, includes an
enforceable commitment to reduce NOX emissions in the SJV by
10 tpd by 2010.\8\ State Strategy at I-24 through I-26. Possible
measures to achieve these reductions are described and listed in the
State Strategy at I-14 through I-26 and ARB Resolution 03-22,
Attachment A. The State Strategy also states that beyond its emission
reduction commitment, new commitments to achieve further VOC \9\ and
NOX reductions would be needed for the future SJV 1-hour
ozone plan (which the SJVAPCD and ARB subsequently adopted as the 2004
SIP) and would be considered as part of that plan. State Strategy at I-
26. To that end, the 2004 SIP incorporates the Final 2003 State
Strategy as it applies to the SJV and includes an additional commitment
by the State to achieve by 2010 emissions reductions of 10 tpd
NOX and 15 tpd VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The State Strategy makes clear that this commitment was
intended for immediate inclusion in the 2003 PM-10 plan for the San
Joaquin Valley and for later inclusion in the 1-hour ozone plan for
the SJV. State Strategy at I-23 and I-26.
\9\ The State uses the term ``reactive organic gases'' (ROG) in
its documents. For the purposes of this proposed rule, VOC and ROG
are interchangeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Final 2003 State Strategy identifies possible control
measures that could deliver these reductions, the State's commitment is
only to achieve these NOX and VOC emission reductions in the
aggregate by 2010. Thus, the State's total enforceable
[[Page 61386]]
commitments in the 2004 SIP are to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15
tpd VOC emission reductions in the aggregate by 2010. See State
Strategy at I-7 through I-9 and I-26; ARB Board Resolution 04-29,
October 28, 2004; ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at 29-30; 2004 SIP
at section 4.7 (including Table 4-3 which duplicates Table I-2 in the
State Strategy).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In these documents the State's commitment is sometimes
referred to as 20 tpd NOX and sometimes as 10 tpd
NOX. The 20 tpd reference is to ARB's commitment for 10
tpd NOX in the Statewide Strategy and ARB's additional
commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7
and ARB Board Resolution 04-29. See also ARB Staff Report for the
2004 SIP at 29. The 10 tpd reference is to ARB's additional
commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7
and ARB Resolution 04-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2004 SIP, the District commits to adopt specific rules by
specified dates (quarter and year), to submit the rules within one
month of adoption to ARB for submittal to EPA, and to achieve from each
measure the specified reductions in 2010. 2004 SIP at Table 4-1 and
SJVAPCD Resolution No. 5-10-12 (October 20, 2005) p. 4, item 9. This
information is updated in Table 1 of the 2008 SIP Clarification which
shows not only the original commitment in the 2004 SIP but also the
date on which the District adopted the rule associated with each
commitment and the actual emissions reductions achieved by each rule. A
summary of the information found in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification is presented in our Table 1. Table 1 below also gives the
date the rule was submitted to EPA or the date on which EPA approved
the rule into the SIP.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan ``New Measure''
Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieved
Rule , description and 2004 SIP emission Local Submittal date or
commitment ID from 2004 SIP commitment reductions adoption approval cite/date
(2010-tpd) (2010-tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9310 Fleet rule-School buses (C)...... 0.1 1.6 9/21/06 12/29/06
9510, 3180 Indirect Source Mitigation 4.0 4.0 12/15/05 12/29/06
(D).
4307 Small Boilers (2-5 MMBTU) (E).... 1.0 5.1 4/20/06 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4352 Solid fuel boilers (G)........... 0.0 0.0 5/18/06 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4702 Stat. IC engines (H)............. 8.0 16.8 1/18/07 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)
4309 Commercial Dryers (I)............ 1.0 0.7 12/15/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
New Rule 4308--Water Heaters 0.075 (N) 0.2 0.8 10/20/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4103 Open Burning (Q)................. 1.1 1.7 5/17/07 ........................
4703 Sta. Gas Turbines (S)............ 0.6 1.9 8/17/06 12/29/06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Totals........................ 16.0 32.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-Approved NOX Reductions........... 10.2 23.4
NOX Reductions Not Approved by EPA.... 5.8 9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule and Description:
4409 Oil & Gas Fug. (A)........... 4.7 5.1 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
4455 Ref. & Chem. Fug. (B)........ 0.2 0.3 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
4694 Wineries (F)................. 0.7 0.8 12/15/05 6/16/06
4565 Composting/Biosolids (J)..... 0.1 0.3 3/15/07 8/24/07
4612 Automotive Coating 0.1 1.0 9/20/07 3/7/08
(incorporates Rule 4602) (K).
4570 CAFO Rule (L)................ 15.8 17.7 6/15/06 10/5/06
4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing (M)
4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning (M)
4603 Metal Parts/Products (M)
4604 Can and Coil Coating (M)..... 1.3 3.1 9/20/07 3/7/08
4605 Aerospace Coating (M)
4606 Wood Products Coating (M)
4607 Graphic Arts (M)
4612 Automotive Coating (M)
4653 Adhesives (M)
4684 Polyester Resin Operation (M)
4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well (O).. 1.4 0.3 12/14/06 5/8/07
4651 Soil Decontamination (P)..... <0.5 0.0 9/20/07 3/7/08
4103 Open Burning (Q)............. 2.9 3.9 5/17/07 --
4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. (R)...... 0.1 0.1 9/20/07 3/7/08
4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage & 0.9 1.9 12/20/07 3/7/08
trans. (T & U).
VOC totals.................... 28.2 34.5
EPA-Approved VOC Reductions........... 4.9 5.2
VOC Reductions Not Approved by EPA.... 23.3 29.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the emission reductions associated with the rules
listed in Table 1 above, the District also commits to achieve an
additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC reductions in aggregate
by
[[Page 61387]]
2010 from long-term measures. 2004 SIP at Table 5-1.
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
The 2008 SIP Clarification provides a demonstration that emissions
from motor vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley decline each year from
2000 to 2011. This demonstration is reproduced in Table 2 below. 2008
SIP Clarification at 8. The emissions derive from the emissions
inventory used in the modeling analysis for the 2004 SIP, and so are
calculated using EMFAC2002, version 2.2, and the same transportation
activity projections used in the 2004 SIP.
Table 2--Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions, 2000-2011
[San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, in tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..................................................... 115 107 100 93 88 82 77 72 67 63 59 54
NOX..................................................... 223 218 211 201 192 184 176 166 157 148 137 127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for control measures?
a. RACM
As described above, the District evaluated a range of potentially
available measures for inclusion in its 2004 SIP and committed to adopt
those it found to be feasible for attaining the 1-hour standard. The
process and the criteria the District used to select certain measures
and reject others are consistent with EPA's RACM guidance. We also
describe above the measure evaluation process undertaken by the RPTAs
and the local jurisdictions. This process is also consistent with EPA's
RACM guidance. Based on our review of results of these RACM analyses,
the State Strategy, and the resulting commitments to adopt and
implement controls, 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 SJV. Therefore, we also propose to
find that the 2004 SIP, together with the Final 2003 State Strategy,
provides for the implementation of RACM as required by CAA section
172(c)(1). This proposed finding does not affect the District's
continuing obligation under the CAA to implement RACT for its major
sources of VOC and NOX and sources covered by an EPA CTG
document.
b. RACT
As discussed above, the State has withdrawn the RACT portion of the
2004 Plan with the intent to fill the resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap
with the revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP now under further development by
the District. The District intends that this revised RACT SIP will,
among other things, address sources down to the 10 tpy level of
emissions as required for extreme areas. We agree with the District and
the State that this approach is an efficient way to deal with the
remaining RACT issues. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to Seyed
Sadredin, SJVAPCD, September 9, 2008.
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other Control Measures
As stated above, measures already adopted by the District and State
provide the majority of emission reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment. The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of
enforceable commitments by the District and ARB. EPA believes,
consistent with past practice, that the CAA allows approval of
enforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances
exist that warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted
measures.\11\ Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors
in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) Does
the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required
program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c)
is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively,
sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions
against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See,
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v.
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA
Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to
correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means
or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act,
which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to
section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ``means or techniques''
that EPA determines are ``necessary or appropriate'' to meet CAA
requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the
express allowance for ``schedules and timetables'' demonstrates that
Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be
in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
\12\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld
EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and
the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in
approving enforceable commitments in the Houston-Galveston ozone
SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir.
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration of
enforceable commitments. As discussed above, the bulk of emission
reductions needed for attainment comes from regulations already fully
adopted by the District and the State. These previously adopted
measures include ARB regulations governing area and mobile sources and
SJVAPCD rules governing stationary sources.
Moreover, as shown above and discussed further below, the 2008 SIP
Clarification demonstrates that the District has fulfilled its
commitments in the 2004 SIP to achieve the identified emission
reductions from specific rules and to achieve an additional 5 tpd VOC
and 5 tpd NOX reductions in the aggregate from long-term
measures.
As a result of District's and ARB's previous efforts, the vast
majority of sources in the SJV are already subject to stringent,
adopted rules and it is increasingly difficult to develop regulations
for the remaining universe of uncontrolled sources. Although the State
is continuing its efforts to increase the stringency of existing
controls on mobile sources and consumer products, the diverse nature of
these source categories makes them difficult to regulate. As a result,
rule development places an increasing burden on the State
[[Page 61388]]
to analyze advanced technologies and develop increasingly complex
control approaches, and several years may be required to complete the
tasks prerequisite to successful regulation. We, therefore, believe it
is appropriate to allow an additional short period of time in order for
them to determine which sources should be regulated and how.
Finally, the SJV does not rely on these enforceable commitments to
meet the required rate of progress milestones. The 2008 SIP
Clarification demonstrates achievement of the required ROP without the
need for any reductions from commitments. See discussion in section
II.E. below.
Having concluded that the circumstances warrant consideration of
enforceable commitments, we consider below the three factors in
determining whether to approve the submitted commitments.
i. The commitments address a limited portion of the 2004 SIP. Table
1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification and Table 1 above show that all of the
District's commitments in Table 4-1 of the 2004 SIP have been converted
to adopted rules, all but one has been submitted to EPA, and many have
been approved by EPA. These tables demonstrate that the rules the
District has adopted pursuant to these commitments will achieve 32.6
tpd NOX and 34.5 tpd VOC. These reductions amount to 16.6
tpd NOX and 6.3 tpd VOC more than the District originally
committed to achieve in the 2004 Plan and are not only sufficient to
meet all of its original emission reduction commitments from specified
measures but also to satisfy the District's long-term measure
commitment to achieve additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC by
2010.
The EPA-approved rules in Table 1 account for 23.4 tpd
NOX and 5.2 tpd VOC. Table 3 below shows that the reductions
from commitments needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are 17.7 tpd
NOX (8.3%) and 43.1 tpd VOC (33.4%).
Table 3--Commitment Portion of the 2004 SIP Reductions in Tons per Day
for 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 baseline emissions......................... 556.8 443.5
2010 attainment target.......................... 343.5 314.4
Reductions needed to attain..................... 213.3 129.1
Reductions from baseline measures adopted by 9/ 160.0 78.4
02 \13\........................................
Reductions needed from commitments in 2004 SIP.. 53.3 50.7
Reductions achieved from EPA-approved rules \14\ 35.6 7.6
Reductions needed to attain from commitments.... 17.7 43.1
Percent of reductions needed to attain from 8.3% 33.4%
commitments (row 3)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP, Table III-6; 2008 SIP
Clarification, Table 1.
Of the 17.7 tpd NOX commitments, 9.2 tpd are from
measures already adopted by the District but not yet acted on by EPA.
Similarly, of the 43.1 tpd VOC commitments, 29.3 tpd are from measures
already adopted by the District. This leaves only 8.5 tpd
NOX and 13.8 tpd VOC (or approximately 3% NOX and
11% VOC) reductions that are needed for attainment from the State's
commitments. The State has committed to achieve 20 tpd NOX
and 15 tpd VOC which is more than is needed for attainment in 2010.
Given the difficulty of controlling the State's sources and the near
term adoption and implementation dates, we believe the portion of
reductions from enforceable commitments in the 2004 SIP is acceptable
and the first factor is satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 2004 SIP at Table 5-1 includes 2010 baseline inventory
numbers which reflect control measures adopted through September
2002. The ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at Table III-6 refers to
the measures adopted as of September 2002 as the adopted measures.
Thus, for the 2004 SIP, measures adopted as of September 2002 are
considered to be the baseline adopted measures.
\14\ Includes the updated VOC and NOX emissions
reductions from the ``Achieved Emission Reductions'' column of Table
1 above and in the 2008 SIP Clarification and 2.4 tpd VOC and 12.2
tpd of NOX from measures adopted after September 2002,
but prior to the adoption of the 2004 SIP by the District and State,
and which have since been approved by EPA. See ARB Staff Report for
the 2004 SIP at Tables III-6 and III-7, 68 FR 51187, 68 FR 52510, 69
FR 60962, 69 FR 28061, 70 FR 28826, 69 FR 30006, 30026-30027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. The State and District are capable of fulfilling their
commitments. As discussed above, the District has already adopted the
rules needed to fulfill the commitments made in its 2004 SIP and the
only commitment that remains to be fulfilled is that of the State to
achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions by 2010. The
2004 SIP at section 4.7 and State Strategy at I-7 through I-9 and I-23
through I-26 identify the State's development, adoption and
implementation schedule for achieving its commitment.
Since the development of the 2004 SIP, the State has in fact
adopted many controls that have the potential to contribute to meeting
this obligation. Previous ARB regulatory achievements are listed in
chronological order in a table in chapter 3 (page 38) of the ``Air
Resources Board's Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan,'' Revised Draft (Release date: April 26, 2007).
The controls typically represent the most stringent regulations yet
enacted in the Country and include In-Use Diesel Agricultural Engine
Requirements, Consumer Product Lower Emission Limits, Zero Emission Bus
Rule Amendments, etc. Finally, the State has an ongoing rulemaking
agenda for 2008 posted at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008calfin.pdf.
We believe that this consistent record of achievement shows that
the State will be able to meet its enforceable commitments to achieve
20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, therefore, conclude
that the second factor is satisfied.
iii. The commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate period of
time. The State is not obligated to fulfill its emission reduction
commitments until 2010. This schedule is reasonable given the type of
measures that remain to be pursued, e.g., retrofit controls for
existing heavy-duty off-road diesel equipment. 2003 State Strategy,
Measure OFF-RD CI-1. These types of measures typically require
substantial time to develop, adopt and implement. Therefore, the
State's schedule is reasonable and appropriate, and we conclude that
the third factor is satisfied.
iv. Conclusion. For the above reasons, we believe that the three
factors EPA considers in determining whether to approve enforceable
commitments are satisfactorily addressed with respect to the District's
and the State's commitments. We are therefore proposing to approve the
State's enforceable commitment in the 2004 SIP, ARB Board Resolution
04-29 and
[[Page 61389]]
Final 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC
reductions by 2010. We also propose to approve the District's
enforceable commitments in the 2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by
specified dates to achieve in 2010 the reductions in the column labeled
``Achieved Emission Reductions'' in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification (and Table 1 above). Final approval of these commitments
would make the commitments enforceable by EPA and by citizens.
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
Additional information submitted in the 2008 SIP Clarification and
reproduced in Table 2 above show that on-road mobile source emissions
of VOC and NOX decline steadily from 2000 to 2011. Because
emissions decline each year for both VOC and NOX, the plan
need not include TCMs to offset growth; therefore, we propose to find
that this CAA requirement is met.
E. Does the plan show the CAA-required rate of progress?
1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
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 NAAQS 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). 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, OAQPS, EPA, February 18,
1994 (corrected).
CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX reductions which
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 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,'' OAQPS, EPA, 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.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
Chapter 7 of the 2004 SIP, updated by Table 2 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification, provides a demonstration that the SJV meets both the
2008 and 2010 ROP milestones.\15\ We have summarized this ROP
demonstration in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150, 1172), we approved the ROP
demonstrations for the 1996 and 1999 milestones in the serious area
1-hour ozone SIP for the SJV, which was submitted in November 1994
and revised on July 12, 1996. Following reclassification of the area
to severe, ROP demonstrations were prepared and submitted for the
2002 and 2005 milestones as part of the severe area SIP. The
District prepared and submitted to EPA milestone compliance reports,
as required by CAA section 182(g)(1) and (2), demonstrating
achievement of the 2002 and 2005 milestones. See 2004 SIP at section
7.6.2 and letter from Scott Nestor, SJVAPCD, to Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, March 30, 2006, with attachment (``San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin Rate of Progress Milestone Compliance Demonstration
for 2005 the 1-hr Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'').
Table 4--San Joaquin Rate of Progress Demonstration
[Summer planning tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------