Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 57846-57869 [2011-23656]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0589; FRL–9464–9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley;
Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by California to
provide for attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards in the San Joaquin Valley
(SJV). These SIP revisions are the 2007
Ozone Plan (revised 2008 and 2011) and
SJV-related portions of the 2007 State
Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is
proposing to approve the emissions
inventories, reasonably available control
measures demonstration, provisions for
transportation control strategies and
measures, provisions for advanced
technology/clean fuels for boilers,
reasonable further progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstrations,
transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all RFP milestone
years and the attainment year,
contingency measures for failure to
make RFP or attain, and Clean Air Act
section 182(e)(5) new technologies
provisions and associated commitment
to adopt contingency measures. EPA is
also proposing to approve commitments
to measures and reductions by the SJV
Air Pollution Control District and the
California Air Resources Board. In the
alternative, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the SIP with respect to
certain provisions for transportation
control strategies and measures
sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled or the number of vehicle trips.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0622, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions.
• E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office
of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 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
comments 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 on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index,
some documents may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available at 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
below.
Copies of the SIP materials are also
available for inspection at the following
locations:
• California Air Resources Board,
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California
95812, and
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg,
Fresno, California 93726.
The SIP materials are also
electronically available at: https://
aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/,
https://www.valleyair.org/
Air_Quality_Plans/
AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm
and https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/
sip/sip.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3957,
wicher.frances@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the
San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area
II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for
1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment SIPs
III. California’s State Implementation Plan
Submittals To Address Ozone
Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley
A. California’s SIP Submittals
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative
Requirements for SIP Submissions
IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and
SJV Portion of the 2007 State Strategy
A. Emissions Inventories
B. Reasonably Available Control Measures
Demonstration and Control Strategy
C. Attainment Demonstration
D. Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
E. Transportation Control Strategies and
Transportation Control Measures To
Offset Emissions Increases From VMT
Increases, To Provide for RFP and
Attainment
F. Contingency Measures
G. Advanced Control Technology and
Clean Fuels for Boilers
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Transportation Conformity
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements
Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
V. EPA’s Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and
the San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area
A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
Ground-level ozone pollution is
formed by the reaction of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) 1 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the
atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.
These two pollutants, referred to as
ozone precursors, are emitted by many
types of pollution sources including onand off-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such
as lawn and garden equipment and
paints.
Scientific evidence indicates that
adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to ozone,
particularly in children and adults with
lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and
inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate
asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone
exposure also has been associated with
increased susceptibility to respiratory
1 California plans sometimes use the term
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms
are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use
the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
infections, medication use, doctor visits,
and emergency department visits and
hospital admissions for individuals with
lung disease. Ozone exposure also
increases the risk of premature death
from heart or lung disease. Children are
at increased risk from exposure to ozone
because their lungs are still developing
and they are more likely to be active
outdoors, which increases their
exposure. See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to
Revise the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January
6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19,
2010).
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
primary and secondary national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or
standard) for ozone to replace the
existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12
parts per million (ppm) with an 8-hour
standard set at 0.08 ppm. 62 FR 33856.2
EPA revised the ozone standard after
considering substantial evidence from
numerous health studies demonstrating
that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to ozone concentrations
above the levels of these revised
standards.
wide, it is partially enclosed by the
Coast Mountain range to the west, the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and
the Sierra Nevada range to the east. It
encompasses over 23,000 square miles
and includes all or part of eight
counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings,
and the valley portion of Kern. For a
precise description of the geographic
boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 8hour ozone nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.305. The local air district which
has primary responsibility for
developing a plan to attain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in this area, is the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD
or District).
Ambient 8-hour ozone values in the
SJV vary depending on the location with
the highest values being recorded on its
eastern edge from Fresno to south of
Bakersfield. For the 2008–2010 period,
the 8-hour ozone design value for the
area is 0.104 ppm, recorded at the
Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard
monitoring site southeast of
Bakersfield.4
B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to
designate areas throughout the Nation as
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.
On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the
SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8hour ozone standard and classified the
area as ‘‘serious’’ under CAA section
181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1.
See 69 FR 23858 at 23888–89 (April 30,
2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. The
designation and classification became
effective on June 15, 2004. In 2007,
California requested that EPA reclassify
the SJV from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘extreme’’
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard under CAA section
181(b)(3).3 We granted California’s
request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified
the SJV to extreme nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409.
The SJV 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area is home to almost 4 million people
and is the Nation’s leading agricultural
area. Stretching over 250 miles from
north to south and averaging 80 miles
II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements
for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area SIPs
2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
3 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No.
07–04–11a (April 30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution
No. 07–20 (June 14, 2007), p. 6; and letter, James
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
November 17, 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
States must implement the 1997 8hour ozone standard under Title 1, part
D of the CAA, which includes section
172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions,’’
and subpart 2, ‘‘Additional Provisions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’
(sections 181–185).
In order to assist states in developing
effective plans to address their ozone
nonattainment problem, EPA issued the
8-hour ozone implementation rule. This
rule was finalized in two phases. The
first phase of the rule addresses
classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, applicable attainment dates
for the various classifications, and the
timing of emissions reductions needed
for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April
30, 2004). The second phase addresses
SIP submittal dates and the
requirements for reasonably available
control technology and measures (RACT
and RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP) demonstration, modeling and
attainment demonstrations, contingency
measures, and new source review. See
70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The
4 See EPA, Air Quality System Preliminary Design
Report dated September 18, 2011 in the docket for
today’s proposal. A design value is an ambient
concentration calculated using a specific
methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data
and is used to determine whether an area’s air
quality meets a NAAQS. The methodology for
calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57847
rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart X.5 We discuss each of these
CAA and regulatory requirements for 8hour ozone nonattainment plans in
more detail below.
III. California’s State Implementation
Plan Submittals To Address Ozone
Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley
A. California’s SIP Submittals
Designation of an area as
nonattainment starts the process for a
state to develop and submit to EPA a
SIP providing for attainment of the
NAAQS under title 1, part D of the
CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas designated
as nonattainment effective June 15,
2004, this SIP was due by June 15, 2007.
See CAA 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a)
and 51.910.
California has made five SIP
submittals to address the CAA’s
planning requirements for attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San
Joaquin Valley. We refer to these
submittals collectively as the ‘‘[SJV]
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.’’ The two
principal ones are the SJVUAPCD’s
2007 Ozone Plan (also Plan) and the
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB)
State Strategy for California’s 2007 State
Implementation Plan (2007 State
Strategy).
1. SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
The 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted by
the District’s Governing Board on April
30, 2007 and by CARB on June 14, 2007
and submitted to EPA on November 16,
2007.6 It includes an attainment
demonstration, commitments by the
SJVUAPCD to adopt control measures to
achieve emissions reductions from
sources under its jurisdiction (primarily
stationary sources), and motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEB) used for
transportation conformity purposes. The
attainment demonstration includes air
quality modeling, an analysis of CAA
section 172 reasonably available control
5 EPA has revised or proposed to revise several
elements of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule
since its initial promulgation in 2004. See, e.g., 74
FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 (August
24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010).
None of these revisions affect any provision of the
rule that is applicable to EPA’s proposed actions on
the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP.
6 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) Governing Board
Resolution 07–04–11a: In the Matter of Adopting
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007;
CARB Resolution No. 07–20, June 14, 2007; letter,
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to
Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter,
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to
Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising the
RFP demonstrations for the South Coast and San
Joaquin Valley air basins).
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57848
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
measures (RACM), base year and
projected year emissions inventories,
and contingency measures. On April 24,
2009, CARB submitted a minor
amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan’s
strategy to extend the adoption date for
Control Measure S–Gov–5 ‘‘Composting
Green Waste.’’ 7
2. CARB 2007 State Strategy
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
To demonstrate attainment, the 2007
Ozone Plan relies to a large extent on
measures and commitments in CARB’s
2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State
Strategy was adopted by CARB on
September 27, 2007 and submitted to
EPA on November 16, 2007.8 It
describes CARB’s overall approach to
addressing, in conjunction with local
plans, attainment of both the 1997 8hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
all nonattainment areas in the State,
including the San Joaquin Valley. It also
includes CARB’s commitments to
propose 15 defined State measures 9 and
to obtain specific amounts of aggregate
reductions of VOC and NOX emissions
in the SJV from sources under the
State’s jurisdiction, which are primarily
on- and off-road motor vehicles and
engines, consumer products, and fuels.
On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted
the ‘‘Status Report on the State Strategy
for California’s 2007 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting
Implementation of the 2007 State
Strategy,’’ dated March 24, 2009 and
adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State
Strategy Status Report).10 This submittal
updated the 2007 State Strategy to
reflect its implementation during 2007
and 2008.
In today’s proposal, we are evaluating
only those portions of the 2007 State
Strategy and its revisions that are
7 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No.
08–12–18, December 18, 2008; and letter, James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura
Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures.
8 See CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27,
2007 with attachments and letter, James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
November 16, 2007 with enclosures.
9 The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures
to be implemented by the California Bureau of
Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements)
and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use).
See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64–65 and CARB
Resolution 7–28, Attachment B, p. 8.
10 See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 24,
2009, with attachments and letter, James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura
Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11–
27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are
submitted as a SIP revision. The balance is for
informational purposes only. See Attachment A to
the CARB Resolution No. 09–34.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
relevant for attainment of the 8-hour
standard in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted the
‘‘8-Hour Ozone State Implementation
Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions
to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
Air Basins,’’ dated June 20, 2011 and
adopted July 21, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions).11 This submittal updates
both the 2007 State Strategy and the SJV
2007 Ozone Plan. Specifically, it
amends CARB’s rulemaking schedule
for the Agricultural Engines measure.12
It also updates the emissions
inventories, RFP demonstration,
contingency measures, and
transportation conformity MVEB for the
SJV to reflect rule adoptions and
improvements to emissions inventories.
CARB provided supplemental
documentation for the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions on August 10, 2011 (2011
Ozone SIP Revision Supplement).13
Future references in this proposal to
the 2007 State Strategy and to the SJV
2007 Ozone Plan will be to the Strategy
as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the
Plan as revised in 2009 and 2011,
respectively, unless otherwise noted.
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative
Requirements for SIP Submittals
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
110(l) require a state to provide
reasonable public notice and
opportunity for public hearing prior to
the adoption and submittal of a SIP or
SIP revision. To meet this requirement,
every SIP submittal should include
evidence that adequate public notice
was given and an opportunity for a
public hearing was provided consistent
with EPA’s implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB have
satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable
public notice and hearing prior to
adoption and submittal of the 2007
Ozone Plan. The District conducted
public workshops, provided public
11 See CARB Resolution No. 11–22, July 21, 2011
and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer,
CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with enclosures.
12 In May 2011, CARB adopted other updates and
revisions to its rulemaking schedule in the 2007
State Strategy. See CARB, Progress Report on
Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation
Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,
submitted on May 18, 2011 (2011 Progress Report).
We proposed to approve those revisions on July 13,
2011 (76 FR 41338).
13 Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office,
CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
EPA Region 9, August 10, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comment periods, and held a public
hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan
on April 30, 2007. See 2007 Ozone Plan,
p. ES–1 and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided
the required public notice and
opportunity for public comment prior to
its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the
Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 07–20.
The District also provided the required
public notice and hearing on the 2009
revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution No. 08–12–
18, December 18, 2008, p. 2.
CARB conducted public workshops,
provided public comment periods, and
held a public hearing prior to the
adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on
September 27, 2007. See CARB
Resolution No. 07–28. CARB also
provided the required public notice,
opportunity for public comment, and a
public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009
adoption of the 2009 State Strategy
Status Report and its July 21, 2011
adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions. See CARB Resolution No.
09–34 and CARB Resolution No. 11–22.
The SIP submittals include proof of
publication for notices of District and
CARB public hearings, as evidence that
all hearings were properly noticed. We
find, therefore, that each of the five
submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP meets the procedural
requirements for public notice and
hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and
110(l).
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires
EPA to determine whether a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of
receipt. This section also provides that
any plan submittal that EPA has not
affirmatively determined to be complete
or incomplete will be deemed complete
by operation of law six months after the
date of submittal. EPA’s SIP
completeness criteria are found in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
The November 16, 2007 submittal of
the 2007 Ozone Plan and the April 24,
2009 submittal revising the Plan became
complete by operation of law on May
15, 2008 and October 24, 2009,
respectively. The November 16, 2007
submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and
the August 12, 2009 submittal of the
2009 revisions to the Strategy became
complete by operation of law on May
16, 2008 and February 12, 2010,
respectively. We found the submittal of
the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete
on August 23, 2011.14
14 Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James
Goldstene, CARB, August 23, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57849
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
and the SJV Portion of the 2007 State
Strategy
We summarize our evaluation of the
SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP’s
compliance with applicable CAA and
EPA regulatory requirements below. Our
detailed evaluation can be found in the
TSD for this proposal which is available
online at https://www.regulations.gov in
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–
0589 or from the EPA contact listed at
the beginning of this notice.
A. Emissions Inventories
1. Requirements for Emissions
Inventories
CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each
state with an ozone nonattainment area
classified under subpart 2 to submit,
within two years of the area’s
designation as nonattainment, a
‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources’’ of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in accordance with guidance
provided by EPA. CAA 182(a)(1), 40
CFR 51.915. EPA has issued the
‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations,’’ EPA–454/
R–05–001, November 2005 (‘‘EI
Guidance’’) which provides guidance on
how to develop base year and future
year baseline emissions inventories for
8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze
SIPs. For areas that were initially
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard in 2004, EPA
recommends using calendar year 2002
as the base year for the inventory
required by CAA section 182(a)(1). EI
Guidance, p. 8.
Emissions inventories for ozone
should include emissions of VOC, NOX,
and carbon monoxide (CO) and
represent an average summer week day
during the ozone season. EI Guidance,
pp. 14 and 17. States should include
documentation in their submittals
explaining how the emissions data were
calculated. 70 FR at 71664 and EI
Guidance, p. 40. In estimating mobile
source emissions, states should use the
latest emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time the
SIP is developed. 68 FR at 32854 and 70
FR 71666.
2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 2007
8-Hour Ozone SIP
The base year and future year baseline
inventories for NOX and VOC for the
SJV ozone nonattainment area together
with additional documentation for the
inventories are found in Appendix B of
the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendices A
and F of the 2007 State Strategy.15, 16
These inventories represent average
summer day (ozone season) emissions.
An inventory is provided for the base
year of 2002 and projected baseline
inventories are provided for the RFP
milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014,
2017, and 2020; and the attainment year
of 2023. The baseline inventories
include reductions from federal, State,
and District measures adopted prior to
2007. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix
A, p. 1. All inventories include
emissions from point, area, on-road, and
non-road sources. The 2002 inventory
was projected to 2005 and future years
using CARB’s California Emissions
Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). Both
base year and projected baseline
inventories use the most current version
of California’s mobile source emissions
model, EMFAC2007, for estimating onroad motor vehicle emissions. EPA has
approved this model for use in SIPs and
transportation conformity analyses. 73
FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). See 2007
Ozone Plan, p. B–1.
As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions, CARB submitted revised base
year and future year baseline
inventories for the SJV. See Table 1
below. These revised inventories
incorporate improved activity data and/
or emissions factors for diesel trucks
and buses and off-road equipment that
were developed as part of CARB’s
December 2010 rulemakings amending
its In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule
and In-Use Off-Road Equipment Rule.
They also reflect revisions to the
methodology for estimating NOX
emissions from natural-gas fueled
industrial equipment as well as other
improvements to the stationary source
inventories made by the District in the
period between adoption of the 2007
Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the
2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5
Plan, Appendix B, December 2007.
Collectively, these revisions reduce the
total estimated 2002 base year NOX and
VOC inventories by approximately 12
percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B–9. For
a more detailed discussion of these
inventory changes, see TSD, section
II.A.
The future year baseline inventories
were also revised to reflect the effects of
the 2007–2009 economic recession,
which has significantly reduced activity
levels in and associated emissions from
the State’s construction and goods
movement sectors. CARB estimates
economic growth rates will return to
normal levels by the 2017–2018 time
period. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,
Appendix B. As a result, projected
emission levels from these categories in
the years up to 2017–2018 are now
lower than were originally projected in
the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State
Strategy as submitted in November
2007. These recession-related decreases
in emissions do not in themselves affect
the Plan’s emissions inventories for the
modeling validation years (1999/2000),
the base year (2002), or future years
(2020 and 2023) and thus do not change
the carrying capacity estimates in the
Plan (i.e., they do not in themselves
affect the target level of overall
emissions reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment), nor do they
alter the 2002 base year inventory which
provides the starting point for the RFP
demonstration. The principal effect of
the recession-related decreases in
projected emissions estimates is to
reduce the amount of reductions needed
from the SIP’s control strategy to
demonstrate RFP in the years prior to
2018.
TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
[tons per summer day]
VOC
NOX
Emissions inventory category
2002
Stationary and Area Sources ..........................................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................
15 By ‘‘future year baseline inventories’’ or
‘‘projected baseline inventories,’’ we mean
projected emissions inventories for future years that
account for, among other things, the ongoing effects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
2023
101
312
of economic growth and adopted emissions control
requirements.
16 Inventories for CO and non-anthropogenic
sources (that is, biogenic or natural sources) were
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2002
53
69
2023
276
110
244
37
developed for the air quality modeling and can be
found at https://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57850
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
SUMMARY—Continued
[tons per summer day]
VOC
NOX
Emissions inventory category
2002
2023
2002
2023
Off-road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................
152
73
71
57
Total ..........................................................................................................
565
195
457
339
Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B–3.
Note: 2023 emissions levels reflect
control adopted through 2011.
3. Proposed Action on the Emissions
Inventories
We have reviewed the 2002 base year
emissions inventory in the SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP and the inventory
methodologies used by the District and
CARB and have determined that the
inventory was developed consistent
with CAA requirements as reflected in
the 8-hour ozone implementation rule
and EPA’s guidance. The revised 2002
base year inventory is comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions of 8-hour ozone precursors in
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area. We therefore propose to approve
the base year inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1)
and EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation
rule. We provide more detail on our
review of the inventories in section II.A.
of the TSD for this proposal.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Reasonably Available Control
Measures Demonstration and Control
Strategy
1. Requirements for RACM and Control
Strategies
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that
each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology), and shall provide
for attainment of the national primary
ambient air quality standards.’’ The 8hour ozone implementation rule
requires that for each nonattainment
area that is required to submit an
attainment demonstration, the state
must also submit concurrently a SIP
revision demonstrating that it has
adopted all RACM necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously
as practicable and to meet any RFP
requirements. 40 CFR 51.912(d).
EPA has previously provided
guidance interpreting the RACM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirement in the General Preamble at
13560 17 and in a memorandum entitled
‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available
Control Measure Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John
Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air
Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz
memo). In summary, EPA guidance
provides that, to address the
requirement to adopt all RACM, states
should consider all potentially
reasonable control measures for source
categories in the nonattainment area to
determine whether they are reasonably
available for implementation in that
area and whether they would, if
implemented individually or
collectively, advance the area’s
attainment date by one year or more.
See Seitz memo and General Preamble
at 13560.18 Any measures that are
necessary to meet these requirements
that are not already either federally
promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or
otherwise creditable in SIPs must be
submitted in enforceable form as part of
a state’s attainment plan for the area.19
17 The
‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 on April 16, 1992,
describes EPA’s preliminary view on how we
would interpret various SIP planning provisions in
title I of the CAA as amended in 1990, including
those planning provisions applicable to the 1-hour
ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain
guidance in the General Preamble to implement the
8-hour ozone standard under title I.
18 See also ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas,’’ 44 FR
20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated
December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
‘‘Additional Submission on RACM From States
With Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
SIPs.’’
19 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also
requires implementation of RACT for all major
sources of VOC and for each VOC source category
for which EPA has issued a Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that
RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major
stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, a major
source is a stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOX
per year. CAA sections 182(e) and (f). Under the 8hour ozone implementation rule, states were
required to submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
CAA section 172(c)(6) requires
nonattainment plans to ‘‘include
enforceable emission limitations, and
such other control measures, means or
techniques (including economic
incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emission
rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary or appropriate to provide for
attainment of such standard in such area
by the applicable attainment date * * *
.’’ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
The ozone implementation rule requires
that all control measures needed for
attainment be implemented no later
than the beginning of the attainment
year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d).
The attainment year ozone season is
defined as the ozone season
immediately preceding a nonattainment
area’s attainment date. 40 CFR
51.900(g).
2. RACM Demonstration and the Control
Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone
SIP
For the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007
State Strategy, the District, CARB, and
the local agencies (through the SJV’s
eight metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO)) each undertook a
process to identify and evaluate
potential reasonably available control
measures that could contribute to
expeditious attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standards in the SJV. We describe
each agency’s efforts below. We also
discuss CARB’s and the District’s
adopted control strategies including the
provisions for the development of new
requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)
no later than 27 months after designation for the 8hour ozone standard (September 15, 2006 for areas
designated in April 2004) and to implement the
required RACT measures no later than 30 months
after that submittal deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a).
California submitted the CAA section 182 RACT
SIP for SJV in January 2007 and a revised RACT SIP
in June 2009. EPA proposed to partially approve
and partially disapprove that 2009 SJV RACT SIP
on August 31, 2011. See Partial Approval and
Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Ozone; Proposed
rule, signed August 31, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and improved technologies under CAA
section 182(e)(5).
a. SJVUAPCD’s RACM Analysis and
Adopted Control Strategy
The District’s RACM analysis, which
focuses on stationary and area source
controls, is described in Chapter 6 and
Appendix I of the 2007 Ozone Plan. To
identify potential RACM, the District
reviewed measures from a number of
sources including measures in other
nonattainment areas’ plans and
measures suggested by the public during
development of the Plan. 2007 Ozone
Plan, pp. 6–2 to 6–3. The identified
potential measures, as well as existing
District measures, are described by
emissions inventory category in
Appendix I of the Plan. From the set of
identified potential controls, the District
selected measures for adoption and
implementation based on the
technological and economic feasibility
of emissions controls, the potential
magnitude and timing of emissions
reductions, cost effectiveness, and other
acceptable criteria for determining
RACM. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6–3.
After completing its RACM analysis
for stationary and area sources under its
jurisdiction, the District developed its
‘‘Stationary Source Regulatory
Implementation Schedule’’ (2007 Ozone
Plan, Table 6–1), which gives the
schedule for regulatory adoption and
implementation of the measures
determined to be feasible. The District
also identified a number of source
categories for which feasibility studies
would be undertaken to refine the
inventory and evaluate potential
controls. These categories and the
schedule for studying them are listed in
Table 6–2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
In the five years prior to the adoption
of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District
developed and implemented
comprehensive plans to address
attainment of the PM10 standards (2003
PM10 Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May
26, 2004)) and the 1-hour ozone
standards (2004 Extreme Ozone
Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 10420
(March 8, 2010)). These plans have
resulted in the adoption by the District
of many new rules and revisions to
existing rules for stationary and area
sources. For the most part, the District’s
current rules are equivalent to or more
stringent than those developed by other
air districts. In addition to these
stationary and area source measures, the
District has also adopted an indirect
source review rule, Rule 9510, to
address increased indirect emissions
from new industrial, commercial and
residential developments. See
SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ‘‘Indirect Source
Review,’’ adopted December 15, 2005,
57851
approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).
The District also operates incentive
grant programs to accelerate turnover of
existing stationary and mobile engines
to cleaner units. See 2007 Ozone Plan,
chapters 7 and 8 and SJV Ozone MidCourse Review, Section 5 and 6.20
For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District
identified and committed to adopt and
implement 19 new control measures for
NOX and VOC and to achieve certain
aggregate emissions reductions of NOX
and VOC. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table
6–1 (revised December 18, 2008). In
Table 2 below, we list these measures,
which mostly involve strengthening
existing District rules, their adoption
dates and current SIP approval status.
As can be seen from Table 2, the District
has completed action on all of its rule
adoption commitments. Table 6–1 in the
Plan shows estimated emissions
reductions from each rule for milestone
years from 2008 to 2020, 2012, and the
attainment year of 2023. The District’s
commitment, however, is only to the
aggregate emissions reductions of NOX
and VOC in each year. 2007 Ozone Plan,
p. 6–5 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution 07–04–11a, p. 6. We show
these commitments in Table 3 below.
Table 4 gives the total estimate of SIPcreditable reductions achieved by the
District to date.
TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS
Adoption date
District rule
No.
Measure No. & description
SIP status
Anticipated
Actual
S–GOV–1 Composting Biosolids .........
4565
1st Q—2007 ............
March 2007 .............
S–AGR–1 Open Burning (Phase IV) ....
4103
2nd Q—2010 ...........
April 2010 ................
Proposed: August 31, 2011 (signature
date).
Proposed:76 FR 40660 (July 11,
2011).
4661
4662
4663
4703
4651
4682
4623
4624
........................
4306
4320
4307
3rd Q—2007 ............
............
............
............
............
September 2007 ......
September 2007 ......
September 2007 ......
September 2007 ......
September 2007 ......
September 2007 ......
December 2007 .......
75
74
74
74
74
76
74
3rd Q—2007 ............
3rd Q—2008 ............
Found not feasible ...
October 2008 ...........
3rd Q—2008 ............
October 2008 ...........
Found infeasible.
75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010)
76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
4354
4607
4902
4566
4311
3rd Q—2008 ............
4th Q—2008 ............
1st Q—2009 ............
4th Q 0 2010 ...........
2nd Q—2009 ...........
October 2008 ...........
December 2008 .......
March 2009 .............
August 2011 ............
June 2009 ................
4695
3rd Q—2009 ............
September 2009 ......
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
S–SOL–11 Solvents:
Organic Solvents ...........................
Organic Solvent Degreasing .........
Organic Solvent Cleaning .............
S–COM–5 Stationary Gas Turbines .....
S–IND–24 Soil Decontamination ..........
S–IND–6 Polystyrene Foam .................
S–PET–1&2 Gasoline Storage &
Transfer.
S–PET–3 Aviation Fuel Storage ..........
S–COM–1 Large Boilers ......................
S–COM–2 Boilers, Steam Generators
and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/
hr).
S–COM–7 Glass Melting Furnaces1 ....
S–SOL–20 Graphic Arts .......................
S–COM–9 Residential Water Heaters
S–GOV–5 Composting Green Waste ..
S–IND–21 Flares ..................................
S–IND–14 Brandy and Wine Aging ......
3rd Q—2007
3rd Q—2007
3rd Q—2007
4th Q—2007
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
(May 5, 2010).
(July 30, 2009).
(July 30, 2009).
(October 21, 2009).
(October 15, 2009).
(July 15, 2011).
(October 30, 2009).
76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011).
74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009).
75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010).
Rule adopted.
Proposed: 76 FR 52623 (August 8,
2011).
76 FR 47076 (August 4, 2011).
20 SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review,
May 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
24406
37948
37948
53888
52894
41745
56120
16SEP2
57852
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS—
Continued
Adoption date
District rule
No.
Measure No. & description
SIP status
Anticipated
Actual
S–SOL–1 Architectural Coatings ..........
4601
4th Q—2009 ............
December 2009 .......
S–AGR–2 Confined Animal Facilities ...
4570
2nd Q—2010 ...........
October 2010 ...........
S–SOL–6 Adhesives ............................
4653
3rd Q—2010 ............
September 2010 ......
Proposed: 76 FR 35167 (June 16,
2011).
Proposed: August 31, 2011 (signature
date).
Rule submitted.
Source: List of measures and anticipated adoption dates: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6–1, revised December 18, 2009.
TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN AGGREGATE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS COMMITMENTS
[Tons per summer day]
2011
NOX ..........................................................
VOC .........................................................
2012
4.4
15.3
2014
6.0
26.5
2017
6.3
40.5
2020
7.8
42.2
2023
8.0
44.5
8.2
46.3
Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6–1, revised December 18, 2008.
TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN AGGREGATE CREDITABLE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ADOPTED RULES
(Tons per summer day)
2011
NOX ..........................................................
VOC .........................................................
2012
3.6
34.3
2014
6.2
37.7
2017
10.3
39.8
2020
11.1
41.3
2023
12.0
43.1
12.6
44.5
Source: TSD, Table D–5.
The District also included in its Plan
programs for incentive grants and to
develop innovative strategies such as
green contracting and energy
conservation. These are discussed below
in section II.B.2.d.
b. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM
Analysis
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The local jurisdictions’ RACM
analysis was conducted by the SJV’s
eight MPOs.21 This analysis focused on
potential NOX emissions reductions
from transportation control measures
(TCM). TCMs are, in general, measures
designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions
in vehicle miles traveled or traffic
congestion. The analysis is summarized
in Chapter 9 of the 2007 Ozone Plan and
described in detail in Appendix C.
For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV
MPOs evaluated RACM using a threestep process of developing a list of
21 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties
in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The
San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus
Council of Governments, the Merced County
Association of Governments, the Madera County
Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno
County Governments, Kings County Association of
Governments, the Tulare County Association of
Governments and the Kern Council of
Governments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
potential reasonably available local
controls, estimating the maximum
potential emissions reductions from the
identified measures, and then
comparing these reductions against the
level of reductions needed to advance
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard
in the SJV. Through this process, the
MPOs determined that there were no
additional local RACM for NOX, beyond
those measures already adopted, that
could advance attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard in the SJV. 2007 Ozone
Plan, p. 9–7.
c. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted
Control Strategy
Source categories for which CARB has
primary responsibility for reducing
emissions in California include most
new and existing on- and off-road
engines and vehicles, motor vehicle
fuels, and consumer products.
Given the need for significant
emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in
California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has been a leader in
the development of stringent control
measures for on-road and off-road
mobile sources and the fuels that power
them. California has unique authority
under CAA section 209 (subject to a
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement
new emission standards for many
categories of on-road vehicles and
engines and new and in-use off-road
vehicles and engines.
According to the 2007 State Strategy,
California’s new vehicle emissions
standards have reduced new car
emissions by 99 percent and new truck
emissions by 90 percent from
uncontrolled levels, and new lawn and
garden equipment, recreational vehicles
and boats, and other off-road sources are
80–98 percent cleaner than their
uncontrolled counterparts. 2007 State
Strategy, p. 37. In addition to its new
vehicle and engine standards, the State
has adopted many measures that focus
on achieving reductions from in-use
mobile sources that include more
stringent inspection and maintenance
requirements in California’s Smog
Check program, truck and bus idling
restrictions, and various incentive
programs. Appendix A of the TSD
includes a list of all measures adopted
by CARB between 1990 and the
beginning of 2007. These measures,
reductions from which are reflected in
the Plan’s baseline inventories, fall into
two categories: Measures that are subject
to a waiver of Federal pre-emption
under CAA section 209 (section 209
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57853
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
waiver measures or waiver measures)
and those for which the State is not
required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver
measures). Emissions reductions from
waiver measures are fully creditable in
attainment and RFP demonstrations and
may be used to meet other CAA
requirements, such as contingency
measures. See TSD, section II.D.3.a.i.
and EPA’s proposed and final approval
of the SJV 1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR
33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR
10420 (March 8, 2010). Generally, the
State’s baseline non-waiver measures
have been approved by EPA into the SIP
and are fully creditable for meeting CAA
requirements. See TSD, Appendix A.
CARB developed its proposed 2007
State Strategy after an extensive public
consultation process to identify
potential measures.22 Through this
process, CARB identified and has
committed to develop 15 new defined
measures. These measures focus on
cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as
increasing the stringency of emissions
standards for a number of engine
categories, fuels, and consumer
products. They build on CARB’s already
extensive existing program described
above, which addresses emissions from
all types of mobile sources through both
regulations and incentive programs. See
TSD, Appendix A. Table 5 below lists
the defined measures in the 2007 State
Strategy that are applicable to the SJV
and their current adoption and approval
status. Table 6 provides the CARB’s
current estimates of the emissions
reductions in the SJV from these
measures, which are part of the State’s
commitment to achieve the tonnage of
reductions needed for attainment. Table
7 provides the estimates of the
emissions reductions that are currently
SIP creditable.
TABLE 5—2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE SJV, SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION AND
CURRENT STATUS
Expected action
year
State measures
Smog Check Improvements ....................
Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118)
Modification to Reformulated Gasoline
Program.
Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks ........
Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.
2007–2009
2007
2007
2007, 2008, 2010
2008
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines ..........
Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment ...
New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats.
Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above
Ground Storage Tanks.
Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards.
Consumer Products Program (I & II) ......
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) ....................
2007, 2010
2013
2013
Current status
Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).23
Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010.
Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
Proposed for approval: 76 FR 40652 (July 11, 2011).
Prop 1B bond funds awarded to upgrade line-haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those
cleaner line-hauls will begin operation by 2012.
Waiver decision pending.
Incentive program in progress. Additional action expected 2013.
Action expected 2013.
2013
Action expected 2013.
2008
Adopted June 2007. Requirements implemented through District Rule 4621.
2013
Action expected 2013.
2008, 2009, 2011
2008, 2009
Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009) and 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011).
Submitted October 2009, revisions submitted August 2011.
Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p.4, 2011 Progress Report, Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A–3. Additional information from https://www.ca.arb.gov.
TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS RE
DUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY—Continued
TABLE 7—CURRENTLY CREDITABLE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
[Tons per summer day 2023]
[Tons per summer day 2023]
[Tons per summer day 2023]
State measure
State measure
NOX
NOX
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Totals ....................................
Smog Check Improvements
(BAR) ....................................
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty
Trucks ...................................
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road
Equipment .............................
Consumer Products Program ...
Pesticides: DPR Regulation .....
1.0
3.0
16.9
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
State measure
19.8
10.3
Smog Check Improvements
(BAR) ....................................
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty
Trucks ...................................
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road
Equipment .............................
Consumer Products Program ...
1.9
—
—
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.
0.9
0.2
5.0
1.2
22 This process is described in the 2007 Ozone
Plan at p. 9–10. More information on this public
process including presentations from the
workshops and symposium that proceeded
adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
VOC
NOX
VOC
1.0
3.0
16.9
0.9
1.9
—
0.2
5.0
VOC
Jkt 223001
https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/
2007sip.htm.
23 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010,
requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct
older vehicles to high performing auto technicians
and test stations for inspection and certification
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
effective 2013. Reductions shown for the
SmogCheck program in the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions do not include reductions from AB 2289
improvements. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,
Appendix C.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57854
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—CURRENTLY CREDITABLE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY—Continued
[Tons per summer day 2023]
State measure
Totals ....................................
NOX
VOC
19.8
9.1
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. attachment 1.
The 2007 State Strategy also includes
an enforceable commitment to achieve
aggregate emissions reductions of 46 tpd
NOX and 25 tpd VOC in the SJV by the
attainment year of 2023 that are
sufficient, in combination with existing
SIP-creditable measures, the District’s
commitments, and commitments for
reductions under the CAA section
182(e)(5) new technologies provision, to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2024. CARB
also made enforceable commitments to
achieve aggregate emissions reductions
in the SJV in the RFP milestone years of
2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 State
Strategy, p. 63; CARB Resolution 07–28,
Attachment B, p. 6; and 2009 State
Strategy Status Report, p. 21. See Table
8 below. The nature of these
commitments is described in the State
Strategy as follows:
The total emission reductions from the
new measures necessary to attain the federal
standards are an enforceable State
commitment in the SIP. While the proposed
State Strategy includes estimates of the
emission reductions from each of the
individual new measures, it is important to
note that the commitment of the State
Strategy is to achieve the total emission
reductions necessary to attain the federal
standards, which would be the aggregate of
all existing and proposed new measures
combined. Therefore, if a particular measure
does not get its expected emission
reductions, the State still commits to
achieving the total aggregate emission
reductions, whether this is realized through
additional reductions from the new measures
or from alternative control measures or
incentive programs. If actual emission
decreases occur in any air basin for which
emission reduction commitments have been
made that are greater than the projected
emissions reductions from the adopted
measures in the State Strategy, the actual
emission decreases may be counted toward
meeting ARB’s total emission reduction
commitments.
CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27,
2007), Appendix B, p. 3.
TABLE 8—CARB COMMITMENTS TO SPECIFIC AGGREGATE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
[Tons per summer day]
2014
VOC .................................................................
NOX ..................................................................
2017
23
76
2020
¥1
88–93
2023
CAA 182(e)(5)
2023
24
56
25
46
¥1
81
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23.
1 No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions pursuant to CAA 182(e)(5) advanced technologies provision.
d. Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved
Technologies Provisions
For ozone nonattainment areas
classified as extreme, the CAA
recognizes that an attainment
demonstration may need to rely to a
certain extent on new or evolving
technologies, given the relatively long
time between developing the initial plan
and attaining the standard and the
degree of emissions reductions needed
to attain. To address these needs, CAA
section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to
approve provisions in an extreme area
plan which ‘‘anticipate development of
new control techniques or improvement
of existing control technologies,’’ and to
approve an attainment demonstration
based on such provisions, if the State
demonstrates that: (1) Such provisions
are not necessary to achieve the
incremental emission reductions
required during the first 10 years after
November 15, 1990; 24 and (2) the State
has submitted enforceable commitments
to develop and adopt contingency
measures to be implemented if the
anticipated technologies do not achieve
the planned reductions. CAA 182(e)(5).
24 Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X,
we interpret this 10-year timeframe to run from the
effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, that is, June 15, 2004.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
The State must submit these
contingency measures to EPA no later
than 3 years before proposed
implementation of these long-term
measures, and the contingency
measures must be ‘‘adequate to produce
emissions reductions sufficient, in
conjunction with other approved plan
provisions, to achieve the periodic
emissions reductions required by [CAA
sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2)] and
attainment by the applicable dates.’’ Id.
The General Preamble further
provides that the new technology
measures contemplated by section
182(e)(5) may include those that
anticipate future technological
developments as well as those that
require complex analyses, decision
making and coordination among a
number of government agencies. See
General Preamble at 13524. An
attainment demonstration that relies on
long-term new technology measures
under section 182(e)(5) must identify
any such measures and contain a
schedule outlining the steps leading to
final development and adoption of the
measures. Id. The General Preamble also
provides that EPA will set a schedule
for implementing contingency measures
upon making a finding of failure to meet
a milestone, i.e., to achieve the periodic
emissions reductions required by CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) or to attain by
the applicable dates. Id.
CARB and the District have
demonstrated a clear need for emissions
reduction from new control
technologies or improvement of existing
technologies to reduce air pollution in
the SJV. Adopted control measures and
enforceable commitments discussed
above provide the majority, but not all,
of the emissions reductions needed to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards
in the SJV. See 2007 State Strategy, p.
54. For the balance of the reductions
needed to attain by June 15, 2024, the
2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone
Plan rely on CARB’s commitments to
achieve additional reductions of 81 tpd
NOX by 2023 from new and improved
technologies. See 2009 State Strategy
Status Report, p. 20. The new
technology provisions (also called
‘‘long-term measures’’) described in the
2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone
Plan are not relied on to demonstrate
RFP in any year and are accompanied
by an enforceable commitment by the
State to adopt and submit contingency
measures no later than 3 years before
implementation, as required by CAA
section 182(e)(5).
CARB and the California districts
have a longstanding history of
successfully adopting and implementing
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
technology-advancing regulations and
innovative control measures. They have
worked closely with research scientists
and the regulated industry to develop
regulations that are stringent enough to
compel technology development yet
flexible enough to encourage industry
innovations. CARB has provided a list
of potential long-term control measures
which include reduced deterioration of
emission control equipment in
passenger vehicles, tighter engine
emission standards, cleaner ground
support equipment at airports, and
prioritizing federal transportation
funding to support air quality goals. See
pp. 56–57 of the 2007 State Strategy.
The District has also provided a list of
potential advanced control technologies
and innovative approaches that could
achieve the long-term reductions. See
2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 11–5 to 11–10,
and Chapters 7 and 8. CARB updated its
list of potential long-term measures in
both the 2009 State Strategy Status
Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions. See 2009 State Strategy
Status Report, pp. 25–27 and 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, pp.
A–8 to A–12.
To implement the long-term strategy,
CARB has committed to a process that
will ensure that the long-term measures
and reductions are achieved by the
attainment year. CARB is coordinating a
government, private and public effort to
establish emissions reductions goals for
critical mobile and stationary source
categories. The effort includes periodic
assessment of technology advancement
opportunities and updates to the Board
and the public regarding new emission
control opportunities and progress in
achieving the long-term measure
reductions. CARB’s commitment for
implementing the long-term strategy
also includes (a) Sharing results through
periodic briefings to the Board,
workshops, conferences, symposia, Web
site postings and other means, (b)
working to secure resources for
continuing research and development of
new technologies, and (c) developing
schedules for moving from research to
implementation. Id.
An initial step in the long-term
strategy was the signing of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the U.S. EPA, CARB and the
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air
Districts to commit to developing and
testing new sustainable technologies to
accelerate progress in meeting air
quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to
help align agency research resources to
evaluate innovative technologies and
assess new monitoring equipment to
better measure mobile and stationary
source emissions. The MOA agencies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
have also established a Clean Air
Technology Initiative to help bring
together the necessary participants (e.g.,
scientists, engineers, analysts and
agency specialists) to achieve the goals
of the MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status
Report, pp. 25–27. For the SJV, the focus
is on the area that straddles Kern and
Tulare counties. This area, which
frequently exceeds health-based air
standards, has high levels of mobile
source emissions from the goods
movement corridors of Highway 99 and
Interstate 5 as well as stationary source
emissions from a variety of energy
production facilities, farms, and
agricultural processing operations. See
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A–9. For
a summary of San Joaquin Valley
funded projects, see https://epa.gov/
region9/cleantech/projects.html.
Other State programs that may
achieve emissions reductions to help
meet CARB’s 182(e)(5) commitment
include: potential co-benefits from
California’s climate change programs
where State legislation (Assembly Bill
32—Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32)) aims to reduce
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in 2020 to 1990
levels or by about 30 percent;
California’s Air Quality Improvement
Program (AQIP), an incentive program
that supports the deployment of hybrid
and zero-emission vehicles and other
advanced technologies; and California’s
annual research program, which
identifies projects and provides funding
to help provide timely scientific and
technical information needed for air
quality control programs.
In addition, the District is pursuing
innovative strategies. Its ‘‘Fast Track’’
strategy includes opportunities to
reduce emissions from heavy-duty
trucks by shifting goods movement to
lower-emission alternatives, such as
short-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S.
Department of Transportation awarded
the Ports of Stockton, West Sacramento,
and Oakland with a $30 million grant to
move goods between Oakland and the
two inland ports over the San JoaquinSacramento Delta. The District has also
adopted a Technology Advancement
Program (TAP) which is its strategic
approach to encouraging innovation and
development of new emission reduction
technologies. The TAP will consist of an
ongoing review of new technology
concepts, interagency partnerships,
funding for technology advancement
programs, and collaborations to build
and expand local capacity for research
and development in the SJV. For more
information about the SJV TAP, see
https://www.valleyair.org/Grant_
Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition
to the TAP, The District has established
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57855
a Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy to
support technology development and
deployment in the Valley. The Regional
Energy Efficiency Program lays out goals
and measures that will guide the
District’s actions to reduce emissions
caused by electricity and natural gas
consumption in residential, industrial,
and institutional settings. See 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A–11 to A–12.
Along with its commitment to the
process discussed above, CARB has
committed to submit an 8-hour ozone
SIP revision by 2020 that will: (1)
Reflect modifications to the 2023
emission reduction target based on
updated science and (2) identify
additional strategies and implementing
agencies needed to achieve the needed
reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions, p. A–8. The District has also
committed to submit by late 2019 SIP
revisions containing the control
measures that are necessary to achieve
the long-term measure reductions by the
attainment year and to make any other
needed revisions to the SIP. See
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution
No. 07–04–11a p. 6.
CARB’s 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
update and reaffirm both the ‘‘long-term
strategy commitment to identify and
implement advanced technologies to
reduce ozone-forming emissions in the
State Strategy’’ and the State’s
enforceable commitment ‘‘to develop,
adopt, and submit contingency
measures by 2020 if advanced
technology measures do not achieve
planned reductions.’’ See CARB
Resolution 11–22, July 21, 2011. Finally,
CARB has committed to meet annually
with EPA to discuss strategies to
maximize the clean air benefits of
emerging advanced technologies and to
provide annual summaries of strategies
and activities. See letter, James
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, August
29, 2011.
3. Proposed Actions on the RACM
Demonstration and Control Strategy
As described above, the District
evaluated a range of potentially
available measures for inclusion in its
2007 Ozone Plan and committed to
adopt those it found to be reasonably
available for implementation in the SJV.
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 processes
undertaken by the SJV MPOs and the
State. Their processes are also
consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57856
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
See, e.g., General Preamble at 13560 and
Seitz memo.
Based on our review of these RACM
analyses and the District’s and
California’s adopted rules, as well as
their commitments to adopt and
implement additional controls, we
propose to find that there are, at this
time, no additional reasonably available
control measures that would advance
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the SJV. Therefore, we
propose to find that the SJV 2007 Ozone
Plan, together with the 2007 State
Strategy, provides for the
implementation of all RACM as required
by CAA section 172(c)(1).
Because the SJV is designated and
classified as extreme nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) require the
implementation of RACT for all major
sources of VOC or NOX and all VOC
sources covered by an EPA-issued CTG
in this area. California submitted the
District’s revised 8-hour ozone RACT
SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on June 18,
2009. We have recently proposed to
partially approve and partially
disapprove this RACT SIP, based on our
proposal to determine that the RACT
SIP does not adequately demonstrate
compliance with section 182 RACT
requirements for ten source categories.
See Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; California; San
Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available
Control Technology for Ozone;
Proposed rule, signed August 31, 2011.
Under EPA’s longstanding policy, a
SIP meets the RACM requirement in
CAA section 172(c)(1) if it includes all
reasonably available measures that
individually or in combination with
other such reasonably available
measures can advance attainment of the
relevant standard by one year or more.
Based on our evaluation of the potential
emission reductions from the missing
section 182 RACT controls, we propose
to determine that the additional
reductions from these rules in
combination with other potential RACM
would not result in earlier attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
SJV. See TSD, section II.C.3.
We propose to approve the
SJVUAPCD’s commitments to achieve
specific aggregate emissions reductions
of NOX and VOC by specific years as
given in Table 6–2 of the 2007 Ozone
Plan and shown in Table 3 above. We
are not proposing to act on SJVAPCD’s
commitments to adopt and implement
specific control measures on the
schedule identified in Table 6–1 (as
amended December 18, 2008) in the
2007 Ozone Plan because, as of August
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
18, 2011 with the adoption of the Rule
4655, these commitments have all been
fulfilled.
We are proposing to approve CARB’s
commitments to propose certain defined
measures, as given in Table B–1 in 2011
Progress Report, Appendix B and
Appendix A–7 of the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions. We are also proposing to
approve CARB’s commitment to achieve
the total aggregate emissions reductions
necessary to demonstrate RFP and to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
the SJV as given in the 2009 State
Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and shown
in Table 8 above. See CARB Resolution
07–28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix
B, p. 3.
Finally, we are proposing to approve
the CARB’s and District’s long-term
strategy provisions and related
commitments in the SJV 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP under the new technology
provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5).
This proposal is based on our proposed
findings that they satisfy the two criteria
in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B).
First, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
does not rely on any of the new
technology reductions to demonstrate
RFP in any milestone year between 2008
and 2020. CARB has committed to
achieve 81 tpd of NOX reductions
through new technology measures
approved under section 182(e)(5) only
in the attainment year (2023). We note
that the amount and relative proportion
of reductions from measures scheduled
for long-term adoption under section
182(e)(5), as compared to measures
already adopted in regulatory form or
scheduled for near-term adoption,
should clearly decrease in any future
SIP update, and that EPA will not
approve a SIP revision that contains an
increase in the amount or relative
proportion of section 182(e)(5) new
technology measures without a
convincing showing in a SIP revision
that the technologies relied upon in the
near-term rules have been found to be
technologically infeasible or ineffective
in achieving the expected emissions
reductions.
Second, CARB has submitted an
enforceable commitment to submit
adopted contingency measures to EPA
by 2020 as required by CAA section
182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11–22,
July 21, 2011. These contingency
measures must be adequate to produce
emissions reductions sufficient, in
conjunction with other approved plan
provisions, to achieve the periodic
emissions reductions required by CAA
sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and to attain
by the applicable dates. See CAA
182(e)(5). Following the State’s
submittal of these contingency
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
measures, EPA will approve or
disapprove the provisions in accordance
with CAA section 110.
C. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for Attainment
Demonstrations
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires
states with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as serious or above to submit
plans that demonstrate attainment of the
applicable standard as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the outside
date established in the CAA.25 The
attainment demonstration is due within
three years of the area’s designation as
nonattainment (40 CFR 51.908) and
should include:
(1) Technical analyses to locate and
identify sources of emissions that are
causing violations of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS within the nonattainment area;
(2) Adopted measures with schedules
for implementation and other means
and techniques necessary and
appropriate for attainment; and
(3) Contingency measures required
under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
See 70 FR 71612 at 71615.
The requirements for the first two
items are described in the sections on
emissions inventories and RACM/RACT
above (sections IV.A. and IV.C.) and in
the sections on the air quality modeling
and attainment demonstration that
follow immediately below.
Requirements for the third item are
described in the section on contingency
measures (IV.F.).
2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2007
Ozone Plan
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires
SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to
include a ‘‘demonstration that the plan,
as revised, will provide for attainment
of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable
attainment date. This attainment
demonstration must be based on
photochemical grid modeling or any
other analytical method determined by
the Administrator, in the
Administrator’s discretion, to be at least
as effective.’’ Air quality modeling is
used to establish emissions attainment
targets, that is, the combination of
emissions of ozone precursors that the
area can accommodate without
exceeding the relevant standard, and to
assess whether the proposed control
strategy will result in attainment of that
standard. Air quality modeling is
25 EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.903(a) translates
the maximum attainment periods in Table 1 of
section 181, which are specifically linked to
enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, for
purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
performed for a base year and compared
to air quality monitoring data from that
year in order to evaluate model
performance. Once the performance is
determined to be acceptable, future year
changes to the emissions inventory are
simulated to determine the relationship
between emissions reductions and
changes in ambient air quality
throughout the air basin. The
procedures for modeling ozone as part
of an attainment demonstration are
contained in EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze’’ 26
(Guidance).
The air quality modeling that
underpins the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan is
described in Chapter 3 and documented
in Appendix F. We provide a brief
description of the modeling and a
summary of our evaluation of it below.
More detailed information about the
modeling and our evaluation are
available in section II.B. of the TSD.
CARB performed the air quality
modeling for the 2007 Ozone Plan.
Significant time, money, and effort by
CARB, the District, and many others
have gone into preparing the air quality
modeling to support the attainment
demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan
for the San Joaquin Valley, including
support for the multi-million dollar
Central California Ozone Study (CCOS).
CCOS is a cooperative effort involving
California cities, State and local and air
pollution control agencies, federal
agencies, industry groups, academics,
and contractors. Field data for CCOS
were collected during the 4 months
from June through October 2000 and
included five several-day intensive
monitoring periods. Data and modeling
results based on the CCOS study
provided a solid foundation for the 2007
Ozone Plan.
The Plan includes an attainment
demonstration using photochemical
modeling with the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)
model, incorporating the [California]
Statewide Air Pollution Research Center
(SAPRC) chemical mechanism, and
meteorological fields from the
Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5). In
addition to the July 29–August 2, 2000
episode using CCOS data, CARB
modeled ambient ozone levels during
July 9–13, 1999 using routinely
26 ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS and Regional Haze’’, EPA–454/B–07–002,
April 2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can
be found in ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ in
40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
available meteorological and air quality
data.
EPA recommends that States prepare
modeling protocols as part of their
modeled attainment demonstrations.
Guidance, p. 133. The Guidance at pp.
133–134 describes the topics to be
addressed in this modeling protocol. A
modeling protocol should detail and
formalize the procedures for conducting
all phases of the modeling analysis,
such as describing the background and
objectives, creating a schedule and
organizational structure, developing the
input data, conducting model
performance evaluations, interpreting
modeling results, describing procedures
for using the model to demonstrate
whether proposed strategies are
sufficient to attain the NAAQS, and
producing documentation to be
submitted for EPA Regional Office
review and approval prior to actual
modeling.
The 2007 Ozone Plan’s modeling
protocol is contained in Appendix C of
the CARB Staff Report 27 in the Plan.
The protocol covers all of the topics
recommended in the Guidance,
including model and episode selection,
meteorological and emission data
preparation, and performance testing.
The 2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality
model performance is discussed in
Appendix F, including extensive
statistical and graphical analysis
demonstrating adequate overall model
performance. The attainment
demonstration for a given monitoring
location used only those days that
satisfied a number of performance
criteria. The sensitivity testing
described by CARB provides assurance
that the model is adequately simulating
the physical and chemical processes
leading to ozone in the atmosphere and
that the model responds in a
scientifically reasonable way to
emissions changes.
The Plan’s Appendix F also provides
extensive documentation on the
Relative Reduction Factors, which are
the key results from the model for use
in the attainment test, and the details of
their calculation. The documentation
also includes the results of modeling
runs with various combinations of VOC
and NOX reductions, to illustrate
alternative control strategies and
establish a ‘‘carrying capacity’’, a
27 ‘‘Photochemical Modeling Protocol for
Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8-hour
Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California’’,
California Air Resources Board, 5/22/2007,
included as Appendix C to the ‘‘Final Draft, Staff
Report: Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007
Ozone Plan’’, State of California Air Resources
Board, 5/30/2007. (‘‘Staff Report’’ at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/
sjvozone.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57857
combination of VOC and NOX emissions
consistent with attainment of the ozone
standard. EPA proposes to conclude that
the attainment tests are adequate and
consistent with EPA guidance.
In addition to a modeled attainment
demonstration, which focuses on
locations with an air quality monitor,
EPA generally requires an unmonitored
area analysis. The unmonitored area
analysis uses a combination of model
output and ambient data to identify
areas that might exceed the NAAQS if
monitors were located there. It ensures
that a control strategy leads to
reductions in ozone in unmonitored
locations that might have baseline (and
future) ambient ozone levels exceeding
the NAAQS. In order to examine
unmonitored areas in all portions of the
modeling domain, EPA recommends use
of interpolated spatial fields of ambient
data combined with gridded modeled
outputs. Guidance, p. 29. CARB’s
unmonitored area analysis 28 uses EPA’s
MATS software. Based on this analysis
CARB concluded that there are no
unmonitored ozone peaks in the
modeling domain that would violate the
1997 8-hour ozone standards.
Finally, the Plan’s Appendix F
concludes with ‘‘Corroborative
Analyses/Weight Of Evidence
Elements’’, containing a supplemental
analyses in support of the attainment
demonstration. These analyses include
ozone air quality trends,
meteorologically adjusted ozone trends,
and precursor emission trends, all of
which show continued progress and
support the conclusion that the
attainment demonstration is sound.
Base on our review, EPA proposes to
find that the air quality modeling
provides an adequate basis for the
RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment
demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP.
3. Enforceable Commitments in the
Attainment Demonstration
Section 11.2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan
includes the initial attainment
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards in the SJV. The 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions update this
demonstration to reflect changes to
future year inventories and adopted
controls.
The air quality modeling described
above demonstrates that a 75 percent
reduction in NOX emissions from the
2002 base year level is necessary to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
28 ‘‘Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the
San Joaquin Valley’’, California Air Resources
Board, August 12, 2011.
SJV_unmonitored_ozone.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57858
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
A 75 percent reduction from the 2002
base year level equates to an attainment
target level of 160 tpd NOX. See 2007
State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone
SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002
base year NOX emissions downward by
12 percent based on improved inventory
methodologies and data. See Section
IV.A. above.
Both CARB and EPA recognize that
the ideal approach for evaluating the
impact of the base year inventory
changes on the attainment target would
be to perform new air quality modeling.
Both Agencies also recognize the time
and effort involved in such modeling for
an area that is as large and diverse as the
San Joaquin Valley. To address the need
for remodeling, CARB has committed to
update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
modeling to reflect the emissions
inventory improvements and any other
new information by December 31, 2014
or by the date the SIPs are due for the
revised 8-hour ozone standard
whichever comes first. See CARB
Resolution 11–22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone
SIP Revisions, p. B–8.
As part of the technical support for
the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB
qualitatively evaluated the impact on
the attainment target of the revision to
this base year inventory and concluded
that the 160 tpd target remains viable.
See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B–9.
The 160 tpd target represents a 72
percent reduction from the revised 2002
base year level. CARB also recognized,
however, that a reduction of up to 75
percent from the revised baseline (an
attainment target level of 141 tpd) may
be necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard in the SJV and
reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy
commitment to achieve all emissions
reductions that are necessary to provide
for attainment. See CARB Resolution
11–22, p. 3.
As EPA stated in its comment letter
on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions,29 we believe that a 75 percent
reduction from the base year NOX
emissions level, based on the modeling
provided in the Plan as submitted in
2007, provides the best available
estimate of the NOX reductions needed
to reach attainment. The predicted
ozone concentrations from the existing
modeling matched the monitored ozone
concentration from the summer 2000
episode fairly well, despite having what
we now know to be overly high
emissions inputs. The model, therefore,
may be underpredicting ozone
concentrations and the original 160 tpd
NOX target may result in higher ozone
levels than the existing modeling
predicted. Applying the 75 percent
reduction from the existing modeling
against the revised base year inventory
compensates for this underprediction.
This equates to a target level of 141 tpd
compared to the original target level of
160 tpd.
In our comment letter, we
recommended that CARB commit to
revising the modeling by a specific date
and to commit, in the interim, to
achieving a 75 percent reduction in NOX
from the revised 2002 base year levels
by 2023. We noted that these
recommendations are consistent with
CARB’s continuing strong commitment
and efforts to achieve the emission
reductions needed for attainment of the
air quality standards in the San Joaquin
Valley and the rest of California.
In response, CARB included a
commitment to update the 2007 SIP
modeling for the SJV to reflect
emissions inventory improvements and
reaffirmed its commitment to achieve
the emissions reduction necessary to
provide for attainment. CARB has stated
that these commitments are sufficient to
address the concerns we raised in our
comment letter. See 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions Supplement, p. 1.
EPA notes that NOX reductions
needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd
relative to the reductions needed to
meet a target level of 160 tpd are part
of CARB’s long-term commitment
discussed above in section IV.B.2.d. The
current estimate of the NOX reductions
needed from new technologies, based on
adopted measures and CARB’s
remaining commitments for reductions
from defined measures, is
approximately 50 tpd. See Table 10
below. This level of reductions is well
within CARB’s existing commitment to
achieve 81 tpd of NOX emissions
reductions from new or improved
technologies. See 2009 State Strategy
Status Report, p. 21.
Table 9 below summarizes our
evaluation of the attainment
demonstration taking into account
emission reductions achieved to date
and other updates.
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR SJV’S 8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
[Tons per summer day, 2023]
NOX
A
B
C
D
E
F
Revised 2002 baseline emissions level ........................................................................................................
Attainment target level ...................................................................................................................................
Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to demonstrate attainment (A–B) ...............................
Attainment year baseline emissions level .....................................................................................................
Reductions from baseline measures and improvements to the emissions inventories (A–D) .....................
Reductions needed from control strategy measures including, for NOX, reductions from new technologies (B–D) .................................................................................................................................................
VOC
565.2
141
424.2
226.6
338.6
457.5
342
115.5
403.3
54.2
85.6
61.3
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: TSD, Table D–11.
have been approved by EPA either
through the SIP process or the CAA
section 209 waiver process. See
Appendices A and B of the TSD. Also
included in the baseline are
improvements to the emissions
inventories, discussed above in section
IV.A. The remaining reductions needed
for attainment are to be achieved
As shown in this table, the majority
of the emissions reductions that the
State projects are needed for attaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
SJV by 2024 come from baseline
reductions. These baseline reductions
are from existing control measures
including numerous adopted District
and State measures, which generally
through the District’s and CARB’s
enforceable commitments to reduce
emissions in the SJV or through their
commitments to develop and deploy
new technologies pursuant to CAA
section 182(e)(5). Since the submittal of
the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State
Strategy, the District and CARB have
adopted measures that have
29 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executive
Officer, CARB, July 20, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
significantly reduced the amount of
emission reductions needed for
57859
attainment that remain as commitments.
See Table 10.
TABLE 10—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT REMAINING AS COMMITMENTS BASED ON SIP–CREDITABLE
MEASURES
[Tons per summer day in 2023]
VOC
NOX
A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain (A–B) ........................
B Reductions from baseline measures and adjustments due to emissions inventory improvements .......
C Total reductions from approved measures (Tables 4 and 7) .................................................................
D Total reductions remaining as commitments and, for NOX, reductions from new technologies (A–B–
C) ................................................................................................................................................................
E Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable commitments1 ..................................................................
F Reductions remaining as SJVAPCD enforceable commitments .............................................................
G Total reductions remaining as reductions from new technologies (CAA section 182(e)(5)) ..................
H Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments not including NOX reductions from
new technologies .......................................................................................................................................
423.9
338.6
32.4
115.5
54.2
53.6
53.2
4.7
0
48.6
7.7
5.9
1.8
1.1%
6.7%
1 Calculated
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NOX commitments (Table 8) the adjustment to baseline from State and federal sources
from 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from currently SIP-creditable State measures on
Table 7 (19.8 tpd).
As shown in Table 9, reductions in
the projected baseline inventory from
measures already adopted by the
District and State (both prior to and as
part of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007
State Strategy) that EPA has approved or
proposed for approval provide the great
majority of the emissions reductions
needed to demonstrate attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV.
The balance is in the form of either
enforceable commitments to specific
aggregate emissions reductions by the
District and CARB (lines E and F in
Table 10 above) or reductions from new
or improved technologies under CAA
section 182(e)(5) (line G in Table 10). In
this section we discuss the enforceable
commitments that are part of the
attainment demonstration in the SJV
2007 8-hour ozone SIP.
We believe that, with respect to the
2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP,
circumstances warrant the consideration
of enforceable commitments as part of
the attainment demonstration.30 As
shown in Table 9 above, the majority of
NOX emissions reductions and a
substantial fraction of the VOC
reductions needed to demonstrate RFP
and attainment in the SJV come from
rules and regulations that were adopted
prior to 2007, i.e., from the baseline
measures. As a result of these State and
District efforts, most sources in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area are
currently subject to stringent rules
adopted prior to the State Strategy’s and
the Plan’s development, leaving few
30 Based on SIP-creditable measures adopted to
date, the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP does not rely
on enforceable commitments to aggregate emissions
reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we
discuss here only those enforceable commitments
relied on to demonstrate attainment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
opportunities (and generally more
technologically and economically
challenging ones) to further reduce
emissions. In the 2007 Ozone Plan and
the 2007 State Strategy, the District and
CARB identified potential control
measures that could contribute many of
the additional emissions reductions
needed for attainment. See 2007 Ozone
Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State
Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the
timeline needed to develop, adopt, and
implement these measures went beyond
the November 2007 submittal date of the
SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP. These
circumstances warrant the District’s and
CARB’s reliance on enforceable
commitments as part of the attainment
demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan
and 2007 State.
Given the State’s demonstrated need
for reliance on enforceable
commitments, we now consider the
three factors EPA uses to determine
whether the use of enforceable
commitments in lieu of adopted
measures to meet a CAA planning
requirements is approvable: (a) Do the
commitments address a limited portion
of the statutorily-required program; (b)
is the state capable of fulfilling its
commitments; and (c) are the
commitments for a reasonable and
appropriate period of time.
a. The Commitments Are a Limited
Portion of Required Reductions
For the first factor, we look to see if
the commitment addresses a limited
portion of a statutory requirement, such
as the amount of emissions reductions
needed to demonstrate RFP and
attainment in a nonattainment area. For
this calculation, reductions assigned to
the new technologies provision (CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section 182(e)(5)) are not counted as
commitments.31
As shown Table 9, the remaining
portion of the enforceable commitments,
after accounting for approved measures
and advanced technology measures,
needed to demonstrate attainment of the
8-hour ozone standard in the San
Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and,
approximately 4.6 tpd of NOX. When
compared to the total reductions needed
to demonstrate attainment (not
including the CAA section 182(e)(5)
reductions in the attainment
demonstration), the remaining portion
of the enforceable commitments
represents at most 6.7 percent of the
needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the
needed NOX. Historically, EPA has
approved SIPs with enforceable
commitments in the range of 10 percent
or less. See our approval of the SJV
PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26,
2004), the SJV 1-hour ozone plan at 75
FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), the HoustonGalveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR
57160 (November 14, 2001), proposed
approval of the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP at 76
FR 41338 (July 13, 2011), and proposed
approval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP at
76 FR 41562 (July 14, 2011). Thus, the
State’s commitment addresses a limited
proportion of the required emissions
reductions.
31 CAA section 182(e)(5) specifically allows EPA
to approve an attainment demonstration that relies
on reductions from new technologies. This
provision is separate from the requirement in CAA
section 172(c)(6) for enforceable emissions
limitations under which enforceable commitments
are considered. As a result, reductions attributed in
the attainment demonstration to new technologies
are not considered part of the State’s enforceable
commitments for the purposes of determining the
percent of the reductions needed for attainment that
remain as commitments.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57860
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its
Commitments
For the second factor, we consider
whether the State and District are
capable of fulfilling their commitments.
As discussed above, CARB has
adopted and submitted the 2009 State
Strategy Status Report and the 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions, which update and
revise the 2007 State Strategy. These
submittals show that CARB has made
significant progress in meeting its
enforceable commitments for the San
Joaquin Valley. The District has already
exceeded its commitments for reducing
NOX emissions for the attainment year
of 2023. See Tables 3 and 4 above and
Table D–4 in the TSD. It also has
adopted additional rules (Rules 9510
and 4320) that are projected to achieve
NOX reductions in the attainment year.
These reductions, however, are not
currently creditable to the attainment
and RFP demonstrations. In addition,
the District has adopted revisions to
District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines) that are
likely to achieve substantial NOX
reductions. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft
Staff Report Proposed Amendments To
Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion
Engines), August 18, 2011. It has also
adopted Rule 4566 (Organic Materials
Composting Operations) that will
achieve an estimated 19 tpd reductions
in VOC (in SIP currency) by 2017.
Finally, the District is continuing to
work to identify and adopt additional
measures to reduce emissions. Beyond
the rules discussed above, both CARB
and the District have well-funded
incentive grant programs to reduce
emissions from the on- and off-road
engine fleets. Reductions from several of
these programs have yet to be quantified
and/or credited in the attainment
demonstration. See, for example,
SJVAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Progress Report
(May 2011), section 2.3.
Given the State’s and District’s efforts
to date to reduce emissions, we believe
that the State and District are capable of
meeting their enforceable commitments
to adopt measures to reduce emissions
of NOX and VOC to the levels needed
in combination with reductions from
the new technologies provision to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
San Joaquin Valley by CAA deadline of
June 15, 2024.
c. The Commitments Are for a
Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe
For the third and last factor, we
consider whether the commitment is for
a reasonable and appropriate period of
time.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
In order to meet the commitments to
reduce emissions to the levels needed to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
the San Joaquin Valley, the 2007 Ozone
Plan and 2007 State Strategy included
ambitious rule development, adoption,
and implementation schedules, which
both the District and CARB have
substantially met. Given that almost all
the emissions reductions committed to
by District and CARB have already been
achieved and the rules that are likely to
achieve the few remaining ones are
scheduled for adoption by 2013, these
schedules provide sufficient time to
achieve the few remaining reductions
needed to attain (when considered with
the emissions reductions provided by
the advanced technology provision) by
the applicable attainment date of June
15, 2024. See Tables 2 and 5 above.
Thus, we find that the commitments are
for a reasonable and appropriate
timeframe.
4. Proposed Action on the Attainment
Demonstration
In order to approve a SIP’s attainment
demonstration, EPA must make several
findings:
First, we must find that the
demonstration’s technical bases—
emissions inventories and air quality
modeling—are adequate. As discussed
above in sections IV.A. and IV.C.2., we
are proposing to approve the revised
base year emissions inventory and to
find the air quality modeling adequate
to support the attainment
demonstration.
Second, we must find that the SIP
provides for expeditious attainment
through the implementation of all
RACM. As discussed above in section
II.C., we are proposing to approve the
RACM demonstration in the SJV 2007 8hour Ozone SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1).
Third, we must find that the
emissions reductions that are relied on
for attainment are creditable and are
sufficient to provide for attainment. As
shown on Table 9, the 2007 8-hour
Ozone SIP relies primarily on adopted
and approved/waived rules to achieve
the emissions reductions needed to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards
in the SJV by June 15, 2024. The balance
of the reductions projected to be needed
for attainment is currently in the form
of enforceable commitments to adopt
measures to achieve aggregate tonnage
reductions of VOC or NOX in the near
term from available technologies and an
enforceable commitment to adopt and
submit in the longer term measures
relying on the development and
deployment of new technologies that
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
will achieve specific aggregate tonnage
reductions of NOX.
EPA has previously accepted
enforceable commitments in lieu of
adopted control measures in attainment
demonstrations when circumstances
warrant them and the commitments
meet three criteria. As discussed above
in section IV.C.3., we propose to find
that circumstances here warrant the
consideration of enforceable
commitments and that the three criteria
are met: (1) The commitments constitute
a limited portion of the required
emissions reductions, (2) both the State
and the District have demonstrated their
capability to meet their commitments,
and (3) the commitments are for an
appropriate timeframe. Based on these
evaluations, we are proposing to
approve the enforceable commitments
as part of the attainment demonstration
in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.
CAA section 182(e)(5) allows extreme
ozone nonattainment area plans under
certain conditions to include provisions
for the development of new
technologies and allows EPA to approve
attainment demonstrations based, in
part, on those provisions. For the
reasons discussed above in section
IV.B., we propose to find that California
has met the conditions for relying on the
CAA’s new technologies provisions in
its attainment demonstration for the
SJV.
As discussed above in section IV.C.2.
above, the SJV Ozone Plan and State
Strategy, as adopted in 2007,
demonstrates that a 75 percent
reduction in NOX emissions from the
2002 base year level is necessary to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP
in 2007, the base year NOX emissions
level has to be revised downward by 12
percent due to new inventory
methodologies and data. Both CARB
and EPA recognize that the ideal
approach for evaluating the impact of
these base year inventory changes on
the attainment target in the SJV 2007
Ozone Plan would be to perform new air
quality modeling, but both also
recognize the time and effort involved
in such modeling. CARB has committed
to update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
modeling to reflect the emissions
inventory improvements and any other
new information by December 31, 2014
or by the date the SIPs are due for the
revised 8-hour ozone standard
whichever comes first. See CARB
Resolution 11–22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone
SIP Revisions, p. B–8. EPA is proposing
to approve this commitment.
EPA believes that a 75 percent
reduction from the base year NOX
emissions level from the existing
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57861
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
modeling provides the best currently
available estimate of the NOX reductions
needed to reach attainment. CARB has
committed to, and has reaffirmed its
commitment to achieve the reductions
needed for attainment in the SJV. See
CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27,
2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State
Strategy Status Report, p. 13, and CARB
Resolution 11–22, p. 3. It has also stated
that these commitments are sufficient to
address the attainment needs of the SJV.
See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
Supplement, p. 1. As discussed above,
CARB’s commitment to achieving 81
tpd of NOX emissions reductions from
new technologies is sufficient to cover
any reductions that may be needed for
attainment due to the changes to the
base year inventory.
For the foregoing reasons, we propose
to approve the attainment
demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP.
D. Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
1. Requirements for RFP Demonstrations
CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that
plans for nonattainment areas provide
for reasonable further progress (RFP).
RFP is defined in section 171(1) as
‘‘such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by [title 1, part D] or may
reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
[standard] by the applicable date.’’ CAA
Section 182(b)(1) specifically requires
that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas
that are classified as moderate or above
demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in
VOC emissions between the years of
1990 and 1996. For ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
serious or higher, CAA Section
182(c)(2)(B) also requires, in addition to
the 15 percent reduction required under
CAA 182(b)(1), a three percent per year
reduction (averaged over three-year
periods) of ozone precursor emissions
until attainment.
The ozone implementation rule
interprets the RFP requirements for the
purposes of the 1997 ozone standards,
establishing requirements for RFP that
depend on the area’s classification as
well as whether the area has an
approved 15 percent rate of progress
plan for VOC under CAA section
182(b)(1) for the 1-hour ozone standard
that covers the entire 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR
51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612. In 1997 EPA
approved a 15 percent rate of progress
plan for the SJV which covers the
current 1997 8-hour ozone standard
nonattainment area. See 62 FR 1150,
1172 (January 8, 1997). As a result, the
area does not need to demonstrate
another 15 percent reduction in VOC.
Instead, under the ozone
implementation rule, the 8-hour ozone
SIP for SJV must provide for an average
of three percent per year of VOC and/
or NOX emissions reductions for (1) the
six-year period beginning January 1 of
the year following the year used for the
baseline and (2) all remaining three-year
periods after the first six-year period out
to the area’s attainment date. 40 CFR
51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically
provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C),
emissions reductions from all SIP
approved, federally promulgated, or
otherwise SIP creditable measures that
occur after the baseline are creditable
for purposes of demonstrating RFP
targets are met. The implementation
rule also sets the baseline for RFP
calculations as 2002.
The RFP demonstration must
calculate and exclude the non-creditable
reductions described in CAA
182(b)(1)(D). These non-creditable
reductions include emissions reductions
from pre-1990 federal motor vehicle
programs. The method for calculating
the target emissions levels is found in
Appendix A to the preamble of the
ozone implementation rule. See 70 FR
71612 at 71696.
2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007
8-Hour Ozone SIP
California has made several
submittals to address the RFP
requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the SJV. The last of these is
found in Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone
SIP Revisions. This revised
demonstration incorporates the
inventory revisions described in section
IV.A. above as well as reductions from
measures that have been adopted since
the 2007 Ozone Plan’s submittal except
for those that EPA has determined by
rule are not currently creditable. See
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 2.
3. Proposed Action on the RFP
Demonstration
CARB calculated the RFP target levels
following the method provided in the
ozone implementation rule and
preamble. See 40 CFR 51.910 and 70 FR
71612 at 71631–71650. EPA has made
minor adjustments to the State’s
calculations to remove reductions from
currently unapproved measures (e.g.,
pesticides). A summary of our
evaluation of the State’s RFP
demonstration, taking into account
these minor adjustments, is shown in
Table 11 below. The detailed analysis
can be found in section II.G. of the TSD.
As shown in the Table 11, the SJV 2007
8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in
each milestone years. We propose,
therefore, to approve the SIP’s RFP
demonstration.
TABLE 11—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS
[Summer planning tons per day]
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VOC Calculation
Target level of VOC needed to meet ROP requirement.
Baseline VOC in milestone year (with uncreditable
reductions removed).
Apparent shortfall ...................................................
Percent apparent shortfall in VOC .........................
Shortfall previous provided by NOX substitution ....
Percent actual shortfall in VOC ..............................
365.0 ...........
327.2 ...........
293.6 ...........
264.4 ...........
239.7 ...........
218.1
408.8 ...........
355.9 ...........
333.5 ...........
331.0 ...........
333.0 ...........
341.5
43.8 .............
9.8% ............
0.0% ............
9.8% ............
28.7 .............
6.5% ............
9.8% ............
¥3.3% ........
39.9 .............
9.2% ............
9.6% ............
¥0.4% ........
66.6 .............
15.4% ..........
9.2% ............
6.2% ............
93.3 .............
21.6% ..........
15.4% ..........
6.2% ............
123.4
28.6%
21.6%
7.0%
NOX Calculations
Adjusted NOX baseline (MVCP and uncreditable
reductions removed).
Change in NOX since 2002 adopted controls only
Percent change in NOX since 2002 .......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
425.5 ...........
359.6 ...........
309.0 ...........
260.3 ...........
226.5 ...........
196.5
122.9 ...........
22.4% ..........
184.4 ...........
33.9% ..........
213.4 ...........
42.8% ..........
278.0 ...........
51.5% ..........
310.8 ...........
57.8% ..........
537.0
63.4%
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57862
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 11—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued
[Summer planning tons per day]
2008
Percent change in NOX used for VOC substitution
through previous milestone.
Percent reductions since 2002 available for RFP
substitution and contingency in the milestone
year.
Percent change since 2002 used for VOC substitution in the milestone year, percent.
Percent change since 2002 surplus after meeting
substitution in the milestone year.
RFP met? ...............................................................
E. Transportation Control Strategies and
Transportation Control Measures To
Offset Emissions Increases From VMT
Increases, To Provide for RFP and
Attainment
1. Requirements for Transportation
Control Strategies and Transportation
Control Measures To Offset Emissions
Growth, To Provide for RFP and
Attainment
CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires
that areas classified as severe or extreme
submit transportation control strategies
and transportation control measures
(TCM) sufficient to offset any growth in
VOC emissions from growth in VMT or
the number of vehicle trips, and to
provide (along with other measures) the
reductions needed to meet the
applicable RFP requirement. CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires that
states choose and implement such
measures as are specified in section
108(f), to the extent needed to
demonstrate attainment. In selecting the
measures, Congress directed that States
‘‘should ensure adequate access to
downtown, other commercial, and
2011
2014
2017
2020
0% ...............
9.6% ............
9.6% ............
9.6% ............
15.8% ..........
22.0%
22.4% ..........
24.1% ..........
33.0% ..........
41.8% ..........
41.8% ..........
41.1%
9.8% ............
0.0% ............
0.0% ............
6.2% ............
6.2% ............
7.0%
12.6% ..........
24.1% ..........
33.0% ..........
35.6% ..........
35.5% ..........
34.1%
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
Yes.
residential areas and should avoid
measures that increase or relocate
emissions and congestion rather than
reduce them.’’ CAA 182(d)(1)(A).
EPA believes that it is appropriate to
treat the three required elements of
section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting
emissions growth, attainment of the RFP
reduction, and attainment of the ozone
standard) as separable. As to the first
element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
(i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA
has historically interpreted 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 13521–13522.32
2. Transportation Control Strategies and
Transportation Control Measures To
Offset Emissions Growth, To Provide for
RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP
Information in 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions reproduced in Table 12 below
shows that on-road mobile source
emissions of VOC and NOX decline
steadily from 2008 to 2023. This decline
in emissions is due to EPA’s and
2023
California’s on-road mobile source
programs, California’s clean fuels and
SmogCheck programs, and CARB’s inuse truck and bus rule. As discussed
above in section IV.B., these programs
are fully creditable for SIP planning
purposes in attainment and RFP
demonstrations, including
demonstrating compliance with CAA
section 182(d)(1). The on-road
emissions in Table 12 are calculated
using EMFAC2007 (the most recent
EPA-approved mobile source emissions
model) and the same planning
assumptions used to develop the RFP
and attainment demonstrations and
transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budget in the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p.
C–1. As described above in section
IV.B., the SJV MPOs evaluated a wide
variety of transportation control
strategies and measures, including those
measures listed in CAA section 108(f),
and determined that there were no
combinations of reasonable measures
that would expedite attainment of the 8hour ozone standard in the SJV. See
2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix C.
TABLE 12—ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 2008–2023
[Tons per summer day]
Year
2008
VOC .........................................................
NOX ..........................................................
2011
78
229
2014
66
183
2017
50
153
2020
43
115
2023
39
91
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, page B–3.
32 See also 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995)
approval of Illinois’ vehicle miles traveled plan for
the Chicago area; 62 FR 23410 (April 30, 1997) and
62 FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), proposed and final
approval of New Jersey’s 15 percent ROP plan and
other provisions for the New York-New Jersey-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 23849
(May 10, 2001), approval of the New York’s
attainment demonstration and related provisions for
the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone
nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 (November 14,
2001), approval of the VMT offset plan for the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area; 70
FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the
Washington, DC area’s 1-hour attainment
demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR
34358 (June 14, 2005), approval of Atlanta’s VMT
plan.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
37
69
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
3. Proposed Action Transportation
Control Strategies and Transportation
Control Measures To Offset Emissions
Growth, To Provide for RFP and
Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP
Because both VOC and NOX
emissions from on-road mobile sources
decline steadily over the entire time
period covered by the 2007 8-hour
Ozone SIP,33 the SIP need not include
additional transportation control
strategies and TCM to offset growth in
emissions from growth in VMT.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the
requirement in CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation
control strategies and TCM sufficient to
offset any growth in emissions from
growth in VMT or the number of vehicle
trips.
In Association of Irritated Residents v.
EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that, with respect to the
first element, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the
CAA requires States to adopt
transportation control measures and
strategies whenever vehicle emissions
are projected to be higher than they
would have been had vehicle miles
traveled not increased, even when
aggregate vehicle emissions are actually
decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for
rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09–
71383 and 09–71404 (consolidated),
Docket Entry 41–1, Petition for Panel
Rehearing.
The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its
mandate in the Association of Irritated
Residents case, and EPA has not
adopted the court’s interpretation for
the reasons set forth in the Agency’s
petition for rehearing, pending a final
decision by the court. If the court denies
the Agency’s petition for rehearing and
issues its mandate before EPA issues a
final rule on the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone
SIP, then we anticipate that we would
not be able to finalize approval of the
SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with respect
to the first element (i.e., offsetting
emissions growth) of section
182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in today’s
action, and in the alternative to the
proposed approval, we are
simultaneously proposing to disapprove
the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with
respect to the first element (i.e.,
33 CARB only presented mobile source emissions
estimates for the RFP milestone years rather than
for each year between 2011 and 2023. We believe
this adequately meets the CAA section 182(d)(3)
requirement. There is nothing in the record to
indicate that mobile sources emissions in the SJV
are likely to increase between milestone years
before returning to their historic downward trend
in the milestone years.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
offsetting emissions growth) of section
182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan’s failure
to include sufficient transportation
control strategies and TCM to offset the
emissions from growth in VMT. If EPA
were to finalize the proposed
disapproval, the area would be eligible
for a protective finding under the
transportation conformity rule because
the submitted SIP contains adopted
control measures and enforceable
commitments that fully satisfy the
emissions reductions requirements for
reasonable further progress and
attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).34
As discussed above in section IV.D.,
we are proposing to find that the SJV
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for
RFP consistent with all applicable CAA
and EPA regulatory requirements.
Therefore, we also propose to find that
the SIP meets the requirement in CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A) to include
transportation control strategies and
TCM as necessary to provide (along
with other measures) the reductions
needed to meet the applicable RFP
requirement.
Finally, as discussed in sections IV.B.
and IV.C. above, we are proposing to
find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
provides expeditious attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore,
we propose to find that the SIP meets
the requirement in CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) to include measures to the
extent needed to demonstrate
attainment.
F. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency
Measures
Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2 as moderate or above must
include in their SIPs contingency
measures consistent with sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency
measures are additional controls to be
implemented in the event the area fails
to meet a RFP milestone or fails to attain
by its attainment date. These
contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or measures which are
ready for implementation quickly upon
failure to meet milestones or attainment.
The SIP should contain trigger
mechanisms for the contingency
34 An area would not be eligible for a protective
finding under the transportation conformity
regulation if EPA finalizes a disapproval of a
control strategy implementation plan revision (i.e.,
a plan that demonstrates reasonable further progress
or attainment) because the plan revision does not
contain adopted control measures or written
commitments to enforceable control measures that
fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements
relevant to the statutory provision for which the
implementation plan revision was submitted. 40
CFR 93.120(a)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57863
measures, specify a schedule for
implementation, and indicate that the
measures will be implemented without
significant further action by the State or
EPA. See 68 FR 32802, 32837 and 70 FR
71612, 71650.
Additional guidance on the CAA
contingency measure provisions is
found in the General Preamble at
13510–13512 and 13520. The guidance
indicates that states should adopt and
submit contingency measures sufficient
to provide a 3 percent emissions
reduction from the adjusted RFP base
year. EPA concludes this level of
reductions is generally acceptable to
offset emission increases while States
are correcting their SIPs. These
reductions should be beyond what is
needed to meet the attainment and/or
RFP requirement. States may use
reductions of either VOC or NOX or a
combination of both to meet the
contingency measure requirements.
General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6.
EPA guidance also provides that
contingency measures could be
implemented early, i.e., prior to the
milestone or attainment date.35
Consistent with this policy, states are
allowed to use excess reductions from
already adopted measures to meet the
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
contingency measures requirement. This
is because the purpose of contingency
measures is to provide extra reductions
that are not relied on for RFP or
attainment that will provide continued
progress while the plan is being revised
to fully address the failure to meet the
required milestone. Nothing in the CAA
precludes a State from implementing
such measures before they are triggered.
This approach has been approved by
EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844
(April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana
portion of the Chicago area 15 percent
ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of
the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan);
66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed
approval of the Rhode Island post-1996
ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR
634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the
Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstrations). In
the only adjudicated challenge to this
approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN
v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70
FR 71611, 71651.
In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5)
authorizes EPA to ‘‘approve provisions
of an implementation plan for an
Extreme Area which anticipate
35 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/
Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors,
‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ June 1, 1992.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57864
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
development of new control techniques
or improvement of existing control
techniques, and an attainment
demonstration based on such
provisions,’’ if the State meets certain
criteria. See CAA 182(e)(5). Such plan
provisions may include enforceable
commitments to submit, at a later date,
contingency measures for failure to
attain under CAA section 172(c)(9), in
addition to the contingency measures to
be implemented if the anticipated
technologies approved under section
182(e)(5) do not achieve planned
reductions. These contingency measures
must be submitted no later than three
years before proposed implementation
of the plan provisions and approved or
disapproved by EPA in accordance with
CAA section 110. Id.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Contingency Measures in the SJV
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
Contingency measure provisions are
described in Section 11.6. of the 2007
Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007
State Strategy as updated on February 1,
2008. The provisions were again
updated in the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions, Appendix A. To provide for
contingency measures for failure to
make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus
NOX reductions in the RFP
demonstration. See 2011 Ozone SIP
Revision, Attachment A, p. A–3. See
also Table 11 above. To provide for
contingency measures for failure to
attain, the SIP relies in part on the
additional incremental emissions
reductions resulting from fleet turnover
in the 2024. Fleet turnover in 2024 is
expected to reduce NOX emissions by 2
tpd and VOC emissions by less than 0.5
tpd. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
Supplement, Attachment 2.
Additionally, as discussed above in
section IV.B.2.d., we are proposing to
determine that CARB and the
SJVUAPCD have satisfied the criteria in
section 182(e)(5) for reliance on the new
technology provision as part of the
attainment demonstration in the 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP. Based on the State’s
anticipated development of these new
technologies, CARB has submitted an
enforceable commitment to submit, no
later than 2020, additional contingency
measures under CAA section 182(e)(5)
that meet the requirements for
attainment contingency measures in
CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to
contingency measures to be
implemented if the anticipated longterm measures approved pursuant to
section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned
reductions. See CARB Resolution No.
11–22 (July 21, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency
Measures
As discussed above in section IV.D.,
we are proposing to approve the 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP’s RFP demonstration.
As seen in the second to last line on
Table 11 above (the RFP demonstration),
there are sufficient excess reductions of
NOX in each milestone year beyond
those needed to meet the next RFP
percent reduction requirement to
provide the 3 percent of adjusted
baseline emissions reductions needed to
meet the RFP contingency measure
requirement for 2011, 2014, 2017, and
2020.
No RFP contingency measures are
needed for 2008, since the 2011 Ozone
SIP Revisions demonstrate that SJV has
already met its 2008 milestone. See
Table 11 above. As a result, contingency
measures for failure to meet the 2008
RFP benchmark will never be triggered
and thus are not needed.
Contingency measures for failure to
attain—The incremental additional
emissions reductions that will occur in
2024 (the year after the attainment year)
from the continuing implementation of
both on- and off-road motor vehicle
controls may be used to meet the
contingency measure requirement for
failure to attain. For the SJV, these
reductions are 2 tpd of NOX and less
than 0.5 tpd of VOC.
In addition, based on our proposal to
determine that the State has satisfied the
criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance
on long-term measures as part of the
attainment demonstration in the 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to approve
CARB’s enforceable commitment to
submit, no later than 2020, additional
contingency measures under CAA
section 182(e)(5) that meet the
requirements for attainment
contingency measures in CAA section
172(c)(9), in addition to contingency
measures to be implemented if the
anticipated long-term measures
approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5)
do not achieve planned reductions.36
CARB Resolution No. 11–22 (July 21,
2011).
Accordingly, we propose to approve
the RFP and attainment contingency
measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9), based in part on CARB’s
commitment to submit by 2020
additional contingency measures
meeting the requirements of CAA
36 These contingency measures should, at a
minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of
emissions reduction progress continues to be made
if attainment is not achieved and additional
planning by the State is needed. See General
Preamble at 13524.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(e)(5).
Following the State’s submittal of these
additional contingency measures, EPA
will approve or disapprove the
provisions in accordance with CAA
section 110.
G. Advanced Control Technology and
Clean Fuels for Boilers
1. Requirements for Advanced
Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers
CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that
SIPs for extreme areas must require each
new, modified, and existing electric
utility and industrial and commercial
boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of
NOX to either burn as its primary fuel
natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a
comparably low polluting fuel), or use
advanced control technology (such as
catalytic control technology or other
comparably effective control methods).
These provisions are due three years
after designation and the control
requirements must be in place eight
years after designation. Further
guidance on this requirement is
provided in the General Preamble at
13523. According to the General
Preamble, a boiler should generally be
considered as any combustion
equipment used to produce steam and
generally does not include a process
heater that transfers heat from
combustion gases to process streams.
General Preamble at 13523. In addition,
boilers with rated heat inputs less than
15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which
are oil or gas fired may generally be
considered de minimis and exempt from
these requirements since it is unlikely
that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX
emission limit. General Preamble at
13524.
2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in
the SJV District Rules
The 2007 Ozone Plan, which
addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3)
requirements on page 2–9, states that
District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352
address NOX from affected boilers and
that these rules meet the requirements
of the CAA. Since submittal of the 2007
Ozone Plan, Rule 4305 has been
superseded by Rule 4306.
Rule 4306 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’ as
revised on September 18, 2003, applies
to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired
boiler, steam generator, or process
heater with a total rated heat input
greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The
emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30
ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for
liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without
the use of advanced control
technologies. See ‘‘Alternative Control
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Techniques Document—NOX Emissions
from Industrial/Commercial/
Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ Emissions
Standards Division, EPA, March 1994;
see also 74 FR 33933 at 33945 (July 14,
2009) and 75 FR 10420 at 10434 (March
8, 2010) (proposed and final rules
approving 1-hour ozone plan for SJV).
All units subject to Rule 4306 were
required to comply with the limits in
the rule no later than December 1, 2008.
See Rule 4306, section 7.0. We approved
Rule 4306 as a SIP revision on May 18,
2004 at 69 FR 28061.
Rule 4352 ‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers,
Steam Generators And Process Heaters’’
as revised May 18, 2006, applies to any
boiler, steam generator or process heater
fired on solid fuel at a source that has
a potential to emit more than 10 tons
per year of NOX or VOC. All units
subject to Rule 4352 were required to
comply with the Rule’s limits no later
than January 1, 2007. Rule 4352, section
7.0. We approved Rule 4352 into the
California SIP on October 1, 2010. In
that action, we determined that all of
the NOX emission limits in Rule 4352
effectively require operation of Selective
Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control
systems, which are comparably effective
to SCR for the affected sources. SNCR
also appears to achieve NOX emission
reductions comparable to combustion of
clean fuels at these types of boilers. We
therefore concluded that Rule 4352
satisfies the requirements of section
182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in
the SJV. See TSD, section II.I.; see also
74 FR 33933 at 33945 and 75 FR 10420
at 10434.
New and modified boilers that will
emit or have the potential to emit 25 tpy
or more of NOX are subject to the
District’s new source permitting rule,
Rule 2201 ‘‘New and Modified
Stationary Source Review.’’ This rule
requires new and modified source to
install and operate best available control
technology/lowest achievable emissions
reductions technology. EPA approved
Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102
(May 11, 2010).
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Proposed Finding on the Advanced
Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers
Based on our review of the emission
limitations in SJVAPCD’s rules, we
propose to find that the SJV area meets
the clean fuel/clean technology for
boilers requirement in CAA section
182(e)(3).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Transportation Conformity
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets
CAA section 176(c) requires Federal
actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the
SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of
the NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of the standards. Conformity
to the SIP’s goals means that such
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen
the severity of an existing violation, or
(3) delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions that involve Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the EPA’s
transportation conformity rule, codified
at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this
rule, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment
and maintenance areas coordinate with
state and local air quality and
transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA,
and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s
regional transportation plans (RTP) and
transportation improvement programs
(TIP) conform to the applicable SIP.
This demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from
existing and planned highway and
transit systems are less than or equal to
the motor vehicle emissions budgets
(budgets) contained in the SIP. An
attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP
should establish budgets for the
attainment year, each required RFP year
or last year of the maintenance plan, as
appropriate. Budgets are generally
established for specific years and
specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone
attainment and RFP plans should
establish budgets for NOX and VOC. See
40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
Before an MPO may use budgets in a
submitted SIP, EPA must first determine
that the budgets are adequate or approve
the budgets. In order for us to find the
budgets adequate and approvable, the
submittal must meet the conformity
adequacy requirements of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all
pertinent SIP requirements. To meet
these requirements, the budgets must
reflect all of the motor vehicle control
measures contained in the attainment
and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(v).
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in
2007 included budgets for VOC and
NOX for the attainment year of 2023 and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57865
the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017,
and 2020. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Section
9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff
Report, Appendix D (updating MVEB
for Madera and San Joaquin Counties).
On January 8, 2009, we notified CARB
that we found the budgets in the 2007
Ozone Plan for the RFP milestone years
2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate and the
MVEB for the RFP milestone years 2008
and 2020 and the attainment year of
2023 inadequate for transportation
conformity purposes. See letter Deborah
Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James
Goldstene, CARB, ‘‘RE: Adequacy Status
of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone
Reasonable Further Progress and
Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets,’’ January 8, 2009.
We published a notice of our findings at
74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009).
CARB submitted updated MVEB for
the San Joaquin Valley and their
documentation in Appendices A and C,
respectively, of the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions. The updated MVEB are for
NOX and VOC for the RFP years of 2011,
2014, 2017 and 2020 the attainment year
of 2023 and are intended to replace the
budgets for these years that were
submitted in 2007. No budgets were
included for the RFP year of 2008
because it is no longer applicable as a
conformity analysis year. Additional
information associated with the motor
vehicle emission budget calculations
were provided in an e-mail from
Douglas Ito, CARB to Elizabeth Adams,
EPA Region 9, ’’Additional Clarifying
Information,’’ August 11, 2011.
3. Proposed Action on the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets
As part of its review of the budgets’
approvability, EPA has evaluated the
revised budgets using our adequacy
criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4). As
documented in Table K–3 in the TSD,
we found that they meet each adequacy
criterion. We have completed our
detailed review of the 2007 SJV 8-Hour
Ozone SIP and supplemental submittals
including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
and are proposing to approve the SIP’s
attainment and RFP demonstrations. We
have also reviewed the proposed MVEB
submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revision and have found that they are
consistent with the attainment and RFP
demonstrations and were based on
control measures that have already been
adopted and implemented. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the 2011,
2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as
shown in Table 13.
EPA is not required under its
Transportation Conformity rules to find
budgets adequate prior to proposing
approval of them. However, we will
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
complete the adequacy review of these
budgets either prior to or concurrently
with our final action on SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP. We will also post the
revised budgets on EPA’s adequacy
review web page.
As stated in section IV.E., if we were
to finalize a disapproval with respect to
the plan’s section 182(d)(1)(A) element,
then the area would be eligible for a
protective finding under the
transportation conformity rule because
the submitted SIP contains adopted
control measures and enforceable
commitments that fully satisfy the
emissions reductions requirements for
reasonable further progress and
attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
TABLE 13—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET IN THE SJV 2007 OZONE SIP AS REVISED ON JULY 21, 2011
[Tons per summer day]
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
Year
ROG
County
Fresno .......................................................
Kern (SJV) ................................................
Kings .........................................................
Madera ......................................................
Merced ......................................................
San Joaquin ..............................................
Stanislaus ..................................................
Tulare ........................................................
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements
Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
In addition to the requirements
discussed above, title 1, subpart D of the
CAA includes other provisions
applicable to extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, such as the San
Joaquin Valley. We describe these
provisions and their current status
below for information purposes only.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs
CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states
with ozone nonattainment areas
classified under subpart 2 as serious or
above to implement an enhanced motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program in those areas. The
requirements for those programs are
provided in section 182(c)(3) and 40
CFR part 51, subpart S.
On July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38023), EPA
approved California’s inspection and
maintenance program in the San
Joaquin Valley as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and applicable
EPA regulations for enhanced I/M
programs.
2. Reformulated Gasoline Program
As an extreme ozone nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard, the
San Joaquin Valley was covered under
the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG)
program. See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).
As an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
SJV continues to be covered under the
federal RFG program. See 40 CFR
80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685.
California has its own RFG program
(California Phase III RFG (CaRFG3)),
which also applies in the SJV. EPA
approved CaRFG3 program into the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
14.3
12.7
2.8
3.4
5.1
11.1
8.5
8.8
NOX
36.2
50.3
10.7
9.3
19.9
24.6
16.9
16.0
ROG
10.7
9.7
2.1
2.5
3.7
8.4
6.4
6.7
NOX
30.0
42.7
8.9
7.7
16.7
20.5
13.9
13.2
ROG
9.3
8.7
1.8
2.2
3.2
7.2
5.6
5.8
California SIP on May 12, 2010. See 75
FR 26633.
3. New Source Review Rules
CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) requires
states to develop SIP revisions
containing permit programs for each of
its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP
revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA
172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction
and operation of each new or modified
major stationary source (with respect to
ozone) anywhere in the nonattainment
area. See also CAA sections 182(e).
EPA’s implementation regulations for
nonattainment new source review (NSR)
programs are in 40 CFR 51.165, and
guidance specific to ozone
nonattainment areas is provided in the
preamble to the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, 70 FR 71612 at
71671–71684. EPA approved the SJV
District’s new source review rules, Rules
2201 ‘‘New and Modified Stationary
Source Review’’ and Rule 2020
‘‘Exemptions,’’ into the SJV portion of
the California SIP based in part on a
conclusion that they adequately
addressed the NSR requirements
specific to extreme areas. See 75 FR
26102 (May 11, 2010).
4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program
CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246
require California to submit for EPA
approval a SIP revision that includes
measures to implement the Clean Fuel
Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of
the Act allows states to opt-out of the
clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by
submitting a SIP revision consisting of
a program or programs that will result
in at least equivalent long term
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NOX
ROG
22.6
31.7
6.7
5.8
12.4
15.6
10.6
10.1
8.3
8.2
1.7
2.0
2.9
6.4
5.0
5.3
NOX
17.7
25.1
5.3
4.7
9.9
12.4
8.4
8.1
ROG
8.0
7.9
1.6
1.9
2.8
6.3
4.7
4.9
NOX
13.5
18.6
4.0
3.6
7.4
10.0
6.4
6.2
reductions in ozone-producing and
toxic air emissions.
In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP
revision to opt-out of the federal clean
fuel fleet program and demonstrating
that is low-emissions vehicle program
achieved emission reductions at least as
large as the federal program would. EPA
approved the State’s opt-out on August
27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849.
5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that
States submit a revised SIP by
November 15, 1992 that requires owners
or operators of gasoline dispensing
systems to install and operate gasoline
vehicle refueling vapor recovery (‘‘Stage
II’’) systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate and above.
California’s ozone nonattainment areas
had implemented Stage II vapor
recovery well before the passage of the
CAA Amendments of 1990. See General
Preamble at 13514.
Under California State law (Health
and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB
is required to adopt procedures and
performance standards for controlling
gasoline emissions from gasoline
marketing operations, including transfer
and storage operations. State law also
authorizes CARB, in cooperation with
districts, to certify vapor recovery
systems, to identify defective
equipment, and to develop test
methods. CARB has adopted numerous
revisions to its vapor recovery program
regulations. See Table A–7 in Appendix
A to this TSD. See also CARB’s Web
site, https://www.evrhome.org.
In the San Joaquin Valley, the
installation and operation of CARBcertified vapor recovery equipment is
required and enforced by SJVUAPCD
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest versions
of which were approved by into the SIP
on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120.
6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring
CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires that
all ozone nonattainment areas classified
as serious or above implement measures
to enhance and improve monitoring for
ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX,
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of
emissions of NOX and VOC.
The SJVAPCD’s Annual Air Quality
Monitoring Network Plan (June 30,
2010) describes the steps the state has
taken to address the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(1). The SJV’s
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring
Station (PAMS) network consists of six
sites operated by SJVAPCD centered
around Fresno and Bakersfield, as
described on pages 13 and 17 of the
monitoring network plan.37 EPA has
approved the SJVAPCD PAMS network.
See letter, Matthew Lakin, EPA Region
9 to Scott Nester, SJVAPCD, November
1, 2010.
7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
CAA section 185 requires that the SIP
for each severe and extreme ozone
nonattainment area provide that, if the
area fails to attain by its applicable
attainment date, each major stationary
source of VOC and NOX located in the
area shall pay a fee to the State as a
penalty for such failure for each
calendar year beginning after the
attainment date, until the area is
redesignated as an attainment area for
ozone. States are not yet required to
implement CAA section 185 fee
programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.38
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
V. EPA’s Proposed Actions
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
is proposing to approve California’s
submitted SIP for attaining the 1997 8Hour Ozone standard in the SJV extreme
ozone nonattainment area. In the
alternative, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the submitted SIP with
respect to certain requirements for
transportation control strategies and
measures pending resolution of
petitions before the 9th Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals in Association of
37 Starting in 2007, EPA’s monitoring rules (see 71
FR 61236, October 17, 2006) required the submittal
and EPA action on annual monitoring network
plans.
38 SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, ‘‘Federally
Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,’’ and a feeequivalent program to address the requirements of
CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard.
EPA recently proposed to approve these programs
as a revision to the SJVUAPCD portion of the
California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584
(9th Cir. 2011). The submitted SIP
consists of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as
revised 2008 and 2011) and the SJVspecific portions of CARB’s 2007 State
Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011)
that address CAA and EPA regulations
for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the SJV.
Specifically, EPA proposes to approve
under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP:
1. The revised 2002 base year
emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1)
and 40 CFR 51.915;
2. The reasonably available control
measures demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1)
and 40 CFR 51.912(d);
3. The reasonable further progress
demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910;
4. The attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.908;
5. The provisions for the development
of new technologies pursuant to CAA
section 182(e)(5) and CARB’s
commitment to adopt and submit by
2020 contingency measures to be
implemented if the new technologies do
not achieve the planned emissions
reductions, in addition to additional
attainment contingency measures
meeting the requirements of CAA
172(c)(9), pursuant to CAA section
182(e)(5) and CARB’s commitment to
develop and submit by 2020 revisions to
the SIP that will: (1) Reflect
modifications to the 2023 emission
reduction target based on updated
science and (2) identify additional
strategies and implementing agencies
needed to achieve the needed
reductions by 2023.
6. The contingency measure
provisions for failure to make RFP and
to attain as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9);
7. The demonstration that the SIP
provides for transportation control
strategies and measures sufficient to
offset any growth in emissions from
growth in VMT or the number of vehicle
trips and to provide for RFP and
attainment as meeting the requirements
CAA section 182(d)(1)(A);
8. The revised motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the RFP years of
2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 and the
attainment year of 2023 because they are
derived from approvable RFP and
attainment demonstrations and meet the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and
40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
57867
9. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to
achieve specific aggregate emissions
reductions of direct VOC and NOX, as
listed in Table 6–1 of the 2007 Ozone
Plan (as revised December 18, 2008);
and
10. CARB’s commitments to propose
certain defined measures, as listed in
Table B–1 on page 1 of Appendix B of
the 2011 Progress Report and in
Appendix A–3 of the 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions, to achieve specific aggregate
emissions reductions of VOC and NOX
by 2023 as provided in CARB
Resolution 07–28, Attachment B and the
2009 State Strategy Status Report; p. 20;
and to achieve the emissions reductions
needed to attain the 8-hour ozone
standard in the SJV as provided in
CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27,
2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State
Strategy Status Report, p. 13.
Finally, we propose to find that
SJVUAPCD has satisfied the clean fuel/
advanced technology requirement for
boilers in CAA section 182(e)(3) for the
SJV.
In the alternative, if the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit denies the
Agency’s petition for rehearing in AIR v.
EPA and issues its mandate before EPA
issues a final rule on the SJV 2007 8Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to
disapprove the SIP under CAA section
110(k)(3) with respect to the first
element (i.e., offsetting emissions
growth) of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
based on the plan’s failure to include
sufficient transportation control
strategies and measures to offset the
emissions from growth in VMT.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
57868
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because proposed SIP approvals
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act do not create any
new requirements but simply propose to
approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because
this proposed Federal SIP approval does
not create any new requirements, I
certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this
proposed action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
EO 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in EO 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, EO
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045,
because it proposes to approve a State
rule implementing a Federal standard.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
EO 13211 ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this proposed action.
Today’s proposed action does not
require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EO 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
proposed action. In reviewing SIP
submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or
disapprove State choices, based on the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP under CAA section 110 and
subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Accordingly, it does not provide EPA
with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
EO 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
57869
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 7, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011–23656 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM
16SEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57846-57869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23656]
[[Page 57845]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 180
September 16, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 50
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin
Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57846]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589; FRL-9464-9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San
Joaquin Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin
Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the 2007 Ozone Plan (revised 2008
and 2011) and SJV-related portions of the 2007 State Strategy (revised
2009 and 2011). EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventories,
reasonably available control measures demonstration, provisions for
transportation control strategies and measures, provisions for advanced
technology/clean fuels for boilers, reasonable further progress (RFP)
and attainment demonstrations, transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all RFP milestone years and the attainment year,
contingency measures for failure to make RFP or attain, and Clean Air
Act section 182(e)(5) new technologies provisions and associated
commitment to adopt contingency measures. EPA is also proposing to
approve commitments to measures and reductions by the SJV Air Pollution
Control District and the California Air Resources Board. In the
alternative, EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP with respect to
certain provisions for transportation control strategies and measures
sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle
miles traveled or the number of vehicle trips.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0622, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions.
E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 comments 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 on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
documents may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
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 below.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95812, and
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E.
Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.
The SIP materials are also electronically available at: https://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/, https://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm and https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area
A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment
SIPs
III. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address
Ozone Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley
A. California's SIP Submittals
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP
Submissions
IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and SJV Portion of the 2007
State Strategy
A. Emissions Inventories
B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and
Control Strategy
C. Attainment Demonstration
D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
E. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control
Measures To Offset Emissions Increases From VMT Increases, To
Provide for RFP and Attainment
F. Contingency Measures
G. Advanced Control Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
V. EPA's Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to
EPA.
I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and the San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area
A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) \1\ and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the
atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources
including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For
simplicity, we use the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has
been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory
[[Page 57847]]
infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department
visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung disease. Ozone
exposure also increases the risk of premature death from heart or lung
disease. Children are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because
their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active
outdoors, which increases their exposure. See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to
Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January
6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010).
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone to replace
the existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with
an 8-hour standard set at 0.08 ppm. 62 FR 33856.\2\ EPA revised the
ozone standard after considering substantial evidence from numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to ozone concentrations above the levels of these
revised standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
Nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA
designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
and classified the area as ``serious'' under CAA section 181(a)(1) and
40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (April 30, 2004)
and 40 CFR 81.305. The designation and classification became effective
on June 15, 2004. In 2007, California requested that EPA reclassify the
SJV from ``serious'' to ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3).\3\ We granted California's
request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the SJV to extreme
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 4,
2010. See 75 FR 24409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a (April
30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution No. 07-20 (June 14, 2007), p. 6;
and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SJV 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is home to almost 4 million
people and is the Nation's leading agricultural area. Stretching over
250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is
partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the
east. It encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part
of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. For a precise
description of the geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The local air
district which has primary responsibility for developing a plan to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area, is the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District).
Ambient 8-hour ozone values in the SJV vary depending on the
location with the highest values being recorded on its eastern edge
from Fresno to south of Bakersfield. For the 2008-2010 period, the 8-
hour ozone design value for the area is 0.104 ppm, recorded at the
Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard monitoring site southeast of
Bakersfield.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See EPA, Air Quality System Preliminary Design Report dated
September 18, 2011 in the docket for today's proposal. A design
value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific
methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and is used to
determine whether an area's air quality meets a NAAQS. The
methodology for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area SIPs
States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under Title 1,
part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment plan
provisions,'' and subpart 2, ``Additional Provisions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' (sections 181-185).
In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address
their ozone nonattainment problem, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule. This rule was finalized in two phases. The first
phase of the rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, applicable attainment dates for the various classifications,
and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004). The second phase addresses SIP submittal dates
and the requirements for reasonably available control technology and
measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration, modeling and attainment demonstrations, contingency
measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.\5\ We discuss each
of these CAA and regulatory requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment
plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements of
the 8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial promulgation
in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960
(August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of
these revisions affect any provision of the rule that is applicable
to EPA's proposed actions on the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address Ozone
Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley
A. California's SIP Submittals
Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a
state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP providing for attainment of
the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas
designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 2004, this SIP was due
by June 15, 2007. See CAA 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910.
California has made five SIP submittals to address the CAA's
planning requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
the San Joaquin Valley. We refer to these submittals collectively as
the ``[SJV] 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.'' The two principal ones are the
SJVUAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan (also Plan) and the California Air Resources
Board's (CARB) State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan (2007 State Strategy).
1. SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
The 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted by the District's Governing Board
on April 30, 2007 and by CARB on June 14, 2007 and submitted to EPA on
November 16, 2007.\6\ It includes an attainment demonstration,
commitments by the SJVUAPCD to adopt control measures to achieve
emissions reductions from sources under its jurisdiction (primarily
stationary sources), and motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) used
for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment demonstration
includes air quality modeling, an analysis of CAA section 172
reasonably available control
[[Page 57848]]
measures (RACM), base year and projected year emissions inventories,
and contingency measures. On April 24, 2009, CARB submitted a minor
amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan's strategy to extend the adoption date
for Control Measure S-Gov-5 ``Composting Green Waste.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a: In the
Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Resolution
No. 07-20, June 14, 2007; letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive
Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James N. Goldstene,
Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising the RFP
demonstrations for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air
basins).
\7\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18,
December 18, 2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive
Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CARB 2007 State Strategy
To demonstrate attainment, the 2007 Ozone Plan relies to a large
extent on measures and commitments in CARB's 2007 State Strategy. The
2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and
submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007.\8\ It describes CARB's overall
approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans, attainment of
both the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in all
nonattainment areas in the State, including the San Joaquin Valley. It
also includes CARB's commitments to propose 15 defined State measures
\9\ and to obtain specific amounts of aggregate reductions of VOC and
NOX emissions in the SJV from sources under the State's
jurisdiction, which are primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and
engines, consumer products, and fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16,
2007 with enclosures.
\9\ The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be
implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog
Check improvements) and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State
Strategy, pp. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the ``Status Report on the State
Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007
State Strategy,'' dated March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 2009 (2009
State Strategy Status Report).\10\ This submittal updated the 2007
State Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009, with
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August
12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 State
Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance
is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB
Resolution No. 09-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions of the
2007 State Strategy and its revisions that are relevant for attainment
of the 8-hour standard in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted the ``8-Hour Ozone State
Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,'' dated
June 20, 2011 and adopted July 21, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP Revisions).\11\
This submittal updates both the 2007 State Strategy and the SJV 2007
Ozone Plan. Specifically, it amends CARB's rulemaking schedule for the
Agricultural Engines measure.\12\ It also updates the emissions
inventories, RFP demonstration, contingency measures, and
transportation conformity MVEB for the SJV to reflect rule adoptions
and improvements to emissions inventories. CARB provided supplemental
documentation for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on August 10, 2011 (2011
Ozone SIP Revision Supplement).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 and letter,
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with
enclosures.
\12\ In May 2011, CARB adopted other updates and revisions to
its rulemaking schedule in the 2007 State Strategy. See CARB,
Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation
Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins
and Proposed SIP Revisions, submitted on May 18, 2011 (2011 Progress
Report). We proposed to approve those revisions on July 13, 2011 (76
FR 41338).
\13\ Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to
Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 10,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future references in this proposal to the 2007 State Strategy and
to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009
and 2011 and the Plan as revised in 2009 and 2011, respectively, unless
otherwise noted.
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public
hearing was provided consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The District
conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a
public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2007. See
2007 Ozone Plan, p. ES-1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3.
CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the Plan. See CARB
Resolution No. 07-20. The District also provided the required public
notice and hearing on the 2009 revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, December 18, 2008, p. 2.
CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods,
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 2007 State
Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07-28. CARB
also provided the required public notice, opportunity for public
comment, and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of
the 2009 State Strategy Status Report and its July 21, 2011 adoption of
the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See CARB Resolution No. 09-34 and CARB
Resolution No. 11-22.
The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices of
District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were
properly noticed. We find, therefore, that each of the five submittals
that comprise the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the procedural
requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and
110(l).
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan submittal that EPA has not affirmatively
determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by
operation of law six months after the date of submittal. EPA's SIP
completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the
April 24, 2009 submittal revising the Plan became complete by operation
of law on May 15, 2008 and October 24, 2009, respectively. The November
16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 2009
submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy became complete by
operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively.
We found the submittal of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on
August 23, 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene,
CARB, August 23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57849]]
IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the SJV Portion of the 2007
State Strategy
We summarize our evaluation of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP's
compliance with applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements below.
Our detailed evaluation can be found in the TSD for this proposal which
is available online at https://www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-
R09-OAR-2010-0589 or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of
this notice.
A. Emissions Inventories
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone
nonattainment area classified under subpart 2 to submit, within two
years of the area's designation as nonattainment, a ``comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources'' of
the relevant pollutant or pollutants in accordance with guidance
provided by EPA. CAA 182(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.915. EPA has issued the
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA-454/R-05-001, November 2005 (``EI
Guidance'') which provides guidance on how to develop base year and
future year baseline emissions inventories for 8-hour ozone,
PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs. For areas that were initially
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard in 2004, EPA
recommends using calendar year 2002 as the base year for the inventory
required by CAA section 182(a)(1). EI Guidance, p. 8.
Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of VOC,
NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) and represent an average
summer week day during the ozone season. EI Guidance, pp. 14 and 17.
States should include documentation in their submittals explaining how
the emissions data were calculated. 70 FR at 71664 and EI Guidance, p.
40. In estimating mobile source emissions, states should use the latest
emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP
is developed. 68 FR at 32854 and 70 FR 71666.
2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
The base year and future year baseline inventories for
NOX and VOC for the SJV ozone nonattainment area together
with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix
B of the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendices A and F of the 2007 State
Strategy.15, 16 These inventories represent average summer
day (ozone season) emissions. An inventory is provided for the base
year of 2002 and projected baseline inventories are provided for the
RFP milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020; and the
attainment year of 2023. The baseline inventories include reductions
from federal, State, and District measures adopted prior to 2007. See
2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. All inventories include
emissions from point, area, on-road, and non-road sources. The 2002
inventory was projected to 2005 and future years using CARB's
California Emissions Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). Both base year
and projected baseline inventories use the most current version of
California's mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007, for estimating
on-road motor vehicle emissions. EPA has approved this model for use in
SIPs and transportation conformity analyses. 73 FR 3464 (January 18,
2008). See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ By ``future year baseline inventories'' or ``projected
baseline inventories,'' we mean projected emissions inventories for
future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing
effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control
requirements.
\16\ Inventories for CO and non-anthropogenic sources (that is,
biogenic or natural sources) were developed for the air quality
modeling and can be found at https://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB submitted revised
base year and future year baseline inventories for the SJV. See Table 1
below. These revised inventories incorporate improved activity data
and/or emissions factors for diesel trucks and buses and off-road
equipment that were developed as part of CARB's December 2010
rulemakings amending its In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule and In-Use
Off-Road Equipment Rule. They also reflect revisions to the methodology
for estimating NOX emissions from natural-gas fueled
industrial equipment as well as other improvements to the stationary
source inventories made by the District in the period between adoption
of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix
B, December 2007. Collectively, these revisions reduce the total
estimated 2002 base year NOX and VOC inventories by
approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 2011 Ozone SIP
Revisions, p. B-9. For a more detailed discussion of these inventory
changes, see TSD, section II.A.
The future year baseline inventories were also revised to reflect
the effects of the 2007-2009 economic recession, which has
significantly reduced activity levels in and associated emissions from
the State's construction and goods movement sectors. CARB estimates
economic growth rates will return to normal levels by the 2017-2018
time period. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. As a result,
projected emission levels from these categories in the years up to
2017-2018 are now lower than were originally projected in the 2007
Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy as submitted in November 2007. These
recession-related decreases in emissions do not in themselves affect
the Plan's emissions inventories for the modeling validation years
(1999/2000), the base year (2002), or future years (2020 and 2023) and
thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (i.e.,
they do not in themselves affect the target level of overall emissions
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment), nor do they alter the
2002 base year inventory which provides the starting point for the RFP
demonstration. The principal effect of the recession-related decreases
in projected emissions estimates is to reduce the amount of reductions
needed from the SIP's control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years
prior to 2018.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Base Year and Attainment Year Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary
[tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
Emissions inventory category ---------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2023 2002 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area Sources..................... 101 53 276 244
On-road Mobile Sources.......................... 312 69 110 37
[[Page 57850]]
Off-road Mobile Sources......................... 152 73 71 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 565 195 457 339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B-3.
Note: 2023 emissions levels reflect control adopted through 2011.
3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories
We have reviewed the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the SJV
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP and the inventory methodologies used by the
District and CARB and have determined that the inventory was developed
consistent with CAA requirements as reflected in the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule and EPA's guidance. The revised 2002 base year
inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions of 8-hour ozone precursors in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area. We therefore propose to approve the base year
inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and
EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule. We provide more detail on our
review of the inventories in section II.A. of the TSD for this
proposal.
B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and Control
Strategy
1. Requirements for RACM and Control Strategies
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology),
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' The 8-hour ozone implementation rule requires that
for each nonattainment area that is required to submit an attainment
demonstration, the state must also submit concurrently a SIP revision
demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP
requirements. 40 CFR 51.912(d).
EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM
requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 \17\ and in a memorandum
entitled ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure
Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'' John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air
Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance
provides that, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states
should consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's
attainment date by one year or more. See Seitz memo and General
Preamble at 13560.\18\ Any measures that are necessary to meet these
requirements that are not already either federally promulgated, part of
the state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in
enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 13498 on
April 16, 1992, describes EPA's preliminary view on how we would
interpret various SIP planning provisions in title I of the CAA as
amended in 1990, including those planning provisions applicable to
the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain guidance
in the General Preamble to implement the 8-hour ozone standard under
title I.
\18\ See also ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas,'' 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated December
14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Additional Submission on RACM From States
With Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
\19\ For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or
above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of RACT
for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for
which EPA has issued a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA
section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply
to major stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, a
major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential
to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA
sections 182(e) and (f). Under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule,
states were required to submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT
requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 27
months after designation for the 8-hour ozone standard (September
15, 2006 for areas designated in April 2004) and to implement the
required RACT measures no later than 30 months after that submittal
deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a). California submitted the CAA section
182 RACT SIP for SJV in January 2007 and a revised RACT SIP in June
2009. EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove
that 2009 SJV RACT SIP on August 31, 2011. See Partial Approval and
Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California;
San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control Technology for
Ozone; Proposed rule, signed August 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to ``include
enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures,
means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by
the applicable attainment date * * * .'' See also CAA section
110(a)(2)(A). The ozone implementation rule requires that all control
measures needed for attainment be implemented no later than the
beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). The
attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately
preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900(g).
2. RACM Demonstration and the Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP
For the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District,
CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV's eight metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a process to identify and
evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that could
contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in
the SJV. We describe each agency's efforts below. We also discuss
CARB's and the District's adopted control strategies including the
provisions for the development of new
[[Page 57851]]
and improved technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5).
a. SJVUAPCD's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
The District's RACM analysis, which focuses on stationary and area
source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the 2007
Ozone Plan. To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed measures
from a number of sources including measures in other nonattainment
areas' plans and measures suggested by the public during development of
the Plan. 2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 6-2 to 6-3. The identified potential
measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by
emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan. From the set of
identified potential controls, the District selected measures for
adoption and implementation based on the technological and economic
feasibility of emissions controls, the potential magnitude and timing
of emissions reductions, cost effectiveness, and other acceptable
criteria for determining RACM. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-3.
After completing its RACM analysis for stationary and area sources
under its jurisdiction, the District developed its ``Stationary Source
Regulatory Implementation Schedule'' (2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1),
which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of
the measures determined to be feasible. The District also identified a
number of source categories for which feasibility studies would be
undertaken to refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls.
These categories and the schedule for studying them are listed in Table
6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the
District developed and implemented comprehensive plans to address
attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 PM10 Plan,
approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)) and the 1-hour ozone standards
(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8,
2010)). These plans have resulted in the adoption by the District of
many new rules and revisions to existing rules for stationary and area
sources. For the most part, the District's current rules are equivalent
to or more stringent than those developed by other air districts. In
addition to these stationary and area source measures, the District has
also adopted an indirect source review rule, Rule 9510, to address
increased indirect emissions from new industrial, commercial and
residential developments. See SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ``Indirect Source
Review,'' adopted December 15, 2005, approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9,
2011). The District also operates incentive grant programs to
accelerate turnover of existing stationary and mobile engines to
cleaner units. See 2007 Ozone Plan, chapters 7 and 8 and SJV Ozone Mid-
Course Review, Section 5 and 6.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, May 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to
adopt and implement 19 new control measures for NOX and VOC
and to achieve certain aggregate emissions reductions of NOX
and VOC. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 (revised December 18, 2008). In
Table 2 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve
strengthening existing District rules, their adoption dates and current
SIP approval status. As can be seen from Table 2, the District has
completed action on all of its rule adoption commitments. Table 6-1 in
the Plan shows estimated emissions reductions from each rule for
milestone years from 2008 to 2020, 2012, and the attainment year of
2023. The District's commitment, however, is only to the aggregate
emissions reductions of NOX and VOC in each year. 2007 Ozone
Plan, p. 6-5 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a, p. 6.
We show these commitments in Table 3 below. Table 4 gives the total
estimate of SIP-creditable reductions achieved by the District to date.
Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption date
Measure No. & description District rule ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SIP status
No. Anticipated Actual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids.......... 4565 1st Q--2007....................... March 2007........................ Proposed: August 31,
2011 (signature date).
S-AGR-1 Open Burning (Phase IV)....... 4103 2nd Q--2010....................... April 2010........................ Proposed:76 FR 40660
(July 11, 2011).
S-SOL-11 Solvents:
Organic Solvents.................. 4661 3rd Q--2007....................... September 2007.................... 75 FR 24406 (May 5,
2010).
Organic Solvent Degreasing........ 4662 September 2007.................... 74 FR 37948 (July 30,
2009).
Organic Solvent Cleaning.......... 4663 September 2007.................... 74 FR 37948 (July 30,
2009).
S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines....... 4703 3rd Q--2007....................... September 2007.................... 74 FR 53888 (October 21,
2009).
S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination......... 4651 3rd Q--2007....................... September 2007.................... 74 FR 52894 (October 15,
2009).
S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam.............. 4682 3rd Q--2007....................... September 2007.................... 76 FR 41745 (July 15,
2011).
S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer. 4623 4th Q--2007....................... December 2007..................... 74 FR 56120 (October 30,
4624 2009).
S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage......... .............. 3rd Q--2007....................... Found not feasible................ Found infeasible.
S-COM-1 Large Boilers................. 4306 3rd Q--2008....................... October 2008...................... 75 FR 1715 (January 13,
4320 2010)
76 FR 16696 (March 25,
2011).
S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators and 4307 3rd Q--2008....................... October 2008...................... 75 FR 1715 (January 13,
Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr). 2010).
S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces\1\..... 4354 3rd Q--2008....................... October 2008...................... 76 FR 53640 (August 29,
2011).
S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts................. 4607 4th Q--2008....................... December 2008..................... 74 FR 52894 (October 15,
2009).
S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters..... 4902 1st Q--2009....................... March 2009........................ 75 FR 24408 (May 5,
2010).
S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste........ 4566 4th Q 0 2010...................... August 2011....................... Rule adopted.
S-IND-21 Flares....................... 4311 2nd Q--2009....................... June 2009......................... Proposed: 76 FR 52623
(August 8, 2011).
S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging........ 4695 3rd Q--2009....................... September 2009.................... 76 FR 47076 (August 4,
2011).
[[Page 57852]]
S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings........ 4601 4th Q--2009....................... December 2009..................... Proposed: 76 FR 35167
(June 16, 2011).
S-AGR-2 Confined Animal Facilities.... 4570 2nd Q--2010....................... October 2010...................... Proposed: August 31,
2011 (signature date).
S-SOL-6 Adhesives..................... 4653 3rd Q--2010....................... September 2010.................... Rule submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: List of measures and anticipated adoption dates: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2009.
Table 3--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Emissions Reductions Commitments
[Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2
VOC..................................................... 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008.
Table 4--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Creditable Emissions Reductions From Adopted Rules
(Tons per summer day)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6
VOC..................................................... 34.3 37.7 39.8 41.3 43.1 44.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD, Table D-5.
The District also included in its Plan programs for incentive
grants and to develop innovative strategies such as green contracting
and energy conservation. These are discussed below in section II.B.2.d.
b. The Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis
The local jurisdictions' RACM analysis was conducted by the SJV's
eight MPOs.\21\ This analysis focused on potential NOX
emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). TCMs
are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road
motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or traffic
congestion. The analysis is summarized in Chapter 9 of the 2007 Ozone
Plan and described in detail in Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council of
Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation
Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County
Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of
Governments and the Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV MPOs evaluated RACM using a three-
step process of developing a list of potential reasonably available
local controls, estimating the maximum potential emissions reductions
from the identified measures, and then comparing these reductions
against the level of reductions needed to advance attainment of the 8-
hour ozone standard in the SJV. Through this process, the MPOs
determined that there were no additional local RACM for NOX,
beyond those measures already adopted, that could advance attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-7.
c. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for
reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer
products.
Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has been a leader in the development of stringent
control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209
(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new emission
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new
and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
According to the 2007 State Strategy, California's new vehicle
emissions standards have reduced new car emissions by 99 percent and
new truck emissions by 90 percent from uncontrolled levels, and new
lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other
off-road sources are 80-98 percent cleaner than their uncontrolled
counterparts. 2007 State Strategy, p. 37. In addition to its new
vehicle and engine standards, the State has adopted many measures that
focus on achieving reductions from in-use mobile sources that include
more stringent inspection and maintenance requirements in California's
Smog Check program, truck and bus idling restrictions, and various
incentive programs. Appendix A of the TSD includes a list of all
measures adopted by CARB between 1990 and the beginning of 2007. These
measures, reductions from which are reflected in the Plan's baseline
inventories, fall into two categories: Measures that are subject to a
waiver of Federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209
[[Page 57853]]
waiver measures or waiver measures) and those for which the State is
not required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures). Emissions
reductions from waiver measures are fully creditable in attainment and
RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other CAA requirements, such
as contingency measures. See TSD, section II.D.3.a.i. and EPA's
proposed and final approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR
33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010).
Generally, the State's baseline non-waiver measures have been approved
by EPA into the SIP and are fully creditable for meeting CAA
requirements. See TSD, Appendix A.
CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an extensive
public consultation process to identify potential measures.\22\ Through
this process, CARB identified and has committed to develop 15 new
defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet
as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a
number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer products. They build
on CARB's already extensive existing program described above, which
addresses emissions from all types of mobile sources through both
regulations and incentive programs. See TSD, Appendix A. Table 5 below
lists the defined measures in the 2007 State Strategy that are
applicable to the SJV and their current adoption and approval status.
Table 6 provides the CARB's current estimates of the emissions
reductions in the SJV from these measures, which are part of the
State's commitment to achieve the tonnage of reductions needed for
attainment. Table 7 provides the estimates of the emissions reductions
that are currently SIP creditable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This process is described in the 2007 Ozone Plan at p. 9-
10. More information on this public process including presentations
from the workshops and symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007
State Strategy can be found at https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.
Table 5--2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Applicable to the SJV,
Schedule for Consideration and Current Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected action
State measures year Current status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements....... 2007-2009 Elements approved 75
FR 38023 (July 1,
2010).\23\
Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007 Adopted by CARB, June
(AB 118). 2009; by BAR,
September 2010.
Modification to Reformulated 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653
Gasoline Program. (May 12, 2010).
Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty 2007, 2008, 2010 Proposed for
Trucks. approval: 76 FR
40652 (July 11,
2011).
Accelerated Introduction of 2008 Prop 1B bond funds
Cleaner Locomotives. awarded to upgrade
line-haul locomotive
engines not already
accounted for by
enforceable
agreements with the
railroads. Those
cleaner line-hauls
will begin operation
by 2012.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 2007, 2010 Waiver decision
Engines. pending.
Cleaner In-Use Agricultural 2013 Incentive program in
Equipment. progress. Additional
action expected
2013.
New Emissions Standards for 2013 Action expected 2013.
Recreational Boats.
Expanded Off-Road Recreational 2013 Action expected 2013.
Vehicle Emissions Standards.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for 2008 Adopted June 2007.
Above Ground Storage Tanks. Requirements
implemented through
District Rule 4621.
Additional Evaporative 2013 Action expected 2013.
Emissions Standards.
Consumer Products Program (I & 2008, 2009, 2011 Approved, 74 FR 57074
II). (November 4, 2009)
and 76 FR 27613 (May
12, 2011).
Pesticide Regulation (DPR).... 2008, 2009 Submitted October
2009, revisions
submitted August
2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p.4, 2011 Progress Report,
Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A-3. Additional
information from https://www.ca.arb.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the
Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high
performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and
certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck
program in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions do not include reductions
from AB 2289 improvements. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix C.
Table 6--Expected Emissions Reductions From Defined Measures in the San
Joaquin Valley
[Tons per summer day 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State measure NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements (BAR)............................. 1.0 3.0
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks.......................... 16.9 0.9
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment......................... 1.9 0.2
Consumer Products Program................................. -- 5.0
Pesticides: DPR Regulation................................ -- 1.2
-------------
Totals.................................................. 19.8 10.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP
