Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California, 17382-17431 [2020-05914]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17382
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0318; FRL–10006–
40–Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate
Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley,
California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or ‘‘Agency’’) proposes to
approve portions of two state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of California to
meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’)
requirements for the 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ‘‘standards’’) in the San Joaquin
Valley (SJV) Serious nonattainment
area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to
approve those portions of the ‘‘2018
Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards’’ and the ‘‘San Joaquin Valley
Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy
for the State Implementation Plan’’ that
pertain to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
address CAA requirements for Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA
also proposes to approve inter-pollutant
trading ratios for use in transportation
conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. As part of this action, the EPA
proposes to grant an extension of the
Serious area attainment date for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley from December 31, 2019, to
December 31, 2024 based on a proposed
determination that the State has
satisfied the statutory criteria for this
extension. We may, however, reconsider
this proposal or deny California’s
request for extension of the attainment
date if, based on new information or
public comments, we find that the State
has not satisfied the statutory criteria for
this extension.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
April 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0318, at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA
Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary and Completeness Review of the
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5
Serious Area Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area
Plans
B. Requirements for Extension of a Serious
Area Attainment Date
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Serious Area Plan and Extension
Application
A. Emissions Inventory
B. PM2.5 Precursors
C. Best Available Control Measures and
Most Stringent Measures
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment
Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
E. Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
G. Major Stationary Source Control
Requirements Under CAA Section 189(e)
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 17, 2006, the EPA
strengthened the 24-hour (daily)
NAAQS for particles less than or equal
to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter
(PM2.5) by lowering the level from 65
micrograms (mg) per cubic meter (m3) to
35 mg/m3.1 The 24-hour standards are
1 71 Federal Register (FR) 61144 (October 17,
2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. In promulgating the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA retained the level of the
1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based on a three-year average of 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.
The EPA established these standards
after considering substantial evidence
from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects
are associated with exposures to PM2.5
concentrations above these levels.
Epidemiological studies have shown
statistically significant correlations
between elevated PM2.5 levels and
premature mortality. Other important
health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure include aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(as indicated by increased hospital
admissions, emergency room visits,
absences from school or work, and
restricted activity days), changes in lung
function and increased respiratory
symptoms, and new evidence for more
subtle indicators of cardiovascular
health. Individuals particularly
sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung
disease, and children.2
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle
(primary PM2.5 or direct PM2.5) or can be
formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions from
precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and ammonia (secondary
PM2.5).3
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the EPA is required
under CAA section 107(d) to designate
areas throughout the nation as attaining
or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective
December 14, 2009, the EPA finalized
initial air quality designations for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality
monitoring data for the three-year
periods of 2005–2007 and 2006–2008.4
The EPA designated the San Joaquin
Valley as a nonattainment area for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.5 On June 2, 2014,
the EPA classified the San Joaquin
Valley as a Moderate nonattainment
area for these NAAQS, thereby
establishing December 31, 2015 as the
62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7.
Subsequently, the EPA strengthened the primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 12.0
mg/m3 while retaining the secondary annual PM2.5
NAAQS at the level of 15.0 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086
(January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In this
preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS,
unless otherwise specified, are to the 2006 24-hour
standards (35 mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.13.
2 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/
002bF, October 2004.
3 81 FR 58010, 58011 (August 24, 2016).
4 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
5 Id. (codified at 40 CFR 81.305). The most recent
24-hour design value (2016–2018) for the San
Joaquin Valley is 65 mg/m3. EPA design value
workbook dated July 18, 2019, worksheet ‘‘Table
1b.’’
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
latest permissible attainment date for
the area under section 188(c)(1) of the
CAA.6 Effective February 19, 2016, the
EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley
as a Serious nonattainment area for
these NAAQS.7 Shortly thereafter, the
EPA approved the State’s demonstration
that it was impracticable to attain the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31,
2015 Moderate area attainment date and
related plan elements addressing the
Moderate area requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.8
Upon reclassification as a Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area, the San
Joaquin Valley became subject to a new
statutory attainment date no later than
the end of the tenth calendar year
following designation (i.e., December
31, 2019) and the requirement to submit
a Serious area plan satisfying the
requirements of CAA Title I, part D,
including the requirements of subpart 4,
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.9 As
explained in the EPA’s final
reclassification action, the Serious area
plan for the San Joaquin Valley must
include, among other things, provisions
to assure that, under CAA section
189(b)(1)(B), the best available control
measures (BACM) for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall
be implemented no later than four years
after the area is reclassified and a
demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan provides for
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than the
applicable attainment date. The EPA
established an August 21, 2017 deadline
for California to adopt and submit a SIP
submission addressing the Serious
nonattainment area requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 The EPA also
noted that California may choose to
submit a request for an extension of the
December 31, 2019, Serious area
attainment date pursuant to CAA
section 188(e) simultaneously with its
submission of a Serious area plan for the
area.11
As described further in section III.B of
this preamble, CAA section 188(e)
allows the EPA to extend the attainment
date for a Serious area by up to five
6 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). The EPA
promulgated these PM2.5 nonattainment area
classifications in response to a 2013 decision of the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding the
EPA’s prior implementation rule for the PM2.5
NAAQS and directing the EPA to repromulgate
implementation rules pursuant to subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act. Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
7 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
8 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
9 81 FR 2993, 2998.
10 Id. at 3000 and 81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016)
(codified at 40 CFR 52.247(f)).
11 81 FR 2993, 2998.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
years if attainment by the Serious area
attainment date is impracticable.
However, before the Agency may grant
an extension of the attainment date, the
State must first:
(1) Apply to the EPA for an extension
of the PM2.5 attainment date beyond
2019,
(2) demonstrate that attainment by
2019 is impracticable,
(3) have complied with all
requirements and commitments
applying to the area in its
implementation plan,
(4) demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that its Serious area plan
includes the most stringent measures
that are achieved in practice in any state
and are feasible for the area, and
(5) submit SIP revisions containing a
demonstration of attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable.
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area encompasses over
23,000 square miles and includes all or
part of eight counties: San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of
Kern.12 The area is home to four million
people and is the nation’s leading
agricultural region. Stretching over 250
miles from north to south and averaging
80 miles wide, it is partially enclosed by
the Coast Mountain range to the west,
the Tehachapi Mountains to the south,
and the Sierra Nevada range to the east.
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD
or District) has primary responsibility
for developing plans to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS in this area.
The District works cooperatively with
the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) in preparing attainment plans.
Authority for regulating sources under
state jurisdiction in the San Joaquin
Valley is split between the District,
which has responsibility for regulating
stationary and most area sources, and
CARB, which has responsibility for
regulating most mobile sources.
On November 16, 2018, CARB
submitted to the EPA substantial
portions of the Serious area plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS following CARB’s
adoption of one component of the plan
on October 25, 2018 and the
SJVUAPCD’s adoption of a second
component of it on November 15,
2018.13 Because CARB had not yet
adopted this submission in its entirety,
the EPA determined that it did not meet
the EPA’s completeness requirements
12 For a precise description of the geographic
boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
13 Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Kurt
Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17383
for SIP submissions under 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, section 2.1.14 The
EPA’s incompleteness findings became
effective on January 7, 2019, and
triggered clocks for the application of
emissions offset sanctions for new or
modified major stationary sources in the
San Joaquin Valley 18 months after the
effective date of the findings and
highway funding sanctions six months
thereafter, unless the EPA affirmatively
determines that the State has submitted
a complete SIP addressing the
deficiency that was the basis for these
findings, consistent with CAA section
179(b) and the EPA’s sanctions
sequencing rule in 40 CFR 52.31.15
These findings also triggered the
obligation under CAA section 110(c) on
the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan no later than two
years after the effective date of the
findings, unless the State has submitted,
and the EPA has approved, the required
SIP submittal.16
II. Summary and Completeness Review
of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan
The EPA is proposing action on
portions of two SIP revisions submitted
by CARB to meet the Serious
nonattainment area requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to act on those portions of the
following two plan submissions that
pertain to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS: The ‘‘2018 Plan for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,’’
adopted by the SJVUAPCD on
November 15, 2018, and by CARB on
January 24, 2019 (‘‘2018 PM2.5 Plan’’) 17;
and the ‘‘San Joaquin Valley
Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy
for the State Implementation Plan,’’
adopted by CARB on October 25, 2018
(‘‘Valley State SIP Strategy’’). We refer
to the relevant portions of these SIP
submissions collectively as the ‘‘SJV
PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan.’’ The SJV PM2.5
Plan addresses the Serious area
attainment plan requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley and includes a request
under CAA section 188(e) for an
extension of the Serious area attainment
date for the area for this NAAQS. CARB
submitted the SJV PM2.5 Plan to the EPA
14 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018). The EPA
made these findings in response to a court order
issued in Committee for a Better Arvin, et al., v.
Andrew Wheeler, et al., Case No. 18–cv–05700–RS
(N.D. Cal., October 24, 2018).
15 83 FR 62720, 62723.
16 Id.
17 The 2018 PM
2.5 Plan was developed jointly by
CARB and the District.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17384
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
as a revision to the SIP on May 10,
2019.18
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
110(l) require each state to provide
reasonable public notice and
opportunity for public hearing prior to
the adoption and submission of a SIP or
SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this
requirement, every SIP submission
should include evidence that adequate
public notice was given and that an
opportunity for a public hearing was
provided consistent with the EPA’s
implementing regulations in 40 CFR
51.102.
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the
EPA to determine whether a SIP
submission is complete within 60 days
of receipt. This section also provides
that any plan that the EPA has not
affirmatively determined to be complete
or incomplete will become complete by
operation of law six months after the
date of submission. The EPA’s SIP
completeness criteria are found in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
The following portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and related support
documents address the Serious area
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley: (i) Chapter 4
(‘‘Attainment Strategy for PM2.5’’); (ii)
Chapter 6 (‘‘Demonstration of Federal
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
Standard: Serious Plan and Extension
Request’’); 19 (iii) numerous appendices
to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan; (iv) CARB’s
‘‘Staff Report, Review of the San Joaquin
Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 Standards,’’ release date
December 21, 2018 (‘‘CARB Staff
Report’’); 20 and (v) the State’s and
District’s board resolutions adopting the
18 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9. The EPA is not, at
this time, proposing to act on those portions of the
‘‘2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards’’ or the ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Supplement
to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan’’ that pertain to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, or Serious area
contingency measures. We intend to act on these
portions of the submitted SIP revisions in
subsequent rulemakings.
19 Chapter 5 (‘‘Demonstration of Federal
Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard’’) and
Chapter 7 (‘‘Demonstration of Federal Requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard’’) of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan pertain to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The EPA intends to act
on these portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in separate
rulemakings.
20 The CARB Staff Report includes CARB’s review
of, among other things, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
control strategy and attainment demonstration.
Letter dated December 11, 2019 from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
transmitting the CARB Staff Report [on the 2018
PM2.5 Plan].
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
2018 PM2.5 Plan (CARB Resolution 19–
1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution 18–11–16).21 The
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution
18–11–16 includes emission reduction
commitments on which the SJV PM2.5
Plan relies.22
The appendices to the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, in order of their evaluation in this
preamble, include: (i) App. B
(‘‘Emissions Inventory’’); (ii) App. A
(‘‘Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis’’); (iii) a
plan precursor demonstration and
clarifications, including App. G
(‘‘Precursor Demonstration’’) and
Attachment A (‘‘Clarifying information
for the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan
regarding model sensitivity related to
ammonia and ammonia controls’’) to the
CARB Staff Report; (iv) control strategy
appendices, including App. C
(‘‘Stationary Source Control Measure
Analyses’’), App. D (‘‘Mobile Source
Control Measures Analyses’’), and App.
E (‘‘Incentive-Based Strategy’’); (v)
modeling appendices, including App. J
(‘‘Modeling Emission Inventory’’), App.
K (‘‘Modeling Attainment
Demonstration’’), and App. L
(‘‘Modeling Protocol’’); (vi) App. H
(‘‘RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and
Contingency’’); and (vii) App. I (‘‘New
Source Review and Emission Reduction
Credits’’). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
addresses motor vehicle emission
budget (MVEB) requirements in the
‘‘Transportation Conformity’’ section of
App. D (pages D–119 to D–131). The
2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes an
Executive Summary, Introduction (Ch.
1), chapters on ‘‘Air Quality Challenges
and Trends’’ (Ch. 2) and ‘‘Health
Impacts and Health Risk Reduction
Strategy’’ (Ch. 3), and an appendix on
‘‘Public Education and Technology
Advancement’’ (App. F).
The District provided public notice
and opportunity for public comment
prior to its November 15, 2018 public
hearing on and adoption of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.23 CARB also provided
public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its January 24, 2019
public hearing on and adoption of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan.24 The SIP submission
21 CARB Resolution 19–1, ‘‘2018 PM
2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley,’’
January 24, 2019, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution 18–11–16, ‘‘Adopting the [SJVUAPCD]
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards,’’ November 15, 2018.
22 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16, paragraph 6, 10–11.
23 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Notice of Public Hearing for
Adoption of Proposed 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 Standards,’’ October 16, 2018, and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16.
24 CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider
the 2018 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the
San Joaquin Valley,’’ December 21, 2018, and CARB
Resolution 19–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
includes proof of publication of notices
for the respective public hearings. It also
includes copies of the written and oral
comments received during the State’s
and District’s public review processes
and the agencies’ responses thereto.25
Therefore, we find that the 2018 PM2.5
Plan meets the procedural requirements
for public notice and hearing in CAA
sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR
51.102. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan became
complete by operation of law on
November 10, 2019. The sanctions
clocks that were triggered by our
December 6, 2018 findings that the State
had failed to submit complete SIP
submissions addressing the statutory
requirements that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
NAAQS, however, will continue to run
until the EPA affirmatively determines,
by letter to the Governor of California,
that CARB has submitted a complete SIP
submission addressing the identified
deficiencies.26
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
CARB developed the ‘‘Revised
Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘2016
State Strategy’’) to support attainment
planning in the San Joaquin Valley and
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
(‘‘South Coast’’) ozone nonattainment
areas.27 In its resolution adopting the
2016 State Strategy (CARB Resolution
17–7), the Board found that the 2016
State Strategy would achieve 6 tons per
day (tpd) of NOX emission reductions
and 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by
2025 and directed CARB staff to work
with the SJVUAPCD to identify
additional reductions from sources
under District regulatory authority as
part of a comprehensive plan to attain
the PM2.5 standards for the San Joaquin
Valley and to return to the Board with
a commitment to achieve additional
emission reductions from mobile
sources.28
25 CARB, ‘‘Board Meeting Comments Log,’’ March
29, 2019; J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ‘‘Meeting, State
of California Air Resources Board,’’ January 24,
2019 (transcript of CARB’s public hearing), and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. M (‘‘Summary of Significant
Comments and Responses’’).
26 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for
termination of sanctions clocks in 40 CFR
52.31(d)(5)).
27 The EPA has approved certain commitments
made by CARB in the 2016 State Strategy for
purposes of attaining the ozone NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley and South Coast ozone
nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 84 FR 3302
(February 12, 2019) and 84 FR 52005 (October 1,
2019).
28 CARB Resolution 17–7, ‘‘2016 State Strategy for
the State Implementation Plan,’’ March 23, 2017, 6–
7.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
CARB responded to this resolution by
developing and adopting the ‘‘San
Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016
State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘Valley State
SIP Strategy’’) to support the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. The State’s May 10, 2019 SIP
submission incorporates by reference
the Valley State SIP Strategy as adopted
by CARB on October 25, 2018 and
submitted to the EPA on November 16,
2018.29
The Valley State SIP Strategy includes
an Introduction (Ch. 1), a chapter on
‘‘Measures’’ (Ch. 2), and a
‘‘Supplemental State Commitment from
the Proposed State Measures for the
Valley’’ (Ch. 3). Much of the content of
the Valley State SIP Strategy is
reproduced in Chapter 4 (‘‘Attainment
Strategy for PM2.5’’) of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.30 The Valley State SIP Strategy
also includes CARB Resolution 18–49,
which, among other things, commits
CARB to achieve specific amounts of
NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions by
specific years, for purposes of attaining
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.31
CARB provided the required public
notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its October 25, 2018
public hearing on and adoption of the
Valley State SIP Strategy.32 The SIP
submission includes proof of
publication of the public notice for this
public hearing. It also includes copies of
the written and oral comments received
during the State’s public review process
and CARB’s responses thereto.33
Therefore, we find that the Valley State
SIP Strategy meets the procedural
requirements for public notice and
hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and
110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
The Valley State SIP Strategy became
complete by operation of law on
November 10, 2019. The sanctions
clocks that were triggered by our
29 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, 2.
30 For example, Table 2 (proposed mobile source
measures and schedule), Table 3 (emissions
reductions from proposed mobile source measures),
and Table 4 (summary of emission reduction
measures) of the Valley State SIP Strategy
correspond to Tables 4–8, 4–9, and 4–7,
respectively, of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4.
31 CARB Resolution 18–49, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley
Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan,’’ October 25, 2018, 5.
32 CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider
the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016
State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,’’
September 21, 2018, and CARB Resolution 18–49.
33 CARB, ‘‘Board Meeting Comments Log,’’
November 2, 2018 and compilation of written
comments; and J&K Court Reporting, LLC,
‘‘Meeting, State of California Air Resources Board,’’
October 25, 2018 (transcript of CARB’s public
hearing).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
December 6, 2018 findings that the State
had failed to submit complete SIP
submissions addressing the statutory
requirements that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
NAAQS, however, will continue to run
until the EPA affirmatively determines,
by letter to the Governor of California,
that CARB has submitted a complete SIP
submission addressing the identified
deficiencies.34
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for
PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area
Plans
Upon reclassification of a Moderate
nonattainment area as a Serious
nonattainment area under subpart 4 of
part D, title I of the CAA, the Act
requires the state to make a SIP
submission that addresses the following
Serious nonattainment area
requirements: 35
(1) A comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors in the area (CAA section
172(c)(3));
(2) Provisions to assure that the best
available control measures (BACM),
including best available control
technology (BACT), for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall
be implemented no later than four years
after the area is reclassified (CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B));
(3) A demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan provides
for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of
the tenth calendar year after designation
as a nonattainment area (i.e., December
31, 2019, for the San Joaquin Valley for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), or where the
state is seeking an extension of the
attainment date under section 188(e), a
demonstration that attainment by such
date is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable
that is no more than five years later
(CAA sections 188(c)(2) and
189(b)(1)(A));
(4) Plan provisions that require
reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA
section 172(c)(2));
(5) Quantitative milestones which are
to be achieved every three years until
the area is redesignated attainment and
which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by the applicable date (CAA
section 189(c));
34 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for
termination of sanctions clocks in 40 CFR
52.31(d)(5)).
35 81 FR 58010, 58074–58075.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17385
(6) Provisions to assure that control
requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors, except where the state
demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction
that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area (CAA section
189(e));
(7) Contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP or to attain by the applicable
attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9));
and
(8) A revision to the nonattainment
new source review (NSR) program to
lower the applicable ‘‘major stationary
source’’ 36 thresholds from 100 tons per
year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section
189(b)(3)).
Serious area plans must also satisfy
the requirements for Moderate area
plans in CAA section 189(a), to the
extent the state has not already met
those requirements in the Moderate area
plan submitted for the area. In addition,
the Serious area plan must meet the
general requirements applicable to all
SIP submissions under section 110 of
the CAA, including the requirement to
provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under
section 110(a)(2)(E); and the
requirements concerning enforcement
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA provided its preliminary
views on the CAA’s requirements for
particulate matter plans under part D,
title I of the Act in the following
guidance documents: (1) ‘‘State
Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990’’ (‘‘General Preamble’’); 37 (2)
‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990; Supplemental’’ (‘‘General
Preamble Supplement’’); 38 and (3)
‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious
PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and
Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10
Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’
(‘‘General Preamble Addendum’’).39
36 For any Serious area, the terms ‘‘major source’’
and ‘‘major stationary source’’ include any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to
emit at least 70 tons per year of PM2.5. CAA section
189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(vii) and
(viii) (defining ‘‘major stationary source’’ in serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas).
37 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
38 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
39 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17386
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
More recently, in an August 24, 2016
final rule entitled, ‘‘Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements’’ (‘‘PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule’’), the EPA
established regulatory requirements and
provided further interpretive guidance
on the statutory SIP requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment
for the PM2.5 standards.40 We discuss
these regulatory requirements and
interpretations of the Act as appropriate
in our evaluation of the SJV PM2.5 Plan
below.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Requirements for Extension of a
Serious Area Attainment Date
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a
state may apply to the EPA for a single
extension of the Serious area attainment
date by up to five years, which the EPA
may grant if the state satisfies certain
conditions. Before the EPA may extend
the attainment date for a Serious area
under section 188(e), the state must:
(1) Apply for an extension of the
attainment date beyond the statutory
attainment date;
(2) demonstrate that attainment by the
statutory attainment date is
impracticable;
(3) demonstrate that it has complied
with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the
implementation plan;
(4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the plan for the
area includes the ‘‘most stringent
measures’’ that are included in the
implementation plan of any state or are
achieved in practice in any state, and
can feasibly be implemented in the area;
and
(5) submit a demonstration of
attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable.41
A state must seek an extension of the
Serious area attainment date at the same
time it submits the Serious area
attainment plan, if the state cannot
demonstrate attainment by the
otherwise applicable statutory
attainment date.42
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, a state seeking an extension of the
Serious area attainment date under
section 188(e) must submit a Serious
area attainment plan that meets the
following requirements:
40 81
FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
41 CAA section 188(e) and 40 CFR 51.1005(b). For
a discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the
requirements of section 188(e), see the preamble to
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, 81 FR 58010,
58094–58097, and the General Preamble
Addendum, 59 FR 41998, 42002.
42 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
(1) Base year and attainment projected
emissions inventory requirements in 40
CFR 51.1008(b);
(2) the most stringent measure
requirement in 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(iii)
and 51.1010(b), and best available
control measures not previously
submitted;
(3) attainment demonstration and
modeling requirements in 40 CFR
51.1011 and 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(i);
(4) reasonable further progress
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012;
(5) quantitative milestone
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1013;
(6) contingency measure requirements
in 40 CFR 51.1014; and
(7) nonattainment new source review
plan requirements pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165.43
In addition to establishing specific
preconditions for an extension of the
Serious area attainment date, section
188(e) provides that the EPA may
consider a number of factors in
determining whether to grant an
extension and the appropriate length of
time for any such extension. These
factors are: (1) The nature and extent of
nonattainment in the area, (2) the types
and numbers of sources or other
emitting activities in the area (including
the influence of uncontrollable natural
sources and trans-boundary emissions
from foreign countries), (3) the
population exposed to concentrations in
excess of the standard in the area, (4)
the presence and concentrations of
potentially toxic substances in the mix
of particulate emissions in the area, and
(5) the technological and economic
feasibility of various control measures.44
Notably, neither the statutory
requirements nor the discretionary
factors identified in section 188(e)
include the specific ambient air quality
conditions in section 188(d)(2), which
must be met for an area to qualify for an
extension of a Moderate area attainment
date.
We evaluate the state’s request for an
extension of the Serious area attainment
date in accordance with these statutory
criteria and regulatory requirements, as
described below.
Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment
by the statutory Serious area attainment
date is impracticable.
Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to
grant a state request for an extension of
43 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2). With respect to
contingency measures and nonattainment new
source review plan provisions, the EPA interprets
section 51.1005(b)(2) to require submission of
complete plan provisions addressing these
requirements but not to require the EPA to approve
such provisions before granting a section 188(e)
extension request. 81 FR 58010, 58094–58095.
44 CAA section 188(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the Serious area attainment date if,
among other things, attainment by the
date established under section 188(c)
would be impracticable. In order to
demonstrate impracticability, the plan
must show that the implementation of
BACM and BACT (and additional
feasible measures) on relevant source
categories will not bring the area into
attainment by the statutory Serious area
attainment date.45 For the San Joaquin
Valley, the Serious area attainment date
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 188(c)(2) was December 31,
2019.46 BACM, including BACT, is the
required level of control for a Serious
area that must be in place before the
Serious area attainment date. Therefore,
we interpret the Act as requiring that a
state provide for at least the
implementation of BACM, including
BACT, before it can claim that is
impracticable to attain by the statutory
deadline. The statutory provision for
demonstrating impracticability requires
that the demonstration be based on air
quality modeling.47
Step 2: Comply with all requirements
and commitments in the applicable
implementation plan.
A second precondition for an
extension of the Serious area attainment
under section 188(e) is a showing that
the state has complied with all
requirements and commitments
pertaining to that area in the
implementation plan. We interpret this
criterion to mean that the state has
implemented the control measures and
commitments in the SIP revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable
requirements in CAA sections 172 and
189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For
a Serious area attainment date extension
request being submitted simultaneously
with the initial Serious area attainment
plan for the area, the EPA interprets
section 188(e) not to require the area to
have a fully approved Moderate area
attainment plan, and to allow for
extension of the attainment date if the
area has complied with all Moderate
area requirements and commitments
pertaining to that area in the state’s
submitted Moderate area
implementation plan.48 This
45 81
FR 58010, 58094.
CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment
date for a Serious area ‘‘shall be as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth
calendar year beginning after the area’s designation
as nonattainment. . . .’’ The EPA designated the
San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009. 74 FR
58688. Therefore, the latest permissible attainment
date under section 188(c)(2), for purposes of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area, is December 31,
2019.
47 CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
48 81 FR 58010, 58095.
46 Under
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
interpretation is based on the plain
language of section 188(e), which
requires the state to comply with all
requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the
implementation plan.49
Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of
the most stringent measures.
A third precondition for an extension
of the Serious area attainment under
section 188(e) is for the state to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area
includes the most stringent measures
that are included in the implementation
plan of any state, or are achieved in
practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area. The EPA has
defined the term ‘‘most stringent
measure’’ (MSM) as ‘‘any permanent
and enforceable control measure that
achieves the most stringent emissions
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions
and/or emissions of PM2.5 plan
precursors from among those control
measures which are either included in
the SIP for any other NAAQS, or have
been achieved in practice in any state,
and that can feasibly be implemented in
the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment area.’’ 50 The Act does
not specify an implementation deadline
for MSM, but because the clear intent of
section 188(e) is to minimize the length
of any attainment date extension, the
EPA has interpreted the Act to require
implementation of MSM as
expeditiously as practicable and no later
than one year before the extended
Serious area attainment date identified
by the state in its extension request.51
An MSM demonstration must satisfy
the requirements of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule as described in the
preamble to the rule, as follows: 52
(1) Update the emission inventory to
identify all sources of direct PM2.5 and
all PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
nonattainment area;
(2) Identify all potential MSM to
reduce emissions from sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors that are
approved into any state implementation
plan or used in practice in any state;
(3) Compare the potential MSM for
each relevant source category to the
measures, if any, already adopted for
that source category in the
nonattainment area to determine
49 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt,
366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir.
2004).
50 40 CFR 51.1000 and 81 FR 58010, 58096–
58097; see also General Preamble Addendum,
42010 and 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000).
51 81 FR 58010, 58097.
52 40 CFR 51.1010(b) and 81 FR 58010, 58095–
58097.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
whether such potential MSM would
further reduce emissions and, where the
state chooses to reject a measure from
further consideration, demonstrate that
it is not technologically or economically
feasible to implement the measure in
whole or in part within five years after
the applicable attainment date for the
area; and
(4) Adopt and implement all potential
MSM identified through this process
that collectively will achieve attainment
as expeditiously as practicable and no
later than five years after the applicable
attainment date, except those measures
for which the state has provided
reasoned justification for rejection,
based on technological or economic
feasibility.
The level of control required under
the MSM standard may depend on how
well other areas have chosen to control
their sources. If a source category has
not been well controlled in other areas,
MSM could theoretically result in a low
level of control. This contrasts with
BACM and BACT, which represent the
‘‘best’’ level of control feasible for an
area, regardless of whether it has been
implemented elsewhere. Thus, in some
cases the MSM requirement may result
in no more controls or emission
reductions than those that result from
implementing BACM and BACT.
However, given the strategy in the
nonattainment provisions of the Act to
offset longer attainment timeframes with
more stringent emission control
requirements, we interpret the MSM
provision so as to increase the potential
that it will result in additional controls
beyond the set of measures adopted as
BACM and BACT. Accordingly, states
are required to reanalyze any measures
that were rejected during the state’s
BACM and BACT analysis to see if they
have become feasible in the area given
the longer attainment date sought under
CAA section 188(e) and changes that
have occurred in the interim that
improve the feasibility of such
measures.53 MSM may also involve
increasing the coverage of measures that
were previously adopted as BACM and
BACT.54
Notably, the ‘‘to the satisfaction of the
Administrator’’ qualifier on the MSM
requirement indicates that Congress
granted the EPA considerable discretion
in determining whether a plan in fact
includes MSM, recognizing that the
overall intent of section 188(e) is that
the Agency grant as short an extension
as practicable, consistent with the
objective of expeditious attainment of
the NAAQS. For this reason, the EPA
will apply greater scrutiny to the
evaluation of MSM for source categories
that contribute the most to the PM2.5
problem in the SJV and less scrutiny to
source categories that contribute less to
the PM2.5 problem.
Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the
most expeditious alternative date
practicable.
Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the
Serious area plan demonstrate
attainment, using air quality modeling,
by the most expeditious date practicable
after the statutory Serious area
attainment date.55 Evaluation of a
modeled attainment demonstration
consists of two parts: Evaluation of the
technical adequacy of the modeling
itself and evaluation of the control
measures that are relied on to
demonstrate attainment. The EPA’s
determination of whether the plan
provides for attainment by the most
expeditious date practicable depends on
whether the plan provides for
implementation of BACM and BACT no
later than the statutory implementation
deadline, MSM as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than one year
before the extended attainment date
requested by the state, and any other
technologically and economically
feasible measures that will result in
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.
Step 5: Apply for an attainment date
extension.
Finally, the state must apply in
writing to the EPA for an extension of
a Serious area attainment date, and this
request must accompany the modeled
attainment demonstration showing
attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable.
Additionally, the state must provide the
public reasonable notice and
opportunity for a public hearing on the
attainment date extension request before
submitting it to the EPA, in accordance
with the requirements for SIP revisions
in CAA section 110.
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Serious Area Plan and Extension
Application
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that
each SIP include a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutant or pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The EPA discussed
the emissions inventory requirements
that apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
53 Id.
54 Id.
PO 00000
at 58096.
Frm 00007
55 Id.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17387
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
at 58097.
27MRP2
17388
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
including Serious area requirements, in
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and
codified these requirements in 40 CFR
51.1008.56 The EPA has also issued
guidance concerning emissions
inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.57
The base year emissions inventory
should provide a state’s best estimate of
actual emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutants in the area, i.e., all
emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS
pollutant. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
base year inventory must include direct
PM2.5 emissions, separately reported
filterable and condensable PM2.5
emissions,58 and emissions of all
chemical precursors to the formation of
secondary PM2.5: nitrogen oxides (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).59 In addition, the emissions
inventory base year for a Serious PM2.5
nonattainment area must be one of the
three years for which monitored data
were used to reclassify the area to
Serious, or another technically
appropriate year justified by the state in
its Serious area SIP submission.60
A state’s SIP submission must include
documentation explaining how it
calculated emissions data for the
inventory. In estimating mobile source
emissions, a state should use the latest
emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time the
SIP is developed. The latest EPAapproved version of California’s mobile
source emission factor model for
estimating tailpipe, brake, and tire wear
emissions from on-road mobile sources
that was available during the State’s and
District’s development of the SJV PM2.5
Plan was EMFAC2014.61 Following
56 81
FR 58010, 58078–58079.
Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ U.S. EPA, May
2017 (‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance’’), available
at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementationozone-and-particulate.
58 The Emissions Inventory Guidance identifies
the types of sources for which the EPA expects
states to provide condensable PM emission
inventories. Emissions Inventory Guidance, section
4.2.1 (‘‘Condensable PM Emissions’’), 63–65.
59 40 CFR 51.1008.
60 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
61 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC is
short for EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the
availability of the EMFAC2014 model, effective on
the date of publication in the Federal Register, for
use in state implementation plan development and
transportation conformity in California. Upon that
action, EMFAC2014 was required to be used for all
new regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that were started on or after
December 14, 2017, which was the end of the grace
period for using the prior mobile source emissions
model, EMFAC2011.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
57 ‘‘Emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
CARB’s submission of the Plan, the EPA
approved EMFAC2017, the latest
revision to this mobile source emissions
model, and established grace periods
during which EMFAC2014 may
continue to be used for transportation
conformity purposes (i.e., new regional
emissions analyses and CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 hot-spot analyses).62 States are
also required to use the EPA’s
‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors’’ (‘‘AP–42’’) road dust method
for calculating re-entrained road dust
emissions from paved roads.63 64
In addition to the base year inventory
submitted to meet the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must
also submit a projected attainment year
inventory and emissions projections for
each RFP milestone year.65 These future
emissions projections are necessary
components of the attainment
demonstration required under CAA
section 189(a)(1) and (b)(1) and the
demonstration of RFP required under
section 172(c)(2).66 Emissions
projections for future years (which are
referred to in the Plan as ‘‘forecasted
inventories’’) should account for, among
other things, the ongoing effects of
economic growth and adopted
emissions control requirements. The
state’s SIP submission should include
documentation to explain how the
emissions projections were calculated.
Where a state chooses to allow new
major stationary sources or major
modifications to use emission
reductions credits (ERCs) that were
generated through shutdown or
curtailed emissions units occuring
before the base year of an attainment
62 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). The grace
period for new regional emissions analyses begins
on August 15, 2019 and ends on August 16, 2021,
while the grace period for hot-spot analyses begins
on August 15, 2019 and ends on August 17, 2020.
84 FR 41717, 41720.
63 The EPA released an update to AP–42 in
January 2011 that revised the equation for
estimating paved road dust emissions based on an
updated data regression that included new emission
tests results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). CARB
used the revised 2011 AP–42 methodology in
developing on-road mobile source emissions; see
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-9_
2016.pdf.
64 AP–42 has been published since 1972 as the
primary source of the EPA’s emission factor
information. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors. It contains emission factors and
process information for more than 200 air pollution
source categories. A source category is a specific
industry sector or group of similar emitting sources.
The emission factors have been developed and
compiled from source test data, material balance
studies, and engineering estimates.
65 40 CFR 51.1008 and 51.1012. Also, see
Emissions Inventory Guidance, section 3 (‘‘SIP
Inventory Requirements and Recommendations’’).
66 40 CFR 51.1004, 51.1008, 51.1011, and
51.1012.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plan, the projected emissions inventory
used to develop the attainment
demonstration must explicitly include
the emissions from such previously
shutdown or curtailed emissions
units.67
2. Summary of State’s Submission
Summaries of the planning emissions
inventories for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors (NOX, SOX,68 VOC,69 and
ammonia) and the documentation for
the inventories for the San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area are
located in Appendix B (‘‘Emissions
Inventory’’) and Appendix I (‘‘New
Source Review and Emission Reduction
Credits’’) of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
CARB and District staff worked
together to develop the emissions
inventories for the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 nonattainment area. The District
worked with operators of the stationary
facilities in the nonattainment area to
develop the stationary source emissions
estimates. The responsibility for
developing estimates for the area
sources such as agricultural burning and
paved road dust was shared by the
District and CARB. CARB staff
developed the emissions inventories for
both on-road and non-road mobile
sources.70
The Plan includes winter (24-hour)
average and annual average daily
planning inventories for the 2013 base
year, which were modeled from the
2012 emissions inventory, and
estimated emissions for forecasted years
from 2017 through 2028 for the
attainment and RFP demonstrations for
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.71 Today we are proposing
action on those winter average and
annual average emissions inventories
necessary to support the attainment
plan and section 188(e) extension
67 40
CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
SJV PM2.5 Plan generally uses ‘‘sulfur
oxides’’ or ‘‘SOX’’ in reference to SO2 as a precursor
to the formation of PM2.5. We use SOX and SO2
interchangeably throughout this notice.
69 The SJV PM
2.5 Plan generally uses ‘‘reactive
organic gasses’’ or ‘‘ROG’’ in reference to VOC as
a precursor to the formation of PM2.5. We use ROG
and VOC interchangeably throughout this notice.
70 The EPA regulations refer to ‘‘non-road’’
vehicles and engines whereas CARB regulations
refer to ‘‘Other Mobile Sources’’ or ‘‘off-road’’
vehicles and engines. These terms refer to the same
types of vehicles and engines. We refer herein to
such vehicles and engines as ‘‘non-road’’ sources.
71 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–18 to B–19. The
winter average daily planning inventory
corresponds to the months of November through
April, when daily, ambient PM2.5 concentrations are
typically highest. The base year inventory is from
the California Emissions Inventory Development
and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and future year
inventories were estimated using the California
Emission Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM), 2016
SIP Baseline Emission Projections, version 1.05.
68 The
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17389
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
request for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS—i.e.,
the 2013 base year inventory, forecasted
inventories for the RFP milestone years
of 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026, and the
forecasted 2024 attainment year
inventory. Each inventory includes
emissions from stationary, area, on-road,
and non-road sources.
The base year inventories for
stationary sources were developed using
actual emissions reports made by
facility operators. The State developed
the base year emissions inventory for
area sources using the most recent
models and methodologies available at
the time the State was developing the
Plan.72 The Plan also includes
background, methodology, and
inventories of condensable and
filterable PM2.5 emissions from
stationary point and non-point
combustion sources that are expected to
generate condensable PM2.5.73 CARB
used EMFAC2014 to estimate on-road
motor vehicle emissions based on
transportation activity data from the
2014 Regional Transportation Plan
(2014 RTP) adopted by the
transportation planning agencies in the
San Joaquin Valley.74 Re-entrained
paved road dust emissions were
calculated using a CARB methodology
consistent with the EPA’s AP–42 road
dust methodology.75
CARB developed the emissions
forecasts by applying growth and
control profiles to the base year
inventory. CARB’s mobile source
emissions projections take into account
predicted activity rates and vehicle fleet
turnover by vehicle model year and
adopted controls.76 In addition, the Plan
states that the District is providing for
use of pre-base year ERCs as offsets by
accounting for such ERCs in the
projected 2025 emissions inventory.77
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies growth
factors, control factors, and estimated
offset use between 2013 and 2025 for
direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX, and VOC
emissions by source category and lists
all pre-base year ERCs issued by the
District for PM10, NOX, SOX, and VOC
emissions, by facility.78
Table 1 provides a summary of the
winter (24-hour) average inventories in
tons per day (tpd) of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year.
Table 2 provides a summary of annual
average inventories of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year.
These annual average inventories
provide the basis for the control
measure analysis and the RFP and
attainment demonstrations in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WINTER AVERAGE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS
FOR THE 2013 BASE YEAR
[tpd]
Category
Direct PM2.5
NOX
SOX
VOC
Ammonia
Stationary Sources ...............................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ...................................................
8.5
41.4
6.4
4.4
35.0
11.5
188.7
65.3
6.9
0.5
0.6
0.3
86.6
156.8
51.1
27.4
13.9
291.5
4.4
0.0
Totals a ..........................................................................
60.8
300.5
8.4
321.9
309.8
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 through B–5.
a Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ANNUAL AVERAGE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS
FOR THE 2013 BASE YEAR
[tpd]
Category
Direct PM2.5
NOX
SOX
VOC
Ammonia
Stationary Sources ...............................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ...................................................
8.8
41.5
6.4
5.8
38.6
8.1
183.1
87.4
7.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
87.1
153.4
49.8
33.8
13.9
310.9
4.4
0.0
Totals a ..........................................................................
62.5
317.2
8.5
324.1
329.2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 through B–5.
a Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
The inventories in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan are based on the most current and
accurate information available to the
State and District at the time they were
developing the Plan and inventories,
including the latest version of
California’s mobile source emissions
model that had been approved by the
72 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.2
(‘‘Emissions Inventory Summary and
Methodology’’).
73 Id. at B–42 to B–44.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
EPA at the time, EMFAC2014. The
inventories comprehensively address all
source categories in the San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area and are
consistent with the EPA’s inventory
guidance.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.1008(b)(1), the 2013 base year is one
of the three years for which monitored
data were used for reclassifying the San
Joaquin Valley to Serious for the 2006
at B–37.
at B–28.
76 Id. at B–18, B–19.
PM2.5 NAAQS,79 and it represents actual
annual average emissions of all sources
within the nonattainment area. Direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are included
in the inventories, and filterable and
condensable direct PM2.5 emissions are
identified separately.
With respect to future year baseline
projections, we have reviewed the
growth and control factors and find
them acceptable and thus conclude that
74 Id.
77 2018
75 Id.
78 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
PM2.5 Plan, App. I, I–1 through I–5.
at App. I, Tables I–1 through I–5.
79 81 FR 2993, 2994.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17390
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the future baseline emissions
projections in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
reflect appropriate calculation methods
and the latest planning assumptions.
Also, as a general matter, the EPA will
approve a SIP submission that takes
emissions reduction credit for a control
measure only where the EPA has
approved the measure as part of the SIP.
Thus, for example, to take credit for the
emissions reductions from newlyadopted or amended District rules for
stationary sources, the related rules
must be approved by the EPA into the
SIP. See the EPA’s ‘‘Technical Support
Document, General Evaluation, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ February 2020 (‘‘EPA’s
General Evaluation TSD’’). Table III–A
of EPA’s General Evaluation TSD shows
District rules with post-2013
compliance dates that are reflected in
the future year baseline inventories,
along with information on the EPA’s
approval of these rules, and shows that
stationary source emissions reductions
assumed by the SJV PM2.5 Plan for
future years are supported by rules
approved as part of the California SIP
for the San Joaquin Valley. With respect
to mobile sources, the EPA has taken
action in recent years to approve CARB
mobile source regulations into the statewide portion of the California SIP. We
therefore find that the future year
baseline projections in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan are properly supported by SIPapproved stationary and mobile source
measures.80
For these reasons, we are proposing to
approve the 2013 base year emissions
inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.
We are also proposing to find that the
forecasted inventories in the Plan
provide an adequate basis for the
BACM, MSM, RFP, and attainment
demonstrations in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
80 The future year emissions projections in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan assume implementation of CARB’s
Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and
greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. On September 27,
2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation and
the EPA issued a notice of final rulemaking for the
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles
Rule Part One: One National Program that, among
other things, withdrew the EPA’s 2013 waiver of
preemption for the ZEV sales mandate and GHG
standards. 84 FR 51310. See also proposed SAFE
rule at 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018). However,
the agencies’ final rule withdrawing the 2013
waiver did not include final action on the federal
fuel economy and GHG vehicle emissions standards
from the SAFE proposal. If the fuel economy and
GHG standards are finalized prior to our final
rulemaking on the SJV PM2.5 Plan, we will evaluate
and address, as appropriate, the impact of the SAFE
action on our proposed action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
B. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
The composition of PM2.5 is complex
and highly variable due in part to the
large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most
locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes.
A large number of possible chemical
reactions, often non-linear in nature,
can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOC,
and ammonia to PM2.5, making them
precursors to PM2.5.81 Formation of
secondary PM2.5 may also depend on
atmospheric conditions, including solar
radiation, temperature, and relative
humidity, and the interactions of
precursors with preexisting particles
and with cloud or fog droplets.82
Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the
CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, each state containing a PM2.5
nonattainment area must evaluate all
PM2.5 precursors for regulation unless,
for any given PM2.5 precursor, the state
demonstrates to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that such precursor does not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the NAAQS in the
nonattainment area.83 The provisions of
subpart 4 do not define the term
‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM2.5, nor
do they explicitly require the control of
any specifically identified PM2.5
precursor. The statutory definition of
‘‘air pollutant,’’ however, provides that
the term ‘‘includes any precursors to the
formation of any air pollutant, to the
extent the Administrator has identified
such precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term
‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ 84 The EPA has
identified SO2, NOX, VOC, and
ammonia as precursors to the formation
of PM2.5.85 Accordingly, the attainment
plan requirements of subpart 4 apply to
emissions of all four precursor
pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all
types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in
the Act (e.g., CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that
the control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 also
apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors, except where the
Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly
81 ‘‘Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter’’
(EPA/600/P–99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3.
82 ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter’’ (EPA/452/R–12–
005), EPA, December 2012), 2–1.
83 81 FR 58010, 58017–58020.
84 CAA section 302(g).
85 81 FR 58010, 58015.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to PM10 levels that exceed the standard
in the area. Section 189(e) contains the
only express exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 [e.g.,
requirements for reasonably available
control measures (RACM) and
reasonably available control technology
(RACT), BACM and BACT, MSM, and
NSR] for sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although
section 189(e) explicitly addresses only
major stationary sources, the EPA
interprets the Act as authorizing it also
to determine, under appropriate
circumstances, that regulation of
specific PM2.5 precursors from other
source categories in a given
nonattainment area is not necessary.86
For example, under the EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of the
control requirements that apply to
stationary, area, and mobile sources of
PM10 precursors in the nonattainment
area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and
subpart 4,87 a state may demonstrate in
a SIP submission that control of a
certain precursor pollutant is not
necessary in light of its insignificant
contribution to ambient PM10 levels in
the nonattainment area.88
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, a state may elect to submit to the
EPA a ‘‘comprehensive precursor
demonstration’’ for a specific
nonattainment area to show that
emissions of a particular precursor from
all existing sources located in the
nonattainment area do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area.89 If the EPA
determines that the contribution of the
precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area is
not significant and approves the
demonstration, the state is not required
to control emissions of the relevant
precursor from existing sources in the
attainment plan.90
In addition, in May 2019, the EPA
issued the ‘‘PM2.5 Precursor
Demonstration Guidance’’ (‘‘PM2.5
Precursor Guidance’’), which provides
recommendations to states for analyzing
nonattainment area PM2.5 emissions and
developing such optional precursor
demonstrations, consistent with the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.91 The
86 Id.
at 58018–58019.
Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13539–42.
88 Courts have upheld this approach to the
requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc.
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989
(9th Cir. 2005).
89 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
90 Id.
91 ‘‘PM
2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,’’
EPA–454/R–19–004, May 2019, including Memo
dated May 30, 2019 from Scott Mathias, Acting
Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard
Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
87 General
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance builds upon
the draft version of the guidance,
released on November 17, 2016 (‘‘Draft
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance’’), which
CARB referenced in developing its
precursor demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.92 The EPA’s
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance are generally consistent with
those in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, with some exceptions,
including that the EPA’s recommended
contribution threshold for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS changed from 1.3 mg/m3
in the draft guidance to 1.5 mg/m3 in the
final guidance.
We are evaluating the SJV PM2.5 Plan
in accordance with the presumption
embodied within subpart 4 that all
PM2.5 precursors must be addressed in
the State’s evaluation of potential
control measures, unless the State
adequately demonstrates that emissions
of a particular precursor or precursors
do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment
area. In reviewing any determination by
the State to exclude a PM2.5 precursor
from the required evaluation of
potential control measures, we consider
both the magnitude of the precursor’s
contribution to ambient PM2.5
concentrations in the nonattainment
area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
concentrations in the area to reductions
in emissions of that precursor.93
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Summary of State’s Submission
The State presents a brief summary of
its PM2.5 precursor analysis in Chapter
6 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the full
precursor demonstration in Appendix G
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.94 CARB also
provided clarifying information on its
precursor assessment, including an
Attachment A to its letter transmitting
the SJV PM2.5 Plan to the EPA 95 and
further clarifications in three email
transmittals.96
Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, EPA.
92 ‘‘PM
2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,
Draft for Public Review and Comments,’’ EPA–454/
P–16–001, November 17, 2016, including Memo
dated November 17, 2016 from Stephen D. Page,
Director, OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, EPA.
93 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
94 A copy of the contents of App. G appears in
the CARB Staff Report, App. C4 (‘‘Precursor
Demonstrations for Ammonia, SOX, and ROG’’).
95 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
Attachment A (‘‘Clarifying information for the San
Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan regarding model
sensitivity related to ammonia and ammonia
controls’’).
96 Email dated June 20, 2019, ‘‘RE: SJV model
disbenefit from SOX reduction,’’ from Jeremy Avise,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
The Plan provides both concentrationbased and sensitivity-based analyses of
precursor contributions to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the San Joaquin
Valley. These analyses led the State to
conclude that direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
while ammonia, SOX, and VOC do not
contribute significantly to such
exceedances, as discussed below.97 We
summarize the State’s analysis and
conclusions below. For a more detailed
summary of the precursor
demonstration in the Plan, please refer
to the EPA’s ‘‘Technical Support
Document, EPA Evaluation of PM2.5
Precursor Demonstration, San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ February 2020 (‘‘EPA’s PM2.5
Precursor TSD’’).
For direct PM2.5 and NOX, the State
modeled the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley to a 30
percent (%) reduction in anthropogenic
emissions of each pollutant in 2013,
2020, and 2024.98 The State concluded
that direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions
reductions will continue to have a
significant impact on annual and 24hour PM2.5 design values in the San
Joaquin Valley, with NOX reductions
being particularly important.99
Consistent with this conclusion, the
State focused the control strategy and
attainment demonstration on these two
pollutants, as described in section IV.D
of this preamble.
For ammonia, SOX, and VOC, CARB
assessed the 2015 annual average
concentration of each precursor in
CARB, to Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, with
attachment (‘‘CARB’s June 2019 Precursor
Clarification’’); email dated September 19, 2019,
‘‘FW: SJV species responses,’’ from Jeremy Avise,
CARB, to Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, with
attachments (‘‘CARB’s September 2019 Precursor
Clarification’’); and email dated October 18, 2019,
from Laura Carr, CARB to Scott Bohning, Jeanhee
Hong, and Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, with
attachment ‘‘Clarifying Information on Ammonia’’
(‘‘CARB’s October 2019 Precursor Clarification’’).
97 Direct PM
2.5 emissions are considered a
primary source of ambient PM2.5 (i.e., no further
formation in the atmosphere is required), and
therefore is not considered a precursor pollutant
under subpart 4, which may differ from a more
generalized understanding of what contributes to
ambient PM2.5.
98 SJV PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6–11 to 6–12. CARB
modeled the impacts of both NOX reductions and
direct PM2.5 reductions but the direct PM2.5 results
were used only as a point of comparison, as direct
PM2.5 emissions must be regulated in all PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
99 Id. Ch. 6, 6–12; and 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G,
2. CARB presents its sensitivity analysis for
emission reductions in direct PM2.5 and NOX in the
Plan’s attainment demonstration appendix. 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, Table 46 (annual average design
values) and Table 50 (24-hour average design
values).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17391
ambient PM2.5 at Bakersfield, for which
the necessary speciated PM2.5 data is
available and where the highest PM2.5
design values have been recorded in
most years, and compared those
concentrations to the recommended
annual average contribution threshold
of 0.2 mg/m3 from the Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, which was
available at the time the State developed
the SIP.100 The contributions of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC were 5.2 mg/
m3, 1.6 mg/m3 and 6.2 mg/m3,
respectively.
Given that these levels are well above
the EPA’s recommended contribution
threshold in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, CARB then modeled the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 in the San
Joaquin Valley to 30% and 70%
reductions in anthropogenic emissions
of each precursor pollutant in 2013 (the
Plan’s base year), 2020 (the modeled
attainment year for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), and 2024 (the modeled
attainment year for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS).101 CARB supplemented the
sensitivity analysis with consideration
of additional information, including
factors identified in the Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, such as emission
trends, the appropriateness of future
year versus base year sensitivity,
available emission controls, and the
severity of nonattainment.102 The final
version of the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance
confirms the relevance of these factors
in a sensitivity analysis.103
The State’s sensitivity-based analysis
used the same modeling platform as that
used for the Plan’s attainment
demonstration. The State modeled the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
concentrations in San Joaquin Valley to
30% and 70% emission reductions in
2013, 2020, and 2024 for each of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC. The State
estimated base case (2013, 2020, and
2024) design values for PM2.5 using
Relative Response Factors and
100 SJV PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, 3. The Plan does not
present a concentration-based analysis for the 24hour average concentrations in the San Joaquin
Valley. Instead, CARB relied on the annual average
concentration based analysis as an interim step to
the sensitivity-based analysis, for which CARB
assessed the sensitivity of both 24-hour average and
annual average ambient PM2.5 concentrations to
precursor emission reductions. Separately, the Plan
presents a graphical representation of annual
average ambient PM2.5 components (i.e., crustal
particulate matter, elemental carbon, organic
matter, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium nitrate)
for 2011–2013 for Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto.
SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3–3 to 3–4.
101 SJV PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6–11 to 6–12.
102 Id. at App. G, 5.
103 PM
2.5 Precursor Guidance, 18–19
(consideration of additional information), 31
(available emission controls), and 35–36
(appropriateness of future year versus base year
sensitivity).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17392
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
calculated the ammonia precursor
contribution for a given year and for
each sensitivity scenario (30% and 70%
emissions reductions) as the difference
between its base case design value and
the design value for each sensitivity
scenario.104
We summarize the State’s sensitivitybased analysis and additional
information in the sections that follow
for ammonia, SOX, and VOC.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, the State compared the
24-hour precursor contributions to 1.3
mg/m3, the recommended contribution
threshold in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance. For a modeled 30% ammonia
emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5
responses in 2013 ranged from 0.9 to 3.3
mg/m3 across 15 monitoring sites, with
a majority of sites above the 1.3 mg/m3
contribution threshold (and also above
the 1.5 mg/m3 contribution threshold in
the final PM2.5 Precursor Guidance),
whereas the PM2.5 responses in 2024
were all below both recommended
thresholds. For a modeled 70%
ammonia emission reduction, the
ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged
from 3.5 to 12.4 mg/m3, with all
monitoring sites above the 1.3 mg/m3
threshold (and above the 1.5 mg/m3
threshold), and the PM2.5 responses in
2024 ranged from 1.2 to 3.0 mg/m3, with
most sites above both recommended
thresholds. For further detail, please see
the EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD, Table 2,
and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G,
Tables 2, 3, 5, and 7.
The State bases its ammonia precursor
determination on the sensitivity
analysis for the 2024 attainment year
with a 30% ammonia emission
reduction. These respectively reflect its
assessment of research studies and the
Plan’s projected emission reductions,
and on its assessment of available
emission controls. As explained in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, precursor
responses may be above the recommend
contribution threshold and yet not
contribute significantly to levels that
exceed the standard in the area.
Therefore, as recommended by the EPA,
the State considered additional
information to consider whether its
identified PM2.5 responses constituted a
significant contribution to ambient
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. The
additional information included
research studies, emission trends, and
information to support the State’s
conclusion that a 30% ammonia
emission reduction represented a
reasonable upper bound on the
104 This procedure is the procedure recommended
by the EPA. PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 37.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
ammonia emission reductions to model
in estimating its contribution to ambient
PM2.5 levels. We summarize this
additional information below and
provide a more detailed evaluation in
the EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
The State describes previous research
that supports its finding that ammonium
nitrate PM2.5 formation in the San
Joaquin Valley is NOX-limited rather
than ammonia-limited.105 Essentially,
ammonia is so abundant that even with
large ammonia emission reductions
there would still be enough ammonia to
combine with the available NOX to
readily form particulate ammonium
nitrate. Therefore, ammonia emissions
reductions would lead to only small
decreases in PM2.5 concentrations. In
contrast, because emissions of NOX are
less abundant (i.e., more limited relative
to emissions of ammonia after
normalizing for their differing molecular
weights), the PM2.5 concentrations in the
atmosphere are more responsive to
reductions in NOX than to reductions of
ammonia. Hence, the area is considered
NOX-limited. The State points to the
conclusions of Lurmann et al. based on
ambient measurements during the
winter 2000–2001 CRPAQS (California
Regional Particulate Air Quality Study)
intensive field study.106 That study
found that most areas of the San Joaquin
Valley were NOX-limited with respect to
ammonium nitrate formation. And since
that time, large additional NOX emission
reductions have occurred, which would
increase the degree to which ammonium
nitrate formation in the San Joaquin
Valley is NOX-limited. Based on more
recent aircraft-borne measurements
during the 2013 DISCOVER–AQ
campaign,107 the State similarly
concluded that ammonium nitrate
formation is NOX-limited based on the
large amount of ‘‘excess ammonia,’’
which is defined as the amount of
measured ammonia left over if all the
nitrate and sulfate present were to
combine with available ammonia to
form particulate.108 The CARB Staff
Report describes these conclusions in
more detail and lists results from
105 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, G–9 to G–10; CARB
Staff Report, App. C, 12–15; and Attachment A to
CARB’s submittal letter of May 9, 2019.
106 Frederick W. Lurmann, Steven G. Brown,
Michael C. McCarthy, and Paul T. Roberts,
‘‘Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol
Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during
Winter,’’ Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, (2006), 56:12, 1679–1693, DOI:
10.1080/10473289.2006.10464573.
107 ‘‘Deriving Information on Surface conditions
from COlumn and VERtically Resolved
Observations Relevant to Air Quality’’, https://
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/
index.html.
108 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
multiple other recent studies with
similar conclusions.109
Regarding emission trends, the CARB
Staff Report presents an emission
inventory-based argument on the
relative insensitivity of PM2.5 to
ammonia reductions.110 CARB
compared the size of the ammonia and
NOX emission inventories in tons per
day, after normalizing for their differing
molecular weights, and found that
ammonia was roughly three times as
abundant as NOX in 2013 and is
projected to be about six times as
abundant in 2025, due to the continuing
decline in NOX emissions (while
ammonia emissions are generally
constant into the future).111 While the
State recognized that this is only a
‘‘first-level assessment,’’ it provides
additional support for the State’s
conclusion that NOX, and not ammonia,
is the limiting precursor for ammonium
nitrate formation, and that the
ammonium nitrate portion of ambient
PM2.5 would be expected to be relatively
insensitive to ammonia emission
reductions. This is also consistent with
the ammonia sensitivity modeling for
the San Joaquin Valley, which showed
that PM2.5 concentrations will be less
sensitive to ammonia reductions as NOX
emissions go down in the future (i.e.,
the PM2.5 impacts were much smaller in
the 2024 future modeled case compared
to the 2013 base year).
The State finds that NOX emissions in
the San Joaquin Valley are projected to
decrease by 53% from 2013 to 2024
while ammonia emissions are projected
to remain relatively flat, thereby
increasing the relative abundance of
ammonia.112 Based on the Plan’s
emission reduction projections
combined with the research study
conclusions, the State relies on the
modeled responses for the 2024 future
year, rather than the 2013 base year,
stating that the future year NOX
emissions are more representative of
San Joaquin Valley emission
conditions.113 The State references the
Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, which
notes that it may be appropriate to
model future conditions that are more
representative of current atmospheric
conditions and those conditions
expected closer to the attainment date.
The State concludes states that this in
109 CARB
Staff Report, App. C, 12.
App. C, 15.
111 Annual average ammonia emissions are
projected to decrease 4.6 tpd (1.4%) from 2013 to
2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Table B–5.
112 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, 8–9.
113 Id. App. G, 9.
110 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
fact applies to the San Joaquin
Valley.114
With respect to the State’s selection of
30% as an upper bound on the ammonia
reductions to model, the State described
its review of the most important
ammonia source categories in the San
Joaquin Valley, existing control
measures that affect ammonia emissions
from these sources, additional
mitigation options for these sources, and
information provided in the PM2.5
Precursor Guidance about ammonia
reductions achieved nationwide from
2011 to 2017.115 The primary sources of
ammonia emissions identified in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan are: (1) Confined
animal facilities (CAFs), (2) agricultural
fertilizer, (3) biosolids, animal manure,
and poultry litter operations, and (4)
organic material composting
operations.116 CAFs are subject to
District Rule 4570; biosolids, animal
manure, and poultry litter operations
are subject to District Rule 4565; and
organic material composting operations
are subject to District Rule 4566.
Although these District rules explicitly
apply only to VOC emissions from these
sources, the State concludes that these
rules also reduce ammonia emissions.
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan cites
a number of scientific studies that
address the correlation between VOC
and ammonia emissions from these
emission sources.117 Based on these
evaluations, the State concludes that
ammonia control measures achieving
even the low end of the range (30%) are
not feasible for implementation in the
San Joaquin Valley and that it is
therefore reasonable to treat a 30%
ammonia reduction as an upper bound
for modeling in the precursor
demonstration.
In sum, the State’s sensitivity analysis
presents a range of PM2.5 responses to
ammonia emission reductions
depending on base year versus future
year and depending on the scale of
emission reductions that may be
possible. The Plan provides the State’s
bases for finding that the sensitivity
result for 2024 better represents
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley
than the 2013 base year and for finding
a 30% ammonia reduction to be a
reasonable upper bound for modeled
ammonia emission reductions in
114 Id (referencing Draft PM
2.5 Precursor
Guidance, 33). See also PM2.5 Precursor Guidance,
35.
115 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, 13 and App. C,
section C–25 and email dated October 18, 2019,
from Laura Carr, CARB to Scott Bohning, EPA
Region IX, attaching document entitled ‘‘Clarifying
Information on Ammonia.’’
116 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, section C–25.
117 Id. at C–314 and following.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
assessing the ammonia contribution.
Based on these analyses, the State
concludes that ammonia does not
contribute significantly to levels above
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley.
b. SOX
For SOX, the State compared the 24hour precursor contributions to the
recommended draft contribution
threshold of 1.3 mg/m3 in the Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance. For modeled SOX
emission reductions of 30% and 70%,
the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013
ranged from ¥1.4 to +0.5 mg/m3 across
15 monitoring sites, which all fall below
the 1.3 mg/m3 draft contribution
threshold, and hence also below the
contribution threshold of 1.5 mg/m3 in
the final version of the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance. The response was below zero
at most monitoring sites, indicating an
increase, rather than decrease, in
ambient PM2.5 in response to SOX
emission reductions (i.e., a disbenefit).
Only the Stockton and Manteca sites
had slightly positive responses to 30
and 70% emission reductions, and the
Tranquillity site also had a slightly
positive response only to a 30%
reduction. For 2024, the response
ranged from ¥0.3 mg/m3 to +0.3 mg/m3;
these are also all below the contribution
threshold, with most sites showing a
disbenefit from SOX reductions. For
further detail, please see EPA’s PM2.5
Precursor TSD, Table 3, and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Tables 8 and
9.
CARB also included additional
information regarding emission trends
and an evaluation of the SOX emission
reduction disbenefit. We summarize this
additional information below and
provide a more detailed evaluation in
the EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
In terms of emission trends, the State
found that SOX emissions decreased
from 2013 to 2014 and then very
gradually rise to 8.0 tpd in 2024.118 On
the basis of SOX emissions being very
similar in 2020 and 2024 (7.8 tpd and
8.0 tpd, respectively), the State
concluded that the 2020 and 2024
sensitivity results were redundant.
Comparing the ambient responses in
2013 and 2024, the State found that the
responses were slightly less negative or,
for a small number of sites, slightly
more positive in 2024, but still no more
than 0.6 mg/m3 in response to a 70%
SOX emission reduction. This supports
the State’s conclusion as to the overall
disbenefit of reducing SOX emissions.
To explain the SOX emission
reduction disbenefit, CARB refers to the
118 2018
PO 00000
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 4.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17393
non-linearity of inorganic aerosol
thermodynamics, as described in a
study by West et al.119 That paper
discusses how, under certain
conditions, reducing SOX could free
ammonia to combine with nitrate,
increasing overall PM2.5 mass. To
investigate this issue further, CARB
conducted simulations with the
ISORROPIA inorganic aerosol
thermodynamic equilibrium model used
within the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model and provided
clarifications to the EPA.120 In essence,
CARB states that for some conditions
typical of San Joaquin Valley,
ISORROPIA switches to a different
chemical regime in which the disbenefit
occurs. CARB states that it is not known
how well this model behavior reflects
the actual atmosphere, but CARB
accepts the results because is it a wellknown and widely used chemical
model.
Based on the small and mostly
negative modeled response of ambient
PM2.5 to SOX emission reductions, and
based on its scientific understanding of
sulfate interactions with other
molecules in the air, the State concludes
that SOX does not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley.
c. VOC
For VOC, CARB compared the 24hour precursor contributions to the
EPA’s recommended draft contribution
threshold of 1.3 mg/m3. For a modeled
30% VOC emission reduction, the
ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged
from 0.1 to 1.9 mg/m3 across 15
monitoring sites, with two sites above
the 1.3 mg/m3 draft contribution
threshold.121 The PM2.5 responses to a
70% VOC emission reduction in 2013
ranged from 0.2 mg/m3 to 4.8 mg/m3,
including responses above the 1.3 mg/m3
draft contribution threshold at a
majority of sites. For a modeled 30%
VOC emission reduction, the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2024 ranged from
¥0.4 to 0.0 mg/m3, with all monitoring
sites below the 1.3 mg/m3 draft
119 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6 (‘‘PM2.5
Precursor Sensitivity Analysis’’); and West, J.J.,
Ansari, A.S., Pandis, S.N., 1999, Marginal PM2.5:
Nonlinear aerosol mass response to sulfate
reductions in the eastern United States, Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Association, 49,
1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.
10463973.
120 CARB’s June 2019 Precursor Clarification.
121 We note that one site (Visalia) has a modeled
response above the EPA’s final recommended
contribution threshold of 1.5 mg/m3 and one
additional site (Bakersfield-California Avenue) has
a modeled response below the 1.5 mg/m3 threshold
but above the EPA’s draft threshold of 1.3 mg/m3.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
17394
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
contribution threshold, and hence also
below the contribution threshold of 1.5
mg/m3 that was finalized the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule. The PM2.5 responses
to a 70% VOC emission reduction in
2024 ranged from ¥1.0 to 0.0 mg/m3,
with all monitoring sites below the 1.3
mg/m3 draft contribution threshold. In
other words, CARB models a decrease in
ambient PM2.5 levels in 2013 in
response to either a 30% or 70% VOC
emission reduction, whereas CARB
models an increase in ambient PM2.5
levels in 2024 in response to either a
30% or 70% reduction in VOC
emissions, i.e., a disbenefit. For further
detail, please see EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor
TSD, Table 4, and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
Appendix G, Tables 10, 11, 13, and 15.
CARB then considered additional
information to consider whether these
PM2.5 responses constituted a significant
contribution to ambient PM2.5 in the San
Joaquin Valley, including emission
trends and an assessment of the
modeled disbenefit of VOC emission
reductions in 2024. CARB bases its
precursor determination on sensitivity
analysis for the 2024 attainment year,
reflecting its assessment of the Plan’s
projected emission reductions. We
summarize this additional information
below and present greater detail in the
EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
Regarding emission trends, CARB
found that VOC emissions would
decrease approximately 30 tpd (or 9%)
from 2013 to 2024.122 The State
concludes that the formation of ambient
PM2.5 from VOC may therefore differ in
base and future years and that the
sensitivity analysis for 2013 is not
representative of current or future
conditions.
CARB explained the modeled
disbenefit of VOC reductions as follows:
Emissions of VOC and NOX react in the
atmosphere to form organic nitrate
species, such as peroxyacetyl nitrate
(PAN), meaning that some portion of the
NOX emissions is not available to react
with ammonia to form ammonium
nitrate. In other words, VOC emissions
are a ‘‘sink’’ for NOX emissions.
Reducing VOC emissions therefore
reduces the formation of organic
nitrates, so the sink is smaller and
nitrate molecules are freed to react with
ammonia to form particulate ammonium
nitrate.123 The State further explored the
VOC disbenefit based on a 2016 CARB
modeling assessment provided in
Appendix A (‘‘Air Quality Modeling’’)
122 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 19 and Figure 5.
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 72 (citing Meng, Z.,
D. Dabdub, D., Seinfeld, J.H., Chemical Coupling
Between Atmospheric Ozone and Particulate
Matter, Science 277, 116 (1997). DOI: 10.1126/
science.277.5322.116).
123 2018
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
of the ‘‘2016 Moderate Area Plan for the
2012 PM2.5 Standard’’ for the San
Joaquin Valley (‘‘2016 PM2.5 Plan’’),
which CARB submitted to the EPA as a
SIP revision on May 10, 2019.124
Based on its sensitivity-based analysis
of VOC emission reductions in the 2013
base and 2024 future years, VOC
emission trends, and the scientific
understanding of atmospheric VOC
chemistry in the San Joaquin Valley,
CARB concludes that VOC emissions do
not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
The EPA has evaluated the State’s
precursor demonstration consistent with
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and
the recommendations in the PM2.5
Precursor Guidance. Based on this
evaluation, the EPA agrees that NOX
emissions contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley and that NOX emission sources,
therefore, remain subject to control
requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of
part D, title I of the Act. For the reasons
provided below, the EPA proposes to
approve the State’s demonstration that
ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do
not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Regarding the State’s analytical
approach, the EPA finds that the State
based its analyses on the latest available
data and studies concerning ambient
PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin
Valley from precursor emissions.
Regarding the required concentrationbased analysis, the EPA finds that the
State assessed the absolute annual
average contribution of each precursor
in ambient PM2.5 (i.e., in 2015). On the
basis of the absolute concentrations
being well above the EPA’s
recommended contribution thresholds
for both the 24-hour and annual average
NAAQS, the State proceeded with its
sensitivity-based analysis, which is an
acceptable progression of analyses
under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule.125
With respect to the sensitivity-based
analysis, we find that the State
performed its analyses in a
straightforward application of the EPA’s
124 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A, A–57. See also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6 (‘‘PM2.5 Precursor
Sensitivity Analysis’’), 71–72.
125 For further discussion of the EPA’s evaluation
of the State’s concentration-based analysis, see
EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD, sections entitled
‘‘Concentration-based analysis’’ within the EPA’s
evaluation for each of ammonia, SOX, and VOC.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recommended approach—i.e., for each
modeled year and percent precursor
emission reduction, the State estimated
the ambient PM2.5 response using the
procedure recommended in the PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, and compared the
result to the recommended contribution
threshold. The EPA also finds that the
performance of the photochemical
model was adequate for use in
estimating the ambient PM2.5 responses,
as discussed in section J (‘‘Air Quality
Model Performance’’) of the EPA’s
‘‘Technical Support Document, EPA
Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ February 2020 (‘‘EPA’s
Modeling TSD’’). The State considered
the EPA’s recommended range of
emission reductions (30% to 70%) for
the 2013 base year, an interim year
(2020), and the projected 2024
attainment year for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and quantified the estimated
response of ambient PM2.5
concentrations to precursor emission
changes for the first time in a PM2.5 SIP
submission for the San Joaquin Valley.
The EPA finds that such quantification
and CARB’s consideration of additional
information provide an informed basis
on which to make a determination as to
whether ammonia, SOX, and VOC do or
do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley. Therefore, we turn to our
evaluation of the State’s determination
for each of these three precursor
pollutants.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, as detailed above,
CARB estimated the ambient PM2.5
response to both a 30% and a 70%
emission reduction. We find that it was
appropriate for the State to consider
additional information to interpret those
results to determine whether the
ammonia contribution is significant. We
have evaluated CARB’s determination
that the projected 2024 attainment year
is more representative of conditions in
the San Joaquin Valley for sensitivitybased analyses and that 30% is a
reasonable upper bound for ammonia
emission reductions to assess the
precursor contribution, as discussed
below.
The State provided ample information
from scientific studies based on ambient
measurements to help assess the
estimated sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to
ammonia reductions. Conclusions based
on ambient data are particularly
relevant because they provide direct
evidence of the chemical state of the
atmosphere, and are not dependent on
modeled estimates of emissions or
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
Measurements represent the ‘‘real
world’’ result of the pollutants’ differing
geographic distributions, the various
meteorological and chemical factors
influencing their conversion to
particulate, and their removal from the
atmosphere by deposition and other
processes. The observed abundance of
ammonia relative to nitric acid, and the
positive amount of chemically excess
ammonia, both provide strong evidence
that ammonia is not the limiting
pollutant for particulate ammonium
nitrate formation. They also support the
State’s conclusion that PM2.5 is likely to
be insensitive to ammonia emission
reductions.
We note that the model response to
precursor reductions may be
unrealistically large. There is some
evidence that ammonia emissions may
be underestimated based on direct
measurements of ammonia emissions
flux during two measurement
campaigns, as discussed in the EPA’s
PM2.5 Precursor TSD. If ammonia
emissions were higher in the modeling,
then ammonia would be more abundant
relative to nitrate and particulate nitrate
formation would be more NOX-limited,
and less sensitive to ammonia
reductions. This would make the model
response more consistent with the
ambient measurement studies, which
suggest a very low sensitivity to
ammonia. The ammonia contribution to
PM2.5 levels above the standard may
therefore be less than estimated by the
State modeling. The 2024 year modeling
incorporates lower NOX emissions and
so has a larger abundance of ammonia
relative to nitrate, more similar to the
studies’ ambient measurements. The
2024 response to ammonia reductions
may thus be more reliable than the 2013
and 2020 responses, and may be more
representative of current atmospheric
conditions despite its use of emission
projections for a future year.
The relative sizes of the ammonia and
NOX precursor emission inventories
after accounting for their differing
molecular weights are a rough indicator
of which is the limiting pollutant for
production of ammonium nitrate,
because it forms from a one-to-one ratio
of molecules derived from each
precursor (i.e., one ammonium nitrate
forms from one ammonium and one
nitrate). However, unlike measurements
and photochemical modeling, a simple
emissions ratio does not account for the
various processes mentioned above; it
just assumes all the emitted molecules
find each other and fully react. The
State found ammonia to be roughly
three times as abundant as NOX
currently after accounting for their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
differing molecular weights, and even
more so in the future. The EPA repeated
the exercise to account for SOX as well,
and found that the ratio of total
ammonia to that needed to react with
both nitrate and sulfate ranged from 2.7
in 2013 to 5.6 in 2028. These are about
the same as the CARB NOX-only results,
because SOX emissions are very small
relative to those of NOX and ammonia
(e.g., in 2013, winter daily emissions
were 8.4 tpd SOX, vs. 300.5 tpd for NOX
and 309.8 tpd for ammonia).126 These
observations support the State’s finding
that PM2.5 is expected to be relatively
insensitive to ammonia reductions,
though it is not definitive.
The State also concludes that there
are continuing large decreases in NOX
emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
from 2013 to 2024, including 53%
reductions from baseline measures and
10–11% reductions from additional new
measures, while ammonia emissions are
projected to remain roughly constant
(i.e., decreasing 1–2%).127 In
conjunction with the ambient evidence
that ammonia is already chemically
overabundant relative to NOX in the San
Joaquin Valley, this shows that in the
future the overabundance will become
even greater, and thus ambient PM2.5
would be even less responsive to
ammonia reductions. This adds
conservatism to the State’s conclusions
about ammonia insensitivity based on
the scientific studies.
While the base year for an attainment
plan for a given nonattainment area is
generally more representative of current
conditions, the EPA believes that either
a base year or a future year may be used
for modeling an ambient PM2.5 response
to precursor emission reductions,
provided the state explains how the
choice of analysis year and associated
assumptions are appropriate.128 The
State relied on 2024 model responses
mainly on the grounds that large NOX
emissions reductions will occur during
2013–2024, so that the 2024 results will
continue to be representative, unlike
earlier model years. These reductions
are the result of regulations put in place
by past air quality planning decisions,
and they will occur regardless of
decisions about additional NOX or
ammonia controls in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
In assessing the effect of potential
ammonia reductions, the EPA believes it
is reasonable to account for these NOX
reductions and the effect that ammonia
reductions would have in the
126 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Tables B–2, B–3, and
B–4.
127 For further discussion of the SJV PM
2.5 Plan’s
control strategy, see section IV.D.4.b of this
preamble.
128 PM
2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35–36.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17395
attainment year and after. In addition, as
noted above, the greater abundance of
ammonia relative to NOX in the 2024
year modeling is more consistent with
recent ambient measurements, and may
make the 2024 responses more
representative of current atmospheric
conditions than the other model years
for assessing sensitivity to ammonia
reductions. Therefore, in consideration
of the scientific studies and emission
trends, including the projected large
amount of NOX emission reductions
through the attainment period, the EPA
agrees that the modeled 2024 year is
acceptable and representative of
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley.
In the context of interpreting the full
set of modeling results for ammonia
emissions reductions, the EPA also
considered the State’s conclusion that
the absence of available ammonia
controls for sources in the San Joaquin
Valley supports its decision to treat a
30% reduction as a reasonable upper
bound on the ammonia emission
reductions to model in estimating the
precursor contribution. As the State
correctly notes, the 30% to 70% range
recommended by the EPA is based on
historical NOX and SOX emission
reductions, and changes in ammonia
emission levels nationally from 2011 to
2017 ranged from a 9% decrease to a 6%
increase.129 The State’s descriptions of
both the past research relied upon to
develop existing rules that apply to
ammonia emission sources and ongoing
research show that it has considered the
availability of ammonia controls both in
the past and in the present context, and
that the State has a basis for its
conclusion that 30% is a reasonable
upper bound on achievable reductions
for ammonia.
In sum, we find that the State
quantified the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 levels to reductions in ammonia
using appropriate modeling techniques,
which performed well, and that the
State’s choice of 2024 as the reference
point for purposes of evaluating the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to
ammonia emission reductions is wellsupported. We also find that the State
adequately documented its bases for
using a 30% reduction in ammonia
emissions as an upper bound in the
modeling to assess ambient sensitivity
to ammonia emission reductions. Based
on all of these considerations, the EPA
proposes to approve the State’s
demonstration that ammonia emissions
do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.
129 PM
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
2.5
Precursor Guidance, Table 2, page 30.
27MRP2
17396
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
that the projected 2024 attainment year
is more representative of conditions in
For SOX, the State found that the
the San Joaquin Valley for sensitivityambient PM2.5 responses to SOX
based analyses and that VOC reductions
emission reductions were below the
in 2024 would mostly result in a
EPA’s recommended contribution
3
threshold of 1.3 mg/m in the Draft PM2.5 disbenefit to ambient PM2.5 levels, as
well as the State’s resulting conclusion
Precursor Guidance (and below the
as to whether VOC’s contribution is
EPA’s recommended threshold of 1.5
significant.
mg/m3 in the (final) PM2.5 Precursor
Regarding emission trends, the EPA
Guidance) and, indeed, that for most
agrees that the 9% VOC emissions
sites there would be an increase in
ambient PM2.5 levels in response to such decrease from 2013 to 2024 favors
reliance on the 2024 modeling results.
reductions (i.e., a disbenefit). The EPA
Furthermore, there is a large decrease in
has evaluated the State’s determination
NOX emissions over this period, as
as to this disbenefit and the State’s
discussed in the EPA’s evaluation of
resulting conclusion as to the
ammonia in section IV.B.3.a of this
precursor’s significance.
preamble, which affects the atmospheric
Because the results of the sensitivity
chemistry with respect to ambient PM2.5
analysis were all below the EPA’s
formation from VOC emissions. The 9%
recommended 24-hour contribution
VOC emission reductions and the vast
thresholds at both the 30% and 70%
majority of NOX emissions will result
emission reductions, and in both the
from baseline measures that are
2013 base year and 2024 attainment
projected to occur, even absent any
year, it is not necessary to distinguish
further action by the State. We therefore
between the timing and scale of
find it reasonable to rely on future year
emission reductions with respect to the
2024 modeled responses to VOC
response of ambient PM2.5 levels, as in
reductions. The EPA also finds that the
the ammonia evaluation where the
State provided a reasonable explanation
results diverged according to scale and
timing of modeled emission reductions. for the VOC reduction disbenefit and
The EPA’s PM2.5 Precursor TSD contains evidence that it occurs in the San
Joaquin Valley.
additional detail on the EPA’s
evaluation of SOX as a PM2.5 precursor,
For all of these reasons, we propose
including the unexpected disbenefit of
to approve the State’s demonstration
reducing SOX emissions. Accordingly,
that VOC emissions do not contribute
we find that the State’s decision to rely
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
on the 2013 sensitivity modeling results exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
for a 30% SOX reduction is acceptable.
San Joaquin Valley.
Therefore, on the basis of the modeled
C. Best Available Control Measures and
ambient PM2.5 response to both a 30%
and 70% reduction in SOX emissions in Most Stringent Measures
2013, and the facts and circumstances of 1. Statutory and Regulatory
the area, the EPA proposes to approve
Requirements
the State’s demonstration that SOX
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act
emissions do not contribute
requires
for any serious PM2.5
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
nonattainment area that the state submit
exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
provisions to assure that the best
San Joaquin Valley.
available control measures (BACM) for
c. VOC
the control of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors shall be implemented no
For VOC, the State found that the
later than four years after the date the
ambient PM2.5 response to VOC
area is reclassified as a serious area. The
emission reductions were generally
EPA has defined BACM in the PM2.5 SIP
below the EPA’s recommended
Requirements Rule to mean ‘‘any
contribution threshold of 1.3 mg/m3 in
the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance (and technologically and economically
feasible control measure that can be
below the EPA’s recommended
threshold of 1.5 mg/m3 in the final PM2.5 implemented in whole or in part within
4 years after the date of reclassification
Precursor Guidance), and often
of a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
predicted an increase in ambient PM2.5
to Serious and that generally can
levels in response to such reductions
achieve greater permanent and
(i.e., a disbenefit), except for a 70%
enforceable emissions reductions in
emission reduction for the 2013 base
direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions
year, where the State predicted the
ambient PM2.5 response to be above both of PM2.5 plan precursors from sources in
the area than can be achieved through
recommended thresholds at a majority
the implementation of RACM on the
of sites. The EPA has evaluated and
same source(s). BACM includes best
agrees with the State’s determination
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. SOX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
available control technology
(BACT).’’ 130
The EPA generally considers BACM a
control level that goes beyond existing
RACM-level controls, for example by
expanding the use of RACM controls or
by requiring preventative measures
instead of remediation.131 Indeed, as
implementation of BACM and BACT is
required when a Moderate
nonattainment area is reclassified as
Serious due to its inability to attain the
NAAQS through implementation of
‘‘reasonable’’ measures, it is logical that
‘‘best’’ control measures should
represent a more stringent and
potentially more costly level of
control.132 If RACM and RACT level
controls of emissions have been
insufficient to reach attainment, the
CAA contemplates the implementation
of more stringent controls, controls on
more sources, or other adjustments to
the control strategy necessary to attain
the NAAQS in the area.
Consistent with longstanding
guidance provided in the General
Preamble Addendum, the preamble to
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
discusses the following steps for
determining BACM and BACT:
(1) Develop a comprehensive
emission inventory of the sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors;
(2) Identify potential control
measures;
(3) Determine whether an available
control measure or technology is
technologically feasible;
(4) Determine whether an available
control measure or technology is
economically feasible; and
(5) Determine the earliest date by
which a control measure or technology
can be implemented in whole or in
part.133
The EPA allows consideration of
factors such as physical plant layout,
energy requirements, needed
infrastructure, and workforce type and
habits when considering technological
feasibility. For purposes of evaluating
economic feasibility, the EPA allows
consideration of factors such as the
capital costs, operating and
maintenance costs, and cost
effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of
130 40 CFR 51.1000 (definitions). In longstanding
guidance, the EPA has similarly defined BACM to
mean, ‘‘among other things, the maximum degree of
emissions reduction achievable for a source or
source category, which is determined on a case-bycase basis considering energy, environmental, and
economic impacts.’’ General Preamble Addendum,
42010, 42013.
131 81 FR 58010, 58081 and General Preamble
Addendum, 42011, 42013.
132 Id. and General Preamble Addendum, 42009–
42010.
133 81 FR 58010, 58083–58085.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
pollutant reduced by a measure or
technology) associated with the measure
or control.134
Once these analyses are complete, the
state must use this information to
develop enforceable control measures
and submit them to the EPA for
evaluation as SIP provisions to meet the
basic requirements of CAA section 110
and any other applicable substantive
provisions of the Act. The EPA is using
these steps as guidelines in the
evaluation of the BACM and BACT
measures and related analyses in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan.
Because the EPA reclassified the San
Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective
February 19, 2016,135 the date four years
after reclassification is February 19,
2020. In this case, however, the Serious
area attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley under
section 188(c) is no later than December
31, 2019, and to qualify for an extension
of this date under section 188(e), the
state must, among other things,
demonstrate that implementation of
BACM and BACT for relevant source
categories will not bring the area into
attainment by this date. Given these
circumstances, the EPA is evaluating the
Plan’s control strategy for
implementation of BACM and BACT as
expeditiously as practicable and no later
than December 31, 2019.136
In addition, before the EPA may
extend the attainment date for a Serious
nonattainment area under CAA section
188(e), the state must, among other
things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the plan for the
area includes the most stringent
measures (MSM) that are included in
the implementation plan of any state or
are achieved in practice in any state,
and can feasibly be implemented in the
area. The state must implement MSM as
expeditiously as practicable and no later
than the beginning of the year
containing the attainment date
identified by the state in its extension
request, i.e., in this case, by January 1,
2024, because the State is seeking an
extension of the attainment date to
December 31, 2024, under section
188(e).137 Section III.B of this preamble
134 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3) and 81 FR 58010, 58041–
58042.
135 81 FR 2993.
136 CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an
outermost deadline (‘‘no later than four years after
the date the area is reclassified’’) and does not
preclude an earlier implementation deadline for
BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
137 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5) (requiring
implementation of all control measures needed for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
contains a more detailed discussion of
the MSM requirement in CAA section
188(e).
2. Summary of State’s Submission
As discussed in section IV.A of this
proposed rule, Appendix B of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan contains the planning
inventories for direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SOX, VOC, and
ammonia) for the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area together with
documentation to support these
inventories. Each inventory includes
emissions from stationary, area, on-road,
and non-road emission sources, and the
State specifically identifies the
condensable component of direct PM2.5
for relevant stationary and area source
categories. As discussed in section IV.B
of this preamble, the State’s analysis
indicates that the Plan should control
emissions of PM2.5 and NOX in order to
reach attainment. Accordingly, the Plan
evaluates potential controls for those
pollutants in the analysis of what is
necessary to meet the BACM (including
BACT) and MSM requirements.
For stationary and area sources, the
District identifies the sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX in the San Joaquin
Valley that are subject to District
emission control measures and provides
its evaluation of these regulations for
compliance with BACM and MSM
requirements in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. As part of its process for
identifying candidate BACM and MSM
and considering the technical and
economic feasibility of additional
control measures, the District reviewed
the EPA’s guidance documents on
BACM, additional guidance documents
on control measures for direct PM2.5 and
NOX emission sources, and control
measures implemented in other ozone
and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in
California and other states.138
For mobile sources, CARB identifies
the sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX in
the San Joaquin Valley that are subject
to the State’s emission control measures
and provides its evaluation of these
regulations for compliance with BACM
and MSM requirements in Appendix D
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. Appendix D
describes CARB’s process for
determining BACM and MSM,
including identification of the sources
of direct PM2.5 and NOX in the San
Joaquin Valley, identification of
potential control measures for such
sources, assessment of the stringency
and feasibility of the potential control
measures, and adoption and
later than the beginning of the year containing the
applicable attainment date).
138 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17397
implementation of feasible control
measures.139 CARB further discusses its
current mobile source control program
and additional mobile source measures
in the Valley State SIP Strategy.
Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan also
describes the current efforts of the eight
local jurisdiction metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) to implement
cost-effective transportation control
measures (TCMs) in the San Joaquin
Valley.140
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
As discussed in sections III.B and
IV.D of this preamble, the EPA has
established a process for evaluating
potential BACM (including BACT) in
serious area plans and a similar process
for evaluating MSM. Because of the
substantial overlap in the source
categories and controls evaluated for
BACM and those evaluated for MSM,
we present our evaluation of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan’s provisions for including
MSM alongside our evaluation of the
Plan’s provisions for implementing
BACM and BACT for each identified
source category.
The first step in determining BACM
and MSM is to develop a
comprehensive emissions inventory of
the sources of direct PM2.5 and relevant
PM2.5 precursors that can be used with
modeling to determine the effects of
these sources on ambient PM2.5 levels.
Based on our review of the emission
inventories provided in Appendix B of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the State’s and
District’s identification of the sources
subject to control in Appendix C and
Appendix D, the EPA is proposing to
find that the Plan appropriately
identifies all sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX that are subject to evaluation for
potential control consistent with the
requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title
I of the Act.
The remaining steps are to identify
potential control measures for each
source category, determine whether
available control measures or
technologies are technologically and
economically feasible for
implementation in the area, and
determine the earliest date by which
those control measures or technologies
found to be feasible can be
implemented, in whole or in part.141
We discuss below key components of
the BACM and MSM evaluations
provided by the District, CARB, and the
139 Id.
at App. D, Ch. II.
at App. D, D–127 and D–128.
141 81 FR 58010, 58083–58085. The EPA’s
recommended steps for a BACM demonstration are
substantively similar to the required steps for an
MSM demonstration in 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
140 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17398
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
local jurisdiction MPOs in the SJV PM2.5
Plan in accordance with these steps. We
provide a more detailed evaluation of
many of the District’s control measures
for stationary and area sources in the
EPA’s ‘‘Technical Support Document,
EPA Evaluation of BACM/MSM, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ February 2020 (‘‘EPA’s
BACM/MSM TSD’’), together with
recommendations for possible future
improvements to these rules.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. District Measures for Stationary and
Area Sources
Open Burning
SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (‘‘Open
Burning’’), as amended April 15, 2010,
is designed to minimize impacts of
smoke and other air pollutants from
open burning of agricultural waste and
other materials.142 The rule restricts the
type of materials that may be burned
and establishes other conditions and
procedures for open burning in
conjunction with the District’s Smoke
Management Program.143 The EPA
approved Rule 4103 into the California
SIP on January 4, 2012.144
The District compared Rule 4103 to
several other open burning rules
implemented in other parts of California
and found that no other rules are more
stringent, as a whole, than Rule 4103.
According to the information provided,
although the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD)
implements a rule that restricts burning
on residential wood combustion (RWC)
curtailment days (Rule 444) and District
Rule 4103 does not contain the same
restriction, in practice the District
generally limits burning on RWC
curtailment days through
implementation of its Smoke
Management Program, which
specifically allocates allowable burn
acreage for 97 geographic zones based
on local meteorology. We note that a
restriction on burning on RWC
curtailment days by itself may not
consistently reduce wintertime PM2.5
emission levels as it could shift more
waste burning activity to days with
more favorable meteorology. On balance
we find that Rule 4103’s general
prohibitions on the burning of specific
agricultural crops and burn permitting
program are more effective means for
reducing PM2.5 emissions than targeted
restrictions on RWC curtailment days.
Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the
California Health and Safety Code
require the District to prohibit open
142 SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15,
2010.
143 Id.
144 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
burning of specific crop categories
unless the District determines either
that there is no economically feasible
alternative means of eliminating the
waste or that there is no long-term
federal or state funding commitment for
the continued operation of biomass
facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or for
the development of alternatives to
burning.145 The District has considered
the technical and economic feasibility of
alternatives to burning several times in
the last several years and concluded that
such alternatives are not feasible for
selected crop categories at this time.146
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters Greater Than 5.0 Million British
Thermal Units per Hour (MMBtu/hr)
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (‘‘Boilers,
Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters—Phase 3’’), as amended
October 16, 2008, establishes NOX
emission limits ranging from 5 to 30
parts per million (ppm) and related
operational requirements for gaseous
fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters with
total rated heat input greater than 5
MMBtu/hr.147 The EPA approved Rule
4306 into the California SIP on January
13, 2010.148 SJVUAPCD Rule 4320
(‘‘Advanced Emission Reduction
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0
MMBtu/hr’’), as adopted October 16,
2008, establishes more stringent NOX
emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and
related operational requirements for
these units but allows sources to pay an
emission fee in lieu of compliance with
the NOX emission limits.149 The EPA
approved Rule 4320 into the California
SIP on March 25, 2011, but determined
that this rule, as approved, may not be
credited for attainment planning
purposes because the fee provision
renders the NOX emission limits
unenforceable.150
The District compared both Rule 4306
and Rule 4320 to several other
analogous rules implemented in other
parts of California, including the
Sacramento Metro area, the South Coast,
and the Bay Area.151 According to the
information provided in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission
limits in Rule 4306 are generally within
145 California Health & Safety Code, sections
41855.5 and 41855.6.
146 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–18 and C–23 to C–
29.
147 SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October
16, 2008.
148 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
149 SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16,
2008.
150 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
151 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–71 to C–79.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the same range as, and in some cases are
more stringent than, those contained in
analogous rules implemented by these
other California agencies, except that
the SCAQMD implements a rule
containing NOX emission limits that are
potentially more stringent for units of
certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as
amended November 1, 2013).152
SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5
ppm NOX emission limit for larger units
(i.e., those with heat rate inputs above
75 MMBtu/hr), whereas Rule 4320
establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306
establishes a 9 ppm limit for such
units.153 SCAQMD Regulation XX
(‘‘Regional Clean Air Incentives Market’’
or ‘‘RECLAIM’’) also applies to units
within the same range of sizes as Rule
4320 but allows sources to comply with
emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM
Trading Credits.154 Because SCAQMD
Rule 1146 allows individual units with
rated heat inputs above 75 MMBtu/hr to
comply with RECLAIM in lieu of
compliance with the 5 ppm emission
limit in the rule,155 the SIP-approved
NOX emission limit for these units in
the South Coast is either the applicable
limit in SCAQMD Rule 1146 or the
applicable provision of the RECLAIM
program, which may allow for emission
levels higher than 5 ppm at individual
units.156 We do not have information
152 Id. and 79 FR 57442 (September 25, 2014)
(final action approving Rule 1146 into California
SIP). The SCAQMD amended Rule 1146 on
December 8, 2018 and CARB submitted the
amended rule to the EPA on February 6, 2020. The
amended rule is available at https://www.aqmd.gov/
docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule1146.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
153 Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended
November 1, 2013) at section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD
Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and SJVUAPCD
Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–73. The SCAQMD’s
December 8, 2018 amendments to Rule 1146 did not
alter the provisions of section (c)(1)(F).
154 RECLAIM is a market incentive program
designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving
emission reduction requirements for NOX and SOX
through, among other things, add-on controls,
equipment modifications, reformulated products,
operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase
of excess emission reductions. SCAQMD Rule 2000,
section (a). The SCAQMD is currently transitioning
the RECLAIM program to a command-and-control
regulatory structure requiring ‘‘best available
retrofit control technology’’ as soon as practicable.
See, e.g., SCAQMD, Draft Staff Report, ‘‘Proposed
Amended Rule 1110.2—Emissions from Gaseousand Liquid-Fueled Engines, Proposed Amended
Rule 1100—Implementation Schedule for NOX
Facilities,’’ September 2019, Chapter 1.
155 SCAQMD Rule 1146, ‘‘Emissions of NO from
X
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers
and Steam Generators, and Process Heaters’’
(amended November 1, 2013), Table 1146–1,
section (a)(4) and SCAQMD Rule 2001,
‘‘Applicability’’ (amended May 6, 2005), section (j)
and Table 1.
156 The EPA’s most recent action approving
revisions to the RECLAIM program into the
California SIP published on September 14, 2017. 82
FR 43176.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
about the rated heat input of the units
subject to RECLAIM in the South Coast
and, therefore, have no information
confirming that any unit with a rated
heat input above 75 MMBtu/hr has
achieved the 5 ppm NOX emission limit
in Rule 1146.
The District also considered the
technical and economic feasibility of
alternative NOX and PM2.5 control
techniques for this source category, such
as low temperature oxidation and EMX
system for NOX control, and alternative
fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP)
and wet scrubbers for direct PM2.5
control.157 Based on its consideration of
the technical constraints and costs
associated with each of these control
options, as explained in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District
concluded that these additional controls
are not feasible for implementation in
the San Joaquin Valley at this time.158
Although the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4320 do not satisfy the Act’s
enforceability requirements because of
the option to pay an emission fee, we
note that the requirement to pay the
emission fee itself is an enforceable
requirement and that the fee provision
appears to function effectively as a
pollution deterrent.159
Flares
SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares’’), as
amended June 18, 2009, establishes
specific operational and administrative
requirements to limit emissions of NOX,
SOX, and VOCs from the operation of
flares.160 Under Rule 4311, for each
refinery flare and other flare with a
capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the
operator must submit a flare
minimization plan (FMP) to the District
describing relevant equipment and
preventative measures and
demonstrating that the operator
appropriately minimized flaring
activity.161 The EPA approved Rule
4311 into the California SIP on
November 3, 2011.162
The District compared Rule 4311 with
several other analogous rules
implemented in other parts of
California, including the South Coast,
Bay Area, and Santa Barbara, all of
which require regulated sources to
submit FMPs to the local air districts.163
The District also compared Rule 4311
with North Dakota’s Century Code 38–
08–06.4, which requires, among other
157 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–88 to C–92.
158 Id.
159 EPA’s
BACM/MSM TSD at section 3.b.5.
160 SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18,
2009.
161 Id.
162 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011).
163 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–150 to C–156.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
things, that after one year of
uncontrolled operations each oil well be
equipped with a control system that
captures at least 75% of the gas (i.e.,
allowing up to 25% of the gas to be
flared).164 According to the information
provided, the average volume of gas
flared at facilities in the San Joaquin
Valley between 2009 and 2013 was
3.8%, well below both the amount of
flaring allowed under the North Dakota
rule and the amount allowed in the
Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District’s Rule 359, which requires that
each FMP list a targeted maximum
monthly flared gas volume of 5% of the
average monthly gas handled/produced/
treated, with limited exceptions.165 As
described in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the District concluded that,
because of wide variation in flaring
operations in the San Joaquin Valley,
requirements to submit detailed FMPs,
as in Rule 4311, are the most effective
means of reducing NOX emissions from
flaring and that additional control
techniques are not technologically and
economically feasible for
implementation in the San Joaquin
Valley at this time.166
Consistent with a commitment in a
prior PM2.5 attainment plan to evaluate
the technological and economic
feasibility of additional flare
minimization practices, the District
recently conducted a comprehensive
evaluation of the most effective flare
minimization practices included in
approved FMPs and additional NOX
control information and published two
reports containing its findings and
recommendations.167 As part of its final
report in 2016, the District identified
flare minimization practices in use at
certain facilities that could be employed
at other facilities to reduce flaring and
stated its intent to propose potential
rule amendments to require use of these
practices where technologically and
economically feasible.168 Additionally,
the District found that ultra-low NOX
control technologies have recently
become available and stated its intent to
thoroughly evaluate this control option
and to then propose potential rule
amendments to require use of these
controls where technologically and
164 Id. at C–155 and North Dakota Century Code
38–08–06.4, section 2.d (as in effect February 13,
2015), available at https://www.legis.nd.gov/
cencode/t38c08.pdf?20150213153521.
165 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, C–154 and C–155.
166 Id. at C–147 to C–148 and C–156 to C–161.
167 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Rule 4311 (Flares) Further
Study, 2014,’’ September 16, 2014 and SJVUAPCD,
‘‘Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare Minimization
Plans, 2015,’’ March 31, 2016.
168 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare
Minimization Plans, 2015,’’ March 31, 2016, 16–17.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17399
economically feasible.169 In the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the District provided a
summary economic analysis indicating
that the annualized cost-effectiveness of
ultra-low NOX control technology
would range from $23,000 to $1 million
per ton of NOX reduced.170 Finally, the
District considered a number of
alternatives to flaring, preventative
maintenance measures, procedures to
reduce flaring during maintenance and
shutdowns, and procedures to prevent
or mitigate effects of power outages that
would further reduce NOX emissions
from this source category.171
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (‘‘Solid FuelFired Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters’’), as amended
December 15, 2011, establishes NOX
emission limits and related operational
requirements for boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters that
burn municipal solid waste (MSW),
biomass, and other solid fuels.172
Specifically, the rule establishes NOX
emission limits of 165 parts per million
volume (ppmv) for units burning MSW,
90 ppmv for units burning biomass, and
65 ppmv for units burning other solid
fuels.173 The EPA approved the
District’s 2011 amendments to this rule
into the California SIP on November 6,
2012.174
As described in Appendix C of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission
limits in Rule 4352 have been lowered
significantly over time and are at least
as stringent as analogous requirements
implemented in other parts of
California. The District compared the
provisions of Rule 4352 to potentially
more stringent rules implemented in the
South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) (Rule 1146), Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) (Regulation 9 Rule 7) and
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) (Rule
411) and found that the lower NOX
emission limits in these rules are not
comparable to the provisions of Rule
4352. According to the District, all of
remaining solid fuel-fired boilers
operating in the San Joaquin Valley are
used by electric utilities to generate
electricity, a category that is specifically
exempted from the requirements of
SCAQMD Rule 1146, BAAQMD
Regulation 9 Rule 7, and SMAQMD
169 Id.
170 2018
PM2.5 Plan, C–156 and C–157.
at C–157 to C–161.
172 SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December
15, 2011.
173 Id.
174 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
171 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17400
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Rule 411.175 The District also compared
Rule 4352 to analogous rules
implemented by three other California
air districts that apply to active biomassfueled units, the Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District
(YSAQMD), El Dorado County Air
Quality Management District
(EDAQMD), and Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD),
and found that the NOX emission limits
for biomass-fueled units in these
regulations are all within the same range
as the limits in SJVUAPCD Rule
4352.176
The District also considered the
technological and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for this
source category, such as selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and ‘‘Covanta
LN’’ technology for NOX control and
catalytic baghouse filter bags (‘‘Gore DeNOX systems’’) for direct PM2.5
control.177 Based primarily on its
consideration of the costs associated
with retrofitting these controls onto
existing MSW-fired or biomass-fired
units, the District concluded in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that none of these control
options is economically feasible for
sources in the San Joaquin Valley at this
time.178 The District noted, however,
that in May 2018 it issued a
construction permit requiring
installation of Covanta LN technology to
limit NOX emissions from certain MSWfired units and that it would continue to
monitor the implementation of this
control technology to determine
whether it is feasible for
implementation on a continuous
basis.179
We have reviewed the relevant
provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 9–7,
SCAQMD Rule 1146 and SMAQMD
Rule 411 and agree with the District’s
conclusion that these SIP-approved
regulations exempt from their NOX
emission limits boilers used at electric
utilities to generate electricity.180
Glass Melting Furnaces
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting
Furnaces’’), as amended May 19, 2011,
establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and PM10
emission limits and related operational
requirements for glass melting
furnaces.181 Specifically, the rule
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
175 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–165 to C–167.
176 Id. at C–168 to C–169.
177 Id. at C–170 to C–179.
178 Id.
179 Id. at C–179. The permitted source had not yet
begun construction at the time the District adopted
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
180 BAAQMD Regulation 9–7, section 110.4,
SCAQMD Rule 1146, section 110, and SMAQMD
Rule 41, section (f)(1).
181 SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19,
2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
establishes NOX emission limits of 1.5
to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton glass, depending on
glass product and averaging time, and
SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb.
SOX/ton glass.182 The EPA approved the
District’s 2011 amendments to Rule
4354 into the California SIP on January
31, 2013.183
According to information provided in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
NOX emission limits in Rule 4354
require implementation of oxy-fuel
firing or SCR systems, which are the
best available NOX control techniques
for this source category and are at least
as stringent as analogous requirements
implemented in the South Coast and
Bay Area.184 We are not aware of
prohibitory rules for glass melting
furnaces in other areas that are more
stringent than Rule 4354.
As part of our review of a previous
PM2.5 attainment plan submitted for the
San Joaquin Valley, we also considered
whether NOX emission levels lower
than the limits in Rule 4354 may be
feasible for container glass
manufacturing facilities. Specifically,
under the SCAQMD’s RECLAIM
Program, the SCAQMD determined in
2000 that a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
ton of glass pulled represented Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT),185 and in 2015 the SCAQMD
determined that a lower NOX limit of
0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled
represents BARCT for this source
category based on use of SCR or the
‘‘Ultra Cat ceramic filter system,’’ which
has been installed or is under
construction at a number of glass
manufacturing locations worldwide.186
The EPA obtained information from the
SCAQMD indicating that the OwensBrockway Container Glass facility in the
South Coast (now operated by OwensIllinois Glass Company) operated at
90% production capacity in February
2015 and consistently emitted below
0.72 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled during
182 Id.
at 5, 7.
FR 6740 (January 31, 2013).
184 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–189 to C–194.
185 BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation
that is based on the maximum degree of reduction
achievable taking into account environmental,
energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.’’ California Health & Safety Code
Section 40406.
186 SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, ‘‘Proposed
Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM,’’
December 4, 2015, 170–171. The RECLAIM program
requires that container glass melting facilities
achieve NOX reductions consistent with the 2015
BARCT determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass
pulled) by 2022. SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended
October 5, 2018), subparagraph (f)(1)(K) and Table
6 (‘‘RECLAIM NOX 2022 Ending Emission
Factors’’).
183 78
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that month, using oxyfuel firing to
control NOX emissions.187
Given this information, the EPA
requested additional information from
the District about the technological and
economic feasibility of additional NOX
control techniques for container glass
manufacturing facilities, and on January
28, 2020, the District submitted a
document entitled ‘‘Further Information
for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis
for District Rule 4354 (Glass Melting
Furnaces)’’ (referred to herein as the
‘‘Rule 4354 Additional Analysis’’).188
The information provided by the
District indicates that, because the costs
due to lost production can be significant
if a glass melting furnace is taken offline during the middle of its campaign,
retrofits to install additional combustion
controls are generally performed only
when a furnace is shut down for
rebricking, which occurs once every 10
to 15 years.189 Because of wide
variations in the costs and technical
difficulties associated with installation
of NOX controls depending on the
physical layout of each furnace and the
time of its last re-bricking, the District
concluded that generic economic
feasibility analyses are not possible and
that extensive facility-specific
evaluations would be necessary to
determine whether additional control
technologies are feasible for
implementation at the three container
glass melting facilities currently
operating in the San Joaquin Valley.190
Further, the District also stated in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that
the Owens-Brockway (now OwensIllinois) facility in the South Coast has
experienced wide-ranging spikes in the
NOX emissions from its glass furnaces
while operating its new control systems
and that it is not known at this time
whether the facility will be able to
consistently achieve emission rates as
low as 0.20 lbs of NOX/ton of glass
produced as shown by the facility’s
preliminary source test data from
2018.191
We agree with the District’s
conclusion that the feasibility of
retrofits to install additional NOX
controls at the existing glass melting
facilities in the San Joaquin Valley is
187 81 FR 69396, 69399 (October 6, 2016) (citing
email dated April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana,
SCAQMD to Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX).
188 Email dated January 28, 2020, from John
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX,
Subject: ‘‘RE: Follow up questions on glass melting
and IC engines for MSM analysis,’’ attaching
‘‘Further Information for EPA Regarding the MSM
Analysis for District Rule 4354 (Glass Melting
Furnaces)’’ (‘‘Rule 4354 Additional Analysis’’).
189 Rule 4354 Additional Analysis, 5–7.
190 Id.
191 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–195.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
highly dependent on timing and sitespecific factors, as the real costs of
installing post-combustion controls or
oxy-fuel firing retrofits and the lost
revenue resulting from early furnace
shutdowns may vary significantly from
facility to facility.
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal
Combustion Engines’’), as amended
November 14, 2013, establishes NOX,
CO, VOC, and SOX emission limits and
related operational requirements for
internal combustion (IC) engines.192 The
rule contains separate emission limits
for spark-ignited IC engines used in
agricultural operations (SI AO engines),
spark-ignited IC engines used in nonagricultural operations (SI non-AO
engines), and compression-ignited IC
engines.193 The EPA approved the
District’s 2013 amendments to this rule
into the California SIP on April 25,
2016.194
For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702
establishes NOX emission limits ranging
from 11 to 75 ppmv, depending on the
type of engine.195 According to
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
these NOX emission limits are at least as
stringent as many analogous control
requirements implemented in the Bay
Area, Sacramento Metro, and Ventura
County areas.196 We also note that the
Rule 4702 limits for these engines are at
least as stringent as analogous
requirements in the Feather River,
Placer County, Mojave Desert, and San
Diego areas.197
Some of the emission limits for
specific types of SI non-AO engines in
Rule 4702 are, however, less stringent
than those implemented in the South
Coast, El Dorado, and Antelope Valley
areas for similar engines. Specifically,
the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv
limit for all IC engines;198 El Dorado has
adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ‘‘richburn’’ engines and a 65 ppmv limit for
SI ‘‘lean-burn’’ engines (except those
used exclusively in agricultural
operations); 199 and Antelope Valley has
adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines
(except those used exclusively in
192 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November
14, 2013.
193 Id.
194 81 FR 24029 (April 25, 2016).
195 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November
14, 2013, section 5.2.2 and tables 1 and 2.
196 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–214 to C–221.
197 Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County
APCD Rule 242; Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160;
and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1.
198 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February
1, 2008.
199 El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as
amended June 2, 2006.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
agricultural operations).200 As explained
in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
the District considered the technical and
economic feasibility of alternative
control techniques for certain SI nonAO engines (e.g., waste gas engines,
cyclic loaded field gas-fueled engines,
limited use engines, two-stroke gaseous
fueled engines, and lean-burn engines
used in gas compression) that would
lower the emission levels for these
engines to 11 ppmv but found that these
NOX controls are not feasible for
implementation in the San Joaquin
Valley at this time.201
For SI AO engines, Rule 4702
establishes NOX emission limits ranging
from 90 to 150 ppmv.202 These NOX
emission limits are more stringent than
analogous control requirements
implemented in the Sacramento Metro,
Placer County, El Dorado, and Antelope
Valley areas, which exempt AO engines
from control requirements altogether,
and are equivalent to analogous control
requirements implemented in the
Mojave Desert area.203 The SCAQMD,
however, has adopted an 11 ppmv NOX
emission limit for all stationary SI and
CI engines rated over 50 bhp, effective
July 1, 2011, with limited exceptions for
agricultural engines that meet certain
conditions.204 Additionally, the Feather
River Air Quality Management District
(FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended
October 6, 2014, establishes NOX
emission limits of 25 parts per million
(ppm) and 65 ppm for rich-burn and
lean-burn agricultural engines in
southern FRAQMD, respectively, except
for engines located at agricultural
sources that emit less than 50% of the
major source thresholds for regulated air
pollutants and/or hazardous air
200 Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as
amended January 21, 2003.
201 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–221 to C–227.
202 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November
14, 2013, section 5.2.3 and Table 3.
203 SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995;
Placer County APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10,
2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as
amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD
Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21, 2003; and
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as adopted
January 23, 2012.
204 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February
1, 2008, section (d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II).
Rule 1110.2 provides an exemption from the 11
ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines that
meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of
two additional conditions: (1) The engine operator
submits documentation to the SCAQMD, by the
deadline for a permit application, that the
applicable electric utility has rejected an
application for an electrical line extension to the
location of the engines, or (2) the SCAQMD
determines that the operator does not qualify for
funding under California Health and Safety Code
Section 44229 to replace, retrofit or repower the
engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section (h)(9).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17401
pollutants.205 These NOX emission
limits in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and
FRAQMD Rule 3.22 thus appear to be
more stringent in some respects than the
90 ppmv and 150 ppmv limits
applicable to agricultural engines in
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. As of June 2016,
staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of
any stationary SI engines currently
operating at agricultural facilities in the
Feather River area that have
demonstrated compliance with the 25
ppm or 65 ppm NOX emission limits in
FRAQMD Rule 3.22.206 Nonetheless,
because these NOX emission limits are
approved into the California SIP,207 they
are required as MSM if they can feasibly
be implemented in the San Joaquin
Valley.
The District considered the technical
and economic feasibility of alternative
control techniques for SI AO engines
that would lower the emission levels for
certain engines to 11 ppmv but found
that these NOX controls are not feasible
for implementation within San Joaquin
Valley’s agricultural industry at this
time.208 Based on our understanding
that three natural gas-fired SI AO
engines in the South Coast are currently
subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission
limit in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and use
nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR,
also called ‘‘three-way catalysts’’)
control technology to comply with this
emission limit,209 the EPA requested
additional information from the District
regarding the technological and
economic feasibility of additional NOX
control techniques for SI AO engines,
and on October 7, 2019, the District
submitted a document entitled ‘‘Further
Information for EPA Regarding the MSM
Analysis for Agricultural Operation
Engines’’ (referred to herein as the ‘‘AO
Engine Additional Analysis’’).210
205 FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6,
2014, section D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD
Emission Limits) and section B.1.e (Exemptions).
206 Email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit
Mangat, FRAQMD to Nicole Law, EPA Region IX,
regarding ‘‘Engines in FRAQMD’’ (stating that all
423 agricultural engines currently operating in the
Feather River area qualify for an exemption from
the NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22).
The 25 ppm and 65 ppm NOX emission limits in
SIP-approved Rule 3.22 apply only to engines
located at agricultural sources that emit at least
50% of the major source thresholds for regulated air
pollutants and/or hazardous air pollutants.
FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014,
section D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission
Limits) and section B.1.e (Exemptions).
207 80 FR 22646 (April 23, 2015) (final rule
approving FRAQMD Rule 3.22 into California SIP).
208 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–231 to C–238.
209 81 FR 69396, 69398 (October 6, 2016) (citing
email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana,
SCAQMD to Nicole Law, EPA Region IX).
210 Email dated October 7, 2019, from John
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX,
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
Continued
27MRP2
17402
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
According to the District, the NOX
controls that would be necessary to
achieve a 11 ppmv emission limit at SI
AO engines in the San Joaquin Valley
are not economically feasible because of
factors such as increased fuel costs,
increased engine maintenance costs,
and the costs of engine overhaul/
replacement,211 and installation of
control equipment on an SI AO engine
generally is not technologically feasible
without substantial and costly engine
retrofits.212 The AO Engine Additional
Analysis explains the District’s costeffectiveness calculations.213 The
District also provided information
regarding technical feasibility
challenges related to the specific type of
workforce, and physical size and
location of agricultural operations in the
San Joaquin Valley.
We note that the SCAQMD, like
SJVUAPCD, has provided economic
incentive grants for agricultural engine
retrofits and replacement in recognition
of unique economic and technical
circumstances in the agricultural
industry.214
Finally, for compression-ignited IC
engines (both those used in agricultural
operations and those used in nonagricultural operations), Rule 4702
requires compliance by specified dates
with EPA Tier 3 or Tier 4 NOX emission
standards for non-road CI engines in 40
CFR part 89 or part 1039, as applicable,
or an 80 ppmv NOX emission limit,
depending on engine type.215
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Conservation Management Practices
SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation
Management Practices’’), as adopted
August 19, 2004, establishes
requirements for owners and operators
of agricultural sites to implement
conservation management practices
(CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from
on-field crop and animal feeding
operations.216 Under the rule, each
owner/operator of an agricultural site
must select and implement a CMP for
each category of operations, including
unpaved roads and unpaved vehicle/
equipment traffic areas, and submit a
Subject: ‘‘RE: Follow up questions on glass melting
and IC engines for MSM analysis,’’ attaching
‘‘Further Information for EPA Regarding the MSM
Analysis for Agricultural Operation Engines’’ (‘‘AO
Engine Additional Analysis’’).
211 AO Engine Additional Analysis, 9–12.
212 Id. at 10–11.
213 Id. at 9–11.
214 SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2,
May 2005, App. B (‘‘Incentive Funding Available
for Agricultural Engine Emission Reductions’’).
215 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November
14, 2013, section 5.2.4, Table 4, and section 3.37
(defining Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 engines).
216 SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19,
2004.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
CMP application to the District for its
review and approval.217 The EPA
approved this rule into the California
SIP on February 14, 2006.218
According to Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Rule 4550 was the first rule
of its kind in the nation to reduce
fugitive particulate emissions from
agricultural operations through
implementation of conservation
practices.219 The District compared the
provisions of Rule 4550 to analogous
regulations implemented by air agencies
in other parts of California (Imperial
County and South Coast) and in
Arizona, and found that Rule 4550 is at
least as stringent as each of these other
regulations.220 We note that it is
difficult to directly compare the
requirements among these rules because
of the widely varying rule structures
and operations of the affected
agricultural sites.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that
additional CMPs and other controls for
windblown dust would not
substantially impact PM2.5 design values
in the San Joaquin Valley because
windblown dust events typically do not
coincide with the winter period during
which PM2.5 concentrations in the San
Joaquin Valley are the highest.221
According to the District, PM2.5 design
values in the San Joaquin Valley are
driven primarily by high winter-time
concentrations, mostly due to organic
carbon and the secondary formation of
ammonium nitrate, while the geologic
component of peak PM2.5 concentrations
is a fraction (less than 6%) of the mass
formed by secondary processes and
other sources.222 Additionally, the
District states that PM2.5 comprises a
small fraction (approximately 6% to
12%) of total PM10 emissions from
agricultural field operations in the San
Joaquin Valley.223
Commercial Charbroiling
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial
Charbroiling’’), as amended September
17, 2009, establishes control
requirements to reduce PM10 (including
PM2.5) and VOC emissions from chaindriven charbroilers.224 Specifically, the
rule requires that chain-driven
charbroilers be equipped and operated
with a catalytic oxidizer with a control
efficiency of at least 83% for PM10
emissions and 86% for VOC
217 Id.
218 71
FR 7683 (February 14, 2006).
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–196.
220 Id. at C–202, C–203.
221 Id. at C–200, C–201.
222 Id. at C–201.
223 Id. at C–200.
224 SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September
17, 2009.
219 2018
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions.225 The rule does not require
controls for under-fired charbroilers
(UFCs). The EPA approved the District’s
2009 amendments to Rule 4692 into the
California SIP on November 3, 2011.226
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
includes a comparison of the
requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous
requirements for chain-driven
charbroilers implemented by the
SCAQMD, Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District (VCAPCD), BAAQMD,
and New York Department of
Environmental Protection (NYDEP) and
found no requirements for chain-driven
charbroilers in these rules that are more
stringent than those contained in Rule
4692.227 With respect to UFCs, the
District noted that two regulations, the
BAAQMD’s Regulation 6 Rule 2 and
title 24, section 24–149.4 of the New
York City Administrative Code, contain
control requirements for UFCs.
According to the District, however, the
majority of the UFCs in the Bay Area are
not subject to the requirements for UFCs
in BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 2
because they fall below the rule’s
applicability thresholds, and the
BAAQMD has not enforced its UFC
requirements because no control
technologies have yet been certified.228
Similarly, the District states in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that
NYDEP staff are in the introductory
stages of establishing an inventory and
planning for inspections at charbroiling
facilities, and that installation of
controls for new UFCs is not yet
required under title 24, section 24–149.4
of the New York City Administrative
Code.229 The SJVUAPCD therefore
concluded that control requirements for
UFCs are not technologically and
economically feasible at this time.
We are not aware of requirements for
chain-driven charbroilers in other areas
that are more stringent than the
requirements of Rule 4692. Although
the BAAQMD and NYDEP implement
rules that require controls for UFCs,
neither agency has yet confirmed that
any regulated sources have successfully
installed and operated certified UFC
control technologies.230 Staff at the
225 Id.
226 76
FR 68103.
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–205 to C–208.
228 Id. at C–206. We note that the BAAQMD and
NYDEP charbroiler rules have not been approved
into the California SIP and New York SIP,
respectively.
229 Id.
230 Email dated July 11, 2019, from Stanley Tong,
EPA Region IX to Krishnan Balakrishnan,
BAAQMD, Subject: ‘‘Underfired charbroiler
updates’’ and email dated June 17, 2019, from
Ronald Vaughn, NYDEP to Stanley Tong, EPA
Region IX, Subject: ‘‘RE New Charbroiler
Registrations NYC.’’
227 2018
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
BAAQMD recently noted that
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have
been installed in commercial kitchens
in San Francisco and San Jose but that
the BAAQMD has not yet enforced
control requirements for UFCs.231 We
note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies
several restaurants inside and outside of
the San Joaquin Valley that have
installed UFC control technologies, and
that these installations may inform the
District’s ongoing feasibility analyses.232
For example, the District has
implemented a first-of-its-kind pilot
project to install and assess the
feasibility of UFC controls at an
operating restaurant.233 We encourage
the District to continue monitoring the
operation of these control technologies
to determine whether they can feasibly
be implemented at other charbroiling
sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
The District revised Rule 4692 on
June 21, 2018, to require owners and
operators of commercial cooking
operations with UFCs to submit, by
January 1, 2019, a one-time
informational report providing
information about the UFC and its
operations—including, e.g., information
about the cooking surface area, type and
quantity of meat cooked on the UFC on
a weekly basis during the previous 12month period, daily operating hours,
and the manufacturer and model
number of any installed pollution
control device designed to reduce
particulates, kitchen smoke, or odor.234
The revisions to Rule 4692 also require
such owners and operators to register
with the District and keep weekly
records relating to the quantity of meat
cooked, but exempt from the registration
and recordkeeping requirements UFCs
that cook quantities of meat below
certain thresholds provided the owner
or operator complied with the one-time
informational reporting requirement.
CARB submitted the amended rule to
the EPA on November 21, 2018, via a
letter dated November 16, 2018.235
231 Email dated January 9, 2020, from Virginia
Lau, BAAQMD to Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX,
Subject: ‘‘RE: Underfired charbroiler—Q: SJ
discussion about BA rule’’ (noting that the
BAAQMD has conducted enforcement inspections
concerning food throughput and grill size).
232 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–209.
233 Id. at App. E, E–20.
234 SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21,
2018. The revisions to Rule 4692 provide that
commercial cooking operations with UFCs that are
operated outdoors and are not connected to an
exhaust hood or other form of ventilation system
are exempt from the requirements of the rule. Id.
at sections 3.9 and 4.3.
235 Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX
(transmitting amended Rule 4692).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Stationary Gas Turbines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (‘‘Stationary
Gas Turbines’’), as amended September
20, 2007, establishes NOX emission
limits and related operational
requirements for stationary gas turbines
with greater than 0.3 MW capacity or a
maximum heat input rating of more
than 3 million Btu/hr.236 The NOX
emission limits in the rule range from 3
to 25 ppm for gas-fired operations and
from 25 to 42 ppm for liquid-fired
operations.237 These units operate
primarily in the oil and gas production
and utility industries, with some also
operating in manufacturing and
government facilities.238 The EPA
approved this rule into the California
SIP on October 21, 2009.239
According to information provided in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
NOX emission limits in Rule 4703 are at
least as stringent as analogous control
requirements implemented in the Bay
Area, South Coast, and Ventura
County.240 We note that the SCAQMD
recently revised its rule for stationary
gas turbines (Rule 1134) to establish,
among other things, a NOX emission
limit of 2 ppmv for natural gas-fired
combined cycle turbines, which is more
stringent than the 3 ppmv limit in
SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 for these units.241
Because the compliance date for this
requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1134 is
December 31, 2023, however, it is not
clear that the controls necessary to
achieve a 2 ppmv emission level are
technologically and economically
feasible at this time.
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’), as amended June 20, 2019, is
designed to limit emissions of PM,
including PM2.5 and PM10, and other
pollutants generated by the use of wood
burning fireplaces, wood burning
heaters, and outdoor wood burning
devices. The rule establishes
requirements for the sale/transfer,
operation, and installation of wood
burning devices and on the advertising
of wood for sale within the San Joaquin
Valley. The EPA proposed to approve
the District’s 2019 amendments to the
rule into the SIP on January 9, 2020.242
236 SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September
20, 2007.
237 Id. at Table 5–3.
238 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–243 to C–247.
239 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009).
240 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–243 to C–247.
241 SCAQMD Rule 1134, as amended April 5,
2019, section (d) and table I (‘‘Emission Limits for
Stationary Gas Turbines’’).
242 85 FR 1131 (January 9, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17403
As part of the evaluation supporting
our proposed approval,243 we found that
Rule 4901 and the related Check Before
You Burn program (https://valleyair.org/
rule4901) implemented by the District
provide for a comprehensive residential
wood smoke program that incorporates
all of the elements outlined in EPA’s
‘‘Strategies for Reducing Wood
Smoke.’’ 244 Among the key elements of
the rule are a wood burning curtailment
program (triggered by forecasted PM2.5
concentrations for the next day), opacity
and visible emission limits,
requirements regarding wood moisture
content, removal of uncertified wood
burning stoves upon home resale,
restrictions on installation of wood
burning devices, requirement that all
wood burning stoves sold or transferred
within the District meet New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), a wood
burning change-out program and
education and outreach. In the
Technical Support Document to support
our separate proposal on Rule 4901, we
compare this rule to analogous rules
implemented elsewhere and conclude
that Rule 4901, as a whole, is as or more
stringent than analogous local, state,
and federal rules and guidance.245
Of particular relevance for reducing
PM2.5 emissions, Rule 4901 includes a
tiered mandatory curtailment program
that establishes different curtailment
thresholds based on the type of device
and county. During a level one episodic
woodburning curtailment, operation of
wood burning fireplaces and
unregistered wood burning heaters is
prohibited, but properly operated,
registered 246 wood burning devices may
be used. During a level two episodic
woodburning curtailment, operation of
any wood burning device is prohibited.
However, the rule includes an
exemption from the curtailment
provisions for (1) locations where
natural gas service is not available and
(2) residences for which a wood burning
243 Technical Support Document for the EPA’s
Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’),
December 2019.
244 Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA–
456/B–13–01, March 2013.
245 Id. The SJVUAPCD provides its comparisons
of Rule 4901 to analogous rules implemented
elsewhere in Appendix C of the Plan. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. C, C–259 to C–280.
246 In order to be registered, a device must either
be certified under the NSPS at time of purchase or
installation and at least as stringent as Phase II
requirements or be a pellet-fueled wood burning
heater exempt from EPA certification requirements
at the time of purchase or installation. The rule
includes requirements for documentation and
inspection to verify compliance with these
standards.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17404
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
fireplace or wood burning heater is the
sole available source of heat. In the ‘‘hot
spot’’ counties of Madera, Fresno, and
Kern, the level one PM2.5 threshold is 12
mg/m3, and the level two PM2.5
threshold is 35 mg/m3. In the remaining
counties in the District (San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Kings, and Tulare),
the level one PM2.5 threshold is 20 mg/
m3, and the level two PM2.5 threshold is
65 mg/m3. These curtailment thresholds
in Rule 4901 are collectively as stringent
as or more stringent than those in any
other rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. State Measures for Mobile Sources
Mobile source categories for which
CARB has primary responsibility for
reducing emissions in California
include most new and existing on- and
non-road engines and vehicles and
motor vehicle fuels. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan’s BACM and MSM demonstration
provides a general description of
CARB’s key mobile source programs and
regulations and a comprehensive table
listing on-road and non-road mobile
source regulatory actions taken by
CARB since 1985.247 Given the need for
substantial emissions reductions from
mobile sources to meet the NAAQS in
California’s nonattainment areas, CARB
has established stringent control
measures for on-road and non-road
mobile sources and the fuels that power
them. California has unique authority
under CAA section 209 (subject to a
waiver by the EPA) to adopt and
implement new emission standards for
many categories of on-road vehicles and
engines, and new and in-use non-road
vehicles and engines. The EPA has
approved such mobile source
regulations for which waiver
authorizations have been issued as
revisions to the California SIP.248
CARB’s mobile source program
extends beyond regulations that are
subject to the waiver or authorization
process set forth in CAA section 209 to
include standards and other
requirements to control emissions from
in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses,
gasoline and diesel fuel specifications,
and many other types of mobile sources.
Generally, these regulations have also
been submitted and approved as
revisions to the California SIP.249
247 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 17.
e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR
14447 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18,
2018).
249 See, e.g., the EPA’s approval of standards and
other requirements to control emissions from in-use
heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308
(April 4, 2012), revisions to the California on-road
reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations at
75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the
California motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
248 See,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
During its development of the Valley
State SIP Strategy, CARB identified
measures that would achieve additional
NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions from sources under CARB
jurisdiction, including more stringent
in-use performance standards for heavyduty vehicles, a low-NOX engine
standard for vehicles with new heavyduty engines, and a low-emission diesel
fuel requirement.250 The Valley State
SIP Strategy includes a commitment by
CARB to bring a list of defined measures
to the Board for action according to the
schedule provided in Table 7 of the
Valley State SIP Strategy.251
We find that the process conducted by
CARB to develop the Valley State SIP
Strategy was reasonably designed to
identify additional available measures
within CARB’s jurisdiction, and that
CARB’s programs constitute the most
stringent emission control programs
currently available for the mobile source
and fuels categories, taking into account
economic and technological feasibility.
c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs)
TCMs are projects that reduce air
pollutants from transportation sources
by reducing vehicle use, traffic
congestion, or vehicle miles traveled.
TCMs are currently being implemented
in the San Joaquin Valley as part of the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
cost effectiveness policy adopted by the
eight local jurisdiction MPOs and in the
development of each Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
policy, which is included in a number
of the District’s prior attainment plan
submissions for the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, provides a standardized
process for distributing 20 percent of the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds to projects that meet a minimum
cost effectiveness threshold beginning
in fiscal year 2011. The MPOs revisited
the minimum cost effectiveness
standard during the development of
their 2018 RTPs and 2019 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program
and concluded that they were
implementing all reasonable
transportation control measures.252
Appendix D of the District’s ‘‘2016
Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,’’ adopted June 16, 2016,
250 Valley State SIP Strategy, Chapter 2
(‘‘Measures’’), 2018 PM2.5 Plan, section 4.4 and
App. D, Chapter IV (‘‘Identification and Evaluation
of Potential Measures’’).
251 CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
252 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–127.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contains a listing of adopted TCMs for
the San Joaquin Valley.253
d. Conclusion and Proposed Action
We find that the evaluation process
followed by CARB and the District in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan to identify potential
BACM and MSM were generally
consistent with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the State’s
and District’s evaluation of potential
measures is appropriate, and the State
and District have provided reasoned
justifications for their rejection of
potential measures based on
technological or economic infeasibility.
We also agree with the District’s
conclusion that all reasonable TCMs are
being implemented in the San Joaquin
Valley and propose to find that these
TCMs implement BACM and MSM for
transportation sources.
For the foregoing reasons, we propose
to find that the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides
for the implementation of BACM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX as
expeditiously as practicable and no later
than December 31, 2019, and for the
implementation of MSM for such
sources as expeditiously as practicable
and no later than December 31, 2023, in
accordance with the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment
Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
In this section of the preamble, we
present our evaluation of the State’s
request to extend the Serious area
attainment date from December 31,
2019, to December 31, 2024, under CAA
section 188(e) and, given the section
188(e) requirement to demonstrate
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS,
our evaluation of the SJV PM2.5 Plan’s
attainment demonstration, including the
Plan’s air quality modeling approach
and results and control strategy.
1. Demonstration That Attainment by
Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
a. Summary of State’s Impracticability
Demonstration
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes a
demonstration, based on air quality
modeling, that even with the
implementation of BACM and BACT for
all appropriate sources, attainment by
December 31, 2019, is not practicable.
The impracticability demonstration is
included in Appendix K of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
253 Id. and SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2016 Ozone Plan for
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard’’ (adopted June 16,
2016), App. D, Attachment D, tables D–10 through
D–17.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17405
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Table 26 in Appendix K presents base
year and modeled 2020 future year 24hour average PM2.5 concentrations at 15
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. The
demonstration is summarized in Table
3.
TABLE 3—IMPRACTICABILITY DEMONSTRATION, 24-HOUR AVERAGE PM2.5 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS
[μg/m3]
2013
(base year)
Monitoring Site
Bakersfield—California ....................................................................................................................................
Fresno—Garland .............................................................................................................................................
Hanford ............................................................................................................................................................
Fresno—Hamilton & Winery ............................................................................................................................
Clovis ...............................................................................................................................................................
Visalia ..............................................................................................................................................................
Bakersfield—Planz ...........................................................................................................................................
Madera .............................................................................................................................................................
Turlock .............................................................................................................................................................
Modesto ...........................................................................................................................................................
Merced—Main Street .......................................................................................................................................
Stockton ...........................................................................................................................................................
Merced—S Coffee ...........................................................................................................................................
Manteca ...........................................................................................................................................................
Tranquility ........................................................................................................................................................
64.1
60.0
60.0
59.3
55.8
55.5
55.5
51.0
50.7
47.9
46.9
42.0
41.1
36.9
29.5
2020
(projected future
year)
47.6
44.3
43.7
45.6
41.1
42.8
41.2
38.9
37.8
35.8
32.9
33.5
30.0
30.1
21.5
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix K, Table 26.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
The impracticability demonstration in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan is based on air
quality modeling that is generally
consistent with applicable EPA
guidance. We find the modeling,
described in section IV.D.4.a of this
preamble, adequate to support the
impracticability demonstration in the
Plan. We note that the modeled year of
the impracticability demonstration is
2020, the year following the December
31, 2019 attainment date. However, as
the projected 24-hour average
concentration in 2020 is 48 mg/m3, well
above the 35 mg/m3 level of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we find it
reasonable to conclude based on this
evaluation that attainment by the end of
2019 is impracticable.
In addition to the information in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, we have reviewed
recent PM2.5 monitoring data from the
San Joaquin Valley. These data show
that 24-hour average PM2.5 levels in the
San Joaquin Valley, with a 2016–2018
design value of 65 mg/m3, continue to be
above the 35 mg/m3 level of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard. Recent trends in
annual PM2.5 levels in the San Joaquin
Valley are not consistent with a
projection of attainment by the end of
2019. A more detailed analysis,
including 24-hour PM2.5 trend data in
the San Joaquin Valley for years 2004–
2018, is contained in section II of the
EPA’s General Evaluation TSD.254
254 See
also, Attachment A to the EPA’s General
Evaluation TSD, ‘‘Practicability of San Joaquin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
We discuss in section IV.C of this
proposed rule our evaluation of the
BACM and BACT demonstration and
the bases for our proposal to find that
the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for the
implementation of all BACM and BACT
by the statutory implementation
deadline. Based on our evaluation of the
State’s impracticability demonstration,
including the demonstration concerning
BACM and BACT, and our review of the
available ambient air quality data, we
propose to approve the State’s
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
that attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
by the Serious area attainment date of
December 31, 2019, is impracticable.
implementation of the control measures
and commitments for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For
more detail on our evaluation for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to
section III of the EPA’s General
Evaluation TSD.
a. Requirements and Commitments for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
Between 2007 and 2011, California
made six SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area planning
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the SJV,255 which we refer to
collectively as the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’
On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved most elements of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, including commitments by
2. Compliance With All Requirements
CARB and the SJVUAPCD to take
and Commitments in the
specific actions with respect to
Implementation Plan
identified control measures and to
We interpret this criterion to mean
achieve specific amounts of direct
that the State has implemented the
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission
control measures and commitments in
reductions by 2014.256
the plan revisions it has submitted to
The specific State and District
address the applicable requirements in
commitments that the EPA approved
CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM2.5
into the California SIP as part of the
nonattainment areas. For the San
2008 PM2.5 Plan are as follows:
Joaquin Valley, the EPA has approved
(1) A commitment by CARB to
the control measure requirements and
propose specific measures identified in
commitments of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (for Appendix B of the ‘‘Progress Report on
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS) and the 2012
Implementation of PM2.5 State
PM2.5 Plan and Supplement (for the
Implementation Plans (SIP) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) into the California
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air
SIP. The EPA has not yet taken action
Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,’’
on the State’s SIP revisions for the 2012 dated April 28, 2011 (‘‘2011 Progress
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we describe
below the State’s and District’s
255 76 FR 69896, n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
Valley Attaining 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2019,’’ October 9, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
256 Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2), 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and
52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17406
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Report’’), in accordance with the
timetable specified therein; 257
(2) A commitment by the District to
‘‘adopt and implement the rules and
measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’’ in
accordance with the timetable specified
in Table 6–2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as
amended June 17, 2010, and to submit
these rules and measures to CARB for
transmittal to EPA as SIP revisions; 258
(3) A commitment by CARB to
achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day (tpd)
of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by
2014 as described in CARB Resolution
No. 07–28, Attachment B, as amended
in 2009 and 2011; 259 and
(4) A commitment by the District to
achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of NOX
emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd
of SOX emission reductions by 2014 as
described in Table 6–3a, Table 6–3b,
and Table 6–3c, respectively, of the
2008 PM2.5 Plan.260
As of November 9, 2011, the date of
the EPA’s final action on the 2008 PM2.5
Plan, CARB and the District had each
satisfied substantial portions of these
control measure and emission reduction
commitments. Specifically, CARB had
proposed action on six of the seven
measures it had committed to propose
for Board consideration, leaving one
additional measure that was scheduled
for proposal in 2013 (‘‘New Emissions
Standards for Recreational Boats’’).261
The District had adopted 12 of the 13
measures it had committed to adopt and
implement, leaving one additional
measure that was scheduled for
adoption in 2014, amendments to Rule
4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type
Central Furnaces’’).262 Finally, together
CARB and the SJVUAPCD had achieved
all of the SOX emission reduction
commitments and substantial portions
of the direct PM2.5 and NOX emission
reduction commitments through
implementation of State and District
control strategy measures, leaving 3.0
tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
and 12.9 tpd of NOX emission
257 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB
Resolution No. 07–28, Attachment B (September 27,
2007), CARB Resolution No. 09–34 (April 24, 2009),
and CARB Resolution No. 11–24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921–69922, Table 2.
258 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution No. 08–04–10 (April
30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 10–06–18 (June 17, 2010); see also
76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1.
259 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
260 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2).
261 76 FR 69896, 69922, Table 2 (‘‘2007 State
Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for
Consideration and Current Status’’).
262 Id. at 69921, Table 1 (‘‘San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific
Rule Commitments’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
reductions yet to be achieved by the
beginning of 2014.263
Subsequently, CARB submitted a staff
report, entitled ‘‘Review of San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan’’ (‘‘2015 CARB Compliance
Demonstration’’), that contains CARB’s
demonstration that both CARB and the
District have satisfied the commitments
in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained
outstanding as of November 9, 2011, as
follows.264 First, on January 22, 2015,
the District adopted amendments to
Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015, CARB
submitted this rule to the EPA as a
revision to the California SIP.265
Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB
proposed for Board consideration, and
the Board adopted, new emission
standards for recreational boats entitled
‘‘Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine
Watercraft.’’ 266 These State and District
rulemaking actions satisfied the last
remaining control measure
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
All of these measures have been
submitted to the EPA and approved into
the California SIP, as summarized in
Table III–A of EPA’s General Evaluation
TSD.
With respect to the remaining
emission reduction commitments (also
called ‘‘aggregate tonnage
commitments’’), the 2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration, as amended
by CARB’s ‘‘Technical Clarifications to
the 2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘Technical
Clarifications’’), identifies nine State
and District control measures that,
according to CARB, achieved emission
reductions beyond those already
credited towards the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and satisfy the State’s remaining 2014
emission reduction obligations.267 We
263 Id. at 69923, Table 4 (‘‘Reductions Needed for
Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on
SIP-Creditable Measures’’).
264 CARB, ‘‘Review of San Joaquin Valley PM
2.5
State Implementation Plan,’’ released April 20, 2015
(‘‘2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration’’),
transmitted by email dated February 5, 2020, from
Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, EPA
Region IX, 17–22 and App. B.
265 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 19,
Table 7 and letter dated April 7, 2015, from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting air district regulations to the EPA as
California SIP revisions).
266 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 20,
Table 8 and CARB, Resolution 15–3, ‘‘Evaporative
Emissions Control Requirements for Spark-Ignition
Marine Watercraft,’’ February 19, 2015, available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/
simw2015.htm.
267 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21–
22 and CARB, ‘‘Technical Clarifications to the 2015
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan,’’ transmitted by email dated February 5, 2020,
from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith
Kurpius, EPA Region IX, 1–4.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
have reviewed the State’s demonstration
with respect to each of these nine
measures and propose to find that all
but one achieved emission reductions
that may be credited towards the
remaining 2014 emission reduction
obligation, because the State has
adequately documented its bases for
concluding that each measure either
contains enforceable, SIP-approved
requirements or otherwise achieved
specified amounts of emission
reductions by January 1, 2014. The one
measure identified in the 2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration that did not
achieve any SIP-creditable emission
reductions is the District’s Rule 9510
(‘‘Indirect Source Review’’).268 The
EPA’s General Evaluation TSD contains
a more detailed evaluation of each of the
eight measures that we are proposing to
credit toward the emission reduction
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
According to the 2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration and
Technical Clarifications,
implementation of these control
measures achieved, by the beginning of
2014, 26.4 tpd of additional NOX
emission reductions and 2.1 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions
beyond those already credited toward
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.269 These NOX
emission reductions exceeded the
State’s outstanding NOX commitment
(12.9 tpd) by 13.9 tpd, and the direct
PM2.5 emission reductions fell short of
the State’s outstanding PM2.5
commitment (3.0 tpd) by 0.9 tpd.270
Citing air quality modeling conducted
as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
stated that a reduction of 9 tpd of NOX
emissions provides an air quality
improvement equivalent to a 1 tpd
reduction in directly emitted PM2.5. On
this basis, CARB concluded that the
approximately 13 tpd of surplus NOX
reductions achieved through
implementation of the identified State
and District measures would adequately
cover the 0.9 tpd shortfall in required
reductions of direct PM2.5.271
We find the technical bases for a 9:1
NOX for direct PM2.5 trading ratio are
generally sound and therefore propose
to use this trading ratio to credit the
State with an additional 1.07 tpd of
PM2.5 emission reduction, rounding to
268 The EPA approved SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, as
adopted December 15, 2005, into the California SIP
on May 9, 2011 but identified a number of concerns
about the enforceability of the rule’s provisions that
the District would need to resolve before relying on
this rule for credit in an attainment plan. 76 FR
26609 (May 9, 2011).
269 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21–
22 and Technical Clarifications at 1–4.
270 Id.
271 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17407
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the nearest hundredth (based on 9.63
tpd of ‘‘excess’’ NOX emission
reductions) toward its outstanding 2014
commitment.272
TABLE 4—2008 PM2.5 PLAN AGGREGATE COMMITMENT—EPA PROPOSED EMISSION REDUCTION CREDIT FOR MEASURES
IN THE 2015 CARB COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION
2014 Emission reductions
(annual average tpd)
Measure
Direct PM2.5
NOX
A ......................
B ......................
C ......................
D ......................
E ......................
F ......................
G ......................
H ......................
I ........................
J .......................
K ......................
L .......................
Rule 4320 (‘‘Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr’’).
Rule 9510 (‘‘Indirect Source Review’’) ......................................................................................
Woodstove Replacements .........................................................................................................
District Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures .............................................
Rule 9410 (‘‘Employer Based Trip Reduction’’) ........................................................................
Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’) ......................................
State Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures a .............................................
CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks Measure ................................................................
CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM ..........
TOTAL SIP-Creditable Emission Reductions from State and District Measures (Sum of A
through I).
NOX to PM2.5 Emissions Equivalence at 9:1 Ratio ...................................................................
TOTAL Emission Reductions Achieved (J+K) ..........................................................................
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.3
0.0
5.0
11.5
2.5
22.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.3
0.13
0.1
0.2
1.93
¥9.63
12.97
1.07
3.0
a On August 12, 2016, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of CARB’s demonstration concerning the emission reductions achieved by the State-Funded Emission Reduction Measure (also referred to as the ‘‘Emission Reduction Report’’). 81 FR 53300. As part
of that action, the EPA determined that the incentive projects identified in the Emission Reduction Report achieved a total of 4.971 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 0.134 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014, slightly less than the 7.8 tpd of NOX emission
reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions that CARB had identified in this submission. Id. at 53306.
In sum, the CARB Compliance
Demonstration and Technical
Clarifications demonstrate that
implementation of State and District
measures achieved a total of 12.97 tpd
of NOX emission reductions and 3.0 tpd
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions that
have not previously been credited as
part of the attainment demonstration in
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and that may,
therefore, be credited toward the State’s
outstanding obligation to achieve 12.9
tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.0
tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
by the beginning of 2014.
Based on these evaluations, we
propose to find that the State has
complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in
the implementation plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Requirements and Commitments for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2013 and 2014, California made
two SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area planning
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
272 For further discussion of our evaluation of the
9:1 NOX to direct PM2.5 trading ratio for purposes
of the aggregate commitment, please see section IV
of the EPA’s General Evaluation TSD.
273 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2012 PM
2.5 Plan,’’ December 20,
2012 (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’) and SJVUAPCD,
‘‘Supplemental Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
in the SJV, which we refer to
collectively herein as the ‘‘2012 PM2.5
Plan and Supplement.’’ 273 On August
31, 2016, the EPA approved most
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement into the California SIP.274
As part of this action, the EPA
approved, among other things,
commitments by the District to take
specific actions with respect to
identified control measures and to
achieve specific amounts of direct PM2.5
emission reductions from these or
substitute measures by 2017.275 The
specific District commitments that the
EPA approved into the California SIP as
part of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement are as follows:
(1) A commitment by the District to
‘‘adopt and implement the rules and
measures in the Plan by the dates
specified in Chapter 5’’ of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan and to submit these rules and
measures to CARB within 30 days of
adoption for transmittal to the EPA as
SIP revisions; and
(2) A commitment by the District to
‘‘achieve the emission reductions shown
in Chapter 5’’ of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,
which are 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by
2017, through the rules and measures
identified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5
Plan or through substitute measures.276
The 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard
and District Rule 2201 (New and Modified
Stationary Source Review),’’ September 18, 2014
(‘‘Supplement’’).
274 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
275 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3) and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2012–12–
19 (December 20, 2012). See also 81 FR 59876,
59893, Table 5. CARB did not make any separate
commitments in this SIP submission. CARB
Resolution 13–2 (adopting the 2012 PM2.5 Plan) and
CARB Resolution 14–37 (adopting the Supplement).
276 Id.
277 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In Chapter 6, section 6.2 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan (‘‘Compliance with the
Applicable SIP’’), the District discusses
its compliance with these rulemaking
and emission reduction commitments as
of October 16, 2018, when the Plan was
made available for public review.
Table 5 provides the current status of
the District’s compliance with its
rulemaking commitments in the
Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. We note that although Table 5
includes specific projected emission
reductions associated with two rules,
Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’)
and Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’),
the District’s emissions reduction
commitment was an aggregate
commitment that could be met through
the identified measures or substitute
measures.277
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17408
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—EPA REVIEW OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 2012 PM2.5 PLAN’S SPECIFIC SJVUAPCD COMMITMENTS TO
ADOPT OR AMEND RULES
District Commitment
Rule Number (Title)
Amendment year
Compliance year
District Action
Emission
reductions
Amendment date
November 14, 2013
Notes
Rule 4308 (‘‘Boilers,
Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters 0.075
to <2 MMBtu/hr’’).
Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial
Charbroiling’’).
2013
2015
TBD
EPA approval, 80 FR 7803 (February 12, 2015).
2016
2017
0.4 tpd direct PM2.5.
June 21, 2018
Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and
Wood Burning Heaters’’).
Rule 4905 (‘‘Natural GasFired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces’’).
Rule 9610 (‘‘SIP-creditability of Incentives’’).
2016
2016/2017
1.5 tpd direct PM2.5.
September 18, 2014
Submitted to the EPA November 21, 2018;
Amended rule does not establish control requirement for under-fired commercial
charbroilers.
EPA approval, 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016).
2014
2015
TBD
January 22, 2015
EPA approval, 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016).
2013
2013
TBD
June 20, 2013
EPA limited approval and limited disapproval, 80
FR 19020 (April 9, 2015).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), Chapter 5, Table 5–3 (‘‘Regulatory Control Measure Commitments’’).
In sum, the District has adopted and
submitted to the EPA all five of the
regulatory measures specified in
Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that it
had committed to adopt and implement
by specified dates. Based on our review
of this information, we propose to find
that the District has satisfied all of its
rulemaking commitments in the 2012
PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
With respect to the District’s aggregate
tonnage commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd
of direct PM2.5 by 2017, the District
states that measures adopted after the
State’s adoption of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
achieved emission reductions in excess
of those committed to in the 2012 PM2.5
Plan and Supplement.278 Specifically,
the District states that its commitment
has been achieved through amendments
to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces
and Wood Burning Heaters’’).279 We
have reviewed the District’s and CARB’s
explanations of how the District
fulfilled this commitment through
implementation of revisions to its
residential wood burning rule during
the relevant time period.280
The District has amended Rule 4901
several times since its original adoption
in 2003. As of the date the District
adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, the
October 16, 2008 amendment to Rule
278 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, 6–3 to 6–4.
at 6–5 to 6–6.
280 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 6–2; email dated
November 27, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD,
to Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, Subject: Emissions
Reductions from 2014 Amendment to Rule 4901;
and letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt
Karperos, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region
IX.
279 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
4901 applied and the District committed
to further amend the rule. The District
further amended the rule on September
18, 2014, and the amended rule took
effect in the November 2014–February
2015 period. The District’s staff report
for the 2014 amendment to Rule 4901
projected that the amendment would
achieve 24-hour winter-season average
emission reductions by 2018 of 2.2 tpd
of direct PM2.5.281 The EPA approved
this rule into the SIP on October 6,
2016.282 In our final action, we noted
that the District had projected that the
rule revision would achieve 3.27 tpd of
direct PM2.5 reductions during
November through February (120-day)
(equivalent to a winter-season average
reduction of 2.2 tpd).283 This approval
did not include an evaluation of
whether the rule had achieved any
particular level of emissions reductions,
or whether the District had fulfilled its
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of
281 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Final Staff Report for
Amendments to the District’s Residential Wood
Burning Program,’’ September 18, 2014 (‘‘2014 Rule
4901 Staff Report’’), App. B, B–12. We note that the
2.2 tpd is based on a 180-day season that reflects
the November through April (180-day) period used
by the State for ‘‘winter-season,’’ 24-hour average
emissions inventories for the San Joaquin Valley.
This District staff report estimates that the 2014
amendment would achieve emission reductions of
3.27 tpd of direct PM2.5 during the November
through February (120-day) period in which it
applies. See also 80 FR 58637, 58639 (September
30, 2015) (proposed approval of 2014 amendment
to Rule 4901) and 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016)
(final approval of 2014 amendment).
282 81 FR 69393.
283 Id., at 69393–69394.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions reductions through revisions
to Rule 4901.
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
included updated emissions inventories
for this source category.284 Consistent
with CAA section 172(c)(3), which
requires nonattainment plans to include
inventories that are ‘‘comprehensive,
accurate, [and] current,’’ attainment
plans often include updated emission
inventories that rely on information
developed since an earlier plan. The
2018 PM2.5 Plan’s updated emission
inventories for wood burning devices
may be relevant to a determination of
whether the 2014 amendments to Rule
4901 resulted in 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5
emissions reductions by 2017. In
particular, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s control
measure analyses differ from previous
inventory estimates in the following
ways:
• The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories
estimate that 2013 winter season
emissions from residential wood
burning devices were 6.35 tpd,
compared with the 2015 winter season
estimate of 8.037 tpd in the 2014 Rule
4901 Staff Report.285
• The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories
estimate that 2017 winter season
emissions from residential wood
burning devices were 5.49 tpd,
284 Appendix B Table B–1 of the 2018 PM
2.5 Plan
contains a summary of direct PM2.5 emissions
inventories from various source categories,
including Residential Fuel Combustion, but does
not include emissions values specific to woodburning devices. The emissions inventories for
wood burning devices are found in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, at C–257.
285 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report, App. B, B–5.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
compared with the 2017 winter season
inventory of 8.35 tpd estimated in the
2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
Overall, the more recent inventories
presented in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan show
a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season
direct PM2.5 emissions from wood
burning devices between 2013 and
2017.286 Similarly, the State’s August
12, 2019 clarification to its 2017
quantitative milestone report states that
a 0.86 tpd reduction in these emissions
occurred from 2013 to 2017.287
This difference between the emission
reductions projected in the 2014 Rule
4901 Staff Report and the emission
reductions reflected in the inventories
in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
appears to be due to an update to
emissions inventory methods in 2015–
2016. The updated methodology
indicates that emissions from this
source category are lower than
emissions as calculated by the
methodology used to develop the
emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5
Plan.288 The updated methodology is
based on a 2014 survey of San Joaquin
Valley residents, which provided more
representative data regarding fuel usage
rates and the number of wood burning
devices in use in the District.289
In light of this difference between the
emission reductions projected in the
2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the
emission reductions reflected in the
inventories in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the EPA sought clarification
from CARB and the District regarding
the reductions achieved by the 2014
rule amendment. In response, CARB
pointed to the analysis of emissions
reductions in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff
Report as demonstrating compliance
with the commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd
of emissions reductions.290 CARB and
the District also noted that the 2012
PM2.5 Plan projected that 2017
emissions from wood burning devices
would be 8.35 tpd and the 2018 PM2.5
Plan inventory estimates that 2017
286 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–257.
dated August 12, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
transmitting ‘‘Attachment: Supplemental
Information and Clarifications to 2017 Quantitative
Milestones.’’
288 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2015 Area Source Emissions
Inventory Methodology 610—Residential Wood
Combustion,’’ (dated October 18, 2016), 27, Table
12 (showing decrease in estimated 2015 annual
emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces of 461
tons per year).
289 Id. at 22.
290 Email dated November 27, 2019, from Jon
Klassen, SJVUAPCD, to Rory Mays, EPA Region IX,
Subject: Emissions Reductions from 2014
Amendment to Rule 4901; Letter dated February 4,
2020 from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to Elizabeth
Adams, EPA Region IX, 2–3.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
287 Letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
emissions from wood burning devices
were 5.49 tpd, and concluded that this
comparison reflects emission reductions
of 2.86 tpd for this source category.291
We propose to find, based upon the
analysis of projected emission
reductions in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff
Report, that the District has complied
with the aggregate commitment in the
2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve total
emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct
PM2.5 by 2017. Given the differences
between the inventories used to create
the commitment and the current
inventories, we also seek comment as to
whether the State and District have met
the commitment to achieve total
emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct
PM2.5 by 2017.
3. Demonstration That the
Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
We interpret this criterion to mean
that the State must demonstrate to the
EPA’s satisfaction that its Serious area
plan includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the
implementation plan of any state, or
achieved in practice in any state, and
can feasibly be implemented in the area.
As discussed in section IV.C of this
preamble, because of the substantial
overlap in the source categories and
controls evaluated for BACM and those
evaluated for MSM, we present our
evaluation of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
provisions for including MSM alongside
our evaluation of the Plan’s provisions
for implementing BACM for each
identified source category. For the
reasons provided in section IV.C and
further in the EPA’s BACM/MSM TSD,
we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan provides for the
implementation of MSM for sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
as expeditiously as practicable and no
later than January 1, 2024, in
accordance with the requirements of
CAA section 188(e) and the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule.
4. Demonstration of Attainment by the
Most Expeditious Alternative Date
Practicable
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA
requires that each Serious area plan
include a demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan provides
for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date or, where
the State is seeking an extension of the
attainment date under section 188(e), a
demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most
291 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17409
expeditious alternative date practicable.
We discuss below our evaluation of the
modeling approach in the Plan, the
State’s basis for excluding one 24-hour
data point from the modeling analysis,
and the control strategy in the Plan for
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable.
a. Air Quality Modeling Approach and
Results
The EPA’s recommended procedures
for modeling ambient PM2.5 as part of an
attainment demonstration are contained
in the EPA’s ‘‘Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze’’ (‘‘Modeling
Guidance’’).292 This guidance
recommends that a state use a
photochemical model, such as the
Comprehensive Air-quality Model with
extensions (CAMx) or CMAQ, to
simulate a base case, with
meteorological and emissions inputs
reflecting a base case year, to replicate
concentrations monitored in that year.
The model application to the base case
year undergoes a performance
evaluation to ensure that it corroborates
concentrations monitored in that year.
States may then use the model to
simulate emissions occurring in other
years required for an attainment plan,
namely the base year (which may differ
from the base case year) and a future
year. The modeled response to the
emission changes between those years is
used to calculate Relative Response
Factors (RRFs), which are applied to the
design value in the base year to estimate
the projected design value in the future
year for comparison against the NAAQS.
Separate RRFs are estimated for each
chemical species component of PM2.5,
and for each quarter of the year, to
reflect their differing responses to
seasonal meteorological conditions and
emissions. Since each species is
handled separately, before applying an
RRF the base year design value must be
speciated using available chemical
species measurements, that is, each
292 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional
Haze,’’ EPA–454/R–18–009, November 2018;
available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/stateimplementation-plan-sip-attainmentdemonstration-guidance. During development of
the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB relied on the draft
version of this guidance update, ‘‘Draft Modeling
Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,’’
OAQPS, EPA, December 3, 2014 Draft,; 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. K, 11. Additional EPA modeling
guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 App. W
(‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’), 82 FR 5182
(January 17, 2017); available at https://
www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modelingguidance.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
17410
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
day’s measured PM2.5 comprising the
design value must be split into its
species components. The Modeling
Guidance provides additional detail on
the recommended approach.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a
modeled demonstration projecting that
the San Joaquin Valley will attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2024. Specifically, CARB
conducted photochemical modeling
with the CMAQ model using inputs
developed from routinely available
meteorological and air quality data, as
well as more detailed and extensive data
from the DISCOVER–AQ field study
conducted in January to February
2013.293
The Plan’s primary discussion of the
photochemical modeling appears in
Appendix K (‘‘Modeling Attainment
Demonstration’’) of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
The State briefly summarizes the area’s
air quality problem in Chapter 2.2 (‘‘Air
Quality Challenges And Trends’’) and
summarizes the modeling results in
Chapter 6.4 (‘‘Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling’’) of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. The State provides a
conceptual model of PM2.5 formation in
the San Joaquin Valley as part of the
modeling protocol in Appendix L
(‘‘Modeling Protocol’’). Appendix J
(‘‘Modeling Emission Inventory’’)
describes emission input preparation
procedures. The State presents
additional relevant information in
Appendix C (‘‘Weight of Evidence
Analysis’’) of the CARB Staff Report,
which includes ambient trends and
other data in support of the attainment
demonstration.
CARB’s air quality modeling approach
investigated the many inter-connected
facets of modeling ambient PM2.5 in the
San Joaquin Valley, including model
input preparation, model performance
evaluation, use of the model output for
the numerical NAAQS attainment test,
and modeling documentation.
Specifically, this required the
development and evaluation of a
conceptual model, modeling protocol,
episode (i.e., base year) selection,
modeling domain, CMAQ model
selection, initial and boundary
condition procedures, meteorological
model choice and performance,
modeling emissions inventory
preparation procedures, model
performance, attainment test procedure,
adjustments to baseline air quality for
modeling, the 2024 attainment test, and
an unmonitored area analysis. CARB’s
293 NASA, ‘‘Deriving Information on Surface
conditions from COlumn and VERtically Resolved
Observations Relevant to Air Quality,’’ available at
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/
index.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
supplemental weight of evidence
analysis further supports the Plan’s
demonstration of attainment by the end
of 2024. These analyses are generally
consistent with the EPA’s
recommendations in the Modeling
Guidance.
The model performance evaluation in
Appendix K included statistical and
graphical measures of model
performance. The magnitude and timing
of predicted concentrations of total
PM2.5, as well as of its ammonium and
nitrate components, generally match the
occurrence of elevated PM2.5 levels in
the measured observations. A
comparison to other recent modeling
efforts shows good model performance
on bias, error, and correlation with
measurements, for total PM2.5 and for
most of its chemical components. The
Weight of Evidence Analysis294 shows
the downward trend in NOX emissions
along with a 50% decrease between
1999 and 2017 in the number of days
above the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.295 The
analysis also shows decreases in daily
PM2.5 concentrations during winter, and
in the frequency of high PM2.5
concentrations generally. Available
ambient air quality data shows that total
PM2.5 and ammonium nitrate
concentrations have clearly declined
over the 2001–2015 period, despite
some increases from time to time.296
These air quality trends show that there
has been a substantial improvement in
air quality due to emission reductions in
the SJV, although that point is not fully
reflected in the 98th percentile statistic,
which is the basis for the regulatory
design value.297 These lines of evidence
all lend confidence in the modeling and
the attainment demonstration.
Given the State’s extensive discussion
of modeling procedures, tests, and
performance analyses in the Modeling
Protocol, and the good model
performance, the EPA finds that the
modeling in the SJV PM2.5 Plan is
adequate for purposes of supporting the
demonstration of attainment by 2024.
For further detail, please see the EPA’s
Modeling TSD.
b. Control Strategy
The SJV PM2.5 Plan’s control strategy
to reduce emissions from sources of
NOX and direct PM2.5 is presented in
Chapter 4 (‘‘Attainment Strategy for
294 CARB
Staff Report, Appendix C.
at 28.
296 An increase in 2013 and 2014 is attributed to
severe drought-related conditions during the winter
of 2013–2014. Id. at 27.
297 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting SJV
PM2.5 Plan to EPA), Attachment A, 3.
295 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5’’) 298 and related supporting
information in the Plan’s control
strategy appendices, including
Appendix C (‘‘Stationary Source Control
Measure Analyses’’), Appendix D
(‘‘Mobile Source Control Measures
Analyses’’), and Appendix E
(‘‘Incentive-Based Strategy’’). Most of
the projected emission reductions are
achieved by baseline measures—i.e., the
combination of State and District
measures adopted prior to the State’s
and District’s adoption of the Plan—that
will achieve ongoing emission
reductions from the 2013 base year to
the 2024 projected attainment year.
The remainder of the emission
reductions are achieved by an incentivebased measure adopted by CARB in
December 2019, a regulatory measures
adopted by the District in June 2019,
and a number of additional measures to
be adopted and implemented by CARB
and the District, including regulatory
measures and incentive-based measures.
In addition, both the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and the Valley State SIP Strategy
include commitments to take action on
specific measures by specific dates and
to achieve specified amounts of NOX
and PM2.5 emission reductions by
certain dates.299 We refer to these
commitments herein as ‘‘aggregate
commitments.’’
We note that the SJV PM2.5 Plan
generally relies on annual average
emission inventory and control strategy
estimates because it was designed to
address requirements for the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The State
views the control strategy for the annual
average attainment needs as providing
sufficient emission reductions for 24hour average (winter average)
attainment and RFP needs.300 We agree
with this assessment and have evaluated
the control strategy in the Plan by
reference to annual average emission
reductions. Table 6 provides a summary
298 Consistent with the State and District’s
determination that ammonia, SOX, and VOC do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding
the NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, the Plan’s
control strategy focuses on reductions in emissions
of direct PM2.5 and NOX. CARB Staff Report, 12.
Nonetheless, the Plan projects the following annual
average emission reductions from the 2013 base
year to 2024: 0.5 tpd reductions in SOX (5.9%), 30.3
tpd reductions in VOC (9.3%), and 4.6 tpd
reductions in ammonia (1.4%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
App. B, Tables B–3, B–4, and B–5.
299 CARB Resolution 18–49, paragraph 2 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16,
paragraph 6.
300 See, e.g., Letter dated August 12, 2019 from
Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
regarding the State’s ‘‘2017 Quantitative Milestone
Report for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS,’’ 2, n. 3.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17411
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
of the 2013 base year emissions and the
reductions from baseline measures,
additional State measures, and
additional District measures that are
necessary for the San Joaquin Valley to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2024.301
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF SJV PM2.5 PLAN’S ANNUAL AVERAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO ATTAIN THE 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS BY DECEMBER 31, 2024
% of 2013
base year
emissions
(percent)
NOX
(tpd)
A
B
C
D
E
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
2013 Base Year Emissions .................................................
Baseline Measure Emission Reductions (2013–2024) .......
Additional State Measures ...................................................
Additional District Measures ................................................
Total 2013–2024 Emission Reductions (B+C+D) ...............
317.2
168.3
32
1.88
202.2
........................
53.1
10.1
0.6
63.7
Direct PM2.5
(tpd)
62.5
4.2
0.9
1.3
6.4
% of 2013base year
emissions
(percent)
........................
6.7
1.4
2.1
10.2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 and B–2, and Ch. 4, Tables 4–3 and 4–7.
EPA has approved such mobile source
regulations for which waiver
Baseline measures will provide the
authorizations have been issued as
majority of emissions reductions needed
revisions to the California SIP.304
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
CARB’s mobile source program
in the San Joaquin Valley, amounting to extends beyond regulations that are
approximately 83.2% of the NOX
subject to the waiver or authorization
emission reductions and 65.6% of the
process set forth in CAA section 209 to
direct PM2.5 emission reductions
include standards and other
necessary for attainment.302
requirements to control emissions from
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that
in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses,
mobile sources emit over 85% of the
gasoline and diesel fuel specifications,
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley and that
and many other types of mobile sources.
CARB has adopted and amended
Generally, these regulations have also
regulations to reduce public exposure to been submitted and approved as
diesel particulate matter, which
revisions to the California SIP.305
includes direct PM2.5, and NOX, from
As to stationary sources, the 2018
‘‘fuel sources, freight transport sources
PM2.5 Plan states that stringent
like heavy-duty diesel trucks,
regulations adopted for prior attainment
transportation sources like passenger
plans continue to reduce emissions of
cars and buses, and non-road sources
NOX and direct PM2.5.306 Specifically,
like large construction equipment.’’ 303
Table 4–1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
Given the need for substantial
(‘‘District Rules Reducing PM and NOX
emissions reductions from mobile and
Emissions in the Valley’’) identifies 33
area sources to meet the NAAQS in
District measures that limit NOX and
California nonattainment areas, the
direct PM2.5 emissions.307 The EPA has
State of California has developed
approved each of the identified
stringent control measures for on-road
measures into the California SIP,308
and non-road mobile sources and the
with four exceptions.
fuels that power them. California has
First, the District amended Rule 4692
unique authority under CAA section
(‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) on June
209 (subject to a waiver by the EPA) to
21, 2018, to establish new registration
adopt and implement new emissions
and reporting requirements for certain
standards for many categories of on-road types of charbroiling operations. These
vehicles and engines and new and inamendments to Rule 4692 require
use non-road vehicles and engines. The
commercial cooking operations with
UFCs to report by January 1, 2019, on
the type and quantity, in pounds, of
meat cooked on the UFCs on a weekly
basis for the previous 12-month period
as well as other information regarding
the nature of their operations, and for
certain such operations to register with
the District and keep weekly records
relating to the quantities of meat
cooked.309 CARB submitted the
amended rule to the EPA on November
21, 2018, and the EPA has not yet
proposed any action on this submission.
The EPA approved a prior version of
this rule into the SIP on November 3,
2011.310 The District states that the 2018
amendment was an important first step
in its ongoing process to develop a new
control measure that will include
financial incentives to help fund
accelerated deployment of under-fired
charbroiler emission control
technologies.311 The 2018 amendments
do not, however, establish any new
control requirements and therefore do
not achieve additional emission
reductions beyond those that continue
to be achieved by the SIP-approved
version of Rule 4692.
Second, the District amended Rule
4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type,
Residential Central Furnaces’’) on June
21, 2018, to extend the period during
which manufacturers may pay emission
fees in lieu of meeting the rule’s NOX
301 Emission reductions from baseline measures
are calculated as the sum of all stationary, area, and
mobile source emission reductions from 2013 to
2024 in App. B of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
302 The EPA calculated these percentages as
follows: Annual average baseline NOX reductions
are 168.3 tpd of 202.2 tpd necessary for attainment
(83.2%) and annual average baseline direct PM2.5
reductions are 4.2 tpd of 6.4 tpd necessary for
attainment (65.6%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4 and
App. B.
303 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4–9 and Valley State
SIP Strategy, 4. For CARB’s analysis of its mobile
source measures for BACM and MSM, see 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. D, including analyses for on-road
light-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page D–17),
308 See EPA Region IX’s website for information
on District control measures that have been
approved into the California SIP, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca/epa-approved-sanjoaquin-valley-unified-air-district-regulationscalifornia-sip.
309 SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21,
2018, and SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report,
‘‘Amendments to Rule 4692 (Commercial
Charbroiling),’’ June 21, 2018, 1 and 5–6.
310 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011) (approving
Rule 4692 as amended September 17, 2009).
311 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report,
‘‘Amendments to Rule 4692 (Commercial
Charbroiling),’’ June 21, 2018, 1.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. Baseline Measures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
on-road heavy-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page
D–35), and non-road sources (starting page D–64).
304 See e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016); 82 FR
14447 (March 21, 2017); and 83 FR 23232 (May 18,
2018).
305 See e.g., the EPA’s approval of standards and
other requirements to control emissions from in-use
heavy-duty diesel trucks, 77 FR 20308 (April 4,
2012), and revisions to the California on-road
reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations,
75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
306 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4–3. For the District’s
analysis of its stationary source measures for BACM
and MSM, see 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C.
307 Id. Ch. 4, Table 4–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17412
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
emission limits.312 CARB submitted the
amended rule to the EPA on November
21, 2018, and the EPA has not yet
proposed any action on this submission.
The EPA approved a prior version of
Rule 4905 into the California SIP on
March 29, 2016.313 As part of that
rulemaking, the EPA noted that because
of the option in Rule 4905 to pay
mitigation fees in lieu of compliance
with emission limits, emission
reductions associated with the rule’s
emission limits would not be creditable
in any attainment plan without
additional documentation.314 Until the
District submits the necessary
documentation to credit emission
reductions achieved by Rule 4905
toward an attainment control strategy,
this rule is not creditable for SIP
purposes. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicates
that the District attributed 0.26 tpd of
NOX reductions between 2013 and 2024
to Rule 4905.315 These emission
reductions have de minimis impacts on
the attainment demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
Third, the District amended Rule 9510
(‘‘Indirect Source Review’’) on
December 21, 2017, to eliminate
inconsistencies in its applicability
provisions and to ensure that all large
development projects are subject to the
rule.316 CARB submitted this rule to the
EPA on May 23, 2018, and the EPA has
not yet proposed any action on the
submission. The EPA approved a prior
version of this rule into the California
SIP on May 9, 2011.317 As part of that
rulemaking, the EPA noted that
emission reductions associated with this
rule would not be creditable in any
attainment or RFP demonstration unless
the District revises the rule to address
the EPA’s enforceability concerns.318
Until the District adopts such revisions
to the rule, Rule 9510 is not creditable
for SIP purposes. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
does not, however, appear to rely on
this rule to any measurable extent in the
312 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report,
‘‘Proposed Amendments to Rule 4905 (Natural Gasfired, Fan-type Central Furnaces),’’ 2.
313 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016) (approving Rule
4905 as amended January 22, 2015).
314 EPA, Region IX Air Division, ‘‘Technical
Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking
for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP),
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District’s Rule 4905, Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type
Central Furnaces,’’ October 5, 2015, n. 8.
315 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–290.
316 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ‘‘Rule
9510 Indirect Source Review.’’ December 21, 2017,
1.
317 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011) (approving Rule
9510 as amended December 15, 2005).
318 76 FR 26609, 26612–26614.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
projected attainment inventory.319
Therefore, the District’s inclusion of this
rule in Table 4–1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
has no impact on our evaluation of the
attainment demonstration.
Finally, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan lists Rule
4203 (‘‘Particulate Matter Emissions
from Incineration of Combustible
Refuse’’) as a baseline measure. This
rule has not been approved into the
California SIP.320 Appendix C of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan states, however, that
the emissions inventory for incineration
of combustible refuse is 0.00 tpd of NOX
and 0.00 direct PM2.5 from 2013 through
2024.321 Thus, to the extent the District
relied upon emission reductions
achieved by this rule in its future
baseline emissions estimates, those
emission reductions have de minimis
impacts on the attainment
demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
In sum, although Table 4–1 of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies four baseline
measures that are not creditable for SIP
purposes at this time, we find that the
total emission reductions attributed to
these four measures in the future
baseline inventories have de minimis
impacts on the attainment
demonstration in the Plan.
ii. Additional Measures and Aggregate
Commitments
The SJV PM2.5 Plan relies on an
incentive-based measure recently
adopted by CARB to achieve 5.9 tpd of
NOX reductions and 0.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 reductions—2.9% and 4.7%,
respectively, of the total NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for
the San Joaquin Valley to attain the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2024.322 Under longstanding guidance,
the EPA has recommended presumptive
limits on the amounts of emission
reductions from certain voluntary and
other nontraditional measures that may
be credited in a SIP. Specifically, for
voluntary mobile source emission
reduction programs, the EPA has
identified a presumptive limit of three
percent (3%) of the total projected
future year emission reductions
required to attain the appropriate
NAAQS, and for any particular SIP
submittal to demonstrate attainment or
319 The District’s control analysis states that there
is no emissions inventory specific to Rule 9510.
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C–302.
320 The EPA does not have any pending SIP
submission for Rule 4203.
321 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C, C–46.
322 The 2018 PM
2.5 Plan shows that 202.2 tpd of
NOX and 6.4 tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions are
necessary for San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, revised App. H, Table H–6. For further
discussion of Appendix H, see section IV.E of this
preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maintenance of the NAAQS or progress
toward attainment (RFP), 3% of the
specific statutory requirement.323 The
EPA may, however, approve measures
for SIP credit in amounts exceeding the
presumptive limits where a clear and
convincing justification is made by the
State as to why a higher limit should
apply in its case.324
The San Joaquin Valley’s topography
and meteorology present significant
challenges for air quality. As stated in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, ‘‘the surrounding
mountains trap pollution and block
airflow’’ and ‘‘[t]emperature inversions,
while present to some degree
throughout the year, can last for days
during the winter, holding in nighttime
accumulations of pollutants.’’ 325 In
addition, the population of the area
continues to grow at a rate higher than
the statewide growth rate, leading to
increased vehicular traffic along major
highways that run through the San
Joaquin Valley.326 Given these unique
challenges, both the State and District
continue to implement both traditional
and non-traditional emission reduction
strategies to attain the PM2.5 standards
in the San Joaquin Valley, including
regulatory programs, incentive
programs, and rigorous outreach and
education efforts.327 Over the past
several decades, the State and District
have developed and implemented
several comprehensive plans to address
attainment of the NAAQS for ozone and
particulate matter.328 These attainment
plans have resulted in the State’s and
District’s adoption of numerous
regulations for stationary, area, and
mobile sources, many of which are
among the most stringent control
measures in the nation. Given the air
quality needs of the area and the
numerous control measures that both
the State and District have adopted and
323 EPA, ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary
Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in
State Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ October 24,
1997, 5.
324 EPA, ‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary
Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),’’
October 4, 2004, 9; see also EPA, ‘‘Guidance on
Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State
Implementation Plan,’’ August 16, 2005, 8, n. 6, and
EPA, ‘‘Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their
Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity:
Guidance for State and Local Air and
Transportation Agencies,’’ March 2018, 12.
325 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 2, 2–1.
326 Id. at 2–4.
327 Id. at 2–2.
328 See, e.g., 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)
(approving plan to attain the 1987 PM10 NAAQS),
76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (partially
approving and partially disapproving plan to attain
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), 77 FR 12652 (March 1,
2012) (approving plan to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS), and 81 FR 19492 (April 5, 2016)
(approving plan to attain the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
implemented in the San Joaquin Valley
to date, we believe it is appropriate to
allow the State to rely on the Valley
Incentive Measure to achieve 2.9% (5.9
tpd) of the NOX reductions and 4.7%
(0.3 tpd) of the direct PM2.5 reductions
necessary for the area to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2024.
For the remainder of the emission
reductions necessary for attainment, the
SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District
commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control
measures beyond baseline measures that
will contribute to expeditious
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
For mobile sources, CARB’s
commitment identifies a list of 12 State
regulatory measures and three
incentive-based measures that CARB
has committed to propose to its Board
for consideration by specific dates.329
For stationary sources, the District’s
commitment identifies a list of nine
regulatory measures and three
incentive-based measures that the
District has committed to propose to its
Board for consideration by specific
dates.330 The Plan contains CARB’s and
the District’s estimates of the emission
reductions that would be achieved by
each of these additional measures, if
adopted.331
CARB’s commitments are contained
in CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25,
2018) and the Valley State SIP Strategy
and consist of two parts: A control
measure commitment and a tonnage
commitment. First, CARB has
committed to ‘‘begin the measure’s
public process and bring to the Board
for consideration the list of proposed
SIP measures outlined in the Valley
State SIP Strategy and included in
Attachment A, according to the
schedule set forth.’’ 332 By email dated
November 12, 2019, CARB confirmed
that it intended to begin the public
process on each measure by discussing
the proposed regulation or program at a
public meeting (workshop, working
group, or Board hearing) or in a
publicly-released document and to then
propose the regulation or program to its
Board.333 Second, CARB has committed
‘‘to achieve the aggregate emissions
reductions outlined in the Valley State
SIP Strategy of 32 tpd of NOX and 0.9
tpd of PM2.5 emissions reductions in the
San Joaquin Valley by 2024.’’ 334 The
Valley State SIP Strategy explains that
CARB’s overall commitment is to
‘‘achieve the total emission reductions
necessary to attain the federal air quality
standards, reflecting the combined
reductions from the existing control
strategy and new measures’’ and that ‘‘if
a particular measure does not get its
expected emissions reductions, the State
is still committed to achieving the total
aggregate emission reductions.’’ 335
The District’s commitments are
contained in SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 18–11–16 (November
15, 2018) and Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and similarly consist of two
parts: A control measure commitment
and a tonnage commitment. First, the
District has committed to ‘‘take action
on the rules and measures committed to
in Chapter 4 of the Plan by the dates
specified therein, and to submit these
rules and measures, as appropriate, to
17413
CARB within 30 days of adoption for
transmittal to EPA as a revision to the
[SIP].’’ 336 By email dated November 12,
2019, the District confirmed that it
intended to take action on the listed
rules and measures by beginning the
public process on each measure, i.e.,
discussing the proposed regulation or
program at a public meeting, including
a workshop, working group, or Board
hearing, or in a publicly-released
document, and then proposing the rule
or measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing
Board.337 Second, the District has
committed to ‘‘achieve the aggregate
emissions reductions of 1.88 tpd of NOX
and 1.3 tpd of PM2.5 by 2024/2025’’
through adoption and implementation
of these measures or, if the total
emission reductions from these rules or
measures are less than these amounts,
‘‘to adopt, submit, and implement
substitute rules and measures that
achieve equivalent reductions in
emissions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5
precursors’’ in the same implementation
timeframes.338
In November 2019, CARB provided
status updates on its progress to date on
developing and adopting the additional
mobile source measures identified in its
control measure commitment.339 Table
7 lists each measure and provides a
summary of the anticipated emission
reductions and the current status for
each measure. As shown in the ‘‘Current
Status’’ column, CARB has adopted five
measures and begun the public process
on seven of the remaining 10 measures
listed in its control measure
commitment.
TABLE 7—STATUS OF CARB COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Count
Public process
begins
Measure
Implementation
begins
Action
NOX
emission
reductions
(tpd)
Direct PM2.5
emission
reductions
(tpd)
Current status a
2016 State SIP Strategy Measures
1 .................
2 .................
3 .................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
4 .................
Lower Opacity Limits for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Amended Warranty Requirements for HeavyDuty Vehicles.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program.
Heavy-Duty Low-NOX Engine Standard—California Action.
329 CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018),
Attachment A and Valley State SIP Strategy, Table
7 (‘‘State Measures and Schedule for the San
Joaquin Valley’’). The EPA is excluding two State
measures listed in Table 7 of the Valley State SIP
Strategy—the ‘‘Advanced Clean Cars 2’’ measure
and the ‘‘Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment’’
measure—because these measures are scheduled for
implementation in 2026 and 2030, respectively,
well after the January 1, 2024 implementation
deadline for control measures necessary for
attainment by December 31, 2024. 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
330 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16 (November 15, 2018) and 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
2016
2016
2018
2018
2018–2024
2022 ..........
6.8 .............
...................
<0.1 ..........
...................
2019
2020
2022 + ......
...................
...................
2016
2019
2023 ..........
0.7 .............
...................
Table 4–4 (‘‘Proposed Regulatory Measures’’) and
Table 4–5 (‘‘Proposed Incentive-Based Measures’’).
331 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4–3 (’’Emission
Reductions from District Measures’’) and Table 4–
9 (’’San Joaquin Valley Expected Emission
Reductions from State Measures’’) and Valley State
SIP Strategy, Table 8 (‘‘San Joaquin Valley Expected
Emission Reductions from State Measures’’).
332 CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
333 Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX,
‘‘RE: SJV PM2.5 information’’ (attaching ‘‘Valley
State SIP Strategy Progress’’) and CARB Staff
Report, 14.
334 CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
335 Valley
Adopted July 25, 2018.
Adopted June 28,
2018.
Public process began
February 11, 2019.
Public process began
November 3, 2016.
State SIP Strategy, 7.
Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16 (November 15, 2018), 10–11.
337 Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX,
‘‘RE: follow up on aggregate commitments in SJV
PM2.5 plan’’ (attaching ‘‘District Progress In
Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan’’).
338 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16 (November 15, 2018), 10–11.
339 Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX,
‘‘RE: SJV PM2.5 information’’ (attaching ‘‘Valley
State SIP Strategy Progress’’).
336 SJVUAPCD
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17414
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—STATUS OF CARB COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY—
Continued
Implementation
begins
NOX
emission
reductions
(tpd)
Direct PM2.5
emission
reductions
(tpd)
2018–2019
2020 ..........
<0.1 ..........
<0.1 ..........
2016
2019
2020 ..........
<0.1 ..........
<0.1 ..........
2017
2018
2023 ..........
NYQ ..........
NYQ ..........
2020
2020
2023 ..........
...................
...................
2018
2019
2023 ..........
<0.1 ..........
<0.1 ..........
2016
2018–2020
2022 ..........
0.1 .............
<0.1 ..........
2016
2018–2019
2020 + ......
NYQ ..........
NYQ ..........
2019
2021
2023 ..........
0.8 .............
0.1 .............
Public process
begins
Count
Measure
5 .................
Innovative Clean Transit ...................................
2015
6 .................
Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last Mile Delivery).
Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses ................
Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift Regulation
Phase 1.
Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment.
Small Off-Road Engines ....................................
7 .................
8 .................
9 .................
10 ...............
11 ...............
12 ...............
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for Cold
Storage.
Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Requirement ...........
Action
Current status a
Adopted December 14,
2018.
Public process began
November 1, 2016.
Adopted June 27,
2019.
Public process to begin
2020.
Public process began
June 6, 2018.
Public process began
May 23, 2016.
Public process began
April 13, 2016.
Public process began
October 18, 2019.
Proposed State Measures for the Valley (Valley State SIP Strategy)
13 ...............
14 ...............
15 ...............
Accelerated Turnover of Trucks and Buses Incentive Projects b.
Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment Incentive Projects b.
Accelerated Turnover of Off-Road Equipment
Incentive Projects b.
2018
by 2021
Ongoing ....
10 ..............
NYQ ..........
2018
by 2020
Ongoing ....
Existing 3;
New 8.
2020
by 2021
Ongoing ....
2 ................
Existing
0.2; New
0.6.
NYQ ..........
32 ..............
1
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd)
Public process to begin
by 2021.
CARB adopted December 12, 2019.
Public process to begin
by 2021.
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Tables 4–8 and 4–9 and email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek, CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ‘‘RE: SJV PM2.5 information’’ (attaching
‘‘Valley State SIP Strategy Progress’’).
NYQ means ‘‘not yet quantified.’’
a For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA’s General Evaluation TSD.
b Indicates that CARB intends to develop a SIP-creditable measure to demonstrate that the emission reductions from incentive projects can be credited towards the aggregate commitment.
In November 2019, the District also
provided status updates on its progress
to date on developing and adopting the
additional stationary source measures
identified in its control measure
commitment.340 Table 8 lists each
measure and provides a summary of the
anticipated emission reductions and the
current status for each measure. As
shown in the ‘‘Current Status’’ column,
the District has adopted and submitted
one of these measures (the 2019
amendment to Rule 4901) to the EPA for
approval into the SIP and has begun the
public process on five of the remaining
11 measures listed in its control
measure commitment.341
TABLE 8—STATUS OF SJVUAPCD COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NOX
emission
reductions
(tpd)
Direct PM2.5
emission
reductions
(tpd)
2020
2023 ..........
0.05 ...........
...................
2019
2020
2023 ..........
0.76 ...........
0.03 ...........
Rule 4320 (‘‘Advanced Emission Reduction
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/
hr’’).
Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’) .............
........................
........................
...................
...................
...................
2020
2021
2023 ..........
...................
...................
Rule 4352 (‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam
Generators and Process Heaters’’).
Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal Combustion Engines’’) .....
2020
2021
2023 ..........
...................
...................
2019
2020
2024 ..........
...................
...................
2021
2022
2024 ..........
...................
0.32 ...........
2019
2020
2024 ..........
...................
...................
Measure
1 .................
Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares’’) .........................................
2018
2 .................
Rule 4306 (‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters—Phase 3’’).
3 .................
4 .................
5 .................
6 .................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Implementation
begins
Public process
begins
Count
7 .................
8 .................
Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation Management Practices’’).
Rule
4692
(‘‘Commercial
Under-fired
Charbroilers’’).
340 Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX,
‘‘RE: follow up on aggregate commitments in SJV
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Action date
PM2.5 plan’’ (attaching ‘‘District Progress In
Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Current status a
Public workshop held
November 13, 2019.
Public scoping meeting
held December 5,
2019.
Public scoping meeting
held December 5,
2019.
Public process to begin
in 2020.
Public process to begin
in 2020.
Public scoping meeting
held December 5,
2019.
Public process to begin
in 2021.
Public scoping meeting
held December 12,
2019.
341 The EPA has recently proposed to approve
amended Rule 4901 into the California SIP. 85 FR
1131.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17415
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—STATUS OF SJVUAPCD COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY—Continued
Implementation
begins
NOX
emission
reductions
(tpd)
Direct PM2.5
emission
reductions
(tpd)
2019
2019 ..........
...................
0.26 ...........
2019
2020
Ongoing ....
1.07 ...........
...................
2019
2020
Ongoing ....
...................
0.53 ...........
2019
2020
Ongoing ....
...................
0.16 ...........
1.88 ...........
1.3
Public process
begins
Count
Measure
9 .................
Rule 4901 (‘‘Woodburning Fireplaces and
Wood Burning Heaters’’) (Hot-spot strategy).
2019
10 ...............
Agricultural Operation Internal Combustion Engines Incentive Projects.
Commercial Under-fired ....................................
Charbroiling Incentive Projects .........................
Residential Wood Burning Devices Incentive
Projects.
11 ...............
12 ...............
Action date
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd)
Current status a
Rule adopted June 20,
2019 and submitted
to EPA July 22,
2019.
Public process pending.
Public process pending.
Public process pending.
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Tables 4–3, 4–4, and 4–5 and Appendix E, Table E–3; SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ‘‘Amendments to District’s Residential Wood Burning
Emission Reduction Strategy,’’ June 20, 2019 (‘‘2019 Rule 4901 Staff Report’’); and email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ‘‘RE: follow up on aggregate commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan’’ (attaching ‘‘District Progress In Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5 Plan’’).
a For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA’s General Evaluation TSD.
With respect to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’), the District amended this rule
on June 20, 2019, to establish more
stringent limitations on the use of
residential wood burning devices.
Specifically, the June 20, 2019
amendment to Rule 4901 lowered the
thresholds at which ‘‘No Burn’’ days
will be imposed to limit direct PM2.5
emissions from residential wood
burning during the November through
February timeframe in three ‘‘hot spot’’
counties (Fresno, Kern, and Madera).342
CARB submitted this amended rule to
the EPA on July 22, 2019, and the EPA
has proposed to approve the amended
rule into the California SIP.343 The EPA
approved a prior version of this rule
into the SIP on October 6, 2016.344 The
District’s control measure commitment
for 2024 and 2025 in Chapter 4 of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the
District expects to achieve 0.42 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions
through implementation of its
residential wood burning strategy,
including implementation of the ‘‘No
Burn’’ provisions in amended Rule
4901.345 Upon the EPA’s final action to
approve amended Rule 4901 into the
SIP, the additional emission reductions
resulting from the ‘‘No Burn’’ provisions
of the amended rule may be credited
toward the attainment demonstration in
the Plan.
We note that the District’s current
estimate of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions to be achieved through the
‘‘No Burn’’ provisions of amended Rule
4901 (0.26 tpd) is based on a
compliance rate (referred to as a
‘‘control efficiency’’) of 100%. The
District estimates an actual control
efficiency of 97% to 99%, based on the
District’s surveillance of neighborhoods
in the San Joaquin Valley.346 This
control efficiency is significantly higher
than the 75% control efficiency that
EPA guidance attributes to wood
burning curtailment programs.347
Because the District has not provided
adequate support for a 97–100% rule
effectiveness rate, we are crediting the
amended rule at this time with 0.20 tpd
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
toward the attainment control strategy,
based on a 75% control efficiency. We
have factored this amount into the
direct PM2.5 emission reductions from
approved measures, shown in Row C of
Table 9.
Table 9 provides a summary of the
total NOX and direct PM2.5 emission
reductions necessary for attainment in
the San Joaquin Valley by December 31,
2024, the emission reductions attributed
to baseline measures and new control
strategy measures, and the emission
reductions remaining as aggregate
tonnage commitments. Approximately
13.8% of the NOX reductions necessary
for attainment and 26.6% of the direct
PM2.5 reductions necessary for
attainment remain as aggregate tonnage
commitments.
TABLE 9—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT AND AGGREGATE TONNAGE COMMITMENTS
[tpd, 2024]
NOX
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
A
B
C
D
E
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures ...................................
Reductions from baseline measures .........................................................................................
Total reductions from approved measures ................................................................................
Total reductions remaining as commitments (A–B–C) ..............................................................
Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments (D/A) .....................................
202.2
168.3
5.9
28.0
13.8%
Direct PM2.5
6.4
4.2
0.5
1.7
26.6%
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4–3 and 4–7, and Appendix B, Tables B–1 and B–2; 2019 Rule 4901 Staff Report, 34; and ‘‘Air Plan
Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’’ (proposed rule to approve ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure’’), pre-publication notice signed February 13, 2020.
342 The revised rule adds additional restrictions
on the installation of wood burning devices, new
requirements for fireplace and chimney remodel
projects, additional requirements for residential real
estate sales, non-seasoned wood to the list of
prohibited fuel types, a new visible emissions limit
for fireplaces and non-registered devices, and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
editorial revisions to improve rule clarity. The
emission reductions from these additional revisions
were not quantified.
343 85 FR 1131.
344 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016) (approving Rule
4901 as amended September 18, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
345 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4–3.
dated October 9, 2019 from Jon Klassen,
SJVUAPCD to Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region IX,
Subject: ‘‘RE: Info to support Rule 4901.’’
347 Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA–
456/B–13–01, March 2013, 42.
346 Email
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17416
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The CAA allows for approval of
enforceable commitments that are
limited in scope where circumstances
exist that warrant the use of such
commitments in place of adopted
measures.348 Specifically, CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP
‘‘shall include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques . . . as well as
schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable
requirement of the Act.’’ Section
172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to
nonattainment SIPs, is virtually
identical to section 110(a)(2)(A). The
language in these sections of the CAA is
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain
any ‘‘means or techniques’’ that the EPA
determines are ‘‘necessary or
appropriate’’ to meet CAA requirements,
such that the area will attain as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the designated date. Furthermore,
the express allowance for ‘‘schedules
and timetables’’ demonstrates that
Congress understood that all required
controls might not have to be in place
before a SIP could be fully approved.
Once the EPA determines that
circumstances warrant consideration of
an enforceable commitment to satisfy a
CAA requirement, it considers three
factors in determining whether to
approve the enforceable commitment:
(a) Does the commitment address a
limited portion of the CAA requirement;
(b) is the state capable of fulfilling its
commitment; and (c) is the commitment
for a reasonable and appropriate period
of time.349
348 Commitments approved by the EPA under
CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by the EPA
and citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304,
respectively. In the past, the EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced
these actions against states that failed to comply
with those commitments. See, e.g., American Lung
Ass’n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,
Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp.
848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env’t v.
Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for
Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No.
CV 97–6916–HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999).
Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, the
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement
the SIP under CAA section 179(a), which starts an
18-month period for the State to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
349 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A)
and 172(c)(6) and the Agency’s use and application
of the three factor test in approving enforceable
commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for HoustonGalveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al.,
355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). More recently, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA’s
approval of enforceable commitments in ozone and
PM2.5 SIPs for the San Joaquin Valley, based on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
With respect to the SJV PM2.5 Plan,
circumstances warrant the consideration
of enforceable commitments as part of
the attainment demonstration for this
area. As shown in Table 9 of this
preamble, the majority of the emissions
reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment and RFP in the San Joaquin
Valley are achieved by rules and
regulations adopted prior to the State’s
development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan, i.e.,
baseline measures. As a result of these
already-adopted State and District
measures, most air pollution sources in
the San Joaquin Valley were already
subject to stringent rules prior to the
development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan,
leaving fewer and more technologicallychallenging opportunities to reduce
emissions. Despite these significant
emission reductions, as shown in Table
6 of this preamble, the San Joaquin
Valley area needs to reduce NOX and
direct PM2.5 emission levels by a total of
63.7% and 10.2%, respectively, from
2013 base year levels in order to attain
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of
2024.
As part of their respective control
measure commitments in the SJV PM2.5
Plan, CARB and the District each have
identified potential control measures
that are expected to achieve the
additional emissions reductions needed
for attainment. The timeline needed to
develop, adopt, and implement these
measures, however, goes well beyond
the December 31, 2019 serious area
attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in this area. Both the State and
District are making progress in adopting
the rules and measures listed in their
respective control measure
commitments but have not yet
completely fulfilled them. Given these
circumstances, we find that the State’s
and District’s reliance on enforceable
commitments in the SJV PM2.5 Plan is
warranted. Therefore, we have
considered the three factors the EPA
uses to determine whether the use of
enforceable commitments in lieu of
adopted measures satisfies CAA
planning requirements.
(a) The Commitment Represents 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 attain the NAAQS in a
nonattainment area. As shown in Table
9 of this preamble, most of the total
emission reductions needed to attain the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
same three factor test. Committee for a Better Arvin,
et al. v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Valley by the end of 2024 will be
achieved through implementation of
both baseline and new measures,
leaving 13.8% (28.0 tpd) of the
necessary NOX reductions and 26.6%
(1.7 tpd) of the necessary direct PM2.5
reductions as aggregate tonnage
commitments.
Given the nature of the PM2.5
challenge in the San Joaquin Valley, the
significant reductions in NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission levels achieved through
implementation of baseline measures
over the past several decades, and the
difficulty of identifying additional
control measures that are feasible for
implementation in the area, we find it
reasonable for the State and District to
seek additional time to adopt the last
increment of emission reductions
necessary for attainment by 2024.
Therefore, we find that the emission
reductions remaining as enforceable
commitments in the SJV PM2.5 Plan
represent a limited portion of the total
emissions reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment by December
31, 2024.
(b) The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its
Commitment
For the second factor, we consider
whether the State and District are
capable of fulfilling their commitments.
CARB and the District recently provided
updates on their progress in developing
and adopting the additional mobile
source and stationary source measures
listed in their respective control
measure commitments. Specifically, as
shown in Table 7 of this preamble,
CARB has adopted four of the 12
regulatory measures listed in its control
measure commitment, including heavyduty vehicle opacity limits, heavy-duty
vehicle warranty requirements,
Innovative Clean Transit, and ZeroEmission Airport Shuttle Buses. CARB
has also begun the public process on
seven of the remaining eight regulatory
measures listed in CARB’s control
measure commitment. Additionally, on
December 12, 2019, CARB adopted the
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural
Incentive Measure, one of the three
incentive-based measures identified in
its control measure commitment. CARB
submitted this measure to the EPA on
February 11, 2020, and the EPA has
proposed to approve it as a revision to
the California SIP.350
350 Letter dated February 11, 2020, from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, and ‘‘Air
Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District’’ (proposed
rule to approve ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Agricultural
Equipment Incentive Measure’’), pre-publication
notice signed February 13, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
For CARB’s Heavy Duty I/M Program,
in addition to the February 11, 2019
workshop, CARB has held three other
workshops in 2019.351 With the passage
of California Senate Bill 210, the Heavy
Duty I/M Program will be considered for
Board action in 2020.352 For CARB’s
Heavy-Duty Low-NOX Engine Standard,
following the November 3, 2016 public
workshop, CARB held six additional
workshops between 2017 and 2019.353
For the Zero-Emission Airport Ground
Support Equipment, CARB held a
workshop on August 2, 2018.354 For the
Small Off-Road Engines measure, CARB
has held five additional working group
meetings and three public workshops
between 2017 and 2019.355 For
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for
Cold Storage, CARB held additional
workshops in 2017 and most recently in
October 2019.356
CARB continues to pursue additional
control strategies to reduce emissions in
California’s nonattainment areas. For
example, ongoing CARB programs that
address zero emission airport shuttle
buses and transportation refrigeration
units used for cold storage have yet to
be quantified but are expected to further
reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions
in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024.357
Additionally, as part of the development
of a draft plan submission to address
attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the
South Coast, CARB has identified a
number of potential new state control
measures that would achieve NOX and
direct PM2.5 emission reductions not
only in the South Coast but also in the
San Joaquin Valley.358 These include a
351 Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty I/
M Program is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
our-work/programs/inspection-and-maintenanceprogram/Meetings-and-Workshops.
352 SB 210 was signed by the California Governor
and filed with the Secretary of State on September
20, 2019.
353 Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty
Low-NOX Engine Standard is available at https://
ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/heavy-dutylow-nox/heavy-duty-low-nox-meetings-workshops.
354 Information about the proposed Zero-Emission
Airport Ground Support Equipment regulation is
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/
programs/zero-emission-airport-ground-supportequipment/ze-airport-gse-meetings-workshops.
355 Information about the proposed Small OffRoad Engines measure is available at https://
ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/small-off-roadengines-sore/resources and https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
sore-workshops.
356 Information about the proposed Transport
Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage measure
is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/
programs/transport-refrigeration-unit/tru-meetingsworkshops.
357 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–9.
358 CARB, ‘‘2019 South Coast 8-hour Ozone SIP
Update,’’ December 12, 2019. See also CARB
Resolution 19–31 (December 12, 2019). Further
information about this SIP revision is available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/
scabsip/scabsip.htm#2019o3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Tier 5 non-road diesel engine standard,
a state green contracting measure, a
measure to reduce single occupancy
vehicle travel, and a locomotive
emission reduction measure.
Similarly, the District has made
progress in meeting its control measure
commitments for the San Joaquin
Valley. As shown in Table 8 of this
preamble, following an initial December
2018 public workshop, the District
adopted amendments to Rule 4901 on
June 20, 2019, and CARB submitted the
amended rule to the EPA on July 22,
2019.359 The amendments to Rule 4901
include lowering the residential wood
burning curtailment thresholds for
Madera, Fresno, and Kern Counties in
addition to Valley-wide rule
enhancements. The EPA has proposed
to approve amended Rule 4901 into the
California SIP.360
Additionally, the District has started a
public process for five of the remaining
eight regulatory measures, including
each of the five regulatory measures for
which it committed to do so by 2019 or
earlier. Specifically, on August 23, 2017,
the District hosted an initial public
scoping meeting on potential
amendments to Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares’’),
and on November 13, 2019, the District
hosted a public workshop on potential
amendments to the rule.361 These
potential amendments include
additional flare minimization
requirements, where technologically
achievable and economically feasible,
and additional ultra-low NOX flare
emission limitations for existing and
new flaring activities at Valley facilities,
where technologically achievable and
economically feasible.
For the remaining four measures in
the District’s control measure
commitment, on June 21, 2018, the
District adopted amendments to Rule
4692 that require commercial cooking
operations with UFCs to report by
January 1, 2019, on the type and
quantity, in pounds, of meat cooked on
the UFCs on a weekly basis for the
previous 12-month period as well as
other information regarding the nature
of their operations, and for certain such
operations to register with the District
and keep weekly records relating to the
quantities of meat cooked. This is an
important first step in the District’s
development of a new control measure
for a source category not previously
subject to direct PM2.5 emission control
359 Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
360 85 FR 1131.
361 For more information on this workshop, see
https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/
2019/11-13-19_Flares/presentation.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17417
requirements in the San Joaquin Valley.
The District hosted a public scoping
workshop for Rule 4692 on December
12, 2019,362 and a scoping meeting for
Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 on December
5, 2019.363 Finally, the District held a
scoping meeting for Rule 4702, also on
December 5, 2019.364
Beyond the rules discussed above,
both CARB and the District have wellfunded incentive grant programs to
reduce emissions from mobile,
stationary, and area sources in the San
Joaquin Valley. Funding for the State’s
incentive programs in the San Joaquin
Valley comes from various sources
including the Carl Moyer Program,
Proposition 1B Goods Movement
Emission Reduction Program,
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and
the Funding Agricultural Replacement
Measures for Emission Reductions
(FARMER) program.365 Funding for the
District’s incentive programs comes
from a combination of federal, State,
and local funding mechanisms,
including the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act (DERA) and Target
Airshed Grant programs, the Carl Moyer
Program, and fees assessed in the San
Joaquin Valley by the California
Department of Motor Vehicles and by
the District through programs for
Indirect Source Review, Voluntary
Emission Reduction Agreements, and
large boilers, steam generators, and
process heaters.366
Collectively, these incentive funds
have been applied to a wide range of
emission sources, including heavy-duty
trucks, light-duty vehicles, mobile
agricultural equipment, locomotives,
school buses, alternative fuel
infrastructure, community-based
programs, agricultural irrigation pumps,
residential wood combustion devices,
and commercial charbroilers.367 The
Plan identifies the total funding need for
expeditious attainment as $5 billion,
including $3.3 billion for heavy-duty
trucks and buses and $1.4 billion for
mobile agricultural equipment.368
362 More information on the public scoping
workshop on Rule 3692 can be found at https://
www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-1219_CC/presentation.pdf.
363 More information on the scoping workshop for
Rules 4306 and 4320 can be found at https://
www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-0519_BGH/presentation.pdf.
364 Information on the scoping meeting on Rule
4702 can be found at https://www.valleyair.org/
Workshops/postings/2019/12-05-19_ICE/
presentation.pdf.
365 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. E, E–6.
366 Id.
367 Id. at App. E, E–8 to E–21.
368 Id. at App. E, Table E–4 (‘‘Incentive Funding
Needed for Expeditious Attainment’’). The CARB
Staff Report describes the status of current incentive
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
Continued
27MRP2
17418
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
We note that, during CARB’s
September 19, 2019 hearing on the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, community and
environmental advocacy groups raised
concerns that incentive funding recently
appropriated fell short of the Plan’s
needs and requested that the State
pursue alternative measures to obtain
emission reductions from specific
stationary sources in the San Joaquin
Valley.369 In response to these concerns
and similar concerns raised by CARB
Governing Board Member Dean Florez,
CARB committed to follow-up with the
District and stakeholders and to hold
public workshops in the San Joaquin
Valley to discuss additional emission
reduction opportunities.370
We note also that the State and
District will have to submit to the EPA,
for SIP approval, any control measure
that it intends to rely on to satisfy the
aggregate tonnage commitments in the
Plan. Where the State or District intends
to substitute reductions in one pollutant
to achieve a tonnage commitment
concerning a different pollutant (e.g.,
substituting NOX reductions to satisfy a
direct PM2.5 reduction commitment), it
must include an appropriate interpollutant trading (IPT) ratio and the
technical basis for such ratio. The EPA
will review any such IPT ratio and its
bases before approving or disapproving
the measure.
Given the evidence of the State’s and
District’s progress to date in proposing
and adopting the measures listed in
their respective control measure
commitments and their continuing
efforts to develop additional control
measures to further reduce NOX and
PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley, we find that the State and
District are capable of meeting their
commitments.
(c) The Commitment Is for a Reasonable
and Appropriate Timeframe
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
For the third and last factor, we
consider whether the commitment is for
a reasonable and appropriate period of
time. As discussed in section II.B of this
preamble, on March 23, 2017, CARB
adopted the 2016 State Strategy and
directed staff to return to the Board with
a commitment to achieve additional
emission reductions from mobile
funding and CARB’s expectations concerning future
incentive funding out to 2024 for the San Joaquin
Valley. CARB Staff Report, section F (‘‘Status of
Incentive Funding’’), 24–27.
369 Letter dated September 17, 2019, from
Genevieve Gale, Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ)
Coalition, et al to CARB Board Members and Staff.
370 J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ‘‘Meeting, State of
California Air Resources Board,’’ September 19,
2019 (transcript of CARB’s public hearing), 100.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
sources in the San Joaquin Valley.371
CARB responded by developing the
Valley State SIP Strategy, which
includes additional state commitments
to achieve accelerated emission
reductions for purposes of attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.
In the Valley State SIP Strategy, CARB
recognized that the earlier attainment
dates for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
compared to ozone attainment dates in
the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere in
the State required accelerating the pace
of NOX reductions.372 Thus, in the
Valley State SIP Strategy CARB
identified and committed to achieve
emission reductions of 32 tpd of NOX
and 0.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2024,373
significantly greater amounts than those
CARB had committed to in the 2016
State Strategy (6 tpd of NOX and 0.1 tpd
of direct PM2.5 by 2025).374 CARB
defined the estimate of emission
reductions by 2024 from the lower inuse performance level of heavy-duty
trucks as 6.8 tpd of NOX, representing
the largest emission reduction among
the additional prohibitory measures.375
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes specific
rule development, adoption, and
implementation schedules designed to
meet the State’s and District’s
commitments to reduce emissions to the
levels needed to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by
2024. For example, the aggregate
commitments in the SJV PM2.5 Plan
include commitments by both the State
and the District to begin the public
process on each of their respective
control measure commitments by
specific dates ranging from 2015 to
2021. The commitments also identify
action and implementation dates
ranging from 2018 to 2024 for a number
of State and District control measures,
including amendments to SJVUAPCD
Rule 4901, Rule 4311, Rule 4306, Rule
4320, Rule 4354, and Rule 4352.376
We find that these schedules provide
a reasonable and appropriate amount of
time for the State and District to achieve
the remaining emission reductions
necessary to the attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
by December 31, 2024. We therefore
371 CARB
Resolution 17–7 (March 23, 2017), page
372 Valley
State SIP Strategy, 2–3 and 6.
Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018),
7.
373 CARB
page 5.
374 CARB Resolution 17–7 (March 23, 2017),
paragraph 7.
375 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4–9.
376 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4–4, 4–5, and
4–8.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conclude that the third factor is
satisfied.
c. Conclusion
The EPA must make several findings
in order to approve the modeled
attainment demonstration in an
attainment plan SIP submission. First,
we must find that the attainment
demonstration’s technical bases,
including the emissions inventories and
air quality modeling, are adequate. As
discussed in sections IV.A and IV.D.4.a
of this preamble, we are proposing to
approve both the emissions inventories
and the air quality modeling on which
the SJV PM2.5 Plan’s attainment
demonstration and related provisions
are based.
Second, we must find that the SIP
submittal provides for expeditious
attainment through the timely
implementation of all BACM and BACT.
As discussed in section IV.C of this
preamble, we are proposing to approve
the BACM/BACT demonstration in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan.
Third, the EPA must find that the
emissions reductions that are relied on
for attainment in the SIP submission are
creditable. As discussed in section
IV.D.4, the SJV PM2.5 Plan relies
principally on already adopted and
approved rules to achieve the emissions
reductions needed to attain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin
Valley by December 31, 2024. The
balance of the reductions is currently in
the form of enforceable commitments
that account for 13.8% of the NOX and
26.6% of the direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions needed for attainment, as
shown in Table 9 of this preamble.
The EPA has previously accepted
enforceable commitments in lieu of
adopted control measures in attainment
demonstrations when the circumstances
warrant it and the commitments meet
three criteria. As discussed herein, we
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. We therefore
propose to allow the State to rely on
these enforceable commitments in its
attainment demonstration.
Based on these evaluations, we
propose to determine that the SJV PM2.5
Plan provides for attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable,
consistent with the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Application for an Attainment Date
Extension
As discussed in section I of this
preamble, the Serious area attainment
date for the San Joaquin Valley for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA
section 188(c)(2) is December 31, 2019.
The first criterion for an extension of the
attainment date beyond this statutory
attainment date is that the State must
apply for such extension. In the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD
submitted a complete application for an
extension of the Serious area attainment
date for the SJV to December 31, 2024,
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.377 In
accordance with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule in 40 CFR
51.1005(b)(2), the SJV PM2.5 Plan
contains all of the required components
of a Serious area plan containing a
request for extension of the attainment
date under CAA section 188(e), as
follows: (1) Base year and attainment
projected emissions inventories, (2)
provisions to implement MSM and
BACM, (3) a modeled attainment
demonstration, (4) reasonable further
progress provisions, (5) quantitative
milestone provisions, (6) contingency
measure provisions, and (7)
nonattainment new source review plan
provisions.378
Based on our evaluation of the Plan,
we propose to grant the State’s request
to extend the Serious area attainment
deadline from December 31, 2019, to
December 31, 2024, for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. We
are requesting public comment to
ensure that the EPA fully considers all
relevant factors in evaluating the State’s
request. If based on new information or
public comments we find that a
decision to grant the requested
extension would not be consistent with
the requirements of the Act, the EPA
may reconsider this proposal or deny
California’s request to extend the
deadline.379
377 CARB Resolution 19–1 (January 24, 2019),
(submitting the Plan to EPA as a SIP revision),
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16
(November 15, 2018), paragraph 1 (adopting the
2018 PM2.5 Plan), and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6–
1 to 6–2.
378 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting adopted
SJV PM2.5 Plan) and letter dated November 15,
2019, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9 (transmitting adopted nonattainment new
source review rules for the San Joaquin Valley).
379 Under CAA section 179(c), the EPA must
determine no later than 6 months after the
applicable attainment date for any nonattainment
area whether the area attained the NAAQS by that
date. Absent an extension of the Serious area
attainment date under CAA section 188(e), the
latest permissible attainment date for the 2006
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
If the EPA were to take final action to
deny the request for extension of the
attainment date, the EPA would be
required under CAA section 179(c) to
determine, based on the San Joaquin
Valley’s air quality as of December 31,
2019, whether the area attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by that date.
E. Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
Section 172(c)(2) of the Act provides
that all nonattainment area plans shall
require reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment. In addition,
CAA section 189(c) requires that all
PM2.5 nonattainment area plans contain
quantitative milestone for purposes of
measuring RFP, as defined in CAA
section 171(1), every three years until
the area is redesignated to attainment.
Section 171(1) of the Act defines RFP as
the annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by part D, title I of the Act,
or as may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. Neither
subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part D, title
I of the Act requires that states achieve
a set percentage of emissions reductions
in any given year for purposes of
satisfying the RFP requirement.
For purposes of the particulate matter
NAAQS, RFP has historically been met
by showing annual incremental
emissions reductions sufficient to
maintain ‘‘generally linear progress’’
toward attainment by the applicable
deadline.380 As discussed in EPA
guidance in the General Preamble
Addendum, requiring generally linear
progress in reductions of direct PM2.5
and relevant PM2.5 precursors in a PM2.5
attainment plan may be appropriate in
situations where:
• The pollutant is emitted by a large
number and range of sources,
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Serious
nonattainment area was December 31, 2019, and the
statutory deadline under CAA section 179(c) for the
EPA to determine whether the area attained these
NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date is June
30, 2020. See also Memorandum dated November
14, 1994, from Sally L. Shaver, EPA Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, to EPA Air
Division directors, Regions I through X, RE:
‘‘Criteria for Granting 1-Year Extensions of
Moderate PM–10 Nonattainment Area Attainment
Dates, Making Attainment Determinations, and
Reporting on Quantitative Milestones,’’ 16 (stating
that EPA regional offices will address state requests
for 1-year attainment date extensions under CAA
section 188(d) no later than 6 months after the
applicable attainment date). The CAA does not
establish a specific deadline for the EPA’s denial of
a request for extension of an attainment date.
380 General Preamble Addendum, 42015.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17419
• the relationship between any
individual source or source category
and overall air quality is not well
known,
• a chemical transformation is
involved (e.g., secondary particulate
significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels
over the standard), and/or
• the emission reductions necessary
to attain the PM2.5 standards are
inventory-wide.381
The EPA believes that the facts and
circumstances of each specific area will
be relevant to whether the emissions
reductions meet the agency’s
expectations for generally linear
progress.382
The General Preamble Addendum
also indicates that requiring generally
linear progress may be less appropriate
in other situations, such as:
• Where there are a limited number of
sources of direct PM2.5 or a relevant
precursor,
• where the relationships between
individual sources and air quality are
relatively well defined, and/or
• where the emission control systems
utilized (e.g., at major point sources)
will result in swift and dramatic
emission reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized
by any of these latter conditions, the
EPA has recommended that RFP may be
met by stepwise progress as controls are
implemented and achieve significant
reductions soon thereafter. For example,
if an area’s nonattainment problem can
be attributed to a few major stationary
sources, EPA guidance recommends that
states may meet RFP by ‘‘adherence to
an ambitious compliance schedule’’ that
is likely to yield significant reductions
of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor on
a periodic basis, rather than on a
generally linear basis.383 The EPA
believes that the facts and
circumstances of each specific area will
be relevant to whether the emissions
reductions meet the agency’s
expectations for stepwise progress.
Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas
should include detailed schedules for
compliance with emission control
measures in the area and provide
corresponding annual emission
reductions to be achieved by each
milestone in the schedule.384 In
reviewing an attainment plan under
subpart 4, the EPA considers whether
the annual incremental emissions
reductions to be achieved are reasonable
in light of the statutory objective of
timely attainment. Although early
381 Id.
382 81
FR 58010, 15386.
383 Id.
384 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
at 42016.
27MRP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
17420
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
implementation of the most costeffective control measures is often
appropriate, states should consider both
cost-effectiveness and pollution
reduction effectiveness when
developing implementation schedules
for control measures, and may
implement measures that are more
effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to
provide greater public health
benefits.385
In addition to the EPA’s longstanding
guidance on the RFP requirements, the
Agency has established specific
regulatory requirements in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule for purposes of
satisfying the Act’s RFP requirements
and provided related guidance in the
preamble to the rule. Specifically, under
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each
PM2.5 attainment plan must contain an
RFP analysis that includes, at minimum,
the following four components: (1) An
implementation schedule for control
measures; (2) RFP projected emissions
for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan
precursors for each applicable milestone
year, based on the anticipated control
measure implementation schedule; (3) a
demonstration that the control strategy
and implementation schedule will
achieve reasonable progress toward
attainment between the base year and
the attainment year; and (4) a
demonstration that by the end of the
calendar year for each triennial
milestone date for the area, pollutant
emissions will be at levels that reflect
either generally linear progress or
stepwise progress in reducing emissions
on an annual basis between the base
year and the attainment year.386
A state intending to meet the RFP
requirement on a stepwise basis must
provide an appropriate justification for
the selected implementation
schedule.387 As the EPA explained in
the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, a plan that relies on
a stepwise approach to meeting RFP
should include ‘‘a clear rationale and
supporting information to explain why
generally linear progress is not
appropriate (e.g., due to the nature of
the nonattainment problem, the types of
sources contributing to PM2.5 levels in
the area and the implementation
schedule for control requirements at
such sources).’’ 388 Additionally, states
should estimate the RFP projected
emissions for each quantitative
milestone year by sector on a pollutantby-pollutant basis.389
385 Id.
386 40
CFR 51.1012(a).
CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
388 81 FR 58010, 58057.
389 81 FR 58010, 58056.
387 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Section 189(c) of the Act requires that
PM2.5 attainment plans include
quantitative milestones that
demonstrate RFP. The purpose of the
quantitative milestones is to allow
periodic evaluation of the area’s
progress towards attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS consistent with RFP
requirements. Because RFP is an annual
emission reduction requirement and the
quantitative milestones are to be
achieved every three years, when a state
demonstrates compliance with the
quantitative milestone requirement, it
should also demonstrate that RFP has
been achieved during each of the
relevant three years. Quantitative
milestones should provide an objective
means to evaluate progress toward
attainment meaningfully, e.g., through
imposition of emissions controls in the
attainment plan and the requirement to
quantify those required emissions
reductions. The CAA also requires a
state to submit, within 90 days after
each three-year quantitative milestone
date, a milestone report that includes
technical support sufficient to
document completion statistics for
appropriate milestones, e.g., the
calculations and any assumptions made
concerning emission reductions to
date.390
The CAA does not specify the starting
point for counting the three-year periods
for quantitative milestones under CAA
section 189(c). In the General Preamble
and General Preamble Addendum, the
EPA interpreted the CAA to require that
the starting point for the first three-year
period be the due date for the Moderate
area plan submission.391 In keeping
with this historical approach, the EPA
established December 31, 2014, the
deadline that the EPA established for a
state’s submission of any additional
attainment-related SIP elements
necessary to satisfy the subpart 4
Moderate area requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as the starting
point for the first three-year period
under CAA section 189(c) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.392
390 General
Preamble Addendum, 42016, 42017.
Preamble, 13539, and General
Preamble Addendum, 42016.
392 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule
establishing subpart 4 moderate area classifications
and deadline for related SIP submissions). Although
this final rule did not affect any action that the EPA
had previously taken under CAA section 110(k) on
a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the EPA noted
that states may need to submit additional SIP
elements to fully comply with the applicable
requirements of subpart 4, even for areas with
previously approved PM2.5 attainment plans, and
that the deadline for any such additional plan
submissions was December 31, 2014. Id. at 31569.
391 General
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, each attainment plan submission
for an area designated nonattainment for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS before January
15, 2015, must contain quantitative
milestones to be achieved no later than
three years after December 31, 2014, and
every three years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within three
years after the applicable attainment
date.393 If the area fails to attain, this
post-attainment date milestone provides
the EPA with the tools necessary to
monitor the area’s continued progress
toward attainment while the state
develops a new attainment plan under
CAA section 189(d).394 Quantitative
milestones must provide for objective
evaluation of reasonable further
progress toward timely attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area and include,
at minimum, a metric for tracking
progress achieved in implementing SIP
control measures, including BACM and
BACT, by each milestone date.395
Because the EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009,396 the plan
for this area must contain quantitative
milestones to be achieved no later than
three years after December 31, 2014, and
every three years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within three
years after the applicable attainment
date.397 The SJV PM2.5 Plan contains a
request by the State under CAA section
188(e) to extend the applicable
attainment date for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
to December 31, 2024. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4),
the Serious area plan for this area must
contain quantitative milestones to be
achieved no later than December 31,
2017, December 31, 2020, December 31,
2023, and December 31, 2026.
2. Summary of State’s Submission
Appendix H (‘‘RFP, Quantitative
Milestones, and Contingency’’) of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the State’s RFP
demonstration and quantitative
milestones for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Following the identification of
a transcription error in the RFP tables of
Appendix H, the State submitted a
revised version of Appendix H that
corrects the transcription error and
provides additional information on the
RFP demonstration.398 Given the State’s
393 40
CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
FR 58010, 58064.
395 Id. at 58064 and 58092.
396 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
397 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
398 Appendix H to 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, submitted
February 11, 2020 via the EPA State Planning
Electronic Collaboration System. This revised
394 81
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17421
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
conclusions that ammonia, SOX, and
VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley, as discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble, the RFP
demonstration provided by the State
addresses emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX.399 Similarly, the State developed
quantitative milestones based upon the
Plan’s control strategy measures that
achieve emission reductions of direct
PM2.5 and NOX.400 For the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the RFP demonstration in the
Plan follows a stepwise approach due to
the time required for CARB and the
District ‘‘to amend rules, develop
programs, and implement the emission
reduction measures.’’ 401 The revised
Appendix H provides clarifying
information on the RFP demonstration,
including additional information to
justify the Plan’s stepwise approach to
demonstrating RFP. This clarifying
information did not affect the Plan’s
quantitative milestones.
We describe the RFP demonstration
and quantitative milestones in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan in greater detail below.
a. Reasonable Further Progress
The State addressed the RFP and
quantitative milestone requirements in
Appendix H to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
submitted in February 2020. The Plan
estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX will generally decline from the
2013 base year to the projected 2024
attainment year, and beyond to the 2026
quantitative milestone year. The Plan’s
emissions inventory shows that direct
PM2.5 and NOX are emitted by a large
number and range of sources in the San
Joaquin Valley. Table H–2 in Appendix
H contains an anticipated
implementation schedule for District
regulatory control measures and Table
4–8 in Chapter 4 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
contains an anticipated implementation
schedule for CARB control measures in
the San Joaquin Valley. Table H–5 in
Appendix H (reproduced in Table 10)
contains projected emissions for each
quantitative milestone year and the
attainment year. These emission levels
reflect both baseline emissions
projections and commitments to achieve
additional emission reductions through
implementation of new control
measures beginning in 2024.402
TABLE 10—PM2.5 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR BASE AND MILESTONE YEARS, INCLUDING BASELINE
MEASURES AND EMISSION REDUCTION COMMITMENTS
[Annual average tpd]
Pollutant
2013
2017
2020
2023
2024
2026
Baseline
year
Quantitative
milestone
Quantitative
milestone
Quantitative
milestone
Attainment
year
Quantitative
milestone
PM2.5 ........................................................
NOX ..........................................................
62.5
317.2
58.9
233.3
59.0
203.3
58.3
153.6
56.1
115.0
56.2
105.5
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Table H–5.
Table H–6 and Table H–7 of
Appendix H (reproduced in Table 11)
identify the reductions needed for
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
2024, and the San Joaquin Valley’s
progress toward attainment in each
milestone year.
TABLE 11—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT AND ACHIEVED IN EACH MILESTONE YEAR
[Annual average]
Reductions
needed for
attainment
(from 2013
baseline)
(tpd)
Pollutant
PM2.5 ........................................................
NOX ..........................................................
Percent reductions achieved in milestone year
2017
2020
2023
2024
2026 a
Quantitative
milestone
(percent)
Quantitative
milestone
(percent)
Quantitative
milestone
(percent)
Attainment
year
(percent)
Quantitative
milestone
(percent)
6.4
202.2
56.3
41.5
54.7
56.3
65.6
81.0
100
100
98.4
104.7
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H–6 and H–7.
a The EPA has made minor corrections to the calculated percentages for 2026 in Table H–7 of the 2018 PM
2.5 Plan.
Based on the data in Tables 10 and 11,
the State and District set RFP targets for
the attainment year and quantitative
milestone years as shown in Table H–
10 of Appendix H (reproduced in Table
12). The targets are consistent with a
stepwise approach to demonstrating
version of Appendix H replaces the version
submitted with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10,
2019. All references to Appendix H in this
proposed rule are to the revised version of
Appendix H submitted February 11, 2020.
399 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, H–1.
400 Id. at H–22 to H–23 (for State milestones) and
H–19 to H–20 (for District milestones).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
RFP. For direct PM2.5, significant
reductions between the 2013 baseline
and the 2017 milestone year
(approximately 56% of the reductions
needed for attainment) are consistent
with a generally linear approach to
demonstrating RFP. However, between
401 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–4.
App. H, see Tables H–3 (emission
projections based on baseline measures) and H–4
(reductions from control measure commitments).
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes commitments for
reductions from new control measures in 2024 and
2025. With respect to the projected emission
reductions for 2026, the District and CARB stated
402 In
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the 2017 and 2020 milestone years,
projected direct PM2.5 emissions
increase. Emissions of direct PM2.5
decrease by the 2023 milestone year but
fall short of the rate of reductions that
would show generally linear
in a conversation with EPA staff on January 6, 2020
that they assumed reductions achieved in 2026
would be similar to reductions committed to in
2024 and 2025. See memorandum dated January 6,
2020, from Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX Air
Planning Office, to docket number EPA–R09–OAR–
2019–0318.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17422
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
progress.403 The Plan relies on a more
substantial direct PM2.5 emission
reduction in 2024 due, in large part, to
the State’s and District’s commitments
to achieve additional PM2.5 emission
reductions from new measures in 2024.
Direct PM2.5 emissions are projected to
increase slightly in 2026.
For NOX, the emission projections
show steady reductions over time. The
projection for the 2017 milestone year is
consistent with a generally linear RFP
demonstration, but for the 2020 and
2023 milestone years, emission
reductions fall short of generally linear
progress toward attainment.404 The Plan
relies on a more substantial NOX
emission reduction in 2024 due, in large
part, to the State’s and District’s
commitments to achieve additional NOX
reductions from new measures that year.
NOX emissions are projected to continue
to decrease in the 2026 milestone year.
According to the Plan, reductions in
both direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions
from 2013 base year levels result in
emissions levels consistent with
attainment in the 2024 attainment year.
Based on these analyses, the State and
District conclude that the adopted
control strategy and additional
commitments for reductions from new
control programs beginning in 2024 are
adequate to meet the RFP requirement
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
TABLE 12—STEPWISE RFP TARGET EMISSION LEVELS AND PROJECTED EMISSION LEVELS FOR MILESTONE AND
ATTAINMENT YEARS
[Annual average tpd]
2017
2020
2024 a
2023
2026
Pollutant
Target
PM2.5 .................
NOX ...................
58.9
233.3
Projected
Target
58.9
233.3
Projected
59.0
203.3
Target
59.0
203.3
58.3
153.6
Projected
58.3
153.6
Target
Projected
56.1
115.0
56.1
115.0
Target b
56.2
105.5
Projected
56.2
105.5
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H–6 and H–10.
a Emissions targets and projections for the 2024 attainment year are provided in Table H–6 of the 2018 PM
2.5 Plan.
b Direct PM
2.5 emissions for 2026 are derived from the Plan’s projected emissions inventory (including baseline controls), less the 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions
that CARB and the District committed to achieve by 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H–3, H–4, and H–5.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The State and District’s control
strategy for attaining the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS relies primarily on ongoing
reductions from baseline measures,
recent revisions to the District’s
residential wood burning rule (Rule
4901), and an aggregate tonnage
commitment for the remaining
reductions needed for attainment. The
majority of the NOX and PM2.5
reductions needed for attainment result
from CARB’s current mobile source
control program. As shown in Table 11,
the attainment control strategy in the
Plan is projected to achieve a total of
202.2 tpd of NOX reductions by 2024, of
which 78% (157 tpd) is attributed to
CARB’s mobile source control
program.405 Similarly, the attainment
control strategy is projected to achieve
a total of 6.4 tpd of direct PM2.5
reductions by 2024, of which 72% (4.6
tpd) is attributed to CARB’s mobile
source control program.406 These ongoing controls will thus result in
additional reductions in NOX and direct
PM2.5 emissions between the base year
(2013) and the attainment year
(2024).407
CARB’s mobile source control
program provides significant ongoing
403 To show generally linear progress, direct PM
2.5
emissions would need to decrease by approximately
64% from the baseline year in 2020, and by
approximately 91% from the baseline year in 2023.
The actual decreases for these years are 55% in
2020, and 66% in 2023.
404 To show generally linear progress, NO
X
emissions would need to decrease by approximately
64% from the baseline year in 2020, and by
approximately 91% from the baseline year in 2023.
The actual decreases for these years are 56% in
2020, and 81% in 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX from on-road and non-road
mobile sources such as light duty
vehicles, heavy-duty trucks and buses,
non-road equipment, and fuels. For onroad and non-road mobile sources,
which represent the largest sources of
NOX emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley, Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan identifies five mobile source
regulations and control programs that
limit emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX:
The On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation (‘‘Truck
and Bus Regulation’’), the Advanced
Clean Cars Program (‘‘ACC Program’’),
the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled
Fleets Regulation (‘‘Off-Road
Regulation’’), the Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
and the California Low-NOX Engine
Standard for new on-road heavy-duty
engines used in medium- and heavyduty trucks purchased in California.408
CARB’s mobile source BACM and MSM
analysis in Appendix D of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan provides a more
comprehensive overview of each of
these programs and regulations, among
many others.409 CARB’s emission
405 Id.
at Chapter 4, Table 4–7.
406 Id.
407 Id.
at App. H, H–4.
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–21 and H–22.
Because the second phase of the Advanced Clean
Cars Program (‘‘ACC 2’’) is not scheduled for
implementation until 2026 (see 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
Table 4–8), which is after the January 1, 2024
implementation deadline under 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5) for control measures necessary for
attainment by December 31, 2024, we are not
408 2018
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
projections for mobile sources are
presented in the Plan’s emissions
inventory.410
The Truck and Bus Regulation, first
adopted in 2008 and amended in 2011,
has rolling compliance deadlines based
on truck engine model year (MY).
CARB’s implementation of the Truck
and Bus Regulation includes phase-in
requirements for PM2.5 and NOX
emissions reductions that began in 2012
and require nearly all pre-2010 vehicles
to have exhaust emissions meeting 2010
MY engine emission levels by 2023.411
The 2010 MY engines include
particulate filters for direct PM2.5
control. By 2016, the particulate filter
requirement for trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than
26,001 pounds was fully implemented
in the San Joaquin Valley and all
heavier trucks with 1995 and older
model year engines were required to
have a 2010 engine installed or replaced
by a truck with a 2010 MY engine.412
For non-road vehicles, CARB adopted
the Off-Road Regulation in 2007 to
regulate vehicles used in construction,
mining, and other industrial
applications. The Off-Road Regulation
requires owners to (1) replace older
reviewing this program as part of the control
strategy in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
409 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, Ch. IV.
410 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B.
411 The State’s quantitative milestone report for
the 2017 milestone indicates that the requirement
for heavier trucks to install diesel particulate filters
was fully implemented by 2016. CARB and
SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2017 Quantitative Milestone Report
for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS,’’ November 21, 2018
(‘‘2017 QM Report’’), 5.
412 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
engines or vehicles with newer, cleaner
models, (2) retire older vehicles or
reduce their use, or (3) apply retrofit
exhaust controls.413 Beginning in 2014
for large fleets and in 2017 for medium
fleets, non-road fleets are required to
meet increasingly stringent fleet average
indices over time.414 These indices
reflect a fleet’s overall PM and NOX
emissions rates by model year and
horsepower.
The District has also adopted
numerous stationary and area source
rules for direct PM2.5 and NOX emission
sources that are projected to contribute
to RFP and attainment of the PM2.5
standards. These include control
measures for stationary internal
combustion engines, residential
fireplaces, glass manufacturing
facilities, agricultural burning sources,
and various sizes of boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters used in
industrial operations. Appendix H of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies stationary
source regulatory control measures
implemented by the District that
achieve ongoing PM2.5 and/or NOX
reductions through the Plan’s RFP
milestone years and the attainment year,
including the following: Rule 4354
(‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’), Rule 4702
(Internal Combustion Engines’’), and
Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces
and Wood Burning Heaters’’).415
Rule 4354 was last amended in 2011
to lower certain limits on emissions of
NOX, SOX, and PM10 from container
glass, flat glass, and fiberglass
manufacturing facilities. Rule 4702 was
last amended in 2013 to lower the NOX
and SOX emission limits for various
types of internal combustion engines
rated at 25 brake horsepower or greater.
The District most recently amended
Rule 4901 in 2019 to lower the
thresholds at which ‘‘No Burn’’ days
will be imposed to limit direct PM2.5
emissions from high-polluting wood
burning heaters and fireplaces during
the November through February
timeframe in three ‘‘hot spot’’ counties
(Fresno, Kern, and Madera). These rules
contribute to incremental reductions in
emission of direct PM2.5 and NOX from
the 2013 base year to the 2017 and 2020
RFP milestone years.416 Additional
413 2017
QM Report, 8.
fleet average index is an indicator of a fleet’s
overall emissions rate of particulate matter and NOX
based on the horsepower and model year of each
engine in the fleet.
415 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H–2.
416 2017 QM Report, 2–3.
414 A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
District measures to control sources of
direct PM2.5 and NOX are also presented
in the Plan’s BACM/MSM analyses and
reflected in the Plan’s baseline emission
projections.417
For the remainder of the emission
reductions necessary for attainment, the
SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District
commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control
measures and incentive programs that
will contribute to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2024. For mobile
sources, CARB’s commitment identifies
a list of 12 regulatory measures and
three incentive-based measures that
CARB has committed to propose to its
Board for consideration by specific
dates.418 For stationary and area
sources, the District’s commitment
identifies a list of nine regulatory
measures and three incentive-based
measures that the District has
committed to propose to its Board for
consideration by specific dates.419 Both
CARB and the District have committed
to achieve specific amounts of
reductions in direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions by 2024, either through
implementation of these listed measures
or through implementation of other
control measures that achieve the
necessary amounts of emission
reductions by 2024.420
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan discusses a
number of additional control measures
that the District may adopt to meet its
aggregate tonnage commitment,
including additional control
requirements for flares; boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters of
various sizes; glass melting furnaces;
internal combustion engines;
conservation management practices for
agricultural operations; and commercial
under-fired charbroilers.421 In addition,
417 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B and App. C.
PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–8 and
CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5. Table
4–8 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan lists 14 State regulatory
measures but we are excluding from our review the
‘‘Advanced Clean Cars 2’’ measure and the ‘‘Cleaner
In-Use Agricultural Equipment’’ measure, because
these measures are scheduled for implementation in
2026 and 2030, respectively, well after the January
1, 2024 implementation deadline for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31,
2024. 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
419 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–4 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16
(November 15, 2018), 10–11.
420 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16 (November 15, 2018), 10–11 and CARB
Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
421 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, 4–12 and 4–15 to
4–22.
418 2018
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17423
the Plan states that the District intends
to use incentive programs to reduce
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX from
internal combustion engines used in
agricultural operations, commercial
under-fired charbroilers, and residential
woodburning devices.422 The 2018
PM2.5 Plan establishes deadlines
between 2018 and 2023 for CARB to
take action on and begin implementing
the 15 additional mobile source control
measures that CARB has committed to
propose to its Board 423 and similar
deadlines between 2019 and 2024 for
the District to take action on and begin
implementing the 12 additional District
control measures that the District has
committed to propose to its Board.424
The anticipated implementation
schedule for new District measures is
presented both in Table H–2 of
Appendix H and in tables 4–4 and 4–5
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and the
anticipated implementation schedule
for new CARB measures is presented in
Table 4–8 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. These
anticipated implementation schedules
are summarized in Table 13, below.
Although the commitment to achieve
reductions is based on an aggregate
commitment for total reductions in
2024, the State and District anticipate
implementing many of the measures in
Table 13 prior to these dates to achieve
the aggregate tonnage commitment.
Specifically, implementation of the
District’s revisions to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’) began in 2019, and
implementation of CARB’s lower
opacity limits for heavy-duty vehicles
began in 2018. Additionally, the District
anticipates implementing several
measures beginning in 2023 and CARB
anticipates implementing several
measures in 2020, 2022, and 2023.425
422 Id.
at 4–22 to 4–24.
PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–8 and
CARB Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5. The
EPA is excluding two State measures listed in Table
4–8 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the ‘‘Advanced Clean
Cars 2’’ measure and the ‘‘Cleaner In-Use
Agricultural Equipment’’ measure, because these
measures are scheduled for implementation in 2026
and 2030, respectively, well after the January 1,
2024 implementation deadline for control measures
necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024. 40
CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
424 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 4–4 and Table 4–5 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16
(November 15, 2018), 10–11.
425 For more detail on our evaluation of the
State’s and District’s aggregate commitments, see
section IV.D.4.b.ii of this preamble.
423 2018
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17424
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13—ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR STATE AND DISTRICT MEASURES
Implementation
begins
CARB measures
Lower In-Use Emission Performance Level:
Lower Opacity Limits for Heavy-Duty Vehicles ...................................................................................................................
Amended Warranty Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles ..............................................................................................
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program ................................................................................................
Low-NOX Engine Standard .........................................................................................................................................................
Innovative Clean Transit .............................................................................................................................................................
Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last Mile Delivery) ....................................................................................................................
Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses ..........................................................................................................................................
Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift Regulation Phase 1 .................................................................................................................
Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment ....................................................................................................................
Small Off-Road Engines ..............................................................................................................................................................
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage .................................................................................................................
Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Requirement .....................................................................................................................................
Accelerated Turnover of Trucks and Buses ...............................................................................................................................
Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment ........................................................................................................................
Accelerated Turnover of Off-Road Equipment ............................................................................................................................
2018–2024.
2022.
2022.
2023.
2020.
2020.
2023.
2023.
2023.
2022.
2020.
2023.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Implementation
begins
District measures
Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares’’) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Rule 4306 (‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’), Rule 4320 (‘‘Advanced Emission Reduction
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr’’).
Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal Combustion Engines’’) ...............................................................................................................................
Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’) .......................................................................................................................................
Rule 4352 (‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters’’) ....................................................................
Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation Management Practices’’) ..................................................................................................................
Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) (Hot-spot Strategy) ......................................................................................................
Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’) (Hot-spot Strategy) .......................................................
Replacement of Internal Combustion Engines used at Agricultural Operations ........................................................................
Installation of Commercial Under-fired Charbroiling Controls (Hot-spot Strategy) .....................................................................
Replacement of Residential Wood Burning Devices (Valley-wide and Hot-spot Strategy) .......................................................
2023.
2023.
2024.
2023.
2023.
2024.
2024.
2019.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4–4, Table 4–5, Table 4–8 and Appendix H, Table H–2.
Section H.1.3 of Appendix H of the
Plan provides the State’s and District’s
justifications for the stepwise approach
to meeting the RFP requirement and the
related implementation schedules for
new or revised control measures. These
justifications include the time needed to
engage in the rulemaking process,
including time for state and local public
processes; the need to provide time for
industry to comply with new regulatory
requirements; the need to resolve
feasibility issues for emerging
technologies; and, for CARB mobile
source measures, the need for affected
industries to prepare technologies and
infrastructure for market-scale adoption.
For example, Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan states that ‘‘time after rule
adoption will be necessary for unit
manufacturers and vendors to make
available compliant equipment, and for
facility operators to source, purchase,
and install new units or compliant
retrofit equipment. Dependent on the
source category, construction of controls
will include engineering, site
preparation and infrastructure upgrades,
unit installation, and operator training
on proper operation.’’ 426
426 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
We present below some of the
implementation challenges that the
State and District have identified as part
of their justification for meeting the RFP
requirement by the stepwise approach
in the Plan.
The new NOX control measures that
CARB and the District anticipate
implementing toward the end of the
attainment period can be found in Table
4–4, Table 4–5, and Table 4–8 of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan provides the following
explanation for the need to implement
the listed measures in a stepwise
manner:
‘‘The objective of many of CARB’s
new measures is to introduce or
advance innovative technologies in
early stages of development or market
penetration. In the case of technologyforcing regulations, . . . time is needed
by the affected industry to ready the
technologies, including infrastructure,
for market-scale adoption, and would
have been discussed previously by
CARB and stakeholders during the
measure development phase. The time
required to facilitate new and
innovative technologies is a principle
driver of the timeline for control
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
measure implementation CARB laid out
in Table 4–8.’’ 427
CARB provided more specific
information regarding two of these
measures on pages H–9 and H–10 of
Appendix H. For instance, the
development of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program
was affirmed by California legislative
action in 2019, and CARB is now
working on program design and
infrastructure to implement new
legislative direction.428 For the LowNOX Engine Standard, the
implementation timeline has been
influenced by a multi-year research
program to assess the feasibility of this
standard.
The new direct PM2.5 measures that
CARB and the District anticipate
implementing toward the end of the
attainment period can be found in Table
4–4, Table 4–5, and Table 4–8 of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. CARB’s additional
measures are expected to achieve 0.9
tpd of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions 429 and the District’s
427 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–8.
428 California Senate Bill 210, signed
20, 2019.
429 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 4–9.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
September
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
additional measures, including revised
rules for commercial charbroiling and
conservation management practices
(CMPs) for agricultural operations, are
expected to achieve 1.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in 2024.430
New or revised District measures are
thus expected to achieve a significant
portion of the State’s and District’s 2.2
tpd direct PM2.5 emission reduction
commitment for the 2024 attainment
year.
For example, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
shows that approximately one fourth of
the direct PM2.5 emission reductions
that the State and District have
committed to achieve by 2024 (0.53 of
2.2 tpd) are expected to result from a
planned revision to the District’s
commercial charbroiling rule (Rule
4692) that would contain control
requirements for under-fired
charbroilers (UFCs).431 The District
anticipates proposing this revised rule
to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board in
2020 and implementing it beginning in
2024.432 According to information
provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the costs associated with
retrofitting control technology onto
equipment at existing restaurants and
maintaining such equipment can be
prohibitively expensive, especially for
smaller restaurants.433 Because of
ongoing uncertainties about the
technological and economic feasibility
of controls for UFCs, the District has
adopted a set of registration and
reporting provisions in a revised version
of Rule 4692 that required owners and
operators of commercial cooking
operations with UFCs to register each
unit and to submit, by January 1, 2019,
a one-time informational report
providing information about the UFC
and its operations. CARB submitted this
revised rule to the EPA on November
16, 2018.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also shows that
a portion of the necessary direct PM2.5
emission reductions in 2024 (0.32 of 2.2
tpd) is expected to result from a revised
version of the District’s CMP rule (Rule
4550), which is designed to reduce
particulate emissions from agricultural
operations.434 The District anticipates
proposing this revised rule to the
SJVUAPCD Governing Board in 2022
and implementing it beginning in
2024.435 As explained in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, an important step
in developing effective PM2.5 controls
430 Id.
at Table 4–3.
at 4–19, 4–2 and Table 4–3.
432 Id. at Table 4–4.
433 Id. at C–209 to C–210.
434 Id. at Table 4–3.
435 Id. at Table 4–4.
431 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
for dust from agricultural operations is
to develop an understanding of the
effectiveness of CMPs on controlling
PM2.5 emissions in the Valley.’’ 436
Towards this end, the District intends to
work with stakeholders and researchers
to evaluate the feasibility and
effectiveness of additional control
measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions,
including: Tilling and other land
preparation activities; selection of
conservation tillage as a CMP for
croplands; and CMPs on fallow lands
that are tilled or otherwise worked with
implements of husbandry (e.g., a farm
tractor drawing a trailer with crops) to
reduce windblown PM emissions from
disturbed fallowed acreage.437
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies December 31 milestone dates
for the 2017, 2020, and 2023 milestone
years and for the 2026 post-attainment
milestone year.438 Appendix H also
identifies target emissions levels to meet
the RFP requirement for direct PM2.5
and NOX emissions for each of these
milestone years,439 as shown in Table
10, above, and control measures that the
State or District plan to implement by
each of these years, in accordance with
the control strategy in the Plan.440
The Plan includes quantitative
milestones for mobile, stationary, and
area sources. For mobile sources, the
State has developed quantitative
milestones that provide for evaluation of
RFP based on the implementation of
specific control measures by the
relevant three-year milestones. For the
first three quantitative milestones, the
Plan provides for evaluating RFP with
implementation of regulatory measures;
for the final post attainment date
quantitative milestone in 2026, the Plan
provides for evaluating RFP with
implementation of incentive
measures.441 For the 2017, 2020, and
2023 milestone years, the quantitative
milestones include implementation of
the Truck and Bus Regulation, which
requires particulate filters and cleaner
engines on existing trucks and buses, in
the years preceding each milestone year
436 The District is holding a series of workshops
from January to March 2020 with the stated goal of
‘‘assisting growers and dairy families in
understanding and complying with District Rule
4550.’’ SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Notice of Public Hearing for
Adoption of Proposed 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 Standards,’’ available at https://
www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2020/2020_
CMP/notice.pdf.
437 Id. at C–203.
438 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H–12.
439 Id. at Table H–5.
440 Id. at H–22 to H–23 (for State milestones) and
H–19 to H–20 (for District milestones).
441 Id. at H–22 to H–23.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17425
(i.e., between 2012–2017, 2017–2020,
and 2020–2023, respectively). Each of
these milestone years also includes
action on or implementation of certain
State measures for light-duty vehicles
and non-road vehicles as follows:
• 2017—Truck and Bus Regulation,
ACC Program, and Off-Road Regulation;
• 2020—Truck and Bus Regulation,
ACC 2: Reduced ZEV Brake and Tire
Wear, and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program;
and
• 2023—Truck and Bus Regulation
and the California Low-NOX Engine
Standard for new on-road heavy-duty
engines in medium- and heavy-duty
trucks bought in California.
For 2026, the Plan’s quantitative
milestone includes an update on the
State’s implementation of two incentive
programs, specifically, identification of
the number of trucks and buses turned
over to low-NOX or cleaner engines due
to the State’s Accelerated Turnover of
Trucks and Buses Measure, and
identification of the number of pieces of
agricultural equipment replaced with
Tier 4 engines due to the State’s
Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural
Equipment Measure.442
For stationary and area sources, the
District has developed quantitative
milestones that similarly include
updates on a combination of regulatory
measures and incentive measures. For
2017, the District’s quantitative
milestones are to report on its
implementation of six District measures:
2014 amendments to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’) and certain incentive
programs for direct PM2.5, Rule 4308
(‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters (0.075 to <2 MMBtu)’’),
2011 amendments to Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass
Melting Furnaces’’), 2013 amendments
to Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal Combustion
Engines’’), Rule 4902 (‘‘Residential
Water Heaters’’), and Rule 4905
(‘‘Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type,
Residential Central Furnaces’’).443
For the 2020, 2023, and 2026
milestone years, the District’s
quantitative milestones are to report on
the status of measures proposed and/or
adopted during the preceding three
years according to the schedule in the
Plan.444 Consistent with the State and
District’s control strategy in Chapter 4 of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District’s
quantitative milestones include updates
on the status of the District’s residential
wood burning strategy (both the 2019
amendments to Rule 4901 and incentive
442 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–22.
at H–19.
444 Id. at H–19 to H–20.
443 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17426
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
projects for residential wood burning
devices), the District’s incentive-based
strategy for commercial under-fired
charbroilers, and the regulatory
measures scheduled for SJVUAPCD
Board consideration during the three
years preceding the following milestone
years:
• 2020—Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares), Rules
4306/4320 (large boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters), Rule
4702 (‘‘Internal Combustion Engines’’),
and Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Underfired Charbroilers’’); and
• 2023—Rules 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting
Furnaces’’), 4352 (‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired
Boilers, Steam Generators and Process
Heaters’’), and Rule 4550
(‘‘Conservation Management
Practices’’).445
We note that CARB submitted its 2017
Quantitative Milestone Report to the
EPA on December 20, 2018.446 This
report includes a certification that
CARB and the District met the 2017
quantitative milestones for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and discusses the State’s and
District’s progress on implementing the
three CARB measures and six District
measures identified in Appendix H as
quantitative milestones for the 2017
milestone year.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Reasonable Further Progress
We have evaluated the RFP
demonstration in Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan and, for the following
reasons, propose to find that it satisfies
the statutory and regulatory
requirements for RFP. First, the Plan
contains an anticipated implementation
schedule for the attainment control
strategy, including all BACM, BACT,
and MSM control measures and the
State’s and District’s aggregate tonnage
commitments, as required by 40 CFR
51.1012(a)(1). The implementation
schedule is found in Table 4–4, Table 4–
5, and Table 4–8 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and in Table H–2 of Appendix H. The
2018 PM2.5 Plan documents the State’s
and District’s conclusion that they are
implementing all BACM, BACT, and
MSM for direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions in the Valley as expeditiously
as practicable.447
445 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4–4 and 4–5.
from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, with attachment,
December 20, 2018.
447 The BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy
that provides the basis for these emissions
projections is described in Chapter 4, App. C, and
App. D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
446 Letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Second, the RFP demonstration
contains projected emission levels for
direct PM2.5 and NOX for each
applicable milestone year as required by
40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). These projections
are based on continued implementation
of the existing control measures in the
area (i.e., baseline measures), recent
revisions to the District’s residential
wood burning rule (Rule 4901), and
commitments to achieve additional
reductions from new measures in 2024,
and reflect full implementation of the
State’s, District’s, and MPOs’ attainment
control strategy for these pollutants.
With regard to the 2026 milestone year,
we note that the projection is based on
reductions from baseline measures and
on an assumption that the amount of
reductions from new control measures
that will be achieved in 2026 is the
same as those achieved in 2024 and
2025.
Third, the projected emissions levels
based on the implementation schedule
in the Plan demonstrate that the control
strategy will achieve reasonable further
progress toward attainment between the
2013 baseline year and the 2024
attainment year as required by 40 CFR
51.1012(a)(3). Tables 11 and 12 of this
proposed rule show decreases in
emissions levels in each milestone year,
leading to the achievement of the
reductions required for attainment in
2024. Although the direct PM2.5
emissions increase slightly (0.1 tpd)
over attainment year levels in the 2026
post-attainment milestone year, we
expect that this small emissions
increase will have de minimis impacts
on the area’s attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows
that overall pollutant emissions will be
at levels that reflect stepwise progress
between the base year and the
attainment year and provides a
justification for the selected
implementation schedule, as required
by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4). The steeper
decline in emissions in 2024 is
primarily due to a commitment by the
State and District to achieve reductions
from new control measures beginning in
2024. The State’s and District’s
justifications for their selected
implementation schedules, i.e., for the
delay to 2024 in their respective
commitments to achieve emissions
reductions from new or revised control
measures, include the time needed for
rulemaking processes, the time needed
for industry to comply with new
regulatory requirements, the need to
resolve feasibility issues for emerging
technologies, and the time needed to
prepare technologies and infrastructure
for market-scale adoption.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We note that although both the State
and District have committed to propose
to their respective boards certain new or
revised control measures in the years
leading up to the 2024 attainment year,
the only enforceable commitment in the
Plan that requires adoption of control
measures is the tonnage commitment for
2024, which provides the basis for the
stepwise approach to RFP. Because of
the size of the tonnage commitments for
the 2024 attainment year, and the
absence of commitments to adopt
measures or achieve emission
reductions in earlier years, we request
comment on whether additional
enforceable commitments for regulatory
action to implement emission controls
in the interim years (i.e., in 2022 or
2023) are necessary to ensure that the
stepwise approach to emission
reductions in the Plan is consistent with
reasonable further progress toward
expeditious attainment. Such
commitments may include
commitments to achieve specified
amounts of emission reductions before
2024 (i.e., aggregate tonnage
commitments) or commitments to adopt
specific new or revised control
measures by specific dates before 2024,
and may provide a basis for reducing
the size of the total tonnage
commitment for the 2024 attainment
year.
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies milestone dates (i.e.,
December 31 of 2017, 2020, 2023, and
2026) that are consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4)
and target emissions levels for direct
PM2.5 and NOX to be achieved by these
milestone dates through implementation
of the Plan’s control strategy. These
target emission levels and associated
control requirements provide for
objective evaluation of the area’s
progress towards attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State’s quantitative milestones in
Appendix H are to take action on or to
implement specific measures listed in
the State’s control measure
commitments that apply to heavy-duty
trucks and buses, light-duty vehicles,
and non-road equipment sources and
may provide substantial reductions in
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX from
mobile sources in the San Joaquin
Valley. Similarly, the District’s
quantitative milestones in Appendix H
are to take action on or to implement
specific measures listed in the District’s
control measure commitments that
apply to sources such as residential
wood burning, commercial charbroiling,
conservation management practices,
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
glass melting furnaces, and internal
combustion engines and that may
provide substantial reductions in
emission of direct PM2.5 and NOX from
stationary sources. These milestones
provide an objective means for tracking
the State’s and District’s progress in
implementing their respective control
measure and aggregate tonnage
commitments and, thus, provide for
objective evaluation of the San Joaquin
Valley’s progress toward timely
attainment.
For these reasons, we propose to
determine that the SJV PM2.5 Plan
satisfies the requirements for
quantitative milestones in CAA section
189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013 for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the
SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of
the NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of the standards. Conformity
to the SIP’s goals means that such
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen
the severity of an existing violation, or
(3) delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the EPA’s
transportation conformity rule, codified
at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A
(‘‘Transportation Conformity Rule’’).
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
(MVEBs or ‘‘budgets’’) contained in all
control strategy plans applicable to the
area. An attainment or maintenance
plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should
include budgets for the attainment year,
each required RFP milestone year, or the
last year of the maintenance plan, as
appropriate, for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors subject to transportation
conformity analyses. Budgets are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
generally established for specific years
and specific pollutants or precursors
and must reflect all of the motor vehicle
control measures contained in the
attainment and RFP demonstrations.448
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, Serious area PM2.5 attainment
plans must include appropriate
quantitative milestones and projected
RFP emission levels for direct PM2.5 and
all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year.449 For an area
designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015,
the attainment plan must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved
no later than three years after December
31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter
until the milestone date that falls within
three years after the applicable
attainment date.450 As the EPA
explained in the preamble to the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, it is important
to include a post-attainment year
quantitative milestone to ensure that, if
the area fails to attain by the attainment
date, the EPA can continue to monitor
the area’s progress toward attainment
while the state develops a new
attainment plan.451 Although the postattainment year quantitative milestone
is a required element of a Serious area
plan, it is not necessary to demonstrate
transportation conformity for 2026 or to
use the 2026 budgets in transportation
conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
PM2.5 plans should identify budgets
for direct PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5
precursors for which on-road emissions
are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for
each RFP milestone year and the
attainment year, if the plan
demonstrates attainment. All direct
PM2.5 SIP budgets should include direct
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from
tailpipes, brake wear, and tire wear.
With respect to PM2.5 from re-entrained
road dust and emissions of VOC, SO2,
and/or ammonia, the transportation
conformity provisions of 40 CFR part
93, subpart A, apply only if the EPA
Regional Administrator or the director
of the state air agency has made a
finding that emissions of these
pollutants within the area are a
significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem and has so
notified the MPO and Department of
Transportation (DOT), or if the
applicable implementation plan (or
448 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
CFR 51.1012(a), 51.1013(a)(1).
450 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and 81 FR 58010, 58058
and 58063–58064 (August 24, 2016).
451 81 FR 58010, 58063–58064.
449 40
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17427
implementation plan submission)
includes any of these pollutants in the
approved (or adequate) budget as part of
the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.452
By contrast, transportation conformity
requirements apply with respect to
emissions of NOX unless both the EPA
Regional Administrator and the director
of the state air agency have made a
finding that transportation-related
emissions of NOX within the
nonattainment area are not a significant
contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment
problem and have so notified the MPO
and DOT, or the applicable
implementation plan (or
implementation plan submission) does
not establish an approved (or adequate)
budget for such emissions as part of the
RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.453
It is not always necessary for states to
establish motor vehicle emissions
budgets for all of the PM2.5 precursors.
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule allows
a state to demonstrate that emissions of
certain precursors do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the NAAQS in a nonattainment area, in
which case the state may exclude such
precursor(s) from its control evaluations
for the specific NAAQS at issue. If a
state successfully demonstrates that the
emissions of one or more of the PM2.5
precursors from all sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
in the subject area, then it is not
necessary to establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for that precursor(s).
Alternatively, the transportation
conformity regulations contain criteria
for determining whether emissions of
one or more PM2.5 precursors are
insignificant for transportation
conformity purposes.454 For a pollutant
or precursor to be considered an
insignificant contributor based on the
transportation conformity rule’s criteria,
the control strategy SIP must
demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that such an area
would experience enough motor vehicle
emissions growth in that pollutant and/
or precursor for a NAAQS violation to
occur. Insignificance determinations are
based on factors such as air quality, SIP
motor vehicle control measures, trends
and projections of motor vehicle
emissions, and the percentage of the
total attainment plan emissions
inventory for the NAAQS at issue that
is comprised of motor vehicle
452 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and
93.122(f); see also Conformity Rule preamble at 69
FR 40004, 40031–36 (July 1, 2004).
453 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
454 40 CFR 93.109(f).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
17428
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
emissions. The EPA’s rationale for
providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July
1, 2004 revision to the Transportation
Conformity Rule.455
Transportation conformity trading
mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR
93.124 where a state establishes
appropriate mechanisms for such trades.
The basis for the trading mechanism is
the SIP attainment modeling that
establishes the relative contribution of
each PM2.5 precursor pollutant. The
applicability of emission trading
between conformity budgets for
conformity purposes is described in 40
CFR 93.124(c).
The EPA’s process for determining the
adequacy of a budget consists of three
basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of
a SIP submittal; (2) providing the public
the opportunity to comment on the
budgets during a public comment
period; and (3) making a finding of
adequacy or inadequacy.456 The EPA
can notify the public by either posting
an announcement that the EPA has
received SIP budgets on the EPA’s
adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)),
or through a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking when the EPA
reviews the adequacy of an
implementation plan budget
simultaneously with its review and
action on the SIP itself (40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)).
2. Summary of State’s Submission
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets
for direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for
each RFP milestone year (2017, 2020,
and 2023), the projected attainment year
(2024), and one post-attainment year
quantitative milestone (2026).457 The
Plan establishes separate direct PM2.5
and NOX subarea budgets for each
county, or partial county (for Kern
County), in the San Joaquin Valley.458
CARB calculated the budgets using
EMFAC2014,459 CARB’s latest version
of the EMFAC model for estimating
emissions from on-road vehicles
operating in California that was
available at the time of Plan
development, and the latest modeled
vehicle miles traveled and speed
distributions from the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs from the Final 2017
Federal Transportation Improvement
Plan, adopted in September 2016. The
budgets reflect winter average emissions
because those emissions are linked with
the District’s attainment demonstration
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Consistent with the requirements set
forth in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, the SJV PM2.5 Plan contains RFP
budgets for 2026, which is the year
following the attainment year. As
explained below, we are not taking
action on the 2026 budgets at this time.
The EPA is also not reviewing the
submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2017. These budgets would
not be used in any future transportation
conformity determinations because the
plan contains budgets for 2020 and
other years in the future.
The direct PM2.5 budgets include
tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear
emissions but do not include paved
road dust, unpaved road dust, and road
construction dust emissions.460 The
State did not include budgets for VOC,
SO2, or ammonia. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the State
submitted a PM2.5 precursor
demonstration documenting that control
of these precursors would not
significantly contribute to attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA is
proposing to approve the precursor
demonstration. Therefore, if the EPA
approves the demonstration, the State
would not be required to submit budgets
for these precursors. The State included
a discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for ammonia, SO2,
and VOC, which would demonstrate a
finding of insignificance under the
transportation conformity rule.461 The
State is not required to include reentrained road dust in the budgets
under section 93.103(b)(3) unless the
EPA or the State has made a finding that
these emissions are significant. Neither
the State nor the EPA has made such a
finding. The Plan does include a
discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for re-entrained
road dust.462 The budgets included in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are shown in Table
14.
TABLE 14—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 STANDARD
[Winter average, tpd]
2017
2020
2023
2024
2026
Budget year
PM2.5
Fresno ...............
Kern ...................
Kings .................
Madera ..............
Merced ..............
San Joaquin ......
Stanislaus ..........
NOX
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
PM2.5
29.3
28.7
5.9
5.5
11.0
15.5
12.3
NOX
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
PM2.5
25.9
23.8
4.9
4.4
9.1
12.3
9.8
NOX
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
15.5
13.6
2.9
2.6
5.5
7.9
6.2
PM2.5
NOX
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
15.0
13.4
2.8
2.5
5.3
7.6
6.0
PM2.5
NOX
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
14.3
12.8
2.7
2.3
4.9
6.9
5.6
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3–2. Budgets are rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton.
Note: We are not proposing any action at this time on the 2017 RFP or the 2026 post-attainment year RFP budgets.
In the submittal letter for the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that the
EPA limit the duration the approval of
the budgets to the period before the
effective date of the EPA’s adequacy
455 69
FR 40004.
CFR 93.118(f).
457 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3–2.
458 40 CFR 93.124(c) and (d).
459 EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA
announced the availability of the EMFAC2014
model for use in state implementation plan
development and transportation conformity in
456 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets.463
Conformity Trading Mechanism
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a
proposed trading mechanism for
California on December 14, 2015. The EPA’s
approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model for
SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the
date of publication of the notice in the Federal
Register. EMFAC2014 must be used for all new
regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10 and
PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
transportation conformity analyses that
would allow future decreases in NOX
emissions from on-road mobile sources
to offset any on-road increases in direct
PM2.5 emissions. For the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the State is proposing to use
December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace
period for EMFAC2014.
460 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–122 to D–123.
461 40 CFR 93.109(f).
462 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–121 and D–122.
463 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 3.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the 2:1 NOX: PM2.5 ratio. The ratio is
based on a sensitivity analysis based on
a 30% reduction of NOX or PM2.5
emissions and the corresponding impact
on design values at sites in Bakersfield
and Fresno.
To ensure that the trading mechanism
does not affect the ability of the San
Joaquin Valley to meet the NOX budget,
the NOX emission reductions available
to supplement the PM2.5 budget would
only be those remaining after the NOX
budget has been met.464 The Plan also
provides that the San Joaquin Valley
MPOs shall clearly document the
calculations used in the trading, along
with any additional reductions of NOX
and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
The EPA generally first conducts a
preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or
maintenance plan for PM2.5 for
adequacy, prior to taking action on the
plan itself, and did so with respect to
the PM2.5 budgets in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. On June 18, 2019, the EPA
announced the availability of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day
public comment period. This
announcement was posted on the EPA’s
Adequacy website at: https://
www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/state-implementationplans-sip-submissions-currently-underepa. The comment period for this
notification ended on July 18, 2019. We
did not receive any comments during
this comment period.
Based on our proposal to approve the
State’s demonstration that emissions of
ammonia, SO2, and VOCs do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, and the
information about ammonia, SO2, and
VOC emissions in the Plan, the EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary
to establish motor vehicle emissions
budgets for transportation-related
emissions of ammonia, SO2, and VOC to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley. Based on the
information about re-entrained road
dust in the Plan and in accordance with
40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the EPA proposes
to find that it is not necessary to include
re-entrained road dust emissions in the
budgets for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley.
For the reasons discussed in sections
IV.D and IV.E of this proposed rule, the
EPA is proposing to approve the RFP
464 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D–126 and D–127.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
and attainment demonstrations,
respectively, in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
The 2020 and 2023 RFP budgets and
2024 attainment budgets, as shown in
Table 14 of this preamble, are consistent
with these demonstrations, are clearly
identified and precisely quantified, and
meet all other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements including the
adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and (5). For these reasons, the EPA
proposes to approve the budgets listed
in Table 14. We provide a more detailed
discussion in section IV of the EPA’s
General Evaluation TSD. We are not
proposing to approve the 2017 budget or
the post-attainment year 2026 RFP
budget at this time. The budgets that the
EPA is proposing to approve relate to
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only,
and our proposed approval does not
affect the status of the previouslyapproved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and related trading mechanism,
which remain in effect for that PM2.5
NAAQS.
Although the post-attainment year
quantitative milestone is a required
element of the Serious area plan, it is
not necessary to demonstrate
transportation conformity for 2026 or to
use the 2026 budgets in transportation
conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is not
taking action on the submitted budgets
for 2026 in the SJV PM2.5 Plan at this
time. Additionally, the EPA has not yet
started the adequacy process for the
2026 budgets.
If the EPA were either to find
adequate or to approve the postattainment milestone year budgets now,
those budgets would have to be used in
transportation conformity
determinations that are made after the
effective date of the adequacy finding or
approval even if the San Joaquin Valley
ultimately attains the PM2.5 NAAQS by
the Serious area attainment date. This
would mean that the San Joaquin Valley
MPOs would be required to demonstrate
conformity for the post-attainment date
milestone year and all later years
addressed in the conformity
determination (e.g., the last year of the
metropolitan transportation plan) to the
post-attainment date RFP budgets rather
than the budgets associated with the
attainment year for the area (i.e., the
budgets for 2024). The EPA does not
believe that it is necessary to
demonstrate conformity using these
post-attainment year budgets in areas
that either the EPA anticipates will
attain by the attainment date or in areas
that attain by the attainment date.
If and when the EPA determines that
the San Joaquin Valley has failed to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17429
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date, the
EPA would begin the budget adequacy
and approval processes for the postattainment year (2026) budgets. If the
EPA finds the 2026 budgets adequate or
approves them, those budgets will have
to be used in subsequent transportation
conformity determinations. The EPA
believes that initiating the process to act
on the submitted post-attainment year
MVEBs following a determination that
the area has failed to attain by the
Serious area attainment date ensures
that transportation activities will not
cause or contribute to new violations,
increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment or any required interim
emission reductions or milestones in the
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area, consistent with the requirements
of CAA section 176(c)(1)(B).
As noted above, the State included a
trading mechanism to be used in
transportation conformity analyses that
would be used in conjunction with the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as
allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124(b).
This trading mechanism would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from
on-road mobile sources to offset any onroad increases in PM2.5, using a 2:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio. To ensure that the
trading mechanism does not affect the
ability to meet the NOX budget, the Plan
provides that the NOX emission
reductions available to supplement the
PM2.5 budget would only be those
remaining after the NOX budget has
been met. The San Joaquin Valley MPOs
will have to document clearly the
calculations used in the trading when
demonstrating conformity, along with
any additional reductions of NOX and
PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis. The trading calculations must
be performed prior to the final rounding
to demonstrate conformity with the
budgets.
The EPA has reviewed the trading
mechanism as described on pages D–
125 through D–127 in Appendix D of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and finds it is
appropriate for transportation
conformity purposes in the San Joaquin
Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The methodology for
estimating the trading ratio for
conformity purposes is essentially an
update (based on newer modeling) of
the approach that the EPA previously
approved for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 465 and the 2012
465 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) (noting
the EPA’s prior approval of MVEBs for the 1997
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
Continued
27MRP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
17430
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.466 The State’s approach in the
previous plans was to model the
ambient PM2.5 effect of areawide NOX
emissions reductions and of areawide
direct PM2.5 reductions, and to express
the ratio of these modeled sensitivities
as an interpollutant trading ratio.
In the updated analysis for the 2018
PM2.5 plan, the State completed separate
sensitivity analyses for the annual and
24-hour standards and modeled only
transportation related sources in the
nonattainment area. The ratio the State
is proposing to use for transportation
conformity purposes is derived from air
quality modeling that evaluated the
effect of reductions in transportationrelated NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the
San Joaquin Valley on ambient
concentrations at the BakersfieldCalifornia Avenue, Bakersfield-Planz,
Fresno-Garland, and Fresno-Hamilton &
Winery monitoring sites. The modeling
that the State performed to evaluate the
effectiveness of NOX and PM2.5
reductions on ambient 24-hour
concentrations showed NOX:PM2.5 ratios
that range from a high of 2.3 at the
Bakersfield-California Avenue monitor
to a low of 1.6 at the Fresno-Hamilton
& Winery monitor.467 We find that the
State’s approach is a reasonable method
to use to develop ratios for
transportation conformity purposes. We
therefore propose to approve the 2:1
NOX for PM2.5 trading mechanism as
enforceable components of the
transportation conformity program for
the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. If approved, this trading
ratio will replace the 8:1 NOX for PM2.5
trading ratio approved for the San
Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under the transportation conformity
rule, once budgets are approved, they
cannot be superseded by revised
budgets submitted for the same CAA
purpose and the same year(s) addressed
by the previously approved SIP until the
EPA approves the revised budgets as a
SIP revision. In other words, as a
general matter, such approved budgets
cannot be superseded by revised
budgets found adequate, but rather only
through approval of the revised budgets,
unless the EPA specifies otherwise in its
approval of a SIP by limiting the
duration of the approval to last only
until subsequently submitted budgets
are found adequate.468
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 69896).
466 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
467 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–126.
468 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
In the submittal letter for the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that we
limit the duration our approval of the
budgets to the period before the
effective date of the EPA’s adequacy
finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets.469 The transportation
conformity rule allows us to limit the
approval of budgets.470 However, we
will consider a state’s request to limit an
approval of its MVEBs only if the
request includes the following
elements: 471
• An acknowledgement and
explanation as to why the budgets under
consideration have become outdated or
deficient;
• A commitment to update the
budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP
update; and
• A request that the EPA limit the
duration of its approval to the period
before new budgets have been found to
be adequate for transportation
conformity purposes.
CARB’s request includes an
explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or
deficient. In short, CARB has requested
that we limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets in light of the
EPA’s recent approval of EMFAC2017,
an updated version of the model
(EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.472 EMFAC2017
updates vehicle mix and emissions data
of the previously approved version of
the model, EMFAC2014.
In light of the EPA’s approval of
EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, which
we are proposing to approve in today’s
action, will become outdated and will
need to be revised using EMFAC2017.
In addition, CARB states that, without
the ability to replace the budgets using
the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may
not be realized for a year or more after
the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017derived budgets) is submitted, due to
the length of the SIP approval process.
We find that CARB’s explanation for
limiting the duration of the approval of
the budgets is appropriate and provides
us with a reasonable basis for limiting
the duration of the approval of the
budgets.
469 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 3.
470 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
471 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting
our prior approval of MVEBs in certain California
SIPs.
472 On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and
announced the availability of EMFAC2017, the
latest update to the EMFAC model for use by the
State and local governments to meet CAA
requirements. 84 FR 41717.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We note that CARB has not
committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as
a practical matter, CARB must submit a
SIP revision that includes updated
demonstrations as well as the updated
budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).473 Therefore, we do
not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons
provided above, and in light of CARB’s
explanation for why the budgets will
become outdated and should be
replaced upon an adequacy finding for
updated budgets, we propose to limit
the duration of our approval of the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to the
period before we find revised budgets
based on EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
G. Major Stationary Source Control
Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the Act specifically
requires that the control requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of
direct PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors,
except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the standards in the area.474
The control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of direct PM2.5
in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements
of a nonattainment NSR permit program
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(5) and 189(b)(3).475 As
part of our January 20, 2016 final action
to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley area
as Serious nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 standards, we established a
February 21, 2017 deadline for the State
to submit nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions addressing the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the
Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the
extent those requirements had not
already been met by the nonattainment
NSR SIP revisions due May 7, 2016 for
purposes of implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.476
California submitted nonattainment
NSR SIP revisions to address the
subpart 4 requirements for the San
473 Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not
find a budget in a submitted SIP to be adequate
unless, among other criteria, the budgets, when
considered together with all other emissions
sources, are consistent with applicable
requirements for RFP and attainment. 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv).
474 General Preamble at 13539 and 13541–42.
475 CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious
area plans include provisions submitted to meet the
requirements for Moderate areas in section
189(a)(1)).
476 81 FR 2993, 2994 (January 20, 2016) and 40
CFR 52.245(e).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Joaquin Valley Serious PM2.5
nonattainment area on November 20,
2019.477 We are not proposing any
action on this submission at this time.
We will act on this submission through
a separate rulemaking, as appropriate.
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this
proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve,
as a revision to the California SIP, the
following portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
• The 2013 base year emission
inventories (CAA section 172(c)(3));
• the demonstration that BACM,
including BACT, for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
will be implemented no later than 4
years after the area was reclassified
(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
• the demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the Plan provides
for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December
31, 2024 (CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and
188(e));
• plan provisions that require RFP
toward attainment by the applicable
date (CAA section 172(c)(2));
• quantitative milestones that are to
be achieved every three years until the
area is redesignated attainment and that
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (CAA
section 189(c));
• motor vehicle emissions budgets for
2020, 2023, and 2024 as shown in Table
14 of this proposed rule (CAA section
176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A);
and
• the inter-pollutant trading
mechanism provided for use in
transportation conformity analyses for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.124(b).
The EPA is proposing to grant the
State’s request for extension of the
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
477 Letter dated November 15, 2019 from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
California previously submitted nonattainment NSR
SIP revisions for the San Joaquin Valley to address
the subpart 4 requirements for Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas, and the EPA approved these
SIP revisions on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55637).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Mar 26, 2020
Jkt 250001
Serious area attainment date from
December 31, 2019, to December 31,
2024, based on a conclusion that the
State has satisfied the requirements for
such extensions in section 188(e) of the
Act. We may, however, reconsider this
proposal or deny California’s request to
extend the attainment date if the EPA
concludes based on new information or
public comments that the State has not
satisfied the requirements for such
extensions.
The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state plans
as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
For these reasons, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
17431
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon
monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
John W. Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020–05914 Filed 3–26–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM
27MRP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 60 (Friday, March 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17382-17431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05914]
[[Page 17381]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 60
March 27, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17382]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318; FRL-10006-40-Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'')
proposes to approve portions of two state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious nonattainment
area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve those portions of the
``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards''
and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for
the State Implementation Plan'' that pertain to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and address CAA requirements for Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA also proposes to approve
inter-pollutant trading ratios for use in transportation conformity
analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of this action,
the EPA proposes to grant an extension of the Serious area attainment
date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024 based on a proposed
determination that the State has satisfied the statutory criteria for
this extension. We may, however, reconsider this proposal or deny
California's request for extension of the attainment date if, based on
new information or public comments, we find that the State has not
satisfied the statutory criteria for this extension.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0318, at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary and Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Plan
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area
Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
B. Requirements for Extension of a Serious Area Attainment Date
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area
Plan and Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
B. PM2.5 Precursors
C. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section
188(e)
E. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
G. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA
Section 189(e)
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS
for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([micro]m) in
diameter (PM2.5) by lowering the level from 65 micrograms
([micro]g) per cubic meter (m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.\1\ The 24-hour
standards are based on a three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations. The EPA established these standards
after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 71 Federal Register (FR) 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR
50.13. In promulgating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
retained the level of the 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7.
Subsequently, the EPA strengthened the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\
while retaining the secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the
level of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40
CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5
NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 2006 24-hour standards
(35 [micro]g/m\3\) as codified in 40 CFR 50.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature
mortality. Other important health effects associated with
PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, and new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular
health. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure
include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and
children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or direct
PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary
PM2.5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 81 FR 58010, 58011 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective December 14,
2009, the EPA finalized initial air quality designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the
three-year periods of 2005-2007 and 2006-2008.\4\ The EPA designated
the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San
Joaquin Valley as a Moderate nonattainment area for these NAAQS,
thereby establishing December 31, 2015 as the
[[Page 17383]]
latest permissible attainment date for the area under section 188(c)(1)
of the CAA.\6\ Effective February 19, 2016, the EPA reclassified the
San Joaquin Valley as a Serious nonattainment area for these NAAQS.\7\
Shortly thereafter, the EPA approved the State's demonstration that it
was impracticable to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date and related plan
elements addressing the Moderate area requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\5\ Id. (codified at 40 CFR 81.305). The most recent 24-hour
design value (2016-2018) for the San Joaquin Valley is 65 [micro]g/
m\3\. EPA design value workbook dated July 18, 2019, worksheet
``Table 1b.''
\6\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). The EPA promulgated these
PM2.5 nonattainment area classifications in response to a
2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding
the EPA's prior implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS
and directing the EPA to repromulgate implementation rules pursuant
to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\7\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
\8\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area, the San Joaquin Valley became subject to a new statutory
attainment date no later than the end of the tenth calendar year
following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019) and the requirement to
submit a Serious area plan satisfying the requirements of CAA Title I,
part D, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\ As explained in the EPA's final
reclassification action, the Serious area plan for the San Joaquin
Valley must include, among other things, provisions to assure that,
under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), the best available control measures
(BACM) for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the area
is reclassified and a demonstration (including air quality modeling)
that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
and no later than the applicable attainment date. The EPA established
an August 21, 2017 deadline for California to adopt and submit a SIP
submission addressing the Serious nonattainment area requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\10\ The EPA also noted that California
may choose to submit a request for an extension of the December 31,
2019, Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e)
simultaneously with its submission of a Serious area plan for the
area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 81 FR 2993, 2998.
\10\ Id. at 3000 and 81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (codified at 40
CFR 52.247(f)).
\11\ 81 FR 2993, 2998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described further in section III.B of this preamble, CAA section
188(e) allows the EPA to extend the attainment date for a Serious area
by up to five years if attainment by the Serious area attainment date
is impracticable. However, before the Agency may grant an extension of
the attainment date, the State must first:
(1) Apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM2.5
attainment date beyond 2019,
(2) demonstrate that attainment by 2019 is impracticable,
(3) have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to
the area in its implementation plan,
(4) demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that its
Serious area plan includes the most stringent measures that are
achieved in practice in any state and are feasible for the area, and
(5) submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area
encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight
counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare,
Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.\12\ The area is home to four
million people and is the nation's leading agricultural region.
Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles
wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west,
the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to
the east. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD or District) has primary responsibility for developing plans
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in this area. The District works
cooperatively with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in
preparing attainment plans. Authority for regulating sources under
state jurisdiction in the San Joaquin Valley is split between the
District, which has responsibility for regulating stationary and most
area sources, and CARB, which has responsibility for regulating most
mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2018, CARB submitted to the EPA substantial
portions of the Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
following CARB's adoption of one component of the plan on October 25,
2018 and the SJVUAPCD's adoption of a second component of it on
November 15, 2018.\13\ Because CARB had not yet adopted this submission
in its entirety, the EPA determined that it did not meet the EPA's
completeness requirements for SIP submissions under 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V, section 2.1.\14\ The EPA's incompleteness findings became
effective on January 7, 2019, and triggered clocks for the application
of emissions offset sanctions for new or modified major stationary
sources in the San Joaquin Valley 18 months after the effective date of
the findings and highway funding sanctions six months thereafter,
unless the EPA affirmatively determines that the State has submitted a
complete SIP addressing the deficiency that was the basis for these
findings, consistent with CAA section 179(b) and the EPA's sanctions
sequencing rule in 40 CFR 52.31.\15\ These findings also triggered the
obligation under CAA section 110(c) on the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan no later than two years after the effective date of
the findings, unless the State has submitted, and the EPA has approved,
the required SIP submittal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Kurt Karperos, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\14\ 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018). The EPA made these findings
in response to a court order issued in Committee for a Better Arvin,
et al., v. Andrew Wheeler, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05700-RS (N.D.
Cal., October 24, 2018).
\15\ 83 FR 62720, 62723.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary and Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Plan
The EPA is proposing action on portions of two SIP revisions
submitted by CARB to meet the Serious nonattainment area requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to act on those portions of the
following two plan submissions that pertain to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS: The ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 Standards,'' adopted by the SJVUAPCD on November 15,
2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019 (``2018 PM2.5 Plan'')
\17\; and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted by CARB on
October 25, 2018 (``Valley State SIP Strategy''). We refer to the
relevant portions of these SIP submissions collectively as the ``SJV
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan.'' The SJV PM2.5 Plan
addresses the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and includes a
request under CAA section 188(e) for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date for the area for this NAAQS. CARB submitted the SJV
PM2.5 Plan to the EPA
[[Page 17384]]
as a revision to the SIP on May 10, 2019.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan was developed jointly by
CARB and the District.
\18\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
The EPA is not, at this time, proposing to act on those portions of
the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards'' or the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' that pertain to the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, or
Serious area contingency measures. We intend to act on these
portions of the submitted SIP revisions in subsequent rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include
evidence that adequate public notice was given and that an opportunity
for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's
implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness
criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
The following portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
related support documents address the Serious area requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley: (i) Chapter 4
(``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5''); (ii) Chapter 6
(``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
Standard: Serious Plan and Extension Request''); \19\ (iii) numerous
appendices to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan; (iv) CARB's ``Staff
Report, Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,'' release date December 21, 2018
(``CARB Staff Report''); \20\ and (v) the State's and District's board
resolutions adopting the 2018 PM2.5 Plan (CARB Resolution
19-1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16).\21\ The
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 includes emission
reduction commitments on which the SJV PM2.5 Plan
relies.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Chapter 5 (``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 Standard'') and Chapter 7 (``Demonstration of
Federal Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan pertain to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The EPA intends
to act on these portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in
separate rulemakings.
\20\ The CARB Staff Report includes CARB's review of, among
other things, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's control strategy and
attainment demonstration. Letter dated December 11, 2019 from
Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, transmitting the CARB Staff Report [on
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan].
\21\ CARB Resolution 19-1, ``2018 PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley,'' January 24, 2019,
and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16, ``Adopting the
[SJVUAPCD] 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards,'' November 15, 2018.
\22\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16, paragraph 6,
10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appendices to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in order of their
evaluation in this preamble, include: (i) App. B (``Emissions
Inventory''); (ii) App. A (``Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis'');
(iii) a plan precursor demonstration and clarifications, including App.
G (``Precursor Demonstration'') and Attachment A (``Clarifying
information for the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan regarding model
sensitivity related to ammonia and ammonia controls'') to the CARB
Staff Report; (iv) control strategy appendices, including App. C
(``Stationary Source Control Measure Analyses''), App. D (``Mobile
Source Control Measures Analyses''), and App. E (``Incentive-Based
Strategy''); (v) modeling appendices, including App. J (``Modeling
Emission Inventory''), App. K (``Modeling Attainment Demonstration''),
and App. L (``Modeling Protocol''); (vi) App. H (``RFP, Quantitative
Milestones, and Contingency''); and (vii) App. I (``New Source Review
and Emission Reduction Credits''). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
addresses motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) requirements in the
``Transportation Conformity'' section of App. D (pages D-119 to D-131).
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes an Executive Summary,
Introduction (Ch. 1), chapters on ``Air Quality Challenges and Trends''
(Ch. 2) and ``Health Impacts and Health Risk Reduction Strategy'' (Ch.
3), and an appendix on ``Public Education and Technology Advancement''
(App. F).
The District provided public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its November 15, 2018 public hearing on and adoption
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\23\ CARB also provided public notice
and opportunity for public comment prior to its January 24, 2019 public
hearing on and adoption of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\24\ The SIP
submission includes proof of publication of notices for the respective
public hearings. It also includes copies of the written and oral
comments received during the State's and District's public review
processes and the agencies' responses thereto.\25\ Therefore, we find
that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan meets the procedural requirements
for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40
CFR 51.102. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan became complete by operation
of law on November 10, 2019. The sanctions clocks that were triggered
by our December 6, 2018 findings that the State had failed to submit
complete SIP submissions addressing the statutory requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS,
however, will continue to run until the EPA affirmatively determines,
by letter to the Governor of California, that CARB has submitted a
complete SIP submission addressing the identified deficiencies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Hearing for Adoption of
Proposed 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
Standards,'' October 16, 2018, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution 18-11-16.
\24\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2018
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' December 21, 2018, and CARB Resolution 19-1.
\25\ CARB, ``Board Meeting Comments Log,'' March 29, 2019; J&K
Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California Air Resources
Board,'' January 24, 2019 (transcript of CARB's public hearing), and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. M (``Summary of Significant
Comments and Responses'').
\26\ 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for termination of
sanctions clocks in 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
CARB developed the ``Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan'' (``2016 State Strategy'') to support
attainment planning in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin (``South Coast'') ozone nonattainment areas.\27\ In its
resolution adopting the 2016 State Strategy (CARB Resolution 17-7), the
Board found that the 2016 State Strategy would achieve 6 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2025
and directed CARB staff to work with the SJVUAPCD to identify
additional reductions from sources under District regulatory authority
as part of a comprehensive plan to attain the PM2.5
standards for the San Joaquin Valley and to return to the Board with a
commitment to achieve additional emission reductions from mobile
sources.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The EPA has approved certain commitments made by CARB in
the 2016 State Strategy for purposes of attaining the ozone NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast ozone nonattainment areas.
See, e.g., 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019) and 84 FR 52005 (October
1, 2019).
\28\ CARB Resolution 17-7, ``2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan,'' March 23, 2017, 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17385]]
CARB responded to this resolution by developing and adopting the
``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP Strategy'') to support
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The State's May 10, 2019 SIP submission
incorporates by reference the Valley State SIP Strategy as adopted by
CARB on October 25, 2018 and submitted to the EPA on November 16,
2018.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley State SIP Strategy includes an Introduction (Ch. 1), a
chapter on ``Measures'' (Ch. 2), and a ``Supplemental State Commitment
from the Proposed State Measures for the Valley'' (Ch. 3). Much of the
content of the Valley State SIP Strategy is reproduced in Chapter 4
(``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.\30\ The Valley State SIP Strategy also includes
CARB Resolution 18-49, which, among other things, commits CARB to
achieve specific amounts of NOX and PM2.5
emission reductions by specific years, for purposes of attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ For example, Table 2 (proposed mobile source measures and
schedule), Table 3 (emissions reductions from proposed mobile source
measures), and Table 4 (summary of emission reduction measures) of
the Valley State SIP Strategy correspond to Tables 4-8, 4-9, and 4-
7, respectively, of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4.
\31\ CARB Resolution 18-49, ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to
the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' October
25, 2018, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its October 25, 2018 public hearing on and adoption of
the Valley State SIP Strategy.\32\ The SIP submission includes proof of
publication of the public notice for this public hearing. It also
includes copies of the written and oral comments received during the
State's public review process and CARB's responses thereto.\33\
Therefore, we find that the Valley State SIP Strategy meets the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the San
Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan,'' September 21, 2018, and CARB Resolution 18-
49.
\33\ CARB, ``Board Meeting Comments Log,'' November 2, 2018 and
compilation of written comments; and J&K Court Reporting, LLC,
``Meeting, State of California Air Resources Board,'' October 25,
2018 (transcript of CARB's public hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley State SIP Strategy became complete by operation of law
on November 10, 2019. The sanctions clocks that were triggered by our
December 6, 2018 findings that the State had failed to submit complete
SIP submissions addressing the statutory requirements that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS, however,
will continue to run until the EPA affirmatively determines, by letter
to the Governor of California, that CARB has submitted a complete SIP
submission addressing the identified deficiencies.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for termination of
sanctions clocks in 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious
nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the
Act requires the state to make a SIP submission that addresses the
following Serious nonattainment area requirements: \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 81 FR 58010, 58074-58075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
(2) Provisions to assure that the best available control measures
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
shall be implemented no later than four years after the area is
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
(3) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year after designation as a
nonattainment area (i.e., December 31, 2019, for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), or where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by such date is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable that is no more than five years later (CAA sections
188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
(4) Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP)
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
(5) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
(6) Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
(7) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)); and
(8) A revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program
to lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \36\ thresholds
from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of
PM2.5. CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(vii) and (viii) (defining ``major stationary
source'' in serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serious area plans must also satisfy the requirements for Moderate
area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the extent the state has not
already met those requirements in the Moderate area plan submitted for
the area. In addition, the Serious area plan must meet the general
requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the
CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority
under section 110(a)(2)(E); and the requirements concerning enforcement
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA provided its preliminary views on the CAA's requirements
for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the
following guidance documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble''); \37\ (2) ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (``General
Preamble Supplement''); \38\ and (3) ``State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''
(``General Preamble Addendum'').\39\
[[Page 17386]]
More recently, in an August 24, 2016 final rule entitled, ``Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (``PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule''), the EPA established regulatory requirements and provided
further interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
standards.\40\ We discuss these regulatory requirements and
interpretations of the Act as appropriate in our evaluation of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
\38\ 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
\39\ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
\40\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements for Extension of a Serious Area Attainment Date
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to five
years, which the EPA may grant if the state satisfies certain
conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious
area under section 188(e), the state must:
(1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the
statutory attainment date;
(2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is
impracticable;
(3) demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan;
(4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the
plan for the area includes the ``most stringent measures'' that are
included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in
practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and
(5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ CAA section 188(e) and 40 CFR 51.1005(b). For a discussion
of EPA's interpretation of the requirements of section 188(e), see
the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, 81 FR
58010, 58094-58097, and the General Preamble Addendum, 59 FR 41998,
42002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state must seek an extension of the Serious area attainment date
at the same time it submits the Serious area attainment plan, if the
state cannot demonstrate attainment by the otherwise applicable
statutory attainment date.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state seeking
an extension of the Serious area attainment date under section 188(e)
must submit a Serious area attainment plan that meets the following
requirements:
(1) Base year and attainment projected emissions inventory
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b);
(2) the most stringent measure requirement in 40 CFR
51.1005(b)(1)(iii) and 51.1010(b), and best available control measures
not previously submitted;
(3) attainment demonstration and modeling requirements in 40 CFR
51.1011 and 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(i);
(4) reasonable further progress requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012;
(5) quantitative milestone requirements in 40 CFR 51.1013;
(6) contingency measure requirements in 40 CFR 51.1014; and
(7) nonattainment new source review plan requirements pursuant to
40 CFR 51.165.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2). With respect to contingency measures
and nonattainment new source review plan provisions, the EPA
interprets section 51.1005(b)(2) to require submission of complete
plan provisions addressing these requirements but not to require the
EPA to approve such provisions before granting a section 188(e)
extension request. 81 FR 58010, 58094-58095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to establishing specific preconditions for an extension
of the Serious area attainment date, section 188(e) provides that the
EPA may consider a number of factors in determining whether to grant an
extension and the appropriate length of time for any such extension.
These factors are: (1) The nature and extent of nonattainment in the
area, (2) the types and numbers of sources or other emitting activities
in the area (including the influence of uncontrollable natural sources
and trans-boundary emissions from foreign countries), (3) the
population exposed to concentrations in excess of the standard in the
area, (4) the presence and concentrations of potentially toxic
substances in the mix of particulate emissions in the area, and (5) the
technological and economic feasibility of various control measures.\44\
Notably, neither the statutory requirements nor the discretionary
factors identified in section 188(e) include the specific ambient air
quality conditions in section 188(d)(2), which must be met for an area
to qualify for an extension of a Moderate area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluate the state's request for an extension of the Serious
area attainment date in accordance with these statutory criteria and
regulatory requirements, as described below.
Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment by the statutory Serious area
attainment date is impracticable.
Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to grant a state request for an
extension of the Serious area attainment date if, among other things,
attainment by the date established under section 188(c) would be
impracticable. In order to demonstrate impracticability, the plan must
show that the implementation of BACM and BACT (and additional feasible
measures) on relevant source categories will not bring the area into
attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date.\45\ For the
San Joaquin Valley, the Serious area attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 188(c)(2) was December 31,
2019.\46\ BACM, including BACT, is the required level of control for a
Serious area that must be in place before the Serious area attainment
date. Therefore, we interpret the Act as requiring that a state provide
for at least the implementation of BACM, including BACT, before it can
claim that is impracticable to attain by the statutory deadline. The
statutory provision for demonstrating impracticability requires that
the demonstration be based on air quality modeling.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 81 FR 58010, 58094.
\46\ Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment. . . .'' The EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009. 74 FR 58688. Therefore, the latest
permissible attainment date under section 188(c)(2), for purposes of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area, is December 31, 2019.
\47\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: Comply with all requirements and commitments in the
applicable implementation plan.
A second precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is a showing that the state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area
in the implementation plan. We interpret this criterion to mean that
the state has implemented the control measures and commitments in the
SIP revisions it has submitted to address the applicable requirements
in CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
For a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted
simultaneously with the initial Serious area attainment plan for the
area, the EPA interprets section 188(e) not to require the area to have
a fully approved Moderate area attainment plan, and to allow for
extension of the attainment date if the area has complied with all
Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in
the state's submitted Moderate area implementation plan.\48\ This
[[Page 17387]]
interpretation is based on the plain language of section 188(e), which
requires the state to comply with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the implementation plan.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 81 FR 58010, 58095.
\49\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of the most stringent measures.
A third precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is for the state to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes
the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation
plan of any state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can
feasibly be implemented in the area. The EPA has defined the term
``most stringent measure'' (MSM) as ``any permanent and enforceable
control measure that achieves the most stringent emissions reductions
in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors from among those control measures
which are either included in the SIP for any other NAAQS, or have been
achieved in practice in any state, and that can feasibly be implemented
in the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area.'' \50\ The
Act does not specify an implementation deadline for MSM, but because
the clear intent of section 188(e) is to minimize the length of any
attainment date extension, the EPA has interpreted the Act to require
implementation of MSM as expeditiously as practicable and no later than
one year before the extended Serious area attainment date identified by
the state in its extension request.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 40 CFR 51.1000 and 81 FR 58010, 58096-58097; see also
General Preamble Addendum, 42010 and 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13,
2000).
\51\ 81 FR 58010, 58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An MSM demonstration must satisfy the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule as described in the preamble to
the rule, as follows: \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 40 CFR 51.1010(b) and 81 FR 58010, 58095-58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Update the emission inventory to identify all sources of direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
nonattainment area;
(2) Identify all potential MSM to reduce emissions from sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors that are
approved into any state implementation plan or used in practice in any
state;
(3) Compare the potential MSM for each relevant source category to
the measures, if any, already adopted for that source category in the
nonattainment area to determine whether such potential MSM would
further reduce emissions and, where the state chooses to reject a
measure from further consideration, demonstrate that it is not
technologically or economically feasible to implement the measure in
whole or in part within five years after the applicable attainment date
for the area; and
(4) Adopt and implement all potential MSM identified through this
process that collectively will achieve attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than five years after the applicable
attainment date, except those measures for which the state has provided
reasoned justification for rejection, based on technological or
economic feasibility.
The level of control required under the MSM standard may depend on
how well other areas have chosen to control their sources. If a source
category has not been well controlled in other areas, MSM could
theoretically result in a low level of control. This contrasts with
BACM and BACT, which represent the ``best'' level of control feasible
for an area, regardless of whether it has been implemented elsewhere.
Thus, in some cases the MSM requirement may result in no more controls
or emission reductions than those that result from implementing BACM
and BACT. However, given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions
of the Act to offset longer attainment timeframes with more stringent
emission control requirements, we interpret the MSM provision so as to
increase the potential that it will result in additional controls
beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM and BACT. Accordingly,
states are required to reanalyze any measures that were rejected during
the state's BACM and BACT analysis to see if they have become feasible
in the area given the longer attainment date sought under CAA section
188(e) and changes that have occurred in the interim that improve the
feasibility of such measures.\53\ MSM may also involve increasing the
coverage of measures that were previously adopted as BACM and BACT.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id. at 58096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, the ``to the satisfaction of the Administrator'' qualifier
on the MSM requirement indicates that Congress granted the EPA
considerable discretion in determining whether a plan in fact includes
MSM, recognizing that the overall intent of section 188(e) is that the
Agency grant as short an extension as practicable, consistent with the
objective of expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. For this reason, the
EPA will apply greater scrutiny to the evaluation of MSM for source
categories that contribute the most to the PM2.5 problem in
the SJV and less scrutiny to source categories that contribute less to
the PM2.5 problem.
Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious alternative
date practicable.
Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the Serious area plan
demonstrate attainment, using air quality modeling, by the most
expeditious date practicable after the statutory Serious area
attainment date.\55\ Evaluation of a modeled attainment demonstration
consists of two parts: Evaluation of the technical adequacy of the
modeling itself and evaluation of the control measures that are relied
on to demonstrate attainment. The EPA's determination of whether the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious date practicable
depends on whether the plan provides for implementation of BACM and
BACT no later than the statutory implementation deadline, MSM as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than one year before the
extended attainment date requested by the state, and any other
technologically and economically feasible measures that will result in
attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id. at 58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 5: Apply for an attainment date extension.
Finally, the state must apply in writing to the EPA for an
extension of a Serious area attainment date, and this request must
accompany the modeled attainment demonstration showing attainment by
the most expeditious alternative date practicable. Additionally, the
state must provide the public reasonable notice and opportunity for a
public hearing on the attainment date extension request before
submitting it to the EPA, in accordance with the requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110.
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area Plan and
Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment
area. The EPA discussed the emissions inventory requirements that apply
to PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
[[Page 17388]]
including Serious area requirements, in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and codified these requirements in 40 CFR
51.1008.\56\ The EPA has also issued guidance concerning emissions
inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 81 FR 58010, 58078-58079.
\57\ ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' U.S. EPA, May 2017
(``Emissions Inventory Guidance''), available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base year emissions inventory should provide a state's best
estimate of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutants in the area, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the PM2.5
NAAQS, the base year inventory must include direct PM2.5
emissions, separately reported filterable and condensable
PM2.5 emissions,\58\ and emissions of all chemical
precursors to the formation of secondary PM2.5: nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).\59\ In addition,
the emissions inventory base year for a Serious PM2.5
nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which monitored
data were used to reclassify the area to Serious, or another
technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area
SIP submission.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Emissions Inventory Guidance identifies the types of
sources for which the EPA expects states to provide condensable PM
emission inventories. Emissions Inventory Guidance, section 4.2.1
(``Condensable PM Emissions''), 63-65.
\59\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
\60\ 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state's SIP submission must include documentation explaining how
it calculated emissions data for the inventory. In estimating mobile
source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and
planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. The
latest EPA-approved version of California's mobile source emission
factor model for estimating tailpipe, brake, and tire wear emissions
from on-road mobile sources that was available during the State's and
District's development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan was
EMFAC2014.\61\ Following CARB's submission of the Plan, the EPA
approved EMFAC2017, the latest revision to this mobile source emissions
model, and established grace periods during which EMFAC2014 may
continue to be used for transportation conformity purposes (i.e., new
regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 hot-spot analyses).\62\ States are also required to
use the EPA's ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'' (``AP-
42'') road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions
from paved roads.63 64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC is short for
EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014
model, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register,
for use in state implementation plan development and transportation
conformity in California. Upon that action, EMFAC2014 was required
to be used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO,
PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that were
started on or after December 14, 2017, which was the end of the
grace period for using the prior mobile source emissions model,
EMFAC2011.
\62\ 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). The grace period for new
regional emissions analyses begins on August 15, 2019 and ends on
August 16, 2021, while the grace period for hot-spot analyses begins
on August 15, 2019 and ends on August 17, 2020. 84 FR 41717, 41720.
\63\ The EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011 that
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests
results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). CARB used the revised 2011
AP-42 methodology in developing on-road mobile source emissions; see
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-9_2016.pdf.
\64\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source
of the EPA's emission factor information. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors. It contains emission factors and process
information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A
source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar
emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and
compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and
engineering estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must also submit a
projected attainment year inventory and emissions projections for each
RFP milestone year.\65\ These future emissions projections are
necessary components of the attainment demonstration required under CAA
section 189(a)(1) and (b)(1) and the demonstration of RFP required
under section 172(c)(2).\66\ Emissions projections for future years
(which are referred to in the Plan as ``forecasted inventories'')
should account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic
growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The state's SIP
submission should include documentation to explain how the emissions
projections were calculated. Where a state chooses to allow new major
stationary sources or major modifications to use emission reductions
credits (ERCs) that were generated through shutdown or curtailed
emissions units occuring before the base year of an attainment plan,
the projected emissions inventory used to develop the attainment
demonstration must explicitly include the emissions from such
previously shutdown or curtailed emissions units.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 40 CFR 51.1008 and 51.1012. Also, see Emissions Inventory
Guidance, section 3 (``SIP Inventory Requirements and
Recommendations'').
\66\ 40 CFR 51.1004, 51.1008, 51.1011, and 51.1012.
\67\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
Summaries of the planning emissions inventories for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (NOX,
SOX,\68\ VOC,\69\ and ammonia) and the documentation for the
inventories for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area are located in Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory'') and Appendix I
(``New Source Review and Emission Reduction Credits'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan generally uses ``sulfur
oxides'' or ``SOX'' in reference to SO2 as a
precursor to the formation of PM2.5. We use
SOX and SO2 interchangeably throughout this
notice.
\69\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan generally uses ``reactive
organic gasses'' or ``ROG'' in reference to VOC as a precursor to
the formation of PM2.5. We use ROG and VOC
interchangeably throughout this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and District staff worked together to develop the emissions
inventories for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area. The District worked with operators of the stationary facilities
in the nonattainment area to develop the stationary source emissions
estimates. The responsibility for developing estimates for the area
sources such as agricultural burning and paved road dust was shared by
the District and CARB. CARB staff developed the emissions inventories
for both on-road and non-road mobile sources.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The EPA regulations refer to ``non-road'' vehicles and
engines whereas CARB regulations refer to ``Other Mobile Sources''
or ``off-road'' vehicles and engines. These terms refer to the same
types of vehicles and engines. We refer herein to such vehicles and
engines as ``non-road'' sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan includes winter (24-hour) average and annual average daily
planning inventories for the 2013 base year, which were modeled from
the 2012 emissions inventory, and estimated emissions for forecasted
years from 2017 through 2028 for the attainment and RFP demonstrations
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\71\ Today we are
proposing action on those winter average and annual average emissions
inventories necessary to support the attainment plan and section 188(e)
extension
[[Page 17389]]
request for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS--i.e., the 2013 base year
inventory, forecasted inventories for the RFP milestone years of 2017,
2020, 2023, and 2026, and the forecasted 2024 attainment year
inventory. Each inventory includes emissions from stationary, area, on-
road, and non-road sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-18 to B-19. The
winter average daily planning inventory corresponds to the months of
November through April, when daily, ambient PM2.5
concentrations are typically highest. The base year inventory is
from the California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting
System (CEIDARS) and future year inventories were estimated using
the California Emission Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM), 2016 SIP
Baseline Emission Projections, version 1.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base year inventories for stationary sources were developed
using actual emissions reports made by facility operators. The State
developed the base year emissions inventory for area sources using the
most recent models and methodologies available at the time the State
was developing the Plan.\72\ The Plan also includes background,
methodology, and inventories of condensable and filterable
PM2.5 emissions from stationary point and non-point
combustion sources that are expected to generate condensable
PM2.5.\73\ CARB used EMFAC2014 to estimate on-road motor
vehicle emissions based on transportation activity data from the 2014
Regional Transportation Plan (2014 RTP) adopted by the transportation
planning agencies in the San Joaquin Valley.\74\ Re-entrained paved
road dust emissions were calculated using a CARB methodology consistent
with the EPA's AP-42 road dust methodology.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.2
(``Emissions Inventory Summary and Methodology'').
\73\ Id. at B-42 to B-44.
\74\ Id. at B-37.
\75\ Id. at B-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB developed the emissions forecasts by applying growth and
control profiles to the base year inventory. CARB's mobile source
emissions projections take into account predicted activity rates and
vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model year and adopted controls.\76\
In addition, the Plan states that the District is providing for use of
pre-base year ERCs as offsets by accounting for such ERCs in the
projected 2025 emissions inventory.\77\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies growth factors, control factors, and estimated offset use
between 2013 and 2025 for direct PM2.5, NOX,
SOX, and VOC emissions by source category and lists all pre-
base year ERCs issued by the District for PM10,
NOX, SOX, and VOC emissions, by facility.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id. at B-18, B-19.
\77\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, I-1 through I-5.
\78\ Id. at App. I, Tables I-1 through I-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides a summary of the winter (24-hour) average
inventories in tons per day (tpd) of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year. Table 2 provides a
summary of annual average inventories of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year. These annual average
inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the
RFP and attainment demonstrations in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Winter Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the
2013 Base Year
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
Category NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.5 35.0 6.9 86.6 13.9
Area Sources.................... 41.4 11.5 0.5 156.8 291.5
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 6.4 188.7 0.6 51.1 4.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources......... 4.4 65.3 0.3 27.4 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals \a\.................. 60.8 300.5 8.4 321.9 309.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5.
\a\ Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Annual Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the
2013 Base Year
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
Category NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.8 38.6 7.2 87.1 13.9
Area Sources.................... 41.5 8.1 0.3 153.4 310.9
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 6.4 183.1 0.6 49.8 4.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources......... 5.8 87.4 0.3 33.8 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals \a\.................. 62.5 317.2 8.5 324.1 329.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5.
\a\ Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The inventories in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are based on the
most current and accurate information available to the State and
District at the time they were developing the Plan and inventories,
including the latest version of California's mobile source emissions
model that had been approved by the EPA at the time, EMFAC2014. The
inventories comprehensively address all source categories in the San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area and are consistent
with the EPA's inventory guidance.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1), the 2013 base year is one
of the three years for which monitored data were used for reclassifying
the San Joaquin Valley to Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,\79\ and it represents actual annual average emissions of all
sources within the nonattainment area. Direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors are included in the inventories, and
filterable and condensable direct PM2.5 emissions are
identified separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 81 FR 2993, 2994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to future year baseline projections, we have reviewed
the growth and control factors and find them acceptable and thus
conclude that
[[Page 17390]]
the future baseline emissions projections in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning
assumptions. Also, as a general matter, the EPA will approve a SIP
submission that takes emissions reduction credit for a control measure
only where the EPA has approved the measure as part of the SIP. Thus,
for example, to take credit for the emissions reductions from newly-
adopted or amended District rules for stationary sources, the related
rules must be approved by the EPA into the SIP. See the EPA's
``Technical Support Document, General Evaluation, San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' February
2020 (``EPA's General Evaluation TSD''). Table III-A of EPA's General
Evaluation TSD shows District rules with post-2013 compliance dates
that are reflected in the future year baseline inventories, along with
information on the EPA's approval of these rules, and shows that
stationary source emissions reductions assumed by the SJV
PM2.5 Plan for future years are supported by rules approved
as part of the California SIP for the San Joaquin Valley. With respect
to mobile sources, the EPA has taken action in recent years to approve
CARB mobile source regulations into the state-wide portion of the
California SIP. We therefore find that the future year baseline
projections in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are properly supported by
SIP-approved stationary and mobile source measures.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The future year emissions projections in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan assume implementation of CARB's Zero Emissions
Vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. On
September 27, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
EPA issued a notice of final rulemaking for the Safer Affordable
Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program
that, among other things, withdrew the EPA's 2013 waiver of
preemption for the ZEV sales mandate and GHG standards. 84 FR 51310.
See also proposed SAFE rule at 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018).
However, the agencies' final rule withdrawing the 2013 waiver did
not include final action on the federal fuel economy and GHG vehicle
emissions standards from the SAFE proposal. If the fuel economy and
GHG standards are finalized prior to our final rulemaking on the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, we will evaluate and address, as appropriate,
the impact of the SAFE action on our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2013 base year
emissions inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. We are also
proposing to find that the forecasted inventories in the Plan provide
an adequate basis for the BACM, MSM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations
in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
B. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The composition of PM2.5 is complex and highly variable
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous
SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia to PM2.5,
making them precursors to PM2.5.\81\ Formation of secondary
PM2.5 may also depend on atmospheric conditions, including
solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the
interactions of precursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or
fog droplets.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/P-
99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3.
\82\ ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter''
(EPA/452/R-12-005), EPA, December 2012), 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a
PM2.5 nonattainment area must evaluate all PM2.5
precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM2.5
precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction
that such precursor does not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment
area.\83\ The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term
``precursor'' for purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly
require the control of any specifically identified PM2.5
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however,
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
`air pollutant' is used.'' \84\ The EPA has identified SO2,
NOX, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the formation of
PM2.5.\85\ Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of
subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four precursor pollutants and
direct PM2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act (e.g., CAA section
189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 81 FR 58010, 58017-58020.
\84\ CAA section 302(g).
\85\ 81 FR 58010, 58015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standard in the
area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 [e.g., requirements for reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, MSM, and NSR] for sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although
section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, the
EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under
appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific PM2.5
precursors from other source categories in a given nonattainment area
is not necessary.\86\ For example, under the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the control requirements that apply to stationary,
area, and mobile sources of PM10 precursors in the
nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\87\ a
state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain
precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant
contribution to ambient PM10 levels in the nonattainment
area.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id. at 58018-58019.
\87\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13539-42.
\88\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect
to submit to the EPA a ``comprehensive precursor demonstration'' for a
specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular
precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area.\89\ If the EPA determines that the
contribution of the precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area is
not significant and approves the demonstration, the state is not
required to control emissions of the relevant precursor from existing
sources in the attainment plan.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in May 2019, the EPA issued the ``PM2.5
Precursor Demonstration Guidance'' (``PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance''), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing
nonattainment area PM2.5 emissions and developing such
optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule.\91\ The
[[Page 17391]]
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance builds upon the draft version of
the guidance, released on November 17, 2016 (``Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance''), which CARB referenced in developing its
precursor demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.\92\ The EPA's
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance are
generally consistent with those in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, with some exceptions, including that the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS changed
from 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ in the draft guidance to 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in
the final guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ ``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-19-004, May 2019, including Memo dated May 30, 2019 from Scott
Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard
Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1-10, EPA.
\92\ ``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance, Draft
for Public Review and Comments,'' EPA-454/P-16-001, November 17,
2016, including Memo dated November 17, 2016 from Stephen D. Page,
Director, OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-
10, EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are evaluating the SJV PM2.5 Plan in accordance with
the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that all PM2.5
precursors must be addressed in the State's evaluation of potential
control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that
emissions of a particular precursor or precursors do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any
determination by the State to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from
the required evaluation of potential control measures, we consider both
the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to
reductions in emissions of that precursor.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The State presents a brief summary of its PM2.5
precursor analysis in Chapter 6 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
the full precursor demonstration in Appendix G of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.\94\ CARB also provided clarifying information on
its precursor assessment, including an Attachment A to its letter
transmitting the SJV PM2.5 Plan to the EPA \95\ and further
clarifications in three email transmittals.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ A copy of the contents of App. G appears in the CARB Staff
Report, App. C4 (``Precursor Demonstrations for Ammonia,
SOX, and ROG'').
\95\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, Attachment A (``Clarifying information for the San Joaquin
Valley 2018 Plan regarding model sensitivity related to ammonia and
ammonia controls'').
\96\ Email dated June 20, 2019, ``RE: SJV model disbenefit from
SOX reduction,'' from Jeremy Avise, CARB, to Scott
Bohning, EPA Region IX, with attachment (``CARB's June 2019
Precursor Clarification''); email dated September 19, 2019, ``FW:
SJV species responses,'' from Jeremy Avise, CARB, to Scott Bohning,
EPA Region IX, with attachments (``CARB's September 2019 Precursor
Clarification''); and email dated October 18, 2019, from Laura Carr,
CARB to Scott Bohning, Jeanhee Hong, and Rory Mays, EPA Region IX,
with attachment ``Clarifying Information on Ammonia'' (``CARB's
October 2019 Precursor Clarification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan provides both concentration-based and sensitivity-based
analyses of precursor contributions to ambient PM2.5
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. These analyses led the State
to conclude that direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley while ammonia,
SOX, and VOC do not contribute significantly to such
exceedances, as discussed below.\97\ We summarize the State's analysis
and conclusions below. For a more detailed summary of the precursor
demonstration in the Plan, please refer to the EPA's ``Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of PM2.5 Precursor
Demonstration, San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' February 2020 (``EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Direct PM2.5 emissions are considered a primary
source of ambient PM2.5 (i.e., no further formation in
the atmosphere is required), and therefore is not considered a
precursor pollutant under subpart 4, which may differ from a more
generalized understanding of what contributes to ambient
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct PM2.5 and NOX, the State modeled
the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley
to a 30 percent (%) reduction in anthropogenic emissions of each
pollutant in 2013, 2020, and 2024.\98\ The State concluded that direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions reductions will continue
to have a significant impact on annual and 24-hour PM2.5
design values in the San Joaquin Valley, with NOX reductions
being particularly important.\99\ Consistent with this conclusion, the
State focused the control strategy and attainment demonstration on
these two pollutants, as described in section IV.D of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-11 to 6-12. CARB
modeled the impacts of both NOX reductions and direct
PM2.5 reductions but the direct PM2.5 results
were used only as a point of comparison, as direct PM2.5
emissions must be regulated in all PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.
\99\ Id. Ch. 6, 6-12; and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 2.
CARB presents its sensitivity analysis for emission reductions in
direct PM2.5 and NOX in the Plan's attainment
demonstration appendix. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, Table 46
(annual average design values) and Table 50 (24-hour average design
values).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ammonia, SOX, and VOC, CARB assessed the 2015 annual
average concentration of each precursor in ambient PM2.5 at
Bakersfield, for which the necessary speciated PM2.5 data is
available and where the highest PM2.5 design values have
been recorded in most years, and compared those concentrations to the
recommended annual average contribution threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\
from the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, which was available
at the time the State developed the SIP.\100\ The contributions of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC were 5.2 [micro]g/m\3\, 1.6 [micro]g/
m\3\ and 6.2 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 3. The Plan does not
present a concentration-based analysis for the 24-hour average
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. Instead, CARB relied on
the annual average concentration based analysis as an interim step
to the sensitivity-based analysis, for which CARB assessed the
sensitivity of both 24-hour average and annual average ambient
PM2.5 concentrations to precursor emission reductions.
Separately, the Plan presents a graphical representation of annual
average ambient PM2.5 components (i.e., crustal
particulate matter, elemental carbon, organic matter, ammonium
sulfate, and ammonium nitrate) for 2011-2013 for Bakersfield,
Fresno, and Modesto. SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3-3 to 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that these levels are well above the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, CARB then modeled the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
in the San Joaquin Valley to 30% and 70% reductions in anthropogenic
emissions of each precursor pollutant in 2013 (the Plan's base year),
2020 (the modeled attainment year for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS),
and 2024 (the modeled attainment year for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS).\101\ CARB supplemented the sensitivity analysis with
consideration of additional information, including factors identified
in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, such as emission
trends, the appropriateness of future year versus base year
sensitivity, available emission controls, and the severity of
nonattainment.\102\ The final version of the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance confirms the relevance of these factors in a sensitivity
analysis.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-11 to 6-12.
\102\ Id. at App. G, 5.
\103\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 18-19 (consideration
of additional information), 31 (available emission controls), and
35-36 (appropriateness of future year versus base year sensitivity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's sensitivity-based analysis used the same modeling
platform as that used for the Plan's attainment demonstration. The
State modeled the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
concentrations in San Joaquin Valley to 30% and 70% emission reductions
in 2013, 2020, and 2024 for each of ammonia, SOX, and VOC.
The State estimated base case (2013, 2020, and 2024) design values for
PM2.5 using Relative Response Factors and
[[Page 17392]]
calculated the ammonia precursor contribution for a given year and for
each sensitivity scenario (30% and 70% emissions reductions) as the
difference between its base case design value and the design value for
each sensitivity scenario.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ This procedure is the procedure recommended by the EPA.
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We summarize the State's sensitivity-based analysis and additional
information in the sections that follow for ammonia, SOX,
and VOC.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, the State compared the 24-hour precursor contributions
to 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\, the recommended contribution threshold in the
Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. For a modeled 30% ammonia
emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013
ranged from 0.9 to 3.3 [micro]g/m\3\ across 15 monitoring sites, with a
majority of sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold
(and also above the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold in the
final PM2.5 Precursor Guidance), whereas the
PM2.5 responses in 2024 were all below both recommended
thresholds. For a modeled 70% ammonia emission reduction, the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged from 3.5 to 12.4 [micro]g/
m\3\, with all monitoring sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold
(and above the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold), and the PM2.5
responses in 2024 ranged from 1.2 to 3.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with most sites
above both recommended thresholds. For further detail, please see the
EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD, Table 2, and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Tables 2, 3, 5, and 7.
The State bases its ammonia precursor determination on the
sensitivity analysis for the 2024 attainment year with a 30% ammonia
emission reduction. These respectively reflect its assessment of
research studies and the Plan's projected emission reductions, and on
its assessment of available emission controls. As explained in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, precursor responses may be above
the recommend contribution threshold and yet not contribute
significantly to levels that exceed the standard in the area.
Therefore, as recommended by the EPA, the State considered additional
information to consider whether its identified PM2.5
responses constituted a significant contribution to ambient
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. The additional information
included research studies, emission trends, and information to support
the State's conclusion that a 30% ammonia emission reduction
represented a reasonable upper bound on the ammonia emission reductions
to model in estimating its contribution to ambient PM2.5
levels. We summarize this additional information below and provide a
more detailed evaluation in the EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
The State describes previous research that supports its finding
that ammonium nitrate PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin
Valley is NOX-limited rather than ammonia-limited.\105\
Essentially, ammonia is so abundant that even with large ammonia
emission reductions there would still be enough ammonia to combine with
the available NOX to readily form particulate ammonium
nitrate. Therefore, ammonia emissions reductions would lead to only
small decreases in PM2.5 concentrations. In contrast,
because emissions of NOX are less abundant (i.e., more
limited relative to emissions of ammonia after normalizing for their
differing molecular weights), the PM2.5 concentrations in
the atmosphere are more responsive to reductions in NOX than
to reductions of ammonia. Hence, the area is considered NOX-
limited. The State points to the conclusions of Lurmann et al. based on
ambient measurements during the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS (California
Regional Particulate Air Quality Study) intensive field study.\106\
That study found that most areas of the San Joaquin Valley were
NOX-limited with respect to ammonium nitrate formation. And
since that time, large additional NOX emission reductions
have occurred, which would increase the degree to which ammonium
nitrate formation in the San Joaquin Valley is NOX-limited.
Based on more recent aircraft-borne measurements during the 2013
DISCOVER-AQ campaign,\107\ the State similarly concluded that ammonium
nitrate formation is NOX-limited based on the large amount
of ``excess ammonia,'' which is defined as the amount of measured
ammonia left over if all the nitrate and sulfate present were to
combine with available ammonia to form particulate.\108\ The CARB Staff
Report describes these conclusions in more detail and lists results
from multiple other recent studies with similar conclusions.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, G-9 to G-10; CARB
Staff Report, App. C, 12-15; and Attachment A to CARB's submittal
letter of May 9, 2019.
\106\ Frederick W. Lurmann, Steven G. Brown, Michael C.
McCarthy, and Paul T. Roberts, ``Processes Influencing Secondary
Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter,'' Journal
of the Air & Waste Management Association, (2006), 56:12, 1679-1693,
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464573.
\107\ ``Deriving Information on Surface conditions from COlumn
and VERtically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality'',
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/.
\108\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 2.
\109\ CARB Staff Report, App. C, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding emission trends, the CARB Staff Report presents an
emission inventory-based argument on the relative insensitivity of
PM2.5 to ammonia reductions.\110\ CARB compared the size of
the ammonia and NOX emission inventories in tons per day,
after normalizing for their differing molecular weights, and found that
ammonia was roughly three times as abundant as NOX in 2013
and is projected to be about six times as abundant in 2025, due to the
continuing decline in NOX emissions (while ammonia emissions
are generally constant into the future).\111\ While the State
recognized that this is only a ``first-level assessment,'' it provides
additional support for the State's conclusion that NOX, and
not ammonia, is the limiting precursor for ammonium nitrate formation,
and that the ammonium nitrate portion of ambient PM2.5 would
be expected to be relatively insensitive to ammonia emission
reductions. This is also consistent with the ammonia sensitivity
modeling for the San Joaquin Valley, which showed that PM2.5
concentrations will be less sensitive to ammonia reductions as
NOX emissions go down in the future (i.e., the
PM2.5 impacts were much smaller in the 2024 future modeled
case compared to the 2013 base year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id. App. C, 15.
\111\ Annual average ammonia emissions are projected to decrease
4.6 tpd (1.4%) from 2013 to 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App.
B, Table B-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State finds that NOX emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley are projected to decrease by 53% from 2013 to 2024 while ammonia
emissions are projected to remain relatively flat, thereby increasing
the relative abundance of ammonia.\112\ Based on the Plan's emission
reduction projections combined with the research study conclusions, the
State relies on the modeled responses for the 2024 future year, rather
than the 2013 base year, stating that the future year NOX
emissions are more representative of San Joaquin Valley emission
conditions.\113\ The State references the Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, which notes that it may be appropriate to model
future conditions that are more representative of current atmospheric
conditions and those conditions expected closer to the attainment date.
The State concludes states that this in
[[Page 17393]]
fact applies to the San Joaquin Valley.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 8-9.
\113\ Id. App. G, 9.
\114\ Id (referencing Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance,
33). See also PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the State's selection of 30% as an upper bound on
the ammonia reductions to model, the State described its review of the
most important ammonia source categories in the San Joaquin Valley,
existing control measures that affect ammonia emissions from these
sources, additional mitigation options for these sources, and
information provided in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance about
ammonia reductions achieved nationwide from 2011 to 2017.\115\ The
primary sources of ammonia emissions identified in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan are: (1) Confined animal facilities (CAFs), (2)
agricultural fertilizer, (3) biosolids, animal manure, and poultry
litter operations, and (4) organic material composting operations.\116\
CAFs are subject to District Rule 4570; biosolids, animal manure, and
poultry litter operations are subject to District Rule 4565; and
organic material composting operations are subject to District Rule
4566. Although these District rules explicitly apply only to VOC
emissions from these sources, the State concludes that these rules also
reduce ammonia emissions. Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
cites a number of scientific studies that address the correlation
between VOC and ammonia emissions from these emission sources.\117\
Based on these evaluations, the State concludes that ammonia control
measures achieving even the low end of the range (30%) are not feasible
for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley and that it is therefore
reasonable to treat a 30% ammonia reduction as an upper bound for
modeling in the precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 13 and App. C, section
C-25 and email dated October 18, 2019, from Laura Carr, CARB to
Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, attaching document entitled
``Clarifying Information on Ammonia.''
\116\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, section C-25.
\117\ Id. at C-314 and following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the State's sensitivity analysis presents a range of
PM2.5 responses to ammonia emission reductions depending on
base year versus future year and depending on the scale of emission
reductions that may be possible. The Plan provides the State's bases
for finding that the sensitivity result for 2024 better represents
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley than the 2013 base year and for
finding a 30% ammonia reduction to be a reasonable upper bound for
modeled ammonia emission reductions in assessing the ammonia
contribution. Based on these analyses, the State concludes that ammonia
does not contribute significantly to levels above the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
b. SOX
For SOX, the State compared the 24-hour precursor
contributions to the recommended draft contribution threshold of 1.3
[micro]g/m\3\ in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. For
modeled SOX emission reductions of 30% and 70%, the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged from -1.4 to +0.5 [micro]g/
m\3\ across 15 monitoring sites, which all fall below the 1.3 [micro]g/
m\3\ draft contribution threshold, and hence also below the
contribution threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the final version of the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. The response was below zero at
most monitoring sites, indicating an increase, rather than decrease, in
ambient PM2.5 in response to SOX emission
reductions (i.e., a disbenefit). Only the Stockton and Manteca sites
had slightly positive responses to 30 and 70% emission reductions, and
the Tranquillity site also had a slightly positive response only to a
30% reduction. For 2024, the response ranged from -0.3 [micro]g/m\3\ to
+0.3 [micro]g/m\3\; these are also all below the contribution
threshold, with most sites showing a disbenefit from SOX
reductions. For further detail, please see EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD, Table 3, and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G,
Tables 8 and 9.
CARB also included additional information regarding emission trends
and an evaluation of the SOX emission reduction disbenefit.
We summarize this additional information below and provide a more
detailed evaluation in the EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
In terms of emission trends, the State found that SOX
emissions decreased from 2013 to 2014 and then very gradually rise to
8.0 tpd in 2024.\118\ On the basis of SOX emissions being
very similar in 2020 and 2024 (7.8 tpd and 8.0 tpd, respectively), the
State concluded that the 2020 and 2024 sensitivity results were
redundant. Comparing the ambient responses in 2013 and 2024, the State
found that the responses were slightly less negative or, for a small
number of sites, slightly more positive in 2024, but still no more than
0.6 [micro]g/m\3\ in response to a 70% SOX emission
reduction. This supports the State's conclusion as to the overall
disbenefit of reducing SOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To explain the SOX emission reduction disbenefit, CARB
refers to the non-linearity of inorganic aerosol thermodynamics, as
described in a study by West et al.\119\ That paper discusses how,
under certain conditions, reducing SOX could free ammonia to
combine with nitrate, increasing overall PM2.5 mass. To
investigate this issue further, CARB conducted simulations with the
ISORROPIA inorganic aerosol thermodynamic equilibrium model used within
the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model and provided
clarifications to the EPA.\120\ In essence, CARB states that for some
conditions typical of San Joaquin Valley, ISORROPIA switches to a
different chemical regime in which the disbenefit occurs. CARB states
that it is not known how well this model behavior reflects the actual
atmosphere, but CARB accepts the results because is it a well-known and
widely used chemical model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6
(``PM2.5 Precursor Sensitivity Analysis''); and West,
J.J., Ansari, A.S., Pandis, S.N., 1999, Marginal PM2.5:
Nonlinear aerosol mass response to sulfate reductions in the eastern
United States, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
49, 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463973.
\120\ CARB's June 2019 Precursor Clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the small and mostly negative modeled response of ambient
PM2.5 to SOX emission reductions, and based on
its scientific understanding of sulfate interactions with other
molecules in the air, the State concludes that SOX does not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
c. VOC
For VOC, CARB compared the 24-hour precursor contributions to the
EPA's recommended draft contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\.
For a modeled 30% VOC emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5
responses in 2013 ranged from 0.1 to 1.9 [micro]g/m\3\ across 15
monitoring sites, with two sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
contribution threshold.\121\ The PM2.5 responses to a 70%
VOC emission reduction in 2013 ranged from 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ to 4.8
[micro]g/m\3\, including responses above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
contribution threshold at a majority of sites. For a modeled 30% VOC
emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2024
ranged from -0.4 to 0.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with all monitoring sites below
the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
[[Page 17394]]
contribution threshold, and hence also below the contribution threshold
of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ that was finalized the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule. The PM2.5 responses to a 70% VOC emission
reduction in 2024 ranged from -1.0 to 0.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with all
monitoring sites below the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft contribution
threshold. In other words, CARB models a decrease in ambient
PM2.5 levels in 2013 in response to either a 30% or 70% VOC
emission reduction, whereas CARB models an increase in ambient
PM2.5 levels in 2024 in response to either a 30% or 70%
reduction in VOC emissions, i.e., a disbenefit. For further detail,
please see EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD, Table 4, and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Tables 10, 11, 13, and 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ We note that one site (Visalia) has a modeled response
above the EPA's final recommended contribution threshold of 1.5
[micro]g/m\3\ and one additional site (Bakersfield-California
Avenue) has a modeled response below the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold
but above the EPA's draft threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB then considered additional information to consider whether
these PM2.5 responses constituted a significant contribution
to ambient PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley, including
emission trends and an assessment of the modeled disbenefit of VOC
emission reductions in 2024. CARB bases its precursor determination on
sensitivity analysis for the 2024 attainment year, reflecting its
assessment of the Plan's projected emission reductions. We summarize
this additional information below and present greater detail in the
EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
Regarding emission trends, CARB found that VOC emissions would
decrease approximately 30 tpd (or 9%) from 2013 to 2024.\122\ The State
concludes that the formation of ambient PM2.5 from VOC may
therefore differ in base and future years and that the sensitivity
analysis for 2013 is not representative of current or future
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 19 and Figure 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB explained the modeled disbenefit of VOC reductions as follows:
Emissions of VOC and NOX react in the atmosphere to form
organic nitrate species, such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), meaning
that some portion of the NOX emissions is not available to
react with ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. In other words, VOC
emissions are a ``sink'' for NOX emissions. Reducing VOC
emissions therefore reduces the formation of organic nitrates, so the
sink is smaller and nitrate molecules are freed to react with ammonia
to form particulate ammonium nitrate.\123\ The State further explored
the VOC disbenefit based on a 2016 CARB modeling assessment provided in
Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling'') of the ``2016 Moderate Area Plan
for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard'' for the San Joaquin Valley
(``2016 PM2.5 Plan''), which CARB submitted to the EPA as a
SIP revision on May 10, 2019.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 72 (citing Meng, Z.,
D. Dabdub, D., Seinfeld, J.H., Chemical Coupling Between Atmospheric
Ozone and Particulate Matter, Science 277, 116 (1997). DOI: 10.1126/
science.277.5322.116).
\124\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, A-57. See also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6 (``PM2.5
Precursor Sensitivity Analysis''), 71-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its sensitivity-based analysis of VOC emission reductions
in the 2013 base and 2024 future years, VOC emission trends, and the
scientific understanding of atmospheric VOC chemistry in the San
Joaquin Valley, CARB concludes that VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstration
consistent with the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and the
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. Based on
this evaluation, the EPA agrees that NOX emissions
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and that
NOX emission sources, therefore, remain subject to control
requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act. For
the reasons provided below, the EPA proposes to approve the State's
demonstration that ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Regarding the State's analytical approach, the EPA finds that the
State based its analyses on the latest available data and studies
concerning ambient PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin Valley
from precursor emissions. Regarding the required concentration-based
analysis, the EPA finds that the State assessed the absolute annual
average contribution of each precursor in ambient PM2.5
(i.e., in 2015). On the basis of the absolute concentrations being well
above the EPA's recommended contribution thresholds for both the 24-
hour and annual average NAAQS, the State proceeded with its
sensitivity-based analysis, which is an acceptable progression of
analyses under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ For further discussion of the EPA's evaluation of the
State's concentration-based analysis, see EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD, sections entitled ``Concentration-based analysis''
within the EPA's evaluation for each of ammonia, SOX, and
VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the sensitivity-based analysis, we find that the
State performed its analyses in a straightforward application of the
EPA's recommended approach--i.e., for each modeled year and percent
precursor emission reduction, the State estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response using the procedure recommended in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, and compared the result to the
recommended contribution threshold. The EPA also finds that the
performance of the photochemical model was adequate for use in
estimating the ambient PM2.5 responses, as discussed in
section J (``Air Quality Model Performance'') of the EPA's ``Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling, San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,''
February 2020 (``EPA's Modeling TSD''). The State considered the EPA's
recommended range of emission reductions (30% to 70%) for the 2013 base
year, an interim year (2020), and the projected 2024 attainment year
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and quantified the estimated
response of ambient PM2.5 concentrations to precursor
emission changes for the first time in a PM2.5 SIP
submission for the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA finds that such
quantification and CARB's consideration of additional information
provide an informed basis on which to make a determination as to
whether ammonia, SOX, and VOC do or do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, we turn to
our evaluation of the State's determination for each of these three
precursor pollutants.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, as detailed above, CARB estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response to both a 30% and a 70% emission reduction.
We find that it was appropriate for the State to consider additional
information to interpret those results to determine whether the ammonia
contribution is significant. We have evaluated CARB's determination
that the projected 2024 attainment year is more representative of
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley for sensitivity-based analyses and
that 30% is a reasonable upper bound for ammonia emission reductions to
assess the precursor contribution, as discussed below.
The State provided ample information from scientific studies based
on ambient measurements to help assess the estimated sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 to ammonia reductions. Conclusions based on
ambient data are particularly relevant because they provide direct
evidence of the chemical state of the atmosphere, and are not dependent
on modeled estimates of emissions or
[[Page 17395]]
ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Measurements represent the
``real world'' result of the pollutants' differing geographic
distributions, the various meteorological and chemical factors
influencing their conversion to particulate, and their removal from the
atmosphere by deposition and other processes. The observed abundance of
ammonia relative to nitric acid, and the positive amount of chemically
excess ammonia, both provide strong evidence that ammonia is not the
limiting pollutant for particulate ammonium nitrate formation. They
also support the State's conclusion that PM2.5 is likely to
be insensitive to ammonia emission reductions.
We note that the model response to precursor reductions may be
unrealistically large. There is some evidence that ammonia emissions
may be underestimated based on direct measurements of ammonia emissions
flux during two measurement campaigns, as discussed in the EPA's
PM2.5 Precursor TSD. If ammonia emissions were higher in the
modeling, then ammonia would be more abundant relative to nitrate and
particulate nitrate formation would be more NOX-limited, and
less sensitive to ammonia reductions. This would make the model
response more consistent with the ambient measurement studies, which
suggest a very low sensitivity to ammonia. The ammonia contribution to
PM2.5 levels above the standard may therefore be less than
estimated by the State modeling. The 2024 year modeling incorporates
lower NOX emissions and so has a larger abundance of ammonia
relative to nitrate, more similar to the studies' ambient measurements.
The 2024 response to ammonia reductions may thus be more reliable than
the 2013 and 2020 responses, and may be more representative of current
atmospheric conditions despite its use of emission projections for a
future year.
The relative sizes of the ammonia and NOX precursor
emission inventories after accounting for their differing molecular
weights are a rough indicator of which is the limiting pollutant for
production of ammonium nitrate, because it forms from a one-to-one
ratio of molecules derived from each precursor (i.e., one ammonium
nitrate forms from one ammonium and one nitrate). However, unlike
measurements and photochemical modeling, a simple emissions ratio does
not account for the various processes mentioned above; it just assumes
all the emitted molecules find each other and fully react. The State
found ammonia to be roughly three times as abundant as NOX
currently after accounting for their differing molecular weights, and
even more so in the future. The EPA repeated the exercise to account
for SOX as well, and found that the ratio of total ammonia
to that needed to react with both nitrate and sulfate ranged from 2.7
in 2013 to 5.6 in 2028. These are about the same as the CARB
NOX-only results, because SOX emissions are very
small relative to those of NOX and ammonia (e.g., in 2013,
winter daily emissions were 8.4 tpd SOX, vs. 300.5 tpd for
NOX and 309.8 tpd for ammonia).\126\ These observations
support the State's finding that PM2.5 is expected to be
relatively insensitive to ammonia reductions, though it is not
definitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Tables B-2, B-3, and
B-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also concludes that there are continuing large decreases
in NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley from 2013 to
2024, including 53% reductions from baseline measures and 10-11%
reductions from additional new measures, while ammonia emissions are
projected to remain roughly constant (i.e., decreasing 1-2%).\127\ In
conjunction with the ambient evidence that ammonia is already
chemically overabundant relative to NOX in the San Joaquin
Valley, this shows that in the future the overabundance will become
even greater, and thus ambient PM2.5 would be even less
responsive to ammonia reductions. This adds conservatism to the State's
conclusions about ammonia insensitivity based on the scientific
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ For further discussion of the SJV PM2.5 Plan's
control strategy, see section IV.D.4.b of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the base year for an attainment plan for a given
nonattainment area is generally more representative of current
conditions, the EPA believes that either a base year or a future year
may be used for modeling an ambient PM2.5 response to
precursor emission reductions, provided the state explains how the
choice of analysis year and associated assumptions are
appropriate.\128\ The State relied on 2024 model responses mainly on
the grounds that large NOX emissions reductions will occur
during 2013-2024, so that the 2024 results will continue to be
representative, unlike earlier model years. These reductions are the
result of regulations put in place by past air quality planning
decisions, and they will occur regardless of decisions about additional
NOX or ammonia controls in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. In
assessing the effect of potential ammonia reductions, the EPA believes
it is reasonable to account for these NOX reductions and the
effect that ammonia reductions would have in the attainment year and
after. In addition, as noted above, the greater abundance of ammonia
relative to NOX in the 2024 year modeling is more consistent
with recent ambient measurements, and may make the 2024 responses more
representative of current atmospheric conditions than the other model
years for assessing sensitivity to ammonia reductions. Therefore, in
consideration of the scientific studies and emission trends, including
the projected large amount of NOX emission reductions
through the attainment period, the EPA agrees that the modeled 2024
year is acceptable and representative of conditions in the San Joaquin
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of interpreting the full set of modeling results for
ammonia emissions reductions, the EPA also considered the State's
conclusion that the absence of available ammonia controls for sources
in the San Joaquin Valley supports its decision to treat a 30%
reduction as a reasonable upper bound on the ammonia emission
reductions to model in estimating the precursor contribution. As the
State correctly notes, the 30% to 70% range recommended by the EPA is
based on historical NOX and SOX emission
reductions, and changes in ammonia emission levels nationally from 2011
to 2017 ranged from a 9% decrease to a 6% increase.\129\ The State's
descriptions of both the past research relied upon to develop existing
rules that apply to ammonia emission sources and ongoing research show
that it has considered the availability of ammonia controls both in the
past and in the present context, and that the State has a basis for its
conclusion that 30% is a reasonable upper bound on achievable
reductions for ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, Table 2, page 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we find that the State quantified the sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 levels to reductions in ammonia using
appropriate modeling techniques, which performed well, and that the
State's choice of 2024 as the reference point for purposes of
evaluating the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to
ammonia emission reductions is well-supported. We also find that the
State adequately documented its bases for using a 30% reduction in
ammonia emissions as an upper bound in the modeling to assess ambient
sensitivity to ammonia emission reductions. Based on all of these
considerations, the EPA proposes to approve the State's demonstration
that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley.
[[Page 17396]]
b. SOX
For SOX, the State found that the ambient
PM2.5 responses to SOX emission reductions were
below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\
in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance (and below the EPA's
recommended threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the (final)
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance) and, indeed, that for most sites
there would be an increase in ambient PM2.5 levels in
response to such reductions (i.e., a disbenefit). The EPA has evaluated
the State's determination as to this disbenefit and the State's
resulting conclusion as to the precursor's significance.
Because the results of the sensitivity analysis were all below the
EPA's recommended 24-hour contribution thresholds at both the 30% and
70% emission reductions, and in both the 2013 base year and 2024
attainment year, it is not necessary to distinguish between the timing
and scale of emission reductions with respect to the response of
ambient PM2.5 levels, as in the ammonia evaluation where the
results diverged according to scale and timing of modeled emission
reductions. The EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD contains
additional detail on the EPA's evaluation of SOX as a
PM2.5 precursor, including the unexpected disbenefit of
reducing SOX emissions. Accordingly, we find that the
State's decision to rely on the 2013 sensitivity modeling results for a
30% SOX reduction is acceptable.
Therefore, on the basis of the modeled ambient PM2.5
response to both a 30% and 70% reduction in SOX emissions in
2013, and the facts and circumstances of the area, the EPA proposes to
approve the State's demonstration that SOX emissions do not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
c. VOC
For VOC, the State found that the ambient PM2.5 response
to VOC emission reductions were generally below the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ in the Draft
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance (and below the EPA's recommended
threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the final PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance), and often predicted an increase in ambient PM2.5
levels in response to such reductions (i.e., a disbenefit), except for
a 70% emission reduction for the 2013 base year, where the State
predicted the ambient PM2.5 response to be above both
recommended thresholds at a majority of sites. The EPA has evaluated
and agrees with the State's determination that the projected 2024
attainment year is more representative of conditions in the San Joaquin
Valley for sensitivity-based analyses and that VOC reductions in 2024
would mostly result in a disbenefit to ambient PM2.5 levels,
as well as the State's resulting conclusion as to whether VOC's
contribution is significant.
Regarding emission trends, the EPA agrees that the 9% VOC emissions
decrease from 2013 to 2024 favors reliance on the 2024 modeling
results. Furthermore, there is a large decrease in NOX
emissions over this period, as discussed in the EPA's evaluation of
ammonia in section IV.B.3.a of this preamble, which affects the
atmospheric chemistry with respect to ambient PM2.5
formation from VOC emissions. The 9% VOC emission reductions and the
vast majority of NOX emissions will result from baseline
measures that are projected to occur, even absent any further action by
the State. We therefore find it reasonable to rely on future year 2024
modeled responses to VOC reductions. The EPA also finds that the State
provided a reasonable explanation for the VOC reduction disbenefit and
evidence that it occurs in the San Joaquin Valley.
For all of these reasons, we propose to approve the State's
demonstration that VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
C. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area that the state submit provisions to
assure that the best available control measures (BACM) for the control
of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be
implemented no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified as a serious area. The EPA has defined BACM in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule to mean ``any technologically
and economically feasible control measure that can be implemented in
whole or in part within 4 years after the date of reclassification of a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area to Serious and that
generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors from sources in the area than can be
achieved through the implementation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM
includes best available control technology (BACT).'' \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 40 CFR 51.1000 (definitions). In longstanding guidance,
the EPA has similarly defined BACM to mean, ``among other things,
the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or
source category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts.'' General
Preamble Addendum, 42010, 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA generally considers BACM a control level that goes beyond
existing RACM-level controls, for example by expanding the use of RACM
controls or by requiring preventative measures instead of
remediation.\131\ Indeed, as implementation of BACM and BACT is
required when a Moderate nonattainment area is reclassified as Serious
due to its inability to attain the NAAQS through implementation of
``reasonable'' measures, it is logical that ``best'' control measures
should represent a more stringent and potentially more costly level of
control.\132\ If RACM and RACT level controls of emissions have been
insufficient to reach attainment, the CAA contemplates the
implementation of more stringent controls, controls on more sources, or
other adjustments to the control strategy necessary to attain the NAAQS
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ 81 FR 58010, 58081 and General Preamble Addendum, 42011,
42013.
\132\ Id. and General Preamble Addendum, 42009-42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with longstanding guidance provided in the General
Preamble Addendum, the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule discusses the following steps for determining BACM
and BACT:
(1) Develop a comprehensive emission inventory of the sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors;
(2) Identify potential control measures;
(3) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
technologically feasible;
(4) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
economically feasible; and
(5) Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or
technology can be implemented in whole or in part.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 81 FR 58010, 58083-58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA allows consideration of factors such as physical plant
layout, energy requirements, needed infrastructure, and workforce type
and habits when considering technological feasibility. For purposes of
evaluating economic feasibility, the EPA allows consideration of
factors such as the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and
cost effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of
[[Page 17397]]
pollutant reduced by a measure or technology) associated with the
measure or control.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3) and 81 FR 58010, 58041-58042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these analyses are complete, the state must use this
information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to
the EPA for evaluation as SIP provisions to meet the basic requirements
of CAA section 110 and any other applicable substantive provisions of
the Act. The EPA is using these steps as guidelines in the evaluation
of the BACM and BACT measures and related analyses in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
Because the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley as Serious
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective February
19, 2016,\135\ the date four years after reclassification is February
19, 2020. In this case, however, the Serious area attainment date for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley under section
188(c) is no later than December 31, 2019, and to qualify for an
extension of this date under section 188(e), the state must, among
other things, demonstrate that implementation of BACM and BACT for
relevant source categories will not bring the area into attainment by
this date. Given these circumstances, the EPA is evaluating the Plan's
control strategy for implementation of BACM and BACT as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 81 FR 2993.
\136\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a
Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the state must,
among other things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent
measures (MSM) that are included in the implementation plan of any
state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area. The state must implement MSM as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than the beginning of the year containing
the attainment date identified by the state in its extension request,
i.e., in this case, by January 1, 2024, because the State is seeking an
extension of the attainment date to December 31, 2024, under section
188(e).\137\ Section III.B of this preamble contains a more detailed
discussion of the MSM requirement in CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5) (requiring implementation of all
control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than the beginning of the year containing
the applicable attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
As discussed in section IV.A of this proposed rule, Appendix B of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the planning inventories for
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors
(NOX, SOX, VOC, and ammonia) for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area together with documentation to support these
inventories. Each inventory includes emissions from stationary, area,
on-road, and non-road emission sources, and the State specifically
identifies the condensable component of direct PM2.5 for
relevant stationary and area source categories. As discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble, the State's analysis indicates that the Plan
should control emissions of PM2.5 and NOX in
order to reach attainment. Accordingly, the Plan evaluates potential
controls for those pollutants in the analysis of what is necessary to
meet the BACM (including BACT) and MSM requirements.
For stationary and area sources, the District identifies the
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX in the San
Joaquin Valley that are subject to District emission control measures
and provides its evaluation of these regulations for compliance with
BACM and MSM requirements in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM and MSM and
considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional
control measures, the District reviewed the EPA's guidance documents on
BACM, additional guidance documents on control measures for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emission sources, and control
measures implemented in other ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment
areas in California and other states.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mobile sources, CARB identifies the sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX in the San Joaquin Valley that are
subject to the State's emission control measures and provides its
evaluation of these regulations for compliance with BACM and MSM
requirements in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. Appendix
D describes CARB's process for determining BACM and MSM, including
identification of the sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley, identification of potential
control measures for such sources, assessment of the stringency and
feasibility of the potential control measures, and adoption and
implementation of feasible control measures.\139\ CARB further
discusses its current mobile source control program and additional
mobile source measures in the Valley State SIP Strategy. Appendix D of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan also describes the current efforts of
the eight local jurisdiction metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
to implement cost-effective transportation control measures (TCMs) in
the San Joaquin Valley.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Id. at App. D, Ch. II.
\140\ Id. at App. D, D-127 and D-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
As discussed in sections III.B and IV.D of this preamble, the EPA
has established a process for evaluating potential BACM (including
BACT) in serious area plans and a similar process for evaluating MSM.
Because of the substantial overlap in the source categories and
controls evaluated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our
evaluation of the SJV PM2.5 Plan's provisions for including
MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan's provisions for implementing
BACM and BACT for each identified source category.
The first step in determining BACM and MSM is to develop a
comprehensive emissions inventory of the sources of direct
PM2.5 and relevant PM2.5 precursors that can be
used with modeling to determine the effects of these sources on ambient
PM2.5 levels. Based on our review of the emission
inventories provided in Appendix B of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and the State's and District's identification of the sources subject to
control in Appendix C and Appendix D, the EPA is proposing to find that
the Plan appropriately identifies all sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX that are subject to evaluation for
potential control consistent with the requirements of subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act.
The remaining steps are to identify potential control measures for
each source category, determine whether available control measures or
technologies are technologically and economically feasible for
implementation in the area, and determine the earliest date by which
those control measures or technologies found to be feasible can be
implemented, in whole or in part.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 81 FR 58010, 58083-58085. The EPA's recommended steps for
a BACM demonstration are substantively similar to the required steps
for an MSM demonstration in 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss below key components of the BACM and MSM evaluations
provided by the District, CARB, and the
[[Page 17398]]
local jurisdiction MPOs in the SJV PM2.5 Plan in accordance
with these steps. We provide a more detailed evaluation of many of the
District's control measures for stationary and area sources in the
EPA's ``Technical Support Document, EPA Evaluation of BACM/MSM, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' February 2020 (``EPA's BACM/MSM TSD''), together with
recommendations for possible future improvements to these rules.
a. District Measures for Stationary and Area Sources
Open Burning
SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (``Open Burning''), as amended April 15, 2010,
is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from
open burning of agricultural waste and other materials.\142\ The rule
restricts the type of materials that may be burned and establishes
other conditions and procedures for open burning in conjunction with
the District's Smoke Management Program.\143\ The EPA approved Rule
4103 into the California SIP on January 4, 2012.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15, 2010.
\143\ Id.
\144\ 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4103 to several other open burning rules
implemented in other parts of California and found that no other rules
are more stringent, as a whole, than Rule 4103. According to the
information provided, although the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) implements a rule that restricts burning on
residential wood combustion (RWC) curtailment days (Rule 444) and
District Rule 4103 does not contain the same restriction, in practice
the District generally limits burning on RWC curtailment days through
implementation of its Smoke Management Program, which specifically
allocates allowable burn acreage for 97 geographic zones based on local
meteorology. We note that a restriction on burning on RWC curtailment
days by itself may not consistently reduce wintertime PM2.5
emission levels as it could shift more waste burning activity to days
with more favorable meteorology. On balance we find that Rule 4103's
general prohibitions on the burning of specific agricultural crops and
burn permitting program are more effective means for reducing
PM2.5 emissions than targeted restrictions on RWC
curtailment days.
Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the California Health and Safety
Code require the District to prohibit open burning of specific crop
categories unless the District determines either that there is no
economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste or
that there is no long-term federal or state funding commitment for the
continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or
for the development of alternatives to burning.\145\ The District has
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to
burning several times in the last several years and concluded that such
alternatives are not feasible for selected crop categories at this
time.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ California Health & Safety Code, sections 41855.5 and
41855.6.
\146\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-18 and C-23 to C-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 Million
British Thermal Units per Hour (MMBtu/hr)
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 3''), as amended October 16, 2008, establishes
NOX emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 parts per million
(ppm) and related operational requirements for gaseous fuel- or liquid
fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total
rated heat input greater than 5 MMBtu/hr.\147\ The EPA approved Rule
4306 into the California SIP on January 13, 2010.\148\ SJVUAPCD Rule
4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr''), as
adopted October 16, 2008, establishes more stringent NOX
emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and related operational requirements for
these units but allows sources to pay an emission fee in lieu of
compliance with the NOX emission limits.\149\ The EPA
approved Rule 4320 into the California SIP on March 25, 2011, but
determined that this rule, as approved, may not be credited for
attainment planning purposes because the fee provision renders the
NOX emission limits unenforceable.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October 16, 2008.
\148\ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
\149\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16, 2008.
\150\ 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared both Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 to several other
analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the
Sacramento Metro area, the South Coast, and the Bay Area.\151\
According to the information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4306
are generally within the same range as, and in some cases are more
stringent than, those contained in analogous rules implemented by these
other California agencies, except that the SCAQMD implements a rule
containing NOX emission limits that are potentially more
stringent for units of certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended
November 1, 2013).\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-71 to C-79.
\152\ Id. and 79 FR 57442 (September 25, 2014) (final action
approving Rule 1146 into California SIP). The SCAQMD amended Rule
1146 on December 8, 2018 and CARB submitted the amended rule to the
EPA on February 6, 2020. The amended rule is available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1146.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 ppm NOX emission limit
for larger units (i.e., those with heat rate inputs above 75 MMBtu/hr),
whereas Rule 4320 establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306 establishes a
9 ppm limit for such units.\153\ SCAQMD Regulation XX (``Regional Clean
Air Incentives Market'' or ``RECLAIM'') also applies to units within
the same range of sizes as Rule 4320 but allows sources to comply with
emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits.\154\ Because
SCAQMD Rule 1146 allows individual units with rated heat inputs above
75 MMBtu/hr to comply with RECLAIM in lieu of compliance with the 5 ppm
emission limit in the rule,\155\ the SIP-approved NOX
emission limit for these units in the South Coast is either the
applicable limit in SCAQMD Rule 1146 or the applicable provision of the
RECLAIM program, which may allow for emission levels higher than 5 ppm
at individual units.\156\ We do not have information
[[Page 17399]]
about the rated heat input of the units subject to RECLAIM in the South
Coast and, therefore, have no information confirming that any unit with
a rated heat input above 75 MMBtu/hr has achieved the 5 ppm
NOX emission limit in Rule 1146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended November 1, 2013) at
section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-73. The SCAQMD's December 8, 2018
amendments to Rule 1146 did not alter the provisions of section
(c)(1)(F).
\154\ RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow
facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements
for NOX and SOX through, among other things,
add-on controls, equipment modifications, reformulated products,
operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase of excess emission
reductions. SCAQMD Rule 2000, section (a). The SCAQMD is currently
transitioning the RECLAIM program to a command-and-control
regulatory structure requiring ``best available retrofit control
technology'' as soon as practicable. See, e.g., SCAQMD, Draft Staff
Report, ``Proposed Amended Rule 1110.2--Emissions from Gaseous- and
Liquid-Fueled Engines, Proposed Amended Rule 1100--Implementation
Schedule for NOX Facilities,'' September 2019, Chapter 1.
\155\ SCAQMD Rule 1146, ``Emissions of NOX from
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers and Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters'' (amended November 1, 2013), Table
1146-1, section (a)(4) and SCAQMD Rule 2001, ``Applicability''
(amended May 6, 2005), section (j) and Table 1.
\156\ The EPA's most recent action approving revisions to the
RECLAIM program into the California SIP published on September 14,
2017. 82 FR 43176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative NOX and PM2.5 control techniques
for this source category, such as low temperature oxidation and
EMX system for NOX control, and alternative
fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers for direct
PM2.5 control.\157\ Based on its consideration of the
technical constraints and costs associated with each of these control
options, as explained in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
the District concluded that these additional controls are not feasible
for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley at this time.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-88 to C-92.
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the NOX emission limits in Rule 4320 do not
satisfy the Act's enforceability requirements because of the option to
pay an emission fee, we note that the requirement to pay the emission
fee itself is an enforceable requirement and that the fee provision
appears to function effectively as a pollution deterrent.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ EPA's BACM/MSM TSD at section 3.b.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flares
SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (``Flares''), as amended June 18, 2009,
establishes specific operational and administrative requirements to
limit emissions of NOX, SOX, and VOCs from the
operation of flares.\160\ Under Rule 4311, for each refinery flare and
other flare with a capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the operator must submit
a flare minimization plan (FMP) to the District describing relevant
equipment and preventative measures and demonstrating that the operator
appropriately minimized flaring activity.\161\ The EPA approved Rule
4311 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18, 2009.
\161\ Id.
\162\ 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4311 with several other analogous rules
implemented in other parts of California, including the South Coast,
Bay Area, and Santa Barbara, all of which require regulated sources to
submit FMPs to the local air districts.\163\ The District also compared
Rule 4311 with North Dakota's Century Code 38-08-06.4, which requires,
among other things, that after one year of uncontrolled operations each
oil well be equipped with a control system that captures at least 75%
of the gas (i.e., allowing up to 25% of the gas to be flared).\164\
According to the information provided, the average volume of gas flared
at facilities in the San Joaquin Valley between 2009 and 2013 was 3.8%,
well below both the amount of flaring allowed under the North Dakota
rule and the amount allowed in the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District's Rule 359, which requires that each FMP list a targeted
maximum monthly flared gas volume of 5% of the average monthly gas
handled/produced/treated, with limited exceptions.\165\ As described in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District concluded
that, because of wide variation in flaring operations in the San
Joaquin Valley, requirements to submit detailed FMPs, as in Rule 4311,
are the most effective means of reducing NOX emissions from
flaring and that additional control techniques are not technologically
and economically feasible for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley
at this time.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-150 to C-156.
\164\ Id. at C-155 and North Dakota Century Code 38-08-06.4,
section 2.d (as in effect February 13, 2015), available at https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t38c08.pdf?20150213153521.
\165\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, C-154 and C-155.
\166\ Id. at C-147 to C-148 and C-156 to C-161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with a commitment in a prior PM2.5 attainment
plan to evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of
additional flare minimization practices, the District recently
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the most effective flare
minimization practices included in approved FMPs and additional
NOX control information and published two reports containing
its findings and recommendations.\167\ As part of its final report in
2016, the District identified flare minimization practices in use at
certain facilities that could be employed at other facilities to reduce
flaring and stated its intent to propose potential rule amendments to
require use of these practices where technologically and economically
feasible.\168\ Additionally, the District found that ultra-low
NOX control technologies have recently become available and
stated its intent to thoroughly evaluate this control option and to
then propose potential rule amendments to require use of these controls
where technologically and economically feasible.\169\ In the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the District provided a summary economic
analysis indicating that the annualized cost-effectiveness of ultra-low
NOX control technology would range from $23,000 to $1
million per ton of NOX reduced.\170\ Finally, the District
considered a number of alternatives to flaring, preventative
maintenance measures, procedures to reduce flaring during maintenance
and shutdowns, and procedures to prevent or mitigate effects of power
outages that would further reduce NOX emissions from this
source category.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ SJVUAPCD, ``Rule 4311 (Flares) Further Study, 2014,''
September 16, 2014 and SJVUAPCD, ``Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare
Minimization Plans, 2015,'' March 31, 2016.
\168\ SJVUAPCD, ``Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare Minimization
Plans, 2015,'' March 31, 2016, 16-17.
\169\ Id.
\170\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, C-156 and C-157.
\171\ Id. at C-157 to C-161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters''), as amended December 15, 2011, establishes
NOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters that burn municipal
solid waste (MSW), biomass, and other solid fuels.\172\ Specifically,
the rule establishes NOX emission limits of 165 parts per
million volume (ppmv) for units burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units burning
biomass, and 65 ppmv for units burning other solid fuels.\173\ The EPA
approved the District's 2011 amendments to this rule into the
California SIP on November 6, 2012.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December 15, 2011.
\173\ Id.
\174\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 have been lowered
significantly over time and are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements implemented in other parts of California. The District
compared the provisions of Rule 4352 to potentially more stringent
rules implemented in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) (Rule 1146), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
(Regulation 9 Rule 7) and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) (Rule 411) and found that the lower
NOX emission limits in these rules are not comparable to the
provisions of Rule 4352. According to the District, all of remaining
solid fuel-fired boilers operating in the San Joaquin Valley are used
by electric utilities to generate electricity, a category that is
specifically exempted from the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1146, BAAQMD
Regulation 9 Rule 7, and SMAQMD
[[Page 17400]]
Rule 411.\175\ The District also compared Rule 4352 to analogous rules
implemented by three other California air districts that apply to
active biomass-fueled units, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD), El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
(EDAQMD), and Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD),
and found that the NOX emission limits for biomass-fueled
units in these regulations are all within the same range as the limits
in SJVUAPCD Rule 4352.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-165 to C-167.
\176\ Id. at C-168 to C-169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technological and economic
feasibility of alternative control techniques for this source category,
such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and ``Covanta LN''
technology for NOX control and catalytic baghouse filter
bags (``Gore De-NOX systems'') for direct PM2.5
control.\177\ Based primarily on its consideration of the costs
associated with retrofitting these controls onto existing MSW-fired or
biomass-fired units, the District concluded in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that none of these control options is
economically feasible for sources in the San Joaquin Valley at this
time.\178\ The District noted, however, that in May 2018 it issued a
construction permit requiring installation of Covanta LN technology to
limit NOX emissions from certain MSW-fired units and that it
would continue to monitor the implementation of this control technology
to determine whether it is feasible for implementation on a continuous
basis.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Id. at C-170 to C-179.
\178\ Id.
\179\ Id. at C-179. The permitted source had not yet begun
construction at the time the District adopted the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the relevant provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 9-7,
SCAQMD Rule 1146 and SMAQMD Rule 411 and agree with the District's
conclusion that these SIP-approved regulations exempt from their
NOX emission limits boilers used at electric utilities to
generate electricity.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ BAAQMD Regulation 9-7, section 110.4, SCAQMD Rule 1146,
section 110, and SMAQMD Rule 41, section (f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass Melting Furnaces
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), as amended May 19,
2011, establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and
PM10 emission limits and related operational requirements
for glass melting furnaces.\181\ Specifically, the rule establishes
NOX emission limits of 1.5 to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton
glass, depending on glass product and averaging time, and
SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. SOX/ton
glass.\182\ The EPA approved the District's 2011 amendments to Rule
4354 into the California SIP on January 31, 2013.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011.
\182\ Id. at 5, 7.
\183\ 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4354
require implementation of oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems, which are the
best available NOX control techniques for this source
category and are at least as stringent as analogous requirements
implemented in the South Coast and Bay Area.\184\ We are not aware of
prohibitory rules for glass melting furnaces in other areas that are
more stringent than Rule 4354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-189 to C-194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our review of a previous PM2.5 attainment
plan submitted for the San Joaquin Valley, we also considered whether
NOX emission levels lower than the limits in Rule 4354 may
be feasible for container glass manufacturing facilities. Specifically,
under the SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program, the SCAQMD determined in 2000 that
a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled
represented Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT),\185\
and in 2015 the SCAQMD determined that a lower NOX limit of
0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled represents BARCT for this
source category based on use of SCR or the ``Ultra Cat ceramic filter
system,'' which has been installed or is under construction at a number
of glass manufacturing locations worldwide.\186\ The EPA obtained
information from the SCAQMD indicating that the Owens-Brockway
Container Glass facility in the South Coast (now operated by Owens-
Illinois Glass Company) operated at 90% production capacity in February
2015 and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs NOX/ton of
glass pulled during that month, using oxyfuel firing to control
NOX emissions.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
\186\ SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, ``Proposed Amendments to
Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM),
NOX RECLAIM,'' December 4, 2015, 170-171. The RECLAIM
program requires that container glass melting facilities achieve
NOX reductions consistent with the 2015 BARCT
determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled) by 2022.
SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended October 5, 2018), subparagraph
(f)(1)(K) and Table 6 (``RECLAIM NOX 2022 Ending Emission
Factors'').
\187\ 81 FR 69396, 69399 (October 6, 2016) (citing email dated
April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana, SCAQMD to Idalia Perez, EPA
Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this information, the EPA requested additional information
from the District about the technological and economic feasibility of
additional NOX control techniques for container glass
manufacturing facilities, and on January 28, 2020, the District
submitted a document entitled ``Further Information for EPA Regarding
the MSM Analysis for District Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)''
(referred to herein as the ``Rule 4354 Additional Analysis'').\188\ The
information provided by the District indicates that, because the costs
due to lost production can be significant if a glass melting furnace is
taken off-line during the middle of its campaign, retrofits to install
additional combustion controls are generally performed only when a
furnace is shut down for rebricking, which occurs once every 10 to 15
years.\189\ Because of wide variations in the costs and technical
difficulties associated with installation of NOX controls
depending on the physical layout of each furnace and the time of its
last re-bricking, the District concluded that generic economic
feasibility analyses are not possible and that extensive facility-
specific evaluations would be necessary to determine whether additional
control technologies are feasible for implementation at the three
container glass melting facilities currently operating in the San
Joaquin Valley.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Email dated January 28, 2020, from John Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Follow up questions on
glass melting and IC engines for MSM analysis,'' attaching ``Further
Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for District Rule
4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)'' (``Rule 4354 Additional Analysis'').
\189\ Rule 4354 Additional Analysis, 5-7.
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the District also stated in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that the Owens-Brockway (now Owens-Illinois)
facility in the South Coast has experienced wide-ranging spikes in the
NOX emissions from its glass furnaces while operating its
new control systems and that it is not known at this time whether the
facility will be able to consistently achieve emission rates as low as
0.20 lbs of NOX/ton of glass produced as shown by the
facility's preliminary source test data from 2018.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with the District's conclusion that the feasibility of
retrofits to install additional NOX controls at the existing
glass melting facilities in the San Joaquin Valley is
[[Page 17401]]
highly dependent on timing and site-specific factors, as the real costs
of installing post-combustion controls or oxy-fuel firing retrofits and
the lost revenue resulting from early furnace shutdowns may vary
significantly from facility to facility.
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion Engines''), as amended
November 14, 2013, establishes NOX, CO, VOC, and
SOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
internal combustion (IC) engines.\192\ The rule contains separate
emission limits for spark-ignited IC engines used in agricultural
operations (SI AO engines), spark-ignited IC engines used in non-
agricultural operations (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC
engines.\193\ The EPA approved the District's 2013 amendments to this
rule into the California SIP on April 25, 2016.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013.
\193\ Id.
\194\ 81 FR 24029 (April 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX
emission limits ranging from 11 to 75 ppmv, depending on the type of
engine.\195\ According to Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
these NOX emission limits are at least as stringent as many
analogous control requirements implemented in the Bay Area, Sacramento
Metro, and Ventura County areas.\196\ We also note that the Rule 4702
limits for these engines are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements in the Feather River, Placer County, Mojave Desert, and
San Diego areas.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.2 and tables 1 and 2.
\196\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-214 to C-221.
\197\ Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County APCD Rule 242;
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the emission limits for specific types of SI non-AO engines
in Rule 4702 are, however, less stringent than those implemented in the
South Coast, El Dorado, and Antelope Valley areas for similar engines.
Specifically, the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC
engines;\198\ El Dorado has adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ``rich-
burn'' engines and a 65 ppmv limit for SI ``lean-burn'' engines (except
those used exclusively in agricultural operations); \199\ and Antelope
Valley has adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines (except those used
exclusively in agricultural operations).\200\ As explained in Appendix
C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District considered the
technical and economic feasibility of alternative control techniques
for certain SI non-AO engines (e.g., waste gas engines, cyclic loaded
field gas-fueled engines, limited use engines, two-stroke gaseous
fueled engines, and lean-burn engines used in gas compression) that
would lower the emission levels for these engines to 11 ppmv but found
that these NOX controls are not feasible for implementation
in the San Joaquin Valley at this time.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
\199\ El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006.
\200\ Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21,
2003.
\201\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-221 to C-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX emission
limits ranging from 90 to 150 ppmv.\202\ These NOX emission
limits are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in the Sacramento Metro, Placer County, El Dorado, and
Antelope Valley areas, which exempt AO engines from control
requirements altogether, and are equivalent to analogous control
requirements implemented in the Mojave Desert area.\203\ The SCAQMD,
however, has adopted an 11 ppmv NOX emission limit for all
stationary SI and CI engines rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011,
with limited exceptions for agricultural engines that meet certain
conditions.\204\ Additionally, the Feather River Air Quality Management
District (FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, establishes
NOX emission limits of 25 parts per million (ppm) and 65 ppm
for rich-burn and lean-burn agricultural engines in southern FRAQMD,
respectively, except for engines located at agricultural sources that
emit less than 50% of the major source thresholds for regulated air
pollutants and/or hazardous air pollutants.\205\ These NOX
emission limits in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD Rule 3.22 thus appear
to be more stringent in some respects than the 90 ppmv and 150 ppmv
limits applicable to agricultural engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. As of
June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of any stationary SI
engines currently operating at agricultural facilities in the Feather
River area that have demonstrated compliance with the 25 ppm or 65 ppm
NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22.\206\ Nonetheless,
because these NOX emission limits are approved into the
California SIP,\207\ they are required as MSM if they can feasibly be
implemented in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.3 and Table 3.
\203\ SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; Placer County
APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule
233, as amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as
amended January 21, 2003; and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as
adopted January 23, 2012.
\204\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008, section
(d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). Rule 1110.2 provides an
exemption from the 11 ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines
that meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of two additional
conditions: (1) The engine operator submits documentation to the
SCAQMD, by the deadline for a permit application, that the
applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an
electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or (2) the
SCAQMD determines that the operator does not qualify for funding
under California Health and Safety Code Section 44229 to replace,
retrofit or repower the engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section
(h)(9).
\205\ FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, section D.1,
Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e
(Exemptions).
\206\ Email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit Mangat, FRAQMD to
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, regarding ``Engines in FRAQMD'' (stating
that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating in the Feather
River area qualify for an exemption from the NOX emission
limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22). The 25 ppm and 65 ppm NOX
emission limits in SIP-approved Rule 3.22 apply only to engines
located at agricultural sources that emit at least 50% of the major
source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/or hazardous air
pollutants. FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, section
D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e
(Exemptions).
\207\ 80 FR 22646 (April 23, 2015) (final rule approving FRAQMD
Rule 3.22 into California SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of
alternative control techniques for SI AO engines that would lower the
emission levels for certain engines to 11 ppmv but found that these
NOX controls are not feasible for implementation within San
Joaquin Valley's agricultural industry at this time.\208\ Based on our
understanding that three natural gas-fired SI AO engines in the South
Coast are currently subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission
limit in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and use nonselective catalytic reduction
(NSCR, also called ``three-way catalysts'') control technology to
comply with this emission limit,\209\ the EPA requested additional
information from the District regarding the technological and economic
feasibility of additional NOX control techniques for SI AO
engines, and on October 7, 2019, the District submitted a document
entitled ``Further Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for
Agricultural Operation Engines'' (referred to herein as the ``AO Engine
Additional Analysis'').\210\
[[Page 17402]]
According to the District, the NOX controls that would be
necessary to achieve a 11 ppmv emission limit at SI AO engines in the
San Joaquin Valley are not economically feasible because of factors
such as increased fuel costs, increased engine maintenance costs, and
the costs of engine overhaul/replacement,\211\ and installation of
control equipment on an SI AO engine generally is not technologically
feasible without substantial and costly engine retrofits.\212\ The AO
Engine Additional Analysis explains the District's cost-effectiveness
calculations.\213\ The District also provided information regarding
technical feasibility challenges related to the specific type of
workforce, and physical size and location of agricultural operations in
the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-231 to C-238.
\209\ 81 FR 69396, 69398 (October 6, 2016) (citing email dated
May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana, SCAQMD to Nicole Law, EPA Region
IX).
\210\ Email dated October 7, 2019, from John Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Follow up questions on
glass melting and IC engines for MSM analysis,'' attaching ``Further
Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for Agricultural
Operation Engines'' (``AO Engine Additional Analysis'').
\211\ AO Engine Additional Analysis, 9-12.
\212\ Id. at 10-11.
\213\ Id. at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the SCAQMD, like SJVUAPCD, has provided economic
incentive grants for agricultural engine retrofits and replacement in
recognition of unique economic and technical circumstances in the
agricultural industry.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 2005, App.
B (``Incentive Funding Available for Agricultural Engine Emission
Reductions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for compression-ignited IC engines (both those used in
agricultural operations and those used in non-agricultural operations),
Rule 4702 requires compliance by specified dates with EPA Tier 3 or
Tier 4 NOX emission standards for non-road CI engines in 40
CFR part 89 or part 1039, as applicable, or an 80 ppmv NOX
emission limit, depending on engine type.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.4, Table 4, and section 3.37 (defining Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3,
and Tier 4 engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Management Practices
SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices''), as
adopted August 19, 2004, establishes requirements for owners and
operators of agricultural sites to implement conservation management
practices (CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from on-field
crop and animal feeding operations.\216\ Under the rule, each owner/
operator of an agricultural site must select and implement a CMP for
each category of operations, including unpaved roads and unpaved
vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and submit a CMP application to the
District for its review and approval.\217\ The EPA approved this rule
into the California SIP on February 14, 2006.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19, 2004.
\217\ Id.
\218\ 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Rule
4550 was the first rule of its kind in the nation to reduce fugitive
particulate emissions from agricultural operations through
implementation of conservation practices.\219\ The District compared
the provisions of Rule 4550 to analogous regulations implemented by air
agencies in other parts of California (Imperial County and South Coast)
and in Arizona, and found that Rule 4550 is at least as stringent as
each of these other regulations.\220\ We note that it is difficult to
directly compare the requirements among these rules because of the
widely varying rule structures and operations of the affected
agricultural sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-196.
\220\ Id. at C-202, C-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that additional CMPs and
other controls for windblown dust would not substantially impact
PM2.5 design values in the San Joaquin Valley because
windblown dust events typically do not coincide with the winter period
during which PM2.5 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley
are the highest.\221\ According to the District, PM2.5
design values in the San Joaquin Valley are driven primarily by high
winter-time concentrations, mostly due to organic carbon and the
secondary formation of ammonium nitrate, while the geologic component
of peak PM2.5 concentrations is a fraction (less than 6%) of
the mass formed by secondary processes and other sources.\222\
Additionally, the District states that PM2.5 comprises a
small fraction (approximately 6% to 12%) of total PM10
emissions from agricultural field operations in the San Joaquin
Valley.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Id. at C-200, C-201.
\222\ Id. at C-201.
\223\ Id. at C-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Charbroiling
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling''), as amended
September 17, 2009, establishes control requirements to reduce
PM10 (including PM2.5) and VOC emissions from
chain-driven charbroilers.\224\ Specifically, the rule requires that
chain-driven charbroilers be equipped and operated with a catalytic
oxidizer with a control efficiency of at least 83% for PM10
emissions and 86% for VOC emissions.\225\ The rule does not require
controls for under-fired charbroilers (UFCs). The EPA approved the
District's 2009 amendments to Rule 4692 into the California SIP on
November 3, 2011.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17, 2009.
\225\ Id.
\226\ 76 FR 68103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a comparison
of the requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous requirements for chain-
driven charbroilers implemented by the SCAQMD, Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), BAAQMD, and New York Department of
Environmental Protection (NYDEP) and found no requirements for chain-
driven charbroilers in these rules that are more stringent than those
contained in Rule 4692.\227\ With respect to UFCs, the District noted
that two regulations, the BAAQMD's Regulation 6 Rule 2 and title 24,
section 24-149.4 of the New York City Administrative Code, contain
control requirements for UFCs. According to the District, however, the
majority of the UFCs in the Bay Area are not subject to the
requirements for UFCs in BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 2 because they fall
below the rule's applicability thresholds, and the BAAQMD has not
enforced its UFC requirements because no control technologies have yet
been certified.\228\ Similarly, the District states in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that NYDEP staff are in the introductory
stages of establishing an inventory and planning for inspections at
charbroiling facilities, and that installation of controls for new UFCs
is not yet required under title 24, section 24-149.4 of the New York
City Administrative Code.\229\ The SJVUAPCD therefore concluded that
control requirements for UFCs are not technologically and economically
feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-205 to C-208.
\228\ Id. at C-206. We note that the BAAQMD and NYDEP
charbroiler rules have not been approved into the California SIP and
New York SIP, respectively.
\229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not aware of requirements for chain-driven charbroilers in
other areas that are more stringent than the requirements of Rule 4692.
Although the BAAQMD and NYDEP implement rules that require controls for
UFCs, neither agency has yet confirmed that any regulated sources have
successfully installed and operated certified UFC control
technologies.\230\ Staff at the
[[Page 17403]]
BAAQMD recently noted that electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have been
installed in commercial kitchens in San Francisco and San Jose but that
the BAAQMD has not yet enforced control requirements for UFCs.\231\ We
note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies several restaurants
inside and outside of the San Joaquin Valley that have installed UFC
control technologies, and that these installations may inform the
District's ongoing feasibility analyses.\232\ For example, the District
has implemented a first-of-its-kind pilot project to install and assess
the feasibility of UFC controls at an operating restaurant.\233\ We
encourage the District to continue monitoring the operation of these
control technologies to determine whether they can feasibly be
implemented at other charbroiling sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Email dated July 11, 2019, from Stanley Tong, EPA Region
IX to Krishnan Balakrishnan, BAAQMD, Subject: ``Underfired
charbroiler updates'' and email dated June 17, 2019, from Ronald
Vaughn, NYDEP to Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE New
Charbroiler Registrations NYC.''
\231\ Email dated January 9, 2020, from Virginia Lau, BAAQMD to
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Underfired charbroiler--
Q: SJ discussion about BA rule'' (noting that the BAAQMD has
conducted enforcement inspections concerning food throughput and
grill size).
\232\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-209.
\233\ Id. at App. E, E-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District revised Rule 4692 on June 21, 2018, to require owners
and operators of commercial cooking operations with UFCs to submit, by
January 1, 2019, a one-time informational report providing information
about the UFC and its operations--including, e.g., information about
the cooking surface area, type and quantity of meat cooked on the UFC
on a weekly basis during the previous 12-month period, daily operating
hours, and the manufacturer and model number of any installed pollution
control device designed to reduce particulates, kitchen smoke, or
odor.\234\ The revisions to Rule 4692 also require such owners and
operators to register with the District and keep weekly records
relating to the quantity of meat cooked, but exempt from the
registration and recordkeeping requirements UFCs that cook quantities
of meat below certain thresholds provided the owner or operator
complied with the one-time informational reporting requirement. CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA on November 21, 2018, via a
letter dated November 16, 2018.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21, 2018. The
revisions to Rule 4692 provide that commercial cooking operations
with UFCs that are operated outdoors and are not connected to an
exhaust hood or other form of ventilation system are exempt from the
requirements of the rule. Id. at sections 3.9 and 4.3.
\235\ Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX (transmitting amended Rule 4692).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Gas Turbines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (``Stationary Gas Turbines''), as amended
September 20, 2007, establishes NOX emission limits and
related operational requirements for stationary gas turbines with
greater than 0.3 MW capacity or a maximum heat input rating of more
than 3 million Btu/hr.\236\ The NOX emission limits in the
rule range from 3 to 25 ppm for gas-fired operations and from 25 to 42
ppm for liquid-fired operations.\237\ These units operate primarily in
the oil and gas production and utility industries, with some also
operating in manufacturing and government facilities.\238\ The EPA
approved this rule into the California SIP on October 21, 2009.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 20, 2007.
\237\ Id. at Table 5-3.
\238\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-243 to C-247.
\239\ 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4703
are at least as stringent as analogous control requirements implemented
in the Bay Area, South Coast, and Ventura County.\240\ We note that the
SCAQMD recently revised its rule for stationary gas turbines (Rule
1134) to establish, among other things, a NOX emission limit
of 2 ppmv for natural gas-fired combined cycle turbines, which is more
stringent than the 3 ppmv limit in SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 for these
units.\241\ Because the compliance date for this requirement in SCAQMD
Rule 1134 is December 31, 2023, however, it is not clear that the
controls necessary to achieve a 2 ppmv emission level are
technologically and economically feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-243 to C-247.
\241\ SCAQMD Rule 1134, as amended April 5, 2019, section (d)
and table I (``Emission Limits for Stationary Gas Turbines'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters''), as amended June 20, 2019, is designed to limit emissions of
PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, and other
pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood
burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes
requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood
burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the San
Joaquin Valley. The EPA proposed to approve the District's 2019
amendments to the rule into the SIP on January 9, 2020.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ 85 FR 1131 (January 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the evaluation supporting our proposed approval,\243\ we
found that Rule 4901 and the related Check Before You Burn program
(https://valleyair.org/rule4901) implemented by the District provide for
a comprehensive residential wood smoke program that incorporates all of
the elements outlined in EPA's ``Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke.''
\244\ Among the key elements of the rule are a wood burning curtailment
program (triggered by forecasted PM2.5 concentrations for
the next day), opacity and visible emission limits, requirements
regarding wood moisture content, removal of uncertified wood burning
stoves upon home resale, restrictions on installation of wood burning
devices, requirement that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred
within the District meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), a
wood burning change-out program and education and outreach. In the
Technical Support Document to support our separate proposal on Rule
4901, we compare this rule to analogous rules implemented elsewhere and
conclude that Rule 4901, as a whole, is as or more stringent than
analogous local, state, and federal rules and guidance.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Technical Support Document for the EPA's Proposed
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901 (``Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters''), December 2019.
\244\ Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA-456/B-13-01, March
2013.
\245\ Id. The SJVUAPCD provides its comparisons of Rule 4901 to
analogous rules implemented elsewhere in Appendix C of the Plan.
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-259 to C-280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular relevance for reducing PM2.5 emissions,
Rule 4901 includes a tiered mandatory curtailment program that
establishes different curtailment thresholds based on the type of
device and county. During a level one episodic woodburning curtailment,
operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregistered wood burning
heaters is prohibited, but properly operated, registered \246\ wood
burning devices may be used. During a level two episodic woodburning
curtailment, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited.
However, the rule includes an exemption from the curtailment provisions
for (1) locations where natural gas service is not available and (2)
residences for which a wood burning
[[Page 17404]]
fireplace or wood burning heater is the sole available source of heat.
In the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern, the level one
PM2.5 threshold is 12 [mu]g/m\3\, and the level two
PM2.5 threshold is 35 [mu]g/m\3\. In the remaining counties
in the District (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Kings, and Tulare),
the level one PM2.5 threshold is 20 [mu]g/m\3\, and the
level two PM2.5 threshold is 65 [mu]g/m\3\. These
curtailment thresholds in Rule 4901 are collectively as stringent as or
more stringent than those in any other rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ In order to be registered, a device must either be
certified under the NSPS at time of purchase or installation and at
least as stringent as Phase II requirements or be a pellet-fueled
wood burning heater exempt from EPA certification requirements at
the time of purchase or installation. The rule includes requirements
for documentation and inspection to verify compliance with these
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. State Measures for Mobile Sources
Mobile source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility
for reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on-
and non-road engines and vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan's BACM and MSM demonstration provides a general
description of CARB's key mobile source programs and regulations and a
comprehensive table listing on-road and non-road mobile source
regulatory actions taken by CARB since 1985.\247\ Given the need for
substantial emissions reductions from mobile sources to meet the NAAQS
in California's nonattainment areas, CARB has established stringent
control measures for on-road and non-road mobile sources and the fuels
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209
(subject to a waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emission
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new
and in-use non-road vehicles and engines. The EPA has approved such
mobile source regulations for which waiver authorizations have been
issued as revisions to the California SIP.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 17.
\248\ See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's mobile source program extends beyond regulations that are
subject to the waiver or authorization process set forth in CAA section
209 to include standards and other requirements to control emissions
from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel
specifications, and many other types of mobile sources. Generally,
these regulations have also been submitted and approved as revisions to
the California SIP.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ See, e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-
powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), revisions to the
California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations
at 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the California motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During its development of the Valley State SIP Strategy, CARB
identified measures that would achieve additional NOX and
direct PM2.5 emissions reductions from sources under CARB
jurisdiction, including more stringent in-use performance standards for
heavy-duty vehicles, a low-NOX engine standard for vehicles
with new heavy-duty engines, and a low-emission diesel fuel
requirement.\250\ The Valley State SIP Strategy includes a commitment
by CARB to bring a list of defined measures to the Board for action
according to the schedule provided in Table 7 of the Valley State SIP
Strategy.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Valley State SIP Strategy, Chapter 2 (``Measures''), 2018
PM2.5 Plan, section 4.4 and App. D, Chapter IV
(``Identification and Evaluation of Potential Measures'').
\251\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the process conducted by CARB to develop the Valley
State SIP Strategy was reasonably designed to identify additional
available measures within CARB's jurisdiction, and that CARB's programs
constitute the most stringent emission control programs currently
available for the mobile source and fuels categories, taking into
account economic and technological feasibility.
c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
TCMs are projects that reduce air pollutants from transportation
sources by reducing vehicle use, traffic congestion, or vehicle miles
traveled. TCMs are currently being implemented in the San Joaquin
Valley as part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality cost
effectiveness policy adopted by the eight local jurisdiction MPOs and
in the development of each Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality policy, which is included in a
number of the District's prior attainment plan submissions for the
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, provides a standardized process for
distributing 20 percent of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds to projects that meet a minimum cost effectiveness threshold
beginning in fiscal year 2011. The MPOs revisited the minimum cost
effectiveness standard during the development of their 2018 RTPs and
2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program and concluded that they
were implementing all reasonable transportation control measures.\252\
Appendix D of the District's ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016, contains a listing of adopted TCMs
for the San Joaquin Valley.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-127.
\253\ Id. and SJVUAPCD, ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard'' (adopted June 16, 2016), App. D, Attachment D, tables D-
10 through D-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Conclusion and Proposed Action
We find that the evaluation process followed by CARB and the
District in the SJV PM2.5 Plan to identify potential BACM
and MSM were generally consistent with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the State's and District's
evaluation of potential measures is appropriate, and the State and
District have provided reasoned justifications for their rejection of
potential measures based on technological or economic infeasibility. We
also agree with the District's conclusion that all reasonable TCMs are
being implemented in the San Joaquin Valley and propose to find that
these TCMs implement BACM and MSM for transportation sources.
For the foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019, and for the
implementation of MSM for such sources as expeditiously as practicable
and no later than December 31, 2023, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
In this section of the preamble, we present our evaluation of the
State's request to extend the Serious area attainment date from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, under CAA section 188(e) and,
given the section 188(e) requirement to demonstrate expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS, our evaluation of the SJV PM2.5
Plan's attainment demonstration, including the Plan's air quality
modeling approach and results and control strategy.
1. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
a. Summary of State's Impracticability Demonstration
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes a demonstration, based on
air quality modeling, that even with the implementation of BACM and
BACT for all appropriate sources, attainment by December 31, 2019, is
not practicable. The impracticability demonstration is included in
Appendix K of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
[[Page 17405]]
Table 26 in Appendix K presents base year and modeled 2020 future
year 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations at 15
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area. The demonstration is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3--Impracticability Demonstration, 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Design
Value Concentrations
[[micro]g/m\3\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 (projected
Monitoring Site 2013 (base year) future year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield--California............. 64.1 47.6
Fresno--Garland..................... 60.0 44.3
Hanford............................. 60.0 43.7
Fresno--Hamilton & Winery........... 59.3 45.6
Clovis.............................. 55.8 41.1
Visalia............................. 55.5 42.8
Bakersfield--Planz.................. 55.5 41.2
Madera.............................. 51.0 38.9
Turlock............................. 50.7 37.8
Modesto............................. 47.9 35.8
Merced--Main Street................. 46.9 32.9
Stockton............................ 42.0 33.5
Merced--S Coffee.................... 41.1 30.0
Manteca............................. 36.9 30.1
Tranquility......................... 29.5 21.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix K, Table 26.
b. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The impracticability demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan is based
on air quality modeling that is generally consistent with applicable
EPA guidance. We find the modeling, described in section IV.D.4.a of
this preamble, adequate to support the impracticability demonstration
in the Plan. We note that the modeled year of the impracticability
demonstration is 2020, the year following the December 31, 2019
attainment date. However, as the projected 24-hour average
concentration in 2020 is 48 [micro]g/m\3\, well above the 35 [micro]g/
m\3\ level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we find it
reasonable to conclude based on this evaluation that attainment by the
end of 2019 is impracticable.
In addition to the information in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
we have reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring data from the San
Joaquin Valley. These data show that 24-hour average PM2.5
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, with a 2016-2018 design value of 65
[micro]g/m\3\, continue to be above the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ level of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Recent trends in annual
PM2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley are not consistent
with a projection of attainment by the end of 2019. A more detailed
analysis, including 24-hour PM2.5 trend data in the San
Joaquin Valley for years 2004-2018, is contained in section II of the
EPA's General Evaluation TSD.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ See also, Attachment A to the EPA's General Evaluation
TSD, ``Practicability of San Joaquin Valley Attaining 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2019,'' October 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss in section IV.C of this proposed rule our evaluation of
the BACM and BACT demonstration and the bases for our proposal to find
that the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of
all BACM and BACT by the statutory implementation deadline. Based on
our evaluation of the State's impracticability demonstration, including
the demonstration concerning BACM and BACT, and our review of the
available ambient air quality data, we propose to approve the State's
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by the
Serious area attainment date of December 31, 2019, is impracticable.
2. Compliance With All Requirements and Commitments in the
Implementation Plan
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented
the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172
and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For the San Joaquin
Valley, the EPA has approved the control measure requirements and
commitments of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS) and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) into the California
SIP. The EPA has not yet taken action on the State's SIP revisions for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we describe below the
State's and District's implementation of the control measures and
commitments for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. For more detail on our evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to section III of the EPA's
General Evaluation TSD.
a. Requirements and Commitments for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,\255\ which we refer to collectively
as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved most elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, including
commitments by CARB and the SJVUAPCD to take specific actions with
respect to identified control measures and to achieve specific amounts
of direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission
reductions by 2014.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ 76 FR 69896, n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\256\ Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2),
52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific State and District commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
as follows:
(1) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures identified in
Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,'' dated
April 28, 2011 (``2011 Progress
[[Page 17406]]
Report''), in accordance with the timetable specified therein; \257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB Resolution No. 07-
28, Attachment B (September 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34
(April 24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921-69922, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan'' in accordance with the
timetable specified in Table 6-2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as
amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB
for transmittal to EPA as SIP revisions; \258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (June 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896
at 69921, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2014 as described in CARB
Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and 2011; \259\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of
NOX emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct PM2.5
emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SOX emission reductions
by 2014 as described in Table 6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c,
respectively, of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA's final action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied
substantial portions of these control measure and emission reduction
commitments. Specifically, CARB had proposed action on six of the seven
measures it had committed to propose for Board consideration, leaving
one additional measure that was scheduled for proposal in 2013 (``New
Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats'').\261\ The District had
adopted 12 of the 13 measures it had committed to adopt and implement,
leaving one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014,
amendments to Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces'').\262\ Finally, together CARB and the SJVUAPCD had achieved
all of the SOX emission reduction commitments and
substantial portions of the direct PM2.5 and NOX
emission reduction commitments through implementation of State and
District control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emission reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ 76 FR 69896, 69922, Table 2 (``2007 State Strategy Defined
Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status'').
\262\ Id. at 69921, Table 1 (``San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule
Commitments'').
\263\ Id. at 69923, Table 4 (``Reductions Needed for Attainment
Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, CARB submitted a staff report, entitled ``Review of
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan'' (``2015
CARB Compliance Demonstration''), that contains CARB's demonstration
that both CARB and the District have satisfied the commitments in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained outstanding as of November 9,
2011, as follows.\264\ First, on January 22, 2015, the District adopted
amendments to Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule
to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.\265\ Second, on
February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for Board consideration, and the Board
adopted, new emission standards for recreational boats entitled
``Evaporative Emissions Control Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine
Watercraft.'' \266\ These State and District rulemaking actions
satisfied the last remaining control measure commitments in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. All of these measures have been submitted to the
EPA and approved into the California SIP, as summarized in Table III-A
of EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ CARB, ``Review of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
State Implementation Plan,'' released April 20, 2015 (``2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration''), transmitted by email dated February 5,
2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region
IX, 17-22 and App. B.
\265\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 19, Table 7 and
letter dated April 7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting air district regulations to the EPA as California SIP
revisions).
\266\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 20, Table 8 and
CARB, Resolution 15-3, ``Evaporative Emissions Control Requirements
for Spark-Ignition Marine Watercraft,'' February 19, 2015, available
at https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/simw2015.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the remaining emission reduction commitments (also
called ``aggregate tonnage commitments''), the 2015 CARB Compliance
Demonstration, as amended by CARB's ``Technical Clarifications to the
2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan''
(``Technical Clarifications''), identifies nine State and District
control measures that, according to CARB, achieved emission reductions
beyond those already credited towards the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and satisfy the State's remaining 2014 emission reduction
obligations.\267\ We have reviewed the State's demonstration with
respect to each of these nine measures and propose to find that all but
one achieved emission reductions that may be credited towards the
remaining 2014 emission reduction obligation, because the State has
adequately documented its bases for concluding that each measure either
contains enforceable, SIP-approved requirements or otherwise achieved
specified amounts of emission reductions by January 1, 2014. The one
measure identified in the 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration that did
not achieve any SIP-creditable emission reductions is the District's
Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'').\268\ The EPA's General
Evaluation TSD contains a more detailed evaluation of each of the eight
measures that we are proposing to credit toward the emission reduction
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21-22 and CARB,
``Technical Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' transmitted by email
dated February 5, 2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith
Kurpius, EPA Region IX, 1-4.
\268\ The EPA approved SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, as adopted December
15, 2005, into the California SIP on May 9, 2011 but identified a
number of concerns about the enforceability of the rule's provisions
that the District would need to resolve before relying on this rule
for credit in an attainment plan. 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration and Technical
Clarifications, implementation of these control measures achieved, by
the beginning of 2014, 26.4 tpd of additional NOX emission
reductions and 2.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
beyond those already credited toward the 2008 PM2.5
Plan.\269\ These NOX emission reductions exceeded the
State's outstanding NOX commitment (12.9 tpd) by 13.9 tpd,
and the direct PM2.5 emission reductions fell short of the
State's outstanding PM2.5 commitment (3.0 tpd) by 0.9
tpd.\270\ Citing air quality modeling conducted as part of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, CARB stated that a reduction of 9 tpd of
NOX emissions provides an air quality improvement equivalent
to a 1 tpd reduction in directly emitted PM2.5. On this
basis, CARB concluded that the approximately 13 tpd of surplus
NOX reductions achieved through implementation of the
identified State and District measures would adequately cover the 0.9
tpd shortfall in required reductions of direct PM2.5.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21-22 and Technical
Clarifications at 1-4.
\270\ Id.
\271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find the technical bases for a 9:1 NOX for direct
PM2.5 trading ratio are generally sound and therefore
propose to use this trading ratio to credit the State with an
additional 1.07 tpd of PM2.5 emission reduction, rounding to
[[Page 17407]]
the nearest hundredth (based on 9.63 tpd of ``excess'' NOX
emission reductions) toward its outstanding 2014 commitment.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ For further discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1
NOX to direct PM2.5 trading ratio for purposes
of the aggregate commitment, please see section IV of the EPA's
General Evaluation TSD.
Table 4--2008 PM2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment--EPA Proposed Emission Reduction Credit for Measures in the 2015
CARB Compliance Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Emission reductions
(annual average tpd)
Measure -------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................................... Rule 4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction 1.8 0.0
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
B..................................... Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'').. 0.0 0.0
C..................................... Woodstove Replacements.................. 0.0 0.1
D..................................... District Funded Incentive-Based Emission 1.5 0.1
Reduction Measures.
E..................................... Rule 9410 (``Employer Based Trip 0.3 0.0
Reduction'').
F..................................... Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and 0.0 1.3
Wood Burning Heaters'').
G..................................... State Funded Incentive-Based Emission 5.0 0.13
Reduction Measures \a\.
H..................................... CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 11.5 0.1
Measure.
I..................................... CARB Portable Equipment Registration 2.5 0.2
Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM.
J..................................... TOTAL SIP-Creditable Emission Reductions 22.6 1.93
from State and District Measures (Sum
of A through I).
K..................................... NOX to PM2.5 Emissions Equivalence at -9.63 1.07
9:1 Ratio.
L..................................... TOTAL Emission Reductions Achieved (J+K) 12.97 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ On August 12, 2016, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of CARB's demonstration
concerning the emission reductions achieved by the State-Funded Emission Reduction Measure (also referred to
as the ``Emission Reduction Report''). 81 FR 53300. As part of that action, the EPA determined that the
incentive projects identified in the Emission Reduction Report achieved a total of 4.971 tpd of NOX emission
reductions and 0.134 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014, slightly less than the
7.8 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions that CARB had identified in
this submission. Id. at 53306.
In sum, the CARB Compliance Demonstration and Technical
Clarifications demonstrate that implementation of State and District
measures achieved a total of 12.97 tpd of NOX emission
reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
that have not previously been credited as part of the attainment
demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and that may,
therefore, be credited toward the State's outstanding obligation to
achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014.
Based on these evaluations, we propose to find that the State has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in the implementation plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
b. Requirements and Commitments for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2013 and 2014, California made two SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV, which we refer to collectively herein as the ``2012
PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.'' \273\ On August 31, 2016, the
EPA approved most elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement into the California SIP.\274\ As part of this action, the
EPA approved, among other things, commitments by the District to take
specific actions with respect to identified control measures and to
achieve specific amounts of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
from these or substitute measures by 2017.\275\ The specific District
commitments that the EPA approved into the California SIP as part of
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ SJVUAPCD, ``2012 PM2.5 Plan,'' December 20,
2012 (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'') and SJVUAPCD, ``Supplemental
Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan
for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and District Rule 2201 (New
and Modified Stationary Source Review),'' September 18, 2014
(``Supplement'').
\274\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
\275\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3) and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 2012-12-19 (December 20, 2012). See also 81 FR
59876, 59893, Table 5. CARB did not make any separate commitments in
this SIP submission. CARB Resolution 13-2 (adopting the 2012
PM2.5 Plan) and CARB Resolution 14-37 (adopting the
Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 5'' of the
2012 PM2.5 Plan and to submit these rules and measures to
CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to the EPA as SIP
revisions; and
(2) A commitment by the District to ``achieve the emission
reductions shown in Chapter 5'' of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,
which are 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, through the rules
and measures identified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
or through substitute measures.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Chapter 6, section 6.2 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
(``Compliance with the Applicable SIP''), the District discusses its
compliance with these rulemaking and emission reduction commitments as
of October 16, 2018, when the Plan was made available for public
review.
Table 5 provides the current status of the District's compliance
with its rulemaking commitments in the Moderate area plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that although Table 5 includes specific
projected emission reductions associated with two rules, Rule 4692
(``Commercial Charbroiling'') and Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces
and Wood Burning Heaters''), the District's emissions reduction
commitment was an aggregate commitment that could be met through the
identified measures or substitute measures.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3).
[[Page 17408]]
Table 5--EPA Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan's Specific SJVUAPCD Commitments To Adopt or Amend Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Commitment District Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Number (Title) Amendment Compliance
year year Emission reductions Amendment date Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, 2013 2015 TBD November 14, 2013 EPA approval, 80 FR 7803
and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/ (February 12, 2015).
hr'').
Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'').. 2016 2017 0.4 tpd direct PM2.5........ June 21, 2018 Submitted to the EPA November 21,
2018; Amended rule does not
establish control requirement
for under-fired commercial
charbroilers.
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and 2016 2016/2017 1.5 tpd direct PM2.5........ September 18, 2014 EPA approval, 81 FR 69393
Wood Burning Heaters''). (October 6, 2016).
Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 2014 2015 TBD January 22, 2015 EPA approval, 81 FR 17390 (March
Residential Central Furnaces''). 29, 2016).
Rule 9610 (``SIP-creditability of 2013 2013 TBD June 20, 2013 EPA limited approval and limited
Incentives''). disapproval, 80 FR 19020 (April
9, 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), Chapter 5, Table 5-3 (``Regulatory Control Measure Commitments'').
In sum, the District has adopted and submitted to the EPA all five
of the regulatory measures specified in Chapter 5 of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan that it had committed to adopt and implement by
specified dates. Based on our review of this information, we propose to
find that the District has satisfied all of its rulemaking commitments
in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
With respect to the District's aggregate tonnage commitment to
achieve 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, the District states
that measures adopted after the State's adoption of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan achieved emission reductions in excess of those
committed to in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.\278\
Specifically, the District states that its commitment has been achieved
through amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters'').\279\ We have reviewed the District's and CARB's
explanations of how the District fulfilled this commitment through
implementation of revisions to its residential wood burning rule during
the relevant time period.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, 6-3 to 6-4.
\279\ Id. at 6-5 to 6-6.
\280\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2; email dated
November 27, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD, to Rory Mays, EPA
Region IX, Subject: Emissions Reductions from 2014 Amendment to Rule
4901; and letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to
Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District has amended Rule 4901 several times since its original
adoption in 2003. As of the date the District adopted the 2012
PM2.5 Plan, the October 16, 2008 amendment to Rule 4901
applied and the District committed to further amend the rule. The
District further amended the rule on September 18, 2014, and the
amended rule took effect in the November 2014-February 2015 period. The
District's staff report for the 2014 amendment to Rule 4901 projected
that the amendment would achieve 24-hour winter-season average emission
reductions by 2018 of 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5.\281\ The EPA
approved this rule into the SIP on October 6, 2016.\282\ In our final
action, we noted that the District had projected that the rule revision
would achieve 3.27 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions during
November through February (120-day) (equivalent to a winter-season
average reduction of 2.2 tpd).\283\ This approval did not include an
evaluation of whether the rule had achieved any particular level of
emissions reductions, or whether the District had fulfilled its
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions through revisions
to Rule 4901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ SJVUAPCD, ``Final Staff Report for Amendments to the
District's Residential Wood Burning Program,'' September 18, 2014
(``2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report''), App. B, B-12. We note that the
2.2 tpd is based on a 180-day season that reflects the November
through April (180-day) period used by the State for ``winter-
season,'' 24-hour average emissions inventories for the San Joaquin
Valley. This District staff report estimates that the 2014 amendment
would achieve emission reductions of 3.27 tpd of direct
PM2.5 during the November through February (120-day)
period in which it applies. See also 80 FR 58637, 58639 (September
30, 2015) (proposed approval of 2014 amendment to Rule 4901) and 81
FR 69393 (October 6, 2016) (final approval of 2014 amendment).
\282\ 81 FR 69393.
\283\ Id., at 69393-69394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan included updated
emissions inventories for this source category.\284\ Consistent with
CAA section 172(c)(3), which requires nonattainment plans to include
inventories that are ``comprehensive, accurate, [and] current,''
attainment plans often include updated emission inventories that rely
on information developed since an earlier plan. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan's updated emission inventories for wood burning
devices may be relevant to a determination of whether the 2014
amendments to Rule 4901 resulted in 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5
emissions reductions by 2017. In particular, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan's control measure analyses differ from previous inventory
estimates in the following ways:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ Appendix B Table B-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
contains a summary of direct PM2.5 emissions inventories
from various source categories, including Residential Fuel
Combustion, but does not include emissions values specific to wood-
burning devices. The emissions inventories for wood burning devices
are found in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, at C-257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories estimate that
2013 winter season emissions from residential wood burning devices were
6.35 tpd, compared with the 2015 winter season estimate of 8.037 tpd in
the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report, App. B, B-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories estimate that
2017 winter season emissions from residential wood burning devices were
5.49 tpd,
[[Page 17409]]
compared with the 2017 winter season inventory of 8.35 tpd estimated in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
Overall, the more recent inventories presented in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan show a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season direct
PM2.5 emissions from wood burning devices between 2013 and
2017.\286\ Similarly, the State's August 12, 2019 clarification to its
2017 quantitative milestone report states that a 0.86 tpd reduction in
these emissions occurred from 2013 to 2017.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-257.
\287\ Letter dated August 12, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, transmitting ``Attachment: Supplemental Information and
Clarifications to 2017 Quantitative Milestones.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This difference between the emission reductions projected in the
2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission reductions reflected in
the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan appears
to be due to an update to emissions inventory methods in 2015-2016. The
updated methodology indicates that emissions from this source category
are lower than emissions as calculated by the methodology used to
develop the emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.\288\
The updated methodology is based on a 2014 survey of San Joaquin Valley
residents, which provided more representative data regarding fuel usage
rates and the number of wood burning devices in use in the
District.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ SJVUAPCD, ``2015 Area Source Emissions Inventory
Methodology 610--Residential Wood Combustion,'' (dated October 18,
2016), 27, Table 12 (showing decrease in estimated 2015 annual
emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces of 461 tons per year).
\289\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of this difference between the emission reductions
projected in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission
reductions reflected in the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the EPA sought clarification from CARB and the
District regarding the reductions achieved by the 2014 rule amendment.
In response, CARB pointed to the analysis of emissions reductions in
the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report as demonstrating compliance with the
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions.\290\ CARB and
the District also noted that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan projected
that 2017 emissions from wood burning devices would be 8.35 tpd and the
2018 PM2.5 Plan inventory estimates that 2017 emissions from
wood burning devices were 5.49 tpd, and concluded that this comparison
reflects emission reductions of 2.86 tpd for this source category.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ Email dated November 27, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD,
to Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, Subject: Emissions Reductions from 2014
Amendment to Rule 4901; Letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt
Karperos, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region IX, 2-3.
\291\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find, based upon the analysis of projected emission
reductions in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report, that the District has
complied with the aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5
Plan to achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct
PM2.5 by 2017. Given the differences between the inventories
used to create the commitment and the current inventories, we also seek
comment as to whether the State and District have met the commitment to
achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5
by 2017.
3. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State must demonstrate
to the EPA's satisfaction that its Serious area plan includes the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any
state, or achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.
As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, because of the
substantial overlap in the source categories and controls evaluated for
BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our evaluation of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan's provisions for including MSM alongside our
evaluation of the Plan's provisions for implementing BACM for each
identified source category. For the reasons provided in section IV.C
and further in the EPA's BACM/MSM TSD, we propose to determine that the
SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of MSM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
as expeditiously as practicable and no later than January 1, 2024, in
accordance with the requirements of CAA section 188(e) and the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.
4. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious Alternative Date
Practicable
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that each Serious area
plan include a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan provides for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date or, where the State is seeking an extension
of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by that date is impracticable and that the plan provides for
attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. We
discuss below our evaluation of the modeling approach in the Plan, the
State's basis for excluding one 24-hour data point from the modeling
analysis, and the control strategy in the Plan for attaining the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable.
a. Air Quality Modeling Approach and Results
The EPA's recommended procedures for modeling ambient
PM2.5 as part of an attainment demonstration are contained
in the EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze''
(``Modeling Guidance'').\292\ This guidance recommends that a state use
a photochemical model, such as the Comprehensive Air-quality Model with
extensions (CAMx) or CMAQ, to simulate a base case, with meteorological
and emissions inputs reflecting a base case year, to replicate
concentrations monitored in that year. The model application to the
base case year undergoes a performance evaluation to ensure that it
corroborates concentrations monitored in that year. States may then use
the model to simulate emissions occurring in other years required for
an attainment plan, namely the base year (which may differ from the
base case year) and a future year. The modeled response to the emission
changes between those years is used to calculate Relative Response
Factors (RRFs), which are applied to the design value in the base year
to estimate the projected design value in the future year for
comparison against the NAAQS. Separate RRFs are estimated for each
chemical species component of PM2.5, and for each quarter of
the year, to reflect their differing responses to seasonal
meteorological conditions and emissions. Since each species is handled
separately, before applying an RRF the base year design value must be
speciated using available chemical species measurements, that is, each
[[Page 17410]]
day's measured PM2.5 comprising the design value must be
split into its species components. The Modeling Guidance provides
additional detail on the recommended approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals
for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/R-18-009,
November 2018; available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. During
development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB relied on the
draft version of this guidance update, ``Draft Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' OAQPS, EPA, December 3, 2014
Draft,; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 11. Additional EPA
modeling guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 App. W (``Guideline on
Air Quality Models''), 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017); available at
https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a modeled demonstration
projecting that the San Joaquin Valley will attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024. Specifically, CARB
conducted photochemical modeling with the CMAQ model using inputs
developed from routinely available meteorological and air quality data,
as well as more detailed and extensive data from the DISCOVER-AQ field
study conducted in January to February 2013.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ NASA, ``Deriving Information on Surface conditions from
COlumn and VERtically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air
Quality,'' available at https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan's primary discussion of the photochemical modeling appears
in Appendix K (``Modeling Attainment Demonstration'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. The State briefly summarizes the area's air
quality problem in Chapter 2.2 (``Air Quality Challenges And Trends'')
and summarizes the modeling results in Chapter 6.4 (``Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling'') of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The
State provides a conceptual model of PM2.5 formation in the
San Joaquin Valley as part of the modeling protocol in Appendix L
(``Modeling Protocol''). Appendix J (``Modeling Emission Inventory'')
describes emission input preparation procedures. The State presents
additional relevant information in Appendix C (``Weight of Evidence
Analysis'') of the CARB Staff Report, which includes ambient trends and
other data in support of the attainment demonstration.
CARB's air quality modeling approach investigated the many inter-
connected facets of modeling ambient PM2.5 in the San
Joaquin Valley, including model input preparation, model performance
evaluation, use of the model output for the numerical NAAQS attainment
test, and modeling documentation. Specifically, this required the
development and evaluation of a conceptual model, modeling protocol,
episode (i.e., base year) selection, modeling domain, CMAQ model
selection, initial and boundary condition procedures, meteorological
model choice and performance, modeling emissions inventory preparation
procedures, model performance, attainment test procedure, adjustments
to baseline air quality for modeling, the 2024 attainment test, and an
unmonitored area analysis. CARB's supplemental weight of evidence
analysis further supports the Plan's demonstration of attainment by the
end of 2024. These analyses are generally consistent with the EPA's
recommendations in the Modeling Guidance.
The model performance evaluation in Appendix K included statistical
and graphical measures of model performance. The magnitude and timing
of predicted concentrations of total PM2.5, as well as of
its ammonium and nitrate components, generally match the occurrence of
elevated PM2.5 levels in the measured observations. A
comparison to other recent modeling efforts shows good model
performance on bias, error, and correlation with measurements, for
total PM2.5 and for most of its chemical components. The
Weight of Evidence Analysis\294\ shows the downward trend in
NOX emissions along with a 50% decrease between 1999 and
2017 in the number of days above the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\295\
The analysis also shows decreases in daily PM2.5
concentrations during winter, and in the frequency of high
PM2.5 concentrations generally. Available ambient air
quality data shows that total PM2.5 and ammonium nitrate
concentrations have clearly declined over the 2001-2015 period, despite
some increases from time to time.\296\ These air quality trends show
that there has been a substantial improvement in air quality due to
emission reductions in the SJV, although that point is not fully
reflected in the 98th percentile statistic, which is the basis for the
regulatory design value.\297\ These lines of evidence all lend
confidence in the modeling and the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ CARB Staff Report, Appendix C.
\295\ Id. at 28.
\296\ An increase in 2013 and 2014 is attributed to severe
drought-related conditions during the winter of 2013-2014. Id. at
27.
\297\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting SJV PM2.5 Plan to EPA), Attachment A, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the State's extensive discussion of modeling procedures,
tests, and performance analyses in the Modeling Protocol, and the good
model performance, the EPA finds that the modeling in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan is adequate for purposes of supporting the
demonstration of attainment by 2024. For further detail, please see the
EPA's Modeling TSD.
b. Control Strategy
The SJV PM2.5 Plan's control strategy to reduce
emissions from sources of NOX and direct PM2.5 is
presented in Chapter 4 (``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5'')
\298\ and related supporting information in the Plan's control strategy
appendices, including Appendix C (``Stationary Source Control Measure
Analyses''), Appendix D (``Mobile Source Control Measures Analyses''),
and Appendix E (``Incentive-Based Strategy''). Most of the projected
emission reductions are achieved by baseline measures--i.e., the
combination of State and District measures adopted prior to the State's
and District's adoption of the Plan--that will achieve ongoing emission
reductions from the 2013 base year to the 2024 projected attainment
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ Consistent with the State and District's determination
that ammonia, SOX, and VOC do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley, the Plan's control strategy focuses on
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX. CARB Staff Report, 12. Nonetheless, the Plan
projects the following annual average emission reductions from the
2013 base year to 2024: 0.5 tpd reductions in SOX (5.9%),
30.3 tpd reductions in VOC (9.3%), and 4.6 tpd reductions in ammonia
(1.4%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Tables B-3, B-4, and B-
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the emission reductions are achieved by an
incentive-based measure adopted by CARB in December 2019, a regulatory
measures adopted by the District in June 2019, and a number of
additional measures to be adopted and implemented by CARB and the
District, including regulatory measures and incentive-based measures.
In addition, both the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the Valley State
SIP Strategy include commitments to take action on specific measures by
specific dates and to achieve specified amounts of NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions by certain dates.\299\ We refer to
these commitments herein as ``aggregate commitments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ CARB Resolution 18-49, paragraph 2 and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 18-11-16, paragraph 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the SJV PM2.5 Plan generally relies on
annual average emission inventory and control strategy estimates
because it was designed to address requirements for the 1997 annual and
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The State views the
control strategy for the annual average attainment needs as providing
sufficient emission reductions for 24-hour average (winter average)
attainment and RFP needs.\300\ We agree with this assessment and have
evaluated the control strategy in the Plan by reference to annual
average emission reductions. Table 6 provides a summary
[[Page 17411]]
of the 2013 base year emissions and the reductions from baseline
measures, additional State measures, and additional District measures
that are necessary for the San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024.\301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ See, e.g., Letter dated August 12, 2019 from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, regarding the State's ``2017
Quantitative Milestone Report for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS,'' 2, n.
3.
\301\ Emission reductions from baseline measures are calculated
as the sum of all stationary, area, and mobile source emission
reductions from 2013 to 2024 in App. B of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.
Table 6--Summary of SJV PM2.5 Plan's Annual Average Emission Reductions to Attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of 2013-
% of 2013 base Direct PM2.5 base year
NOX (tpd) year emissions (tpd) emissions
(percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................................. 2013 Base Year Emissions............... 317.2 .............. 62.5 ..............
B.............................................. Baseline Measure Emission Reductions 168.3 53.1 4.2 6.7
(2013-2024).
C.............................................. Additional State Measures.............. 32 10.1 0.9 1.4
D.............................................. Additional District Measures........... 1.88 0.6 1.3 2.1
E.............................................. Total 2013-2024 Emission Reductions 202.2 63.7 6.4 10.2
(B+C+D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2, and Ch. 4, Tables 4-3 and 4-7.
i. Baseline Measures
Baseline measures will provide the majority of emissions reductions
needed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley, amounting to approximately 83.2% of the NOX
emission reductions and 65.6% of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions necessary for attainment.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ The EPA calculated these percentages as follows: Annual
average baseline NOX reductions are 168.3 tpd of 202.2
tpd necessary for attainment (83.2%) and annual average baseline
direct PM2.5 reductions are 4.2 tpd of 6.4 tpd necessary
for attainment (65.6%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4 and App.
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that mobile sources emit over
85% of the NOX in the San Joaquin Valley and that CARB has
adopted and amended regulations to reduce public exposure to diesel
particulate matter, which includes direct PM2.5, and
NOX, from ``fuel sources, freight transport sources like
heavy-duty diesel trucks, transportation sources like passenger cars
and buses, and non-road sources like large construction equipment.''
\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4-9 and Valley State
SIP Strategy, 4. For CARB's analysis of its mobile source measures
for BACM and MSM, see 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, including
analyses for on-road light-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page D-
17), on-road heavy-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page D-35), and
non-road sources (starting page D-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has developed stringent control measures for on-
road and non-road mobile sources and the fuels that power them.
California has unique authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a
waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emissions standards for
many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new and in-use non-
road vehicles and engines. The EPA has approved such mobile source
regulations for which waiver authorizations have been issued as
revisions to the California SIP.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ See e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016); 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017); and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's mobile source program extends beyond regulations that are
subject to the waiver or authorization process set forth in CAA section
209 to include standards and other requirements to control emissions
from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel
specifications, and many other types of mobile sources. Generally,
these regulations have also been submitted and approved as revisions to
the California SIP.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ See e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel
trucks, 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), and revisions to the California
on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations, 75 FR
26653 (May 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to stationary sources, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan states
that stringent regulations adopted for prior attainment plans continue
to reduce emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5.\306\
Specifically, Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan (``District
Rules Reducing PM and NOX Emissions in the Valley'')
identifies 33 District measures that limit NOX and direct
PM2.5 emissions.\307\ The EPA has approved each of the
identified measures into the California SIP,\308\ with four exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4-3. For the District's
analysis of its stationary source measures for BACM and MSM, see
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C.
\307\ Id. Ch. 4, Table 4-1.
\308\ See EPA Region IX's website for information on District
control measures that have been approved into the California SIP,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca/epa-approved-san-joaquin-valley-unified-air-district-regulations-california-sip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the District amended Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'')
on June 21, 2018, to establish new registration and reporting
requirements for certain types of charbroiling operations. These
amendments to Rule 4692 require commercial cooking operations with UFCs
to report by January 1, 2019, on the type and quantity, in pounds, of
meat cooked on the UFCs on a weekly basis for the previous 12-month
period as well as other information regarding the nature of their
operations, and for certain such operations to register with the
District and keep weekly records relating to the quantities of meat
cooked.\309\ CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA on November 21,
2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on this submission.
The EPA approved a prior version of this rule into the SIP on November
3, 2011.\310\ The District states that the 2018 amendment was an
important first step in its ongoing process to develop a new control
measure that will include financial incentives to help fund accelerated
deployment of under-fired charbroiler emission control
technologies.\311\ The 2018 amendments do not, however, establish any
new control requirements and therefore do not achieve additional
emission reductions beyond those that continue to be achieved by the
SIP-approved version of Rule 4692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21, 2018, and
SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to Rule 4692
(Commercial Charbroiling),'' June 21, 2018, 1 and 5-6.
\310\ 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011) (approving Rule 4692 as
amended September 17, 2009).
\311\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to Rule
4692 (Commercial Charbroiling),'' June 21, 2018, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the District amended Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-fired, Fan-
type, Residential Central Furnaces'') on June 21, 2018, to extend the
period during which manufacturers may pay emission fees in lieu of
meeting the rule's NOX
[[Page 17412]]
emission limits.\312\ CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA on
November 21, 2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on this
submission. The EPA approved a prior version of Rule 4905 into the
California SIP on March 29, 2016.\313\ As part of that rulemaking, the
EPA noted that because of the option in Rule 4905 to pay mitigation
fees in lieu of compliance with emission limits, emission reductions
associated with the rule's emission limits would not be creditable in
any attainment plan without additional documentation.\314\ Until the
District submits the necessary documentation to credit emission
reductions achieved by Rule 4905 toward an attainment control strategy,
this rule is not creditable for SIP purposes. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan indicates that the District attributed 0.26 tpd of NOX
reductions between 2013 and 2024 to Rule 4905.\315\ These emission
reductions have de minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Proposed Amendments
to Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type Central Furnaces),'' 2.
\313\ 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016) (approving Rule 4905 as
amended January 22, 2015).
\314\ EPA, Region IX Air Division, ``Technical Support Document
for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District's Rule 4905, Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces,'' October 5, 2015, n. 8.
\315\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the District amended Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'')
on December 21, 2017, to eliminate inconsistencies in its applicability
provisions and to ensure that all large development projects are
subject to the rule.\316\ CARB submitted this rule to the EPA on May
23, 2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on the
submission. The EPA approved a prior version of this rule into the
California SIP on May 9, 2011.\317\ As part of that rulemaking, the EPA
noted that emission reductions associated with this rule would not be
creditable in any attainment or RFP demonstration unless the District
revises the rule to address the EPA's enforceability concerns.\318\
Until the District adopts such revisions to the rule, Rule 9510 is not
creditable for SIP purposes. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan does not,
however, appear to rely on this rule to any measurable extent in the
projected attainment inventory.\319\ Therefore, the District's
inclusion of this rule in Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
has no impact on our evaluation of the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Rule 9510 Indirect
Source Review.'' December 21, 2017, 1.
\317\ 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011) (approving Rule 9510 as amended
December 15, 2005).
\318\ 76 FR 26609, 26612-26614.
\319\ The District's control analysis states that there is no
emissions inventory specific to Rule 9510. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. C, C-302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan lists Rule 4203
(``Particulate Matter Emissions from Incineration of Combustible
Refuse'') as a baseline measure. This rule has not been approved into
the California SIP.\320\ Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
states, however, that the emissions inventory for incineration of
combustible refuse is 0.00 tpd of NOX and 0.00 direct
PM2.5 from 2013 through 2024.\321\ Thus, to the extent the
District relied upon emission reductions achieved by this rule in its
future baseline emissions estimates, those emission reductions have de
minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ The EPA does not have any pending SIP submission for Rule
4203.
\321\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, although Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies four baseline measures that are not creditable for SIP
purposes at this time, we find that the total emission reductions
attributed to these four measures in the future baseline inventories
have de minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in the Plan.
ii. Additional Measures and Aggregate Commitments
The SJV PM2.5 Plan relies on an incentive-based measure
recently adopted by CARB to achieve 5.9 tpd of NOX
reductions and 0.3 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions--2.9% and
4.7%, respectively, of the total NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for the San Joaquin
Valley to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2024.\322\ Under longstanding guidance, the EPA has recommended
presumptive limits on the amounts of emission reductions from certain
voluntary and other nontraditional measures that may be credited in a
SIP. Specifically, for voluntary mobile source emission reduction
programs, the EPA has identified a presumptive limit of three percent
(3%) of the total projected future year emission reductions required to
attain the appropriate NAAQS, and for any particular SIP submittal to
demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward
attainment (RFP), 3% of the specific statutory requirement.\323\ The
EPA may, however, approve measures for SIP credit in amounts exceeding
the presumptive limits where a clear and convincing justification is
made by the State as to why a higher limit should apply in its
case.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan shows that 202.2 tpd of
NOX and 6.4 tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions
are necessary for San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, revised App. H, Table H-6. For further discussion of Appendix
H, see section IV.E of this preamble.
\323\ EPA, ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source
Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),''
October 24, 1997, 5.
\324\ EPA, ``Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a
State Implementation Plan (SIP),'' October 4, 2004, 9; see also EPA,
``Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State
Implementation Plan,'' August 16, 2005, 8, n. 6, and EPA, ``Diesel
Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and
Conformity: Guidance for State and Local Air and Transportation
Agencies,'' March 2018, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley's topography and meteorology present
significant challenges for air quality. As stated in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, ``the surrounding mountains trap pollution and
block airflow'' and ``[t]emperature inversions, while present to some
degree throughout the year, can last for days during the winter,
holding in nighttime accumulations of pollutants.'' \325\ In addition,
the population of the area continues to grow at a rate higher than the
statewide growth rate, leading to increased vehicular traffic along
major highways that run through the San Joaquin Valley.\326\ Given
these unique challenges, both the State and District continue to
implement both traditional and non-traditional emission reduction
strategies to attain the PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin
Valley, including regulatory programs, incentive programs, and rigorous
outreach and education efforts.\327\ Over the past several decades, the
State and District have developed and implemented several comprehensive
plans to address attainment of the NAAQS for ozone and particulate
matter.\328\ These attainment plans have resulted in the State's and
District's adoption of numerous regulations for stationary, area, and
mobile sources, many of which are among the most stringent control
measures in the nation. Given the air quality needs of the area and the
numerous control measures that both the State and District have adopted
and
[[Page 17413]]
implemented in the San Joaquin Valley to date, we believe it is
appropriate to allow the State to rely on the Valley Incentive Measure
to achieve 2.9% (5.9 tpd) of the NOX reductions and 4.7%
(0.3 tpd) of the direct PM2.5 reductions necessary for the
area to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 2, 2-1.
\326\ Id. at 2-4.
\327\ Id. at 2-2.
\328\ See, e.g., 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004) (approving plan to
attain the 1987 PM10 NAAQS), 76 FR 69896 (November 9,
2011) (partially approving and partially disapproving plan to attain
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012)
(approving plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), and 81 FR
19492 (April 5, 2016) (approving plan to attain the 1979 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the emission reductions necessary for
attainment, the SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control measures beyond baseline measures
that will contribute to expeditious attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. For mobile sources, CARB's commitment
identifies a list of 12 State regulatory measures and three incentive-
based measures that CARB has committed to propose to its Board for
consideration by specific dates.\329\ For stationary sources, the
District's commitment identifies a list of nine regulatory measures and
three incentive-based measures that the District has committed to
propose to its Board for consideration by specific dates.\330\ The Plan
contains CARB's and the District's estimates of the emission reductions
that would be achieved by each of these additional measures, if
adopted.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), Attachment A and
Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 7 (``State Measures and Schedule
for the San Joaquin Valley''). The EPA is excluding two State
measures listed in Table 7 of the Valley State SIP Strategy--the
``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and the ``Cleaner In-Use
Agricultural Equipment'' measure--because these measures are
scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030, respectively, well
after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024. 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
\330\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018) and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4 (``Proposed
Regulatory Measures'') and Table 4-5 (``Proposed Incentive-Based
Measures'').
\331\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-3 (''Emission
Reductions from District Measures'') and Table 4-9 (''San Joaquin
Valley Expected Emission Reductions from State Measures'') and
Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 8 (``San Joaquin Valley Expected
Emission Reductions from State Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's commitments are contained in CARB Resolution 18-49 (October
25, 2018) and the Valley State SIP Strategy and consist of two parts: A
control measure commitment and a tonnage commitment. First, CARB has
committed to ``begin the measure's public process and bring to the
Board for consideration the list of proposed SIP measures outlined in
the Valley State SIP Strategy and included in Attachment A, according
to the schedule set forth.'' \332\ By email dated November 12, 2019,
CARB confirmed that it intended to begin the public process on each
measure by discussing the proposed regulation or program at a public
meeting (workshop, working group, or Board hearing) or in a publicly-
released document and to then propose the regulation or program to its
Board.\333\ Second, CARB has committed ``to achieve the aggregate
emissions reductions outlined in the Valley State SIP Strategy of 32
tpd of NOX and 0.9 tpd of PM2.5 emissions
reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024.'' \334\ The Valley State
SIP Strategy explains that CARB's overall commitment is to ``achieve
the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal air
quality standards, reflecting the combined reductions from the existing
control strategy and new measures'' and that ``if a particular measure
does not get its expected emissions reductions, the State is still
committed to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions.'' \335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
\333\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV PM2.5
information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'') and
CARB Staff Report, 14.
\334\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
\335\ Valley State SIP Strategy, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's commitments are contained in SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018) and Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and similarly consist of two parts: A control
measure commitment and a tonnage commitment. First, the District has
committed to ``take action on the rules and measures committed to in
Chapter 4 of the Plan by the dates specified therein, and to submit
these rules and measures, as appropriate, to CARB within 30 days of
adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the [SIP].'' \336\ By
email dated November 12, 2019, the District confirmed that it intended
to take action on the listed rules and measures by beginning the public
process on each measure, i.e., discussing the proposed regulation or
program at a public meeting, including a workshop, working group, or
Board hearing, or in a publicly-released document, and then proposing
the rule or measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board.\337\ Second, the
District has committed to ``achieve the aggregate emissions reductions
of 1.88 tpd of NOX and 1.3 tpd of PM2.5 by 2024/
2025'' through adoption and implementation of these measures or, if the
total emission reductions from these rules or measures are less than
these amounts, ``to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules and
measures that achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct
PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors'' in the same
implementation timeframes.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11.
\337\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate
commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District
Progress In Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan'').
\338\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2019, CARB provided status updates on its progress to
date on developing and adopting the additional mobile source measures
identified in its control measure commitment.\339\ Table 7 lists each
measure and provides a summary of the anticipated emission reductions
and the current status for each measure. As shown in the ``Current
Status'' column, CARB has adopted five measures and begun the public
process on seven of the remaining 10 measures listed in its control
measure commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV PM2.5
information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'').
Table 7--Status of CARB Compliance With Control Measure Commitments for the San Joaquin Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX emission emission
Count Measure Public process Action Implementation reductions reductions Current status
begins begins (tpd) (tpd) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 State SIP Strategy Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Lower Opacity Limits 2016 2018 2018-2024...... 6.8............ <0.1........... Adopted July
for Heavy-Duty 25, 2018.
Vehicles.
2............................ Amended Warranty 2016 2018 2022........... ............... ............... Adopted June
Requirements for 28, 2018.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
3............................ Heavy-Duty Vehicle 2019 2020 2022 +......... ............... ............... Public process
Inspection and began February
Maintenance (I/M) 11, 2019.
Program.
4............................ Heavy-Duty Low-NOX 2016 2019 2023........... 0.7............ ............... Public process
Engine Standard-- began November
California Action. 3, 2016.
[[Page 17414]]
5............................ Innovative Clean 2015 2018-2019 2020........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Adopted
Transit. December 14,
2018.
6............................ Advanced Clean Local 2016 2019 2020........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Public process
Trucks (Last Mile began November
Delivery). 1, 2016.
7............................ Zero-Emission Airport 2017 2018 2023........... NYQ............ NYQ............ Adopted June
Shuttle Buses. 27, 2019.
8............................ Zero-Emission Off- 2020 2020 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Road Forklift to begin 2020.
Regulation Phase 1.
9............................ Zero-Emission Airport 2018 2019 2023........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Public process
Ground Support began June 6,
Equipment. 2018.
10........................... Small Off-Road 2016 2018-2020 2022........... 0.1............ <0.1........... Public process
Engines. began May 23,
2016.
11........................... Transport 2016 2018-2019 2020 +......... NYQ............ NYQ............ Public process
Refrigeration Units began April
Used for Cold 13, 2016.
Storage.
12........................... Low-Emission Diesel 2019 2021 2023........... 0.8............ 0.1............ Public process
Fuel Requirement. began October
18, 2019.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed State Measures for the Valley (Valley State SIP Strategy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13........................... Accelerated Turnover 2018 by 2021 Ongoing........ 10............. NYQ............ Public process
of Trucks and Buses to begin by
Incentive Projects 2021.
\b\.
14........................... Accelerated Turnover 2018 by 2020 Ongoing........ Existing 3; New Existing 0.2; CARB adopted
of Agricultural 8. New 0.6. December 12,
Equipment Incentive 2019.
Projects \b\.
15........................... Accelerated Turnover 2020 by 2021 Ongoing........ 2.............. NYQ............ Public process
of Off-Road to begin by
Equipment Incentive 2021.
Projects \b\.
--------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd) 32............. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Tables 4-8 and 4-9 and email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek, CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV
PM2.5 information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'').
NYQ means ``not yet quantified.''
\a\ For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
\b\ Indicates that CARB intends to develop a SIP-creditable measure to demonstrate that the emission reductions from incentive projects can be credited
towards the aggregate commitment.
In November 2019, the District also provided status updates on its
progress to date on developing and adopting the additional stationary
source measures identified in its control measure commitment.\340\
Table 8 lists each measure and provides a summary of the anticipated
emission reductions and the current status for each measure. As shown
in the ``Current Status'' column, the District has adopted and
submitted one of these measures (the 2019 amendment to Rule 4901) to
the EPA for approval into the SIP and has begun the public process on
five of the remaining 11 measures listed in its control measure
commitment.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate
commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District
Progress In Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan'').
\341\ The EPA has recently proposed to approve amended Rule 4901
into the California SIP. 85 FR 1131.
Table 8--Status of SJVUAPCD Compliance with Control Measure Commitments for the San Joaquin Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX emission emission
Count Measure Public process Action date Implementation reductions reductions Current status
begins begins (tpd) (tpd) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Rule 4311 2018 2020 2023........... 0.05........... ............... Public workshop
(``Flares''). held November
13, 2019.
2............................ Rule 4306 (``Boilers, 2019 2020 2023........... 0.76........... 0.03........... Public scoping
Steam Generators, meeting held
and Process Heaters-- December 5,
Phase 3''). 2019.
3............................ Rule 4320 (``Advanced .............. .............. ............... ............... ............... Public scoping
Emission Reduction meeting held
Options for Boilers, December 5,
Steam Generators, 2019.
and Process Heaters
Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
4............................ Rule 4354 (``Glass 2020 2021 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Melting Furnaces''). to begin in
2020.
5............................ Rule 4352 (``Solid 2020 2021 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Fuel-Fired Boilers, to begin in
Steam Generators and 2020.
Process Heaters'').
6............................ Rule 4702 (``Internal 2019 2020 2024........... ............... ............... Public scoping
Combustion meeting held
Engines''). December 5,
2019.
7............................ Rule 4550 2021 2022 2024........... ............... 0.32........... Public process
(``Conservation to begin in
Management 2021.
Practices'').
8............................ Rule 4692 2019 2020 2024........... ............... ............... Public scoping
(``Commercial Under- meeting held
fired December 12,
Charbroilers''). 2019.
[[Page 17415]]
9............................ Rule 4901 2019 2019 2019........... ............... 0.26........... Rule adopted
(``Woodburning June 20, 2019
Fireplaces and Wood and submitted
Burning Heaters'') to EPA July
(Hot-spot strategy). 22, 2019.
10........................... Agricultural 2019 2020 Ongoing........ 1.07........... ............... Public process
Operation Internal pending.
Combustion Engines
Incentive Projects.
11........................... Commercial Under- 2019 2020 Ongoing........ ............... 0.53........... Public process
fired. pending.
Charbroiling
Incentive Projects.
12........................... Residential Wood 2019 2020 Ongoing........ ............... 0.16........... Public process
Burning Devices pending.
Incentive Projects.
--------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd) 1.88........... 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and Appendix E, Table E-3; SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to District's
Residential Wood Burning Emission Reduction Strategy,'' June 20, 2019 (``2019 Rule 4901 Staff Report''); and email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District Progress In
Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5 Plan'').
\a\ For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
With respect to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters''), the District amended this rule on June 20, 2019, to
establish more stringent limitations on the use of residential wood
burning devices. Specifically, the June 20, 2019 amendment to Rule 4901
lowered the thresholds at which ``No Burn'' days will be imposed to
limit direct PM2.5 emissions from residential wood burning
during the November through February timeframe in three ``hot spot''
counties (Fresno, Kern, and Madera).\342\ CARB submitted this amended
rule to the EPA on July 22, 2019, and the EPA has proposed to approve
the amended rule into the California SIP.\343\ The EPA approved a prior
version of this rule into the SIP on October 6, 2016.\344\ The
District's control measure commitment for 2024 and 2025 in Chapter 4 of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the District expects to
achieve 0.42 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions through
implementation of its residential wood burning strategy, including
implementation of the ``No Burn'' provisions in amended Rule 4901.\345\
Upon the EPA's final action to approve amended Rule 4901 into the SIP,
the additional emission reductions resulting from the ``No Burn''
provisions of the amended rule may be credited toward the attainment
demonstration in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ The revised rule adds additional restrictions on the
installation of wood burning devices, new requirements for fireplace
and chimney remodel projects, additional requirements for
residential real estate sales, non-seasoned wood to the list of
prohibited fuel types, a new visible emissions limit for fireplaces
and non-registered devices, and other editorial revisions to improve
rule clarity. The emission reductions from these additional
revisions were not quantified.
\343\ 85 FR 1131.
\344\ 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016) (approving Rule 4901 as
amended September 18, 2014).
\345\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the District's current estimate of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions to be achieved through the ``No
Burn'' provisions of amended Rule 4901 (0.26 tpd) is based on a
compliance rate (referred to as a ``control efficiency'') of 100%. The
District estimates an actual control efficiency of 97% to 99%, based on
the District's surveillance of neighborhoods in the San Joaquin
Valley.\346\ This control efficiency is significantly higher than the
75% control efficiency that EPA guidance attributes to wood burning
curtailment programs.\347\ Because the District has not provided
adequate support for a 97-100% rule effectiveness rate, we are
crediting the amended rule at this time with 0.20 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions toward the attainment control
strategy, based on a 75% control efficiency. We have factored this
amount into the direct PM2.5 emission reductions from
approved measures, shown in Row C of Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ Email dated October 9, 2019 from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD to
Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Info to support Rule
4901.''
\347\ Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA-456/B-13-01, March
2013, 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 provides a summary of the total NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for attainment in the
San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024, the emission reductions
attributed to baseline measures and new control strategy measures, and
the emission reductions remaining as aggregate tonnage commitments.
Approximately 13.8% of the NOX reductions necessary for
attainment and 26.6% of the direct PM2.5 reductions
necessary for attainment remain as aggregate tonnage commitments.
Table 9--Reductions Needed for Attainment and Aggregate Tonnage Commitments
[tpd, 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................................... Total reductions needed from baseline 202.2 6.4
and control strategy measures.
B..................................... Reductions from baseline measures....... 168.3 4.2
C..................................... Total reductions from approved measures. 5.9 0.5
D..................................... Total reductions remaining as 28.0 1.7
commitments (A-B-C).
E..................................... Percent of total reductions needed 13.8% 26.6%
remaining as commitments (D/A).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-3 and 4-7, and Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2; 2019 Rule 4901 Staff
Report, 34; and ``Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District''
(proposed rule to approve ``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure''), pre-publication
notice signed February 13, 2020.
[[Page 17416]]
The CAA allows for approval of enforceable commitments that are
limited in scope where circumstances exist that warrant the use of such
commitments in place of adopted measures.\348\ Specifically, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques .
. . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirement of the
Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to nonattainment
SIPs, is virtually identical to section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in
these sections of the CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any
``means or techniques'' that the EPA determines are ``necessary or
appropriate'' to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the designated date.
Furthermore, the express allowance for ``schedules and timetables''
demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls might
not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ Commitments approved by the EPA under CAA section
110(k)(3) are enforceable by the EPA and citizens under CAA sections
113 and 304, respectively. In the past, the EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions
against states that failed to comply with those commitments. See,
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v.
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
the EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under
CAA section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to
correct the non-implementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the EPA determines that circumstances warrant consideration of
an enforceable commitment to satisfy a CAA requirement, it considers
three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable
commitment: (a) Does the commitment address a limited portion of the
CAA requirement; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment;
and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of
time.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's
interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the
Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving
enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for Houston-
Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th
Cir. 2003). More recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the EPA's approval of enforceable commitments in ozone and
PM2.5 SIPs for the San Joaquin Valley, based on the same
three factor test. Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. EPA, 786
F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the SJV PM2.5 Plan, circumstances
warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the
attainment demonstration for this area. As shown in Table 9 of this
preamble, the majority of the emissions reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment and RFP in the San Joaquin Valley are achieved
by rules and regulations adopted prior to the State's development of
the SJV PM2.5 Plan, i.e., baseline measures. As a result of
these already-adopted State and District measures, most air pollution
sources in the San Joaquin Valley were already subject to stringent
rules prior to the development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan,
leaving fewer and more technologically-challenging opportunities to
reduce emissions. Despite these significant emission reductions, as
shown in Table 6 of this preamble, the San Joaquin Valley area needs to
reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emission levels by a
total of 63.7% and 10.2%, respectively, from 2013 base year levels in
order to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2024.
As part of their respective control measure commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District each have identified
potential control measures that are expected to achieve the additional
emissions reductions needed for attainment. The timeline needed to
develop, adopt, and implement these measures, however, goes well beyond
the December 31, 2019 serious area attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area. Both the State and District are
making progress in adopting the rules and measures listed in their
respective control measure commitments but have not yet completely
fulfilled them. Given these circumstances, we find that the State's and
District's reliance on enforceable commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan is warranted. Therefore, we have considered the
three factors the EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable
commitments in lieu of adopted measures satisfies CAA planning
requirements.
(a) The Commitment Represents 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 attain the NAAQS in a nonattainment
area. As shown in Table 9 of this preamble, most of the total emission
reductions needed to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley by the end of 2024 will be achieved through
implementation of both baseline and new measures, leaving 13.8% (28.0
tpd) of the necessary NOX reductions and 26.6% (1.7 tpd) of
the necessary direct PM2.5 reductions as aggregate tonnage
commitments.
Given the nature of the PM2.5 challenge in the San
Joaquin Valley, the significant reductions in NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission levels achieved through implementation of
baseline measures over the past several decades, and the difficulty of
identifying additional control measures that are feasible for
implementation in the area, we find it reasonable for the State and
District to seek additional time to adopt the last increment of
emission reductions necessary for attainment by 2024.
Therefore, we find that the emission reductions remaining as
enforceable commitments in the SJV PM2.5 Plan represent a
limited portion of the total emissions reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment by December 31, 2024.
(b) The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District
are capable of fulfilling their commitments. CARB and the District
recently provided updates on their progress in developing and adopting
the additional mobile source and stationary source measures listed in
their respective control measure commitments. Specifically, as shown in
Table 7 of this preamble, CARB has adopted four of the 12 regulatory
measures listed in its control measure commitment, including heavy-duty
vehicle opacity limits, heavy-duty vehicle warranty requirements,
Innovative Clean Transit, and Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses. CARB
has also begun the public process on seven of the remaining eight
regulatory measures listed in CARB's control measure commitment.
Additionally, on December 12, 2019, CARB adopted the San Joaquin Valley
Agricultural Incentive Measure, one of the three incentive-based
measures identified in its control measure commitment. CARB submitted
this measure to the EPA on February 11, 2020, and the EPA has proposed
to approve it as a revision to the California SIP.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ Letter dated February 11, 2020, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, and ``Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District'' (proposed rule to approve
``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure''),
pre-publication notice signed February 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17417]]
For CARB's Heavy Duty I/M Program, in addition to the February 11,
2019 workshop, CARB has held three other workshops in 2019.\351\ With
the passage of California Senate Bill 210, the Heavy Duty I/M Program
will be considered for Board action in 2020.\352\ For CARB's Heavy-Duty
Low-NOX Engine Standard, following the November 3, 2016
public workshop, CARB held six additional workshops between 2017 and
2019.\353\ For the Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment, CARB
held a workshop on August 2, 2018.\354\ For the Small Off-Road Engines
measure, CARB has held five additional working group meetings and three
public workshops between 2017 and 2019.\355\ For Transport
Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage, CARB held additional
workshops in 2017 and most recently in October 2019.\356\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty I/M Program is
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/inspection-and-maintenance-program/Meetings-and-Workshops.
\352\ SB 210 was signed by the California Governor and filed
with the Secretary of State on September 20, 2019.
\353\ Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty Low-
NOX Engine Standard is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/heavy-duty-low-nox/heavy-duty-low-nox-meetings-workshops.
\354\ Information about the proposed Zero-Emission Airport
Ground Support Equipment regulation is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-airport-ground-support-equipment/ze-airport-gse-meetings-workshops.
\355\ Information about the proposed Small Off-Road Engines
measure is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/small-off-road-engines-sore/resources and https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sore-workshops.
\356\ Information about the proposed Transport Refrigeration
Units Used for Cold Storage measure is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/transport-refrigeration-unit/tru-meetings-workshops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB continues to pursue additional control strategies to reduce
emissions in California's nonattainment areas. For example, ongoing
CARB programs that address zero emission airport shuttle buses and
transportation refrigeration units used for cold storage have yet to be
quantified but are expected to further reduce NOX and direct
PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024.\357\
Additionally, as part of the development of a draft plan submission to
address attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the South Coast, CARB has
identified a number of potential new state control measures that would
achieve NOX and direct PM2.5 emission reductions
not only in the South Coast but also in the San Joaquin Valley.\358\
These include a Tier 5 non-road diesel engine standard, a state green
contracting measure, a measure to reduce single occupancy vehicle
travel, and a locomotive emission reduction measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\357\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-9.
\358\ CARB, ``2019 South Coast 8-hour Ozone SIP Update,''
December 12, 2019. See also CARB Resolution 19-31 (December 12,
2019). Further information about this SIP revision is available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/scabsip/scabsip.htm#2019o3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the District has made progress in meeting its control
measure commitments for the San Joaquin Valley. As shown in Table 8 of
this preamble, following an initial December 2018 public workshop, the
District adopted amendments to Rule 4901 on June 20, 2019, and CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA on July 22, 2019.\359\ The
amendments to Rule 4901 include lowering the residential wood burning
curtailment thresholds for Madera, Fresno, and Kern Counties in
addition to Valley-wide rule enhancements. The EPA has proposed to
approve amended Rule 4901 into the California SIP.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\360\ 85 FR 1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the District has started a public process for five of
the remaining eight regulatory measures, including each of the five
regulatory measures for which it committed to do so by 2019 or earlier.
Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the District hosted an initial public
scoping meeting on potential amendments to Rule 4311 (``Flares''), and
on November 13, 2019, the District hosted a public workshop on
potential amendments to the rule.\361\ These potential amendments
include additional flare minimization requirements, where
technologically achievable and economically feasible, and additional
ultra-low NOX flare emission limitations for existing and
new flaring activities at Valley facilities, where technologically
achievable and economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\361\ For more information on this workshop, see https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/11-13-19_Flares/presentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remaining four measures in the District's control measure
commitment, on June 21, 2018, the District adopted amendments to Rule
4692 that require commercial cooking operations with UFCs to report by
January 1, 2019, on the type and quantity, in pounds, of meat cooked on
the UFCs on a weekly basis for the previous 12-month period as well as
other information regarding the nature of their operations, and for
certain such operations to register with the District and keep weekly
records relating to the quantities of meat cooked. This is an important
first step in the District's development of a new control measure for a
source category not previously subject to direct PM2.5
emission control requirements in the San Joaquin Valley. The District
hosted a public scoping workshop for Rule 4692 on December 12,
2019,\362\ and a scoping meeting for Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 on
December 5, 2019.\363\ Finally, the District held a scoping meeting for
Rule 4702, also on December 5, 2019.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\362\ More information on the public scoping workshop on Rule
3692 can be found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-12-19_CC/presentation.pdf.
\363\ More information on the scoping workshop for Rules 4306
and 4320 can be found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-05-19_BGH/presentation.pdf.
\364\ Information on the scoping meeting on Rule 4702 can be
found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-05-19_ICE/presentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have
well-funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from mobile,
stationary, and area sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Funding for the
State's incentive programs in the San Joaquin Valley comes from various
sources including the Carl Moyer Program, Proposition 1B Goods Movement
Emission Reduction Program, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the
Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions
(FARMER) program.\365\ Funding for the District's incentive programs
comes from a combination of federal, State, and local funding
mechanisms, including the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) and
Target Airshed Grant programs, the Carl Moyer Program, and fees
assessed in the San Joaquin Valley by the California Department of
Motor Vehicles and by the District through programs for Indirect Source
Review, Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreements, and large boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\365\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. E, E-6.
\366\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, these incentive funds have been applied to a wide
range of emission sources, including heavy-duty trucks, light-duty
vehicles, mobile agricultural equipment, locomotives, school buses,
alternative fuel infrastructure, community-based programs, agricultural
irrigation pumps, residential wood combustion devices, and commercial
charbroilers.\367\ The Plan identifies the total funding need for
expeditious attainment as $5 billion, including $3.3 billion for heavy-
duty trucks and buses and $1.4 billion for mobile agricultural
equipment.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ Id. at App. E, E-8 to E-21.
\368\ Id. at App. E, Table E-4 (``Incentive Funding Needed for
Expeditious Attainment''). The CARB Staff Report describes the
status of current incentive funding and CARB's expectations
concerning future incentive funding out to 2024 for the San Joaquin
Valley. CARB Staff Report, section F (``Status of Incentive
Funding''), 24-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17418]]
We note that, during CARB's September 19, 2019 hearing on the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, community and environmental advocacy groups
raised concerns that incentive funding recently appropriated fell short
of the Plan's needs and requested that the State pursue alternative
measures to obtain emission reductions from specific stationary sources
in the San Joaquin Valley.\369\ In response to these concerns and
similar concerns raised by CARB Governing Board Member Dean Florez,
CARB committed to follow-up with the District and stakeholders and to
hold public workshops in the San Joaquin Valley to discuss additional
emission reduction opportunities.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ Letter dated September 17, 2019, from Genevieve Gale,
Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition, et al to CARB Board
Members and Staff.
\370\ J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California
Air Resources Board,'' September 19, 2019 (transcript of CARB's
public hearing), 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note also that the State and District will have to submit to the
EPA, for SIP approval, any control measure that it intends to rely on
to satisfy the aggregate tonnage commitments in the Plan. Where the
State or District intends to substitute reductions in one pollutant to
achieve a tonnage commitment concerning a different pollutant (e.g.,
substituting NOX reductions to satisfy a direct
PM2.5 reduction commitment), it must include an appropriate
inter-pollutant trading (IPT) ratio and the technical basis for such
ratio. The EPA will review any such IPT ratio and its bases before
approving or disapproving the measure.
Given the evidence of the State's and District's progress to date
in proposing and adopting the measures listed in their respective
control measure commitments and their continuing efforts to develop
additional control measures to further reduce NOX and
PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, we find that the
State and District are capable of meeting their commitments.
(c) The Commitment Is 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. As discussed in
section II.B of this preamble, on March 23, 2017, CARB adopted the 2016
State Strategy and directed staff to return to the Board with a
commitment to achieve additional emission reductions from mobile
sources in the San Joaquin Valley.\371\ CARB responded by developing
the Valley State SIP Strategy, which includes additional state
commitments to achieve accelerated emission reductions for purposes of
attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ CARB Resolution 17-7 (March 23, 2017), page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Valley State SIP Strategy, CARB recognized that the earlier
attainment dates for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley compared to ozone attainment dates in the San
Joaquin Valley and elsewhere in the State required accelerating the
pace of NOX reductions.\372\ Thus, in the Valley State SIP
Strategy CARB identified and committed to achieve emission reductions
of 32 tpd of NOX and 0.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by
2024,\373\ significantly greater amounts than those CARB had committed
to in the 2016 State Strategy (6 tpd of NOX and 0.1 tpd of
direct PM2.5 by 2025).\374\ CARB defined the estimate of
emission reductions by 2024 from the lower in-use performance level of
heavy-duty trucks as 6.8 tpd of NOX, representing the
largest emission reduction among the additional prohibitory
measures.\375\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ Valley State SIP Strategy, 2-3 and 6.
\373\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), page 5.
\374\ CARB Resolution 17-7 (March 23, 2017), paragraph 7.
\375\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes specific rule development,
adoption, and implementation schedules designed to meet the State's and
District's commitments to reduce emissions to the levels needed to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by
2024. For example, the aggregate commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan include commitments by both the State and the
District to begin the public process on each of their respective
control measure commitments by specific dates ranging from 2015 to
2021. The commitments also identify action and implementation dates
ranging from 2018 to 2024 for a number of State and District control
measures, including amendments to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, Rule 4311, Rule
4306, Rule 4320, Rule 4354, and Rule 4352.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\376\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that these schedules provide a reasonable and appropriate
amount of time for the State and District to achieve the remaining
emission reductions necessary to the attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024.
We therefore conclude that the third factor is satisfied.
c. Conclusion
The EPA must make several findings in order to approve the modeled
attainment demonstration in an attainment plan SIP submission. First,
we must find that the attainment demonstration's technical bases,
including the emissions inventories and air quality modeling, are
adequate. As discussed in sections IV.A and IV.D.4.a of this preamble,
we are proposing to approve both the emissions inventories and the air
quality modeling on which the SJV PM2.5 Plan's attainment
demonstration and related provisions are based.
Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for
expeditious attainment through the timely implementation of all BACM
and BACT. As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, we are
proposing to approve the BACM/BACT demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
Third, the EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are
relied on for attainment in the SIP submission are creditable. As
discussed in section IV.D.4, the SJV PM2.5 Plan relies
principally on already adopted and approved rules to achieve the
emissions reductions needed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024. The balance
of the reductions is currently in the form of enforceable commitments
that account for 13.8% of the NOX and 26.6% of the direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions needed for attainment, as shown
in Table 9 of this preamble.
The EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of
adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when the
circumstances warrant it and the commitments meet three criteria. As
discussed herein, we 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. We therefore propose to
allow the State to rely on these enforceable commitments in its
attainment demonstration.
Based on these evaluations, we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan provides for attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable, consistent with the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e).
[[Page 17419]]
5. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
As discussed in section I of this preamble, the Serious area
attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31,
2019. The first criterion for an extension of the attainment date
beyond this statutory attainment date is that the State must apply for
such extension. In the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD
submitted a complete application for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date for the SJV to December 31, 2024, for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\377\ In accordance with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule in 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2), the SJV
PM2.5 Plan contains all of the required components of a
Serious area plan containing a request for extension of the attainment
date under CAA section 188(e), as follows: (1) Base year and attainment
projected emissions inventories, (2) provisions to implement MSM and
BACM, (3) a modeled attainment demonstration, (4) reasonable further
progress provisions, (5) quantitative milestone provisions, (6)
contingency measure provisions, and (7) nonattainment new source review
plan provisions.\378\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ CARB Resolution 19-1 (January 24, 2019), (submitting the
Plan to EPA as a SIP revision), SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution
18-11-16 (November 15, 2018), paragraph 1 (adopting the 2018
PM2.5 Plan), and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-1
to 6-2.
\378\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting adopted SJV PM2.5 Plan) and letter dated
November 15, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting
adopted nonattainment new source review rules for the San Joaquin
Valley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our evaluation of the Plan, we propose to grant the
State's request to extend the Serious area attainment deadline from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. We are requesting public comment to
ensure that the EPA fully considers all relevant factors in evaluating
the State's request. If based on new information or public comments we
find that a decision to grant the requested extension would not be
consistent with the requirements of the Act, the EPA may reconsider
this proposal or deny California's request to extend the deadline.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ Under CAA section 179(c), the EPA must determine no later
than 6 months after the applicable attainment date for any
nonattainment area whether the area attained the NAAQS by that date.
Absent an extension of the Serious area attainment date under CAA
section 188(e), the latest permissible attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Serious
nonattainment area was December 31, 2019, and the statutory deadline
under CAA section 179(c) for the EPA to determine whether the area
attained these NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date is June 30,
2020. See also Memorandum dated November 14, 1994, from Sally L.
Shaver, EPA Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, to EPA
Air Division directors, Regions I through X, RE: ``Criteria for
Granting 1-Year Extensions of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Attainment Dates, Making Attainment Determinations, and Reporting on
Quantitative Milestones,'' 16 (stating that EPA regional offices
will address state requests for 1-year attainment date extensions
under CAA section 188(d) no later than 6 months after the applicable
attainment date). The CAA does not establish a specific deadline for
the EPA's denial of a request for extension of an attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the EPA were to take final action to deny the request for
extension of the attainment date, the EPA would be required under CAA
section 179(c) to determine, based on the San Joaquin Valley's air
quality as of December 31, 2019, whether the area attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by that date.
E. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 172(c)(2) of the Act provides that all nonattainment area
plans shall require reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires that all
PM2.5 nonattainment area plans contain quantitative
milestone for purposes of measuring RFP, as defined in CAA section
171(1), every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment.
Section 171(1) of the Act defines RFP as the annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D, title I of the Act, or as may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act requires that states achieve a set percentage of
emissions reductions in any given year for purposes of satisfying the
RFP requirement.
For purposes of the particulate matter NAAQS, RFP has historically
been met by showing annual incremental emissions reductions sufficient
to maintain ``generally linear progress'' toward attainment by the
applicable deadline.\380\ As discussed in EPA guidance in the General
Preamble Addendum, requiring generally linear progress in reductions of
direct PM2.5 and relevant PM2.5 precursors in a
PM2.5 attainment plan may be appropriate in situations
where:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ General Preamble Addendum, 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of
sources,
the relationship between any individual source or source
category and overall air quality is not well known,
a chemical transformation is involved (e.g., secondary
particulate significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels over
the standard), and/or
the emission reductions necessary to attain the
PM2.5 standards are inventory-wide.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\381\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that the facts and circumstances of each specific
area will be relevant to whether the emissions reductions meet the
agency's expectations for generally linear progress.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\382\ 81 FR 58010, 15386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Preamble Addendum also indicates that requiring
generally linear progress may be less appropriate in other situations,
such as:
Where there are a limited number of sources of direct
PM2.5 or a relevant precursor,
where the relationships between individual sources and air
quality are relatively well defined, and/or
where the emission control systems utilized (e.g., at
major point sources) will result in swift and dramatic emission
reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter
conditions, the EPA has recommended that RFP may be met by stepwise
progress as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions
soon thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major stationary sources, EPA guidance recommends
that states may meet RFP by ``adherence to an ambitious compliance
schedule'' that is likely to yield significant reductions of direct
PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor on a periodic basis,
rather than on a generally linear basis.\383\ The EPA believes that the
facts and circumstances of each specific area will be relevant to
whether the emissions reductions meet the agency's expectations for
stepwise progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas should include
detailed schedules for compliance with emission control measures in the
area and provide corresponding annual emission reductions to be
achieved by each milestone in the schedule.\384\ In reviewing an
attainment plan under subpart 4, the EPA considers whether the annual
incremental emissions reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light
of the statutory objective of timely attainment. Although early
[[Page 17420]]
implementation of the most cost-effective control measures is often
appropriate, states should consider both cost-effectiveness and
pollution reduction effectiveness when developing implementation
schedules for control measures, and may implement measures that are
more effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to provide greater
public health benefits.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ Id. at 42016.
\385\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the EPA's longstanding guidance on the RFP
requirements, the Agency has established specific regulatory
requirements in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule for purposes
of satisfying the Act's RFP requirements and provided related guidance
in the preamble to the rule. Specifically, under the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, each PM2.5 attainment plan must
contain an RFP analysis that includes, at minimum, the following four
components: (1) An implementation schedule for control measures; (2)
RFP projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year,
based on the anticipated control measure implementation schedule; (3) a
demonstration that the control strategy and implementation schedule
will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the base
year and the attainment year; and (4) a demonstration that by the end
of the calendar year for each triennial milestone date for the area,
pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect either generally
linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual
basis between the base year and the attainment year.\386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state intending to meet the RFP requirement on a stepwise basis
must provide an appropriate justification for the selected
implementation schedule.\387\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a plan that relies on a
stepwise approach to meeting RFP should include ``a clear rationale and
supporting information to explain why generally linear progress is not
appropriate (e.g., due to the nature of the nonattainment problem, the
types of sources contributing to PM2.5 levels in the area
and the implementation schedule for control requirements at such
sources).'' \388\ Additionally, states should estimate the RFP
projected emissions for each quantitative milestone year by sector on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis.\389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
\388\ 81 FR 58010, 58057.
\389\ 81 FR 58010, 58056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(c) of the Act requires that PM2.5 attainment
plans include quantitative milestones that demonstrate RFP. The purpose
of the quantitative milestones is to allow periodic evaluation of the
area's progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
consistent with RFP requirements. Because RFP is an annual emission
reduction requirement and the quantitative milestones are to be
achieved every three years, when a state demonstrates compliance with
the quantitative milestone requirement, it should also demonstrate that
RFP has been achieved during each of the relevant three years.
Quantitative milestones should provide an objective means to evaluate
progress toward attainment meaningfully, e.g., through imposition of
emissions controls in the attainment plan and the requirement to
quantify those required emissions reductions. The CAA also requires a
state to submit, within 90 days after each three-year quantitative
milestone date, a milestone report that includes technical support
sufficient to document completion statistics for appropriate
milestones, e.g., the calculations and any assumptions made concerning
emission reductions to date.\390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\390\ General Preamble Addendum, 42016, 42017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-
year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In
the General Preamble and General Preamble Addendum, the EPA interpreted
the CAA to require that the starting point for the first three-year
period be the due date for the Moderate area plan submission.\391\ In
keeping with this historical approach, the EPA established December 31,
2014, the deadline that the EPA established for a state's submission of
any additional attainment-related SIP elements necessary to satisfy the
subpart 4 Moderate area requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, as the starting point for the first three-year
period under CAA section 189(c) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\ General Preamble, 13539, and General Preamble Addendum,
42016.
\392\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishing
subpart 4 moderate area classifications and deadline for related SIP
submissions). Although this final rule did not affect any action
that the EPA had previously taken under CAA section 110(k) on a SIP
for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the EPA noted that states
may need to submit additional SIP elements to fully comply with the
applicable requirements of subpart 4, even for areas with previously
approved PM2.5 attainment plans, and that the deadline
for any such additional plan submissions was December 31, 2014. Id.
at 31569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each attainment
plan submission for an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three years after
December 31, 2014, and every three years thereafter until the milestone
date that falls within three years after the applicable attainment
date.\393\ If the area fails to attain, this post-attainment date
milestone provides the EPA with the tools necessary to monitor the
area's continued progress toward attainment while the state develops a
new attainment plan under CAA section 189(d).\394\ Quantitative
milestones must provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further
progress toward timely attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
area and include, at minimum, a metric for tracking progress achieved
in implementing SIP control measures, including BACM and BACT, by each
milestone date.\395\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
\394\ 81 FR 58010, 58064.
\395\ Id. at 58064 and 58092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as a
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009,\396\ the plan for this area must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three years after
December 31, 2014, and every three years thereafter until the milestone
date that falls within three years after the applicable attainment
date.\397\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan contains a request by the
State under CAA section 188(e) to extend the applicable attainment date
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
to December 31, 2024. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1013(a)(4), the Serious area plan for this area must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than December 31, 2017,
December 31, 2020, December 31, 2023, and December 31, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\396\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\397\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
Appendix H (``RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the State's RFP demonstration
and quantitative milestones for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Following the identification of a transcription error in the RFP
tables of Appendix H, the State submitted a revised version of Appendix
H that corrects the transcription error and provides additional
information on the RFP demonstration.\398\ Given the State's
[[Page 17421]]
conclusions that ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the RFP demonstration provided by the
State addresses emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX.\399\ Similarly, the State developed quantitative
milestones based upon the Plan's control strategy measures that achieve
emission reductions of direct PM2.5 and NOX.\400\
For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the RFP demonstration in the Plan
follows a stepwise approach due to the time required for CARB and the
District ``to amend rules, develop programs, and implement the emission
reduction measures.'' \401\ The revised Appendix H provides clarifying
information on the RFP demonstration, including additional information
to justify the Plan's stepwise approach to demonstrating RFP. This
clarifying information did not affect the Plan's quantitative
milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ Appendix H to 2018 PM2.5 Plan, submitted
February 11, 2020 via the EPA State Planning Electronic
Collaboration System. This revised version of Appendix H replaces
the version submitted with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10,
2019. All references to Appendix H in this proposed rule are to the
revised version of Appendix H submitted February 11, 2020.
\399\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-1.
\400\ Id. at H-22 to H-23 (for State milestones) and H-19 to H-
20 (for District milestones).
\401\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We describe the RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan in greater detail below.
a. Reasonable Further Progress
The State addressed the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements
in Appendix H to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan submitted in February
2020. The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX will generally decline from the 2013 base year to the
projected 2024 attainment year, and beyond to the 2026 quantitative
milestone year. The Plan's emissions inventory shows that direct
PM2.5 and NOX are emitted by a large number and
range of sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-2 in Appendix H
contains an anticipated implementation schedule for District regulatory
control measures and Table 4-8 in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule
for CARB control measures in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-5 in
Appendix H (reproduced in Table 10) contains projected emissions for
each quantitative milestone year and the attainment year. These
emission levels reflect both baseline emissions projections and
commitments to achieve additional emission reductions through
implementation of new control measures beginning in 2024.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\402\ In App. H, see Tables H-3 (emission projections based on
baseline measures) and H-4 (reductions from control measure
commitments). The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes commitments for
reductions from new control measures in 2024 and 2025. With respect
to the projected emission reductions for 2026, the District and CARB
stated in a conversation with EPA staff on January 6, 2020 that they
assumed reductions achieved in 2026 would be similar to reductions
committed to in 2024 and 2025. See memorandum dated January 6, 2020,
from Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX Air Planning Office, to docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318.
Table 10--PM2.5 Projected Emissions Inventory for Base and Milestone Years, Including Baseline Measures and Emission Reduction Commitments
[Annual average tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2017 2020 2023 2024 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Attainment Quantitative
Baseline year milestone milestone milestone year milestone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 62.5 58.9 59.0 58.3 56.1 56.2
NOX..................................................... 317.2 233.3 203.3 153.6 115.0 105.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Table H-5.
Table H-6 and Table H-7 of Appendix H (reproduced in Table 11)
identify the reductions needed for attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2024, and the San Joaquin Valley's progress
toward attainment in each milestone year.
Table 11--Reductions Needed for Attainment and Achieved in Each Milestone Year
[Annual average]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reductions achieved in milestone year
Reductions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
needed for 2017 2020 2023 2024 2026 \a\
Pollutant attainment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from 2013 Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative
baseline) milestone milestone milestone Attainment milestone
(tpd) (percent) (percent) (percent) year (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 6.4 56.3 54.7 65.6 100 98.4
NOX..................................................... 202.2 41.5 56.3 81.0 100 104.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-6 and H-7.
\a\ The EPA has made minor corrections to the calculated percentages for 2026 in Table H-7 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
Based on the data in Tables 10 and 11, the State and District set
RFP targets for the attainment year and quantitative milestone years as
shown in Table H-10 of Appendix H (reproduced in Table 12). The targets
are consistent with a stepwise approach to demonstrating RFP. For
direct PM2.5, significant reductions between the 2013
baseline and the 2017 milestone year (approximately 56% of the
reductions needed for attainment) are consistent with a generally
linear approach to demonstrating RFP. However, between the 2017 and
2020 milestone years, projected direct PM2.5 emissions
increase. Emissions of direct PM2.5 decrease by the 2023
milestone year but fall short of the rate of reductions that would show
generally linear
[[Page 17422]]
progress.\403\ The Plan relies on a more substantial direct
PM2.5 emission reduction in 2024 due, in large part, to the
State's and District's commitments to achieve additional
PM2.5 emission reductions from new measures in 2024. Direct
PM2.5 emissions are projected to increase slightly in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ To show generally linear progress, direct PM2.5
emissions would need to decrease by approximately 64% from the
baseline year in 2020, and by approximately 91% from the baseline
year in 2023. The actual decreases for these years are 55% in 2020,
and 66% in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NOX, the emission projections show steady reductions
over time. The projection for the 2017 milestone year is consistent
with a generally linear RFP demonstration, but for the 2020 and 2023
milestone years, emission reductions fall short of generally linear
progress toward attainment.\404\ The Plan relies on a more substantial
NOX emission reduction in 2024 due, in large part, to the
State's and District's commitments to achieve additional NOX
reductions from new measures that year. NOX emissions are
projected to continue to decrease in the 2026 milestone year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ To show generally linear progress, NOX
emissions would need to decrease by approximately 64% from the
baseline year in 2020, and by approximately 91% from the baseline
year in 2023. The actual decreases for these years are 56% in 2020,
and 81% in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Plan, reductions in both direct PM2.5
and NOX emissions from 2013 base year levels result in
emissions levels consistent with attainment in the 2024 attainment
year. Based on these analyses, the State and District conclude that the
adopted control strategy and additional commitments for reductions from
new control programs beginning in 2024 are adequate to meet the RFP
requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Table 12--Stepwise RFP Target Emission Levels and Projected Emission Levels for Milestone and Attainment Years
[Annual average tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2020 2023 2024 \a\ 2026
Pollutant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Projected Target Projected Target Projected Target Projected Target \b\ Projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5......................................................... 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 58.3 58.3 56.1 56.1 56.2 56.2
NOX........................................................... 233.3 233.3 203.3 203.3 153.6 153.6 115.0 115.0 105.5 105.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-6 and H-10.
\a\ Emissions targets and projections for the 2024 attainment year are provided in Table H-6 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
\b\ Direct PM2.5 emissions for 2026 are derived from the Plan's projected emissions inventory (including baseline controls), less the 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions that CARB and the
District committed to achieve by 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-3, H-4, and H-5.
The State and District's control strategy for attaining the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS relies primarily on ongoing reductions from
baseline measures, recent revisions to the District's residential wood
burning rule (Rule 4901), and an aggregate tonnage commitment for the
remaining reductions needed for attainment. The majority of the
NOX and PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment
result from CARB's current mobile source control program. As shown in
Table 11, the attainment control strategy in the Plan is projected to
achieve a total of 202.2 tpd of NOX reductions by 2024, of
which 78% (157 tpd) is attributed to CARB's mobile source control
program.\405\ Similarly, the attainment control strategy is projected
to achieve a total of 6.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions by
2024, of which 72% (4.6 tpd) is attributed to CARB's mobile source
control program.\406\ These on-going controls will thus result in
additional reductions in NOX and direct PM2.5
emissions between the base year (2013) and the attainment year
(2024).\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ Id. at Chapter 4, Table 4-7.
\406\ Id.
\407\ Id. at App. H, H-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's mobile source control program provides significant ongoing
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX
from on-road and non-road mobile sources such as light duty vehicles,
heavy-duty trucks and buses, non-road equipment, and fuels. For on-road
and non-road mobile sources, which represent the largest sources of
NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies five mobile source regulations
and control programs that limit emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX: The On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use)
Regulation (``Truck and Bus Regulation''), the Advanced Clean Cars
Program (``ACC Program''), the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets
Regulation (``Off-Road Regulation''), the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program, and the California Low-NOX Engine
Standard for new on-road heavy-duty engines used in medium- and heavy-
duty trucks purchased in California.\408\ CARB's mobile source BACM and
MSM analysis in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides a
more comprehensive overview of each of these programs and regulations,
among many others.\409\ CARB's emission projections for mobile sources
are presented in the Plan's emissions inventory.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-21 and H-22. Because
the second phase of the Advanced Clean Cars Program (``ACC 2'') is
not scheduled for implementation until 2026 (see 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-8), which is after the January 1,
2024 implementation deadline under 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5) for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024, we are not
reviewing this program as part of the control strategy in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
\409\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Ch. IV.
\410\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Truck and Bus Regulation, first adopted in 2008 and amended in
2011, has rolling compliance deadlines based on truck engine model year
(MY). CARB's implementation of the Truck and Bus Regulation includes
phase-in requirements for PM2.5 and NOX emissions
reductions that began in 2012 and require nearly all pre-2010 vehicles
to have exhaust emissions meeting 2010 MY engine emission levels by
2023.\411\ The 2010 MY engines include particulate filters for direct
PM2.5 control. By 2016, the particulate filter requirement
for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,001
pounds was fully implemented in the San Joaquin Valley and all heavier
trucks with 1995 and older model year engines were required to have a
2010 engine installed or replaced by a truck with a 2010 MY
engine.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ The State's quantitative milestone report for the 2017
milestone indicates that the requirement for heavier trucks to
install diesel particulate filters was fully implemented by 2016.
CARB and SJVUAPCD, ``2017 Quantitative Milestone Report for the 1997
and 2006 NAAQS,'' November 21, 2018 (``2017 QM Report''), 5.
\412\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non-road vehicles, CARB adopted the Off-Road Regulation in 2007
to regulate vehicles used in construction, mining, and other industrial
applications. The Off-Road Regulation requires owners to (1) replace
older
[[Page 17423]]
engines or vehicles with newer, cleaner models, (2) retire older
vehicles or reduce their use, or (3) apply retrofit exhaust
controls.\413\ Beginning in 2014 for large fleets and in 2017 for
medium fleets, non-road fleets are required to meet increasingly
stringent fleet average indices over time.\414\ These indices reflect a
fleet's overall PM and NOX emissions rates by model year and
horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ 2017 QM Report, 8.
\414\ A fleet average index is an indicator of a fleet's overall
emissions rate of particulate matter and NOX based on the
horsepower and model year of each engine in the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District has also adopted numerous stationary and area source
rules for direct PM2.5 and NOX emission sources
that are projected to contribute to RFP and attainment of the
PM2.5 standards. These include control measures for
stationary internal combustion engines, residential fireplaces, glass
manufacturing facilities, agricultural burning sources, and various
sizes of boilers, steam generators, and process heaters used in
industrial operations. Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies stationary source regulatory control measures implemented by
the District that achieve ongoing PM2.5 and/or
NOX reductions through the Plan's RFP milestone years and
the attainment year, including the following: Rule 4354 (``Glass
Melting Furnaces''), Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines''), and
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'').\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\415\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4354 was last amended in 2011 to lower certain limits on
emissions of NOX, SOX, and PM10 from
container glass, flat glass, and fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
Rule 4702 was last amended in 2013 to lower the NOX and
SOX emission limits for various types of internal combustion
engines rated at 25 brake horsepower or greater. The District most
recently amended Rule 4901 in 2019 to lower the thresholds at which
``No Burn'' days will be imposed to limit direct PM2.5
emissions from high-polluting wood burning heaters and fireplaces
during the November through February timeframe in three ``hot spot''
counties (Fresno, Kern, and Madera). These rules contribute to
incremental reductions in emission of direct PM2.5 and
NOX from the 2013 base year to the 2017 and 2020 RFP
milestone years.\416\ Additional District measures to control sources
of direct PM2.5 and NOX are also presented in the
Plan's BACM/MSM analyses and reflected in the Plan's baseline emission
projections.\417\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ 2017 QM Report, 2-3.
\417\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B and App. C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the emission reductions necessary for
attainment, the SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control measures and incentive programs
that will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
by 2024. For mobile sources, CARB's commitment identifies a list of 12
regulatory measures and three incentive-based measures that CARB has
committed to propose to its Board for consideration by specific
dates.\418\ For stationary and area sources, the District's commitment
identifies a list of nine regulatory measures and three incentive-based
measures that the District has committed to propose to its Board for
consideration by specific dates.\419\ Both CARB and the District have
committed to achieve specific amounts of reductions in direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions by 2024, either through
implementation of these listed measures or through implementation of
other control measures that achieve the necessary amounts of emission
reductions by 2024.\420\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-8 and CARB
Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5. Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan lists 14 State regulatory measures but we are
excluding from our review the ``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and
the ``Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment'' measure, because these
measures are scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030,
respectively, well after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline
for control measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024.
40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
\419\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-4 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018),
10-11.
\420\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11 and CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan discusses a number of additional
control measures that the District may adopt to meet its aggregate
tonnage commitment, including additional control requirements for
flares; boilers, steam generators, and process heaters of various
sizes; glass melting furnaces; internal combustion engines;
conservation management practices for agricultural operations; and
commercial under-fired charbroilers.\421\ In addition, the Plan states
that the District intends to use incentive programs to reduce emissions
of direct PM2.5 and NOX from internal combustion
engines used in agricultural operations, commercial under-fired
charbroilers, and residential woodburning devices.\422\ The 2018
PM2.5 Plan establishes deadlines between 2018 and 2023 for
CARB to take action on and begin implementing the 15 additional mobile
source control measures that CARB has committed to propose to its Board
\423\ and similar deadlines between 2019 and 2024 for the District to
take action on and begin implementing the 12 additional District
control measures that the District has committed to propose to its
Board.\424\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\421\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, 4-12 and 4-15 to 4-
22.
\422\ Id. at 4-22 to 4-24.
\423\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-8 and CARB
Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5. The EPA is excluding two
State measures listed in Table 4-8 of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, the ``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and the ``Cleaner In-Use
Agricultural Equipment'' measure, because these measures are
scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030, respectively, well
after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024. 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
\424\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018),
10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anticipated implementation schedule for new District measures
is presented both in Table H-2 of Appendix H and in tables 4-4 and 4-5
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and the anticipated implementation
schedule for new CARB measures is presented in Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. These anticipated implementation schedules are
summarized in Table 13, below. Although the commitment to achieve
reductions is based on an aggregate commitment for total reductions in
2024, the State and District anticipate implementing many of the
measures in Table 13 prior to these dates to achieve the aggregate
tonnage commitment.
Specifically, implementation of the District's revisions to Rule
4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') began in
2019, and implementation of CARB's lower opacity limits for heavy-duty
vehicles began in 2018. Additionally, the District anticipates
implementing several measures beginning in 2023 and CARB anticipates
implementing several measures in 2020, 2022, and 2023.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\425\ For more detail on our evaluation of the State's and
District's aggregate commitments, see section IV.D.4.b.ii of this
preamble.
[[Page 17424]]
Table 13--Anticipated Implementation Schedule for State and District
Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB measures Implementation begins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower In-Use Emission Performance
Level:
Lower Opacity Limits for Heavy- 2018-2024.
Duty Vehicles.
Amended Warranty Requirements for 2022.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and 2022.
Maintenance Program.
Low-NOX Engine Standard............... 2023.
Innovative Clean Transit.............. 2020.
Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last Mile 2020.
Delivery).
Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses... 2023.
Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift 2023.
Regulation Phase 1.
Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support 2023.
Equipment.
Small Off-Road Engines................ 2022.
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for 2020.
Cold Storage.
Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Requirement.. 2023.
Accelerated Turnover of Trucks and Ongoing.
Buses.
Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Ongoing.
Equipment.
Accelerated Turnover of Off-Road Ongoing.
Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District measures Implementation begins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4311 (``Flares'')................ 2023.
Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam 2023.
Generators, and Process Heaters--
Phase 3''), Rule 4320 (``Advanced
Emission Reduction Options for
Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion 2024.
Engines'').
Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces'') 2023.
Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, 2023.
Steam Generators and Process
Heaters'').
Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management 2024.
Practices'').
Rule 4692 (``Commercial 2024.
Charbroiling'') (Hot-spot Strategy).
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces 2019.
and Wood Burning Heaters'') (Hot-spot
Strategy).
Replacement of Internal Combustion Ongoing.
Engines used at Agricultural
Operations.
Installation of Commercial Under-fired Ongoing.
Charbroiling Controls (Hot-spot
Strategy).
Replacement of Residential Wood Ongoing.
Burning Devices (Valley-wide and Hot-
spot Strategy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4, Table 4-5, Table 4-8 and Appendix H,
Table H-2.
Section H.1.3 of Appendix H of the Plan provides the State's and
District's justifications for the stepwise approach to meeting the RFP
requirement and the related implementation schedules for new or revised
control measures. These justifications include the time needed to
engage in the rulemaking process, including time for state and local
public processes; the need to provide time for industry to comply with
new regulatory requirements; the need to resolve feasibility issues for
emerging technologies; and, for CARB mobile source measures, the need
for affected industries to prepare technologies and infrastructure for
market-scale adoption.
For example, Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan states
that ``time after rule adoption will be necessary for unit
manufacturers and vendors to make available compliant equipment, and
for facility operators to source, purchase, and install new units or
compliant retrofit equipment. Dependent on the source category,
construction of controls will include engineering, site preparation and
infrastructure upgrades, unit installation, and operator training on
proper operation.'' \426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present below some of the implementation challenges that the
State and District have identified as part of their justification for
meeting the RFP requirement by the stepwise approach in the Plan.
The new NOX control measures that CARB and the District
anticipate implementing toward the end of the attainment period can be
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
provides the following explanation for the need to implement the listed
measures in a stepwise manner:
``The objective of many of CARB's new measures is to introduce or
advance innovative technologies in early stages of development or
market penetration. In the case of technology-forcing regulations, . .
. time is needed by the affected industry to ready the technologies,
including infrastructure, for market-scale adoption, and would have
been discussed previously by CARB and stakeholders during the measure
development phase. The time required to facilitate new and innovative
technologies is a principle driver of the timeline for control measure
implementation CARB laid out in Table 4-8.'' \427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\427\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided more specific information regarding two of these
measures on pages H-9 and H-10 of Appendix H. For instance, the
development of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program was affirmed by California legislative action in 2019, and CARB
is now working on program design and infrastructure to implement new
legislative direction.\428\ For the Low-NOX Engine Standard,
the implementation timeline has been influenced by a multi-year
research program to assess the feasibility of this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ California Senate Bill 210, signed September 20, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new direct PM2.5 measures that CARB and the District
anticipate implementing toward the end of the attainment period can be
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. CARB's additional measures are expected to
achieve 0.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions \429\
and the District's
[[Page 17425]]
additional measures, including revised rules for commercial
charbroiling and conservation management practices (CMPs) for
agricultural operations, are expected to achieve 1.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in 2024.\430\ New or revised
District measures are thus expected to achieve a significant portion of
the State's and District's 2.2 tpd direct PM2.5 emission
reduction commitment for the 2024 attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\429\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-9.
\430\ Id. at Table 4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan shows that
approximately one fourth of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions that the State and District have committed to achieve by
2024 (0.53 of 2.2 tpd) are expected to result from a planned revision
to the District's commercial charbroiling rule (Rule 4692) that would
contain control requirements for under-fired charbroilers (UFCs).\431\
The District anticipates proposing this revised rule to the SJVUAPCD
Governing Board in 2020 and implementing it beginning in 2024.\432\
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the costs associated with retrofitting control
technology onto equipment at existing restaurants and maintaining such
equipment can be prohibitively expensive, especially for smaller
restaurants.\433\ Because of ongoing uncertainties about the
technological and economic feasibility of controls for UFCs, the
District has adopted a set of registration and reporting provisions in
a revised version of Rule 4692 that required owners and operators of
commercial cooking operations with UFCs to register each unit and to
submit, by January 1, 2019, a one-time informational report providing
information about the UFC and its operations. CARB submitted this
revised rule to the EPA on November 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\431\ Id. at 4-19, 4-2 and Table 4-3.
\432\ Id. at Table 4-4.
\433\ Id. at C-209 to C-210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also shows that a portion of the
necessary direct PM2.5 emission reductions in 2024 (0.32 of
2.2 tpd) is expected to result from a revised version of the District's
CMP rule (Rule 4550), which is designed to reduce particulate emissions
from agricultural operations.\434\ The District anticipates proposing
this revised rule to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board in 2022 and
implementing it beginning in 2024.\435\ As explained in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, an important step in developing
effective PM2.5 controls for dust from agricultural
operations is to develop an understanding of the effectiveness of CMPs
on controlling PM2.5 emissions in the Valley.'' \436\
Towards this end, the District intends to work with stakeholders and
researchers to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of additional
control measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions, including:
Tilling and other land preparation activities; selection of
conservation tillage as a CMP for croplands; and CMPs on fallow lands
that are tilled or otherwise worked with implements of husbandry (e.g.,
a farm tractor drawing a trailer with crops) to reduce windblown PM
emissions from disturbed fallowed acreage.\437\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\434\ Id. at Table 4-3.
\435\ Id. at Table 4-4.
\436\ The District is holding a series of workshops from January
to March 2020 with the stated goal of ``assisting growers and dairy
families in understanding and complying with District Rule 4550.''
SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Hearing for Adoption of Proposed 2018
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 Standards,''
available at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2020/2020_CMP/notice.pdf.
\437\ Id. at C-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies December 31
milestone dates for the 2017, 2020, and 2023 milestone years and for
the 2026 post-attainment milestone year.\438\ Appendix H also
identifies target emissions levels to meet the RFP requirement for
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each of these
milestone years,\439\ as shown in Table 10, above, and control measures
that the State or District plan to implement by each of these years, in
accordance with the control strategy in the Plan.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\438\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H-12.
\439\ Id. at Table H-5.
\440\ Id. at H-22 to H-23 (for State milestones) and H-19 to H-
20 (for District milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan includes quantitative milestones for mobile, stationary,
and area sources. For mobile sources, the State has developed
quantitative milestones that provide for evaluation of RFP based on the
implementation of specific control measures by the relevant three-year
milestones. For the first three quantitative milestones, the Plan
provides for evaluating RFP with implementation of regulatory measures;
for the final post attainment date quantitative milestone in 2026, the
Plan provides for evaluating RFP with implementation of incentive
measures.\441\ For the 2017, 2020, and 2023 milestone years, the
quantitative milestones include implementation of the Truck and Bus
Regulation, which requires particulate filters and cleaner engines on
existing trucks and buses, in the years preceding each milestone year
(i.e., between 2012-2017, 2017-2020, and 2020-2023, respectively). Each
of these milestone years also includes action on or implementation of
certain State measures for light-duty vehicles and non-road vehicles as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ Id. at H-22 to H-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017--Truck and Bus Regulation, ACC Program, and Off-Road
Regulation;
2020--Truck and Bus Regulation, ACC 2: Reduced ZEV Brake
and Tire Wear, and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program; and
2023--Truck and Bus Regulation and the California Low-
NOX Engine Standard for new on-road heavy-duty engines in
medium- and heavy-duty trucks bought in California.
For 2026, the Plan's quantitative milestone includes an update on
the State's implementation of two incentive programs, specifically,
identification of the number of trucks and buses turned over to low-
NOX or cleaner engines due to the State's Accelerated
Turnover of Trucks and Buses Measure, and identification of the number
of pieces of agricultural equipment replaced with Tier 4 engines due to
the State's Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment
Measure.\442\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\442\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For stationary and area sources, the District has developed
quantitative milestones that similarly include updates on a combination
of regulatory measures and incentive measures. For 2017, the District's
quantitative milestones are to report on its implementation of six
District measures: 2014 amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') and certain incentive programs
for direct PM2.5, Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters (0.075 to <2 MMBtu)''), 2011 amendments to Rule
4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), 2013 amendments to Rule 4702
(``Internal Combustion Engines''), Rule 4902 (``Residential Water
Heaters''), and Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type, Residential
Central Furnaces'').\443\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\443\ Id. at H-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2020, 2023, and 2026 milestone years, the District's
quantitative milestones are to report on the status of measures
proposed and/or adopted during the preceding three years according to
the schedule in the Plan.\444\ Consistent with the State and District's
control strategy in Chapter 4 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
District's quantitative milestones include updates on the status of the
District's residential wood burning strategy (both the 2019 amendments
to Rule 4901 and incentive
[[Page 17426]]
projects for residential wood burning devices), the District's
incentive-based strategy for commercial under-fired charbroilers, and
the regulatory measures scheduled for SJVUAPCD Board consideration
during the three years preceding the following milestone years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ Id. at H-19 to H-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020--Rule 4311 (``Flares), Rules 4306/4320 (large
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters), Rule 4702 (``Internal
Combustion Engines''), and Rule 4692 (``Commercial Under-fired
Charbroilers''); and
2023--Rules 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), 4352
(``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters''),
and Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices'').\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\445\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that CARB submitted its 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report
to the EPA on December 20, 2018.\446\ This report includes a
certification that CARB and the District met the 2017 quantitative
milestones for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and discusses the State's and District's progress on implementing
the three CARB measures and six District measures identified in
Appendix H as quantitative milestones for the 2017 milestone year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
attachment, December 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. Reasonable Further Progress
We have evaluated the RFP demonstration in Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and, for the following reasons, propose to find
that it satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for RFP.
First, the Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule for the
attainment control strategy, including all BACM, BACT, and MSM control
measures and the State's and District's aggregate tonnage commitments,
as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1). The implementation schedule is
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and in Table H-2 of Appendix H. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan documents the State's and District's conclusion
that they are implementing all BACM, BACT, and MSM for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions in the Valley as
expeditiously as practicable.\447\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ The BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy that provides the
basis for these emissions projections is described in Chapter 4,
App. C, and App. D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the RFP demonstration contains projected emission levels
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for each applicable
milestone year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). These projections
are based on continued implementation of the existing control measures
in the area (i.e., baseline measures), recent revisions to the
District's residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901), and commitments
to achieve additional reductions from new measures in 2024, and reflect
full implementation of the State's, District's, and MPOs' attainment
control strategy for these pollutants. With regard to the 2026
milestone year, we note that the projection is based on reductions from
baseline measures and on an assumption that the amount of reductions
from new control measures that will be achieved in 2026 is the same as
those achieved in 2024 and 2025.
Third, the projected emissions levels based on the implementation
schedule in the Plan demonstrate that the control strategy will achieve
reasonable further progress toward attainment between the 2013 baseline
year and the 2024 attainment year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(3).
Tables 11 and 12 of this proposed rule show decreases in emissions
levels in each milestone year, leading to the achievement of the
reductions required for attainment in 2024. Although the direct
PM2.5 emissions increase slightly (0.1 tpd) over attainment
year levels in the 2026 post-attainment milestone year, we expect that
this small emissions increase will have de minimis impacts on the
area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows that overall pollutant
emissions will be at levels that reflect stepwise progress between the
base year and the attainment year and provides a justification for the
selected implementation schedule, as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
The steeper decline in emissions in 2024 is primarily due to a
commitment by the State and District to achieve reductions from new
control measures beginning in 2024. The State's and District's
justifications for their selected implementation schedules, i.e., for
the delay to 2024 in their respective commitments to achieve emissions
reductions from new or revised control measures, include the time
needed for rulemaking processes, the time needed for industry to comply
with new regulatory requirements, the need to resolve feasibility
issues for emerging technologies, and the time needed to prepare
technologies and infrastructure for market-scale adoption.
We note that although both the State and District have committed to
propose to their respective boards certain new or revised control
measures in the years leading up to the 2024 attainment year, the only
enforceable commitment in the Plan that requires adoption of control
measures is the tonnage commitment for 2024, which provides the basis
for the stepwise approach to RFP. Because of the size of the tonnage
commitments for the 2024 attainment year, and the absence of
commitments to adopt measures or achieve emission reductions in earlier
years, we request comment on whether additional enforceable commitments
for regulatory action to implement emission controls in the interim
years (i.e., in 2022 or 2023) are necessary to ensure that the stepwise
approach to emission reductions in the Plan is consistent with
reasonable further progress toward expeditious attainment. Such
commitments may include commitments to achieve specified amounts of
emission reductions before 2024 (i.e., aggregate tonnage commitments)
or commitments to adopt specific new or revised control measures by
specific dates before 2024, and may provide a basis for reducing the
size of the total tonnage commitment for the 2024 attainment year.
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies milestone
dates (i.e., December 31 of 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026) that are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and target
emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and NOX to be
achieved by these milestone dates through implementation of the Plan's
control strategy. These target emission levels and associated control
requirements provide for objective evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to take
action on or to implement specific measures listed in the State's
control measure commitments that apply to heavy-duty trucks and buses,
light-duty vehicles, and non-road equipment sources and may provide
substantial reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
Similarly, the District's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to
take action on or to implement specific measures listed in the
District's control measure commitments that apply to sources such as
residential wood burning, commercial charbroiling, conservation
management practices,
[[Page 17427]]
glass melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines and that may
provide substantial reductions in emission of direct PM2.5
and NOX from stationary sources. These milestones provide an
objective means for tracking the State's and District's progress in
implementing their respective control measure and aggregate tonnage
commitments and, thus, provide for objective evaluation of the San
Joaquin Valley's progress toward timely attainment.
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan satisfies the requirements for quantitative
milestones in CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013 for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A (``Transportation Conformity Rule''). 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 (MVEBs or ``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy plans applicable to the area. An
attainment or maintenance plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should
include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone
year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate, for
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors subject to
transportation conformity analyses. Budgets are generally established
for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and must
reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the
attainment and RFP demonstrations.\448\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\448\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Serious area
PM2.5 attainment plans must include appropriate quantitative
milestones and projected RFP emission levels for direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year.\449\ For an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, the attainment plan
must contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three
years after December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within three years after the applicable
attainment date.\450\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, it is important to include a
post-attainment year quantitative milestone to ensure that, if the area
fails to attain by the attainment date, the EPA can continue to monitor
the area's progress toward attainment while the state develops a new
attainment plan.\451\ Although the post-attainment year quantitative
milestone is a required element of a Serious area plan, it is not
necessary to demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use
the 2026 budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\449\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a), 51.1013(a)(1).
\450\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-
58064 (August 24, 2016).
\451\ 81 FR 58010, 58063-58064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct
PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5
precursors for which on-road emissions are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP
milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates
attainment. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake
wear, and tire wear. With respect to PM2.5 from re-entrained
road dust and emissions of VOC, SO2, and/or ammonia, the
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A,
apply only if the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
state air agency has made a finding that emissions of these pollutants
within the area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and Department of
Transportation (DOT), or if the applicable implementation plan (or
implementation plan submission) includes any of these pollutants in the
approved (or adequate) budget as part of the RFP, attainment, or
maintenance strategy.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\452\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and 93.122(f); see
also Conformity Rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-36 (July 1,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, transportation conformity requirements apply with
respect to emissions of NOX unless both the EPA Regional
Administrator and the director of the state air agency have made a
finding that transportation-related emissions of NOX within
the nonattainment area are not a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and have so notified the MPO and
DOT, or the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan
submission) does not establish an approved (or adequate) budget for
such emissions as part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not always necessary for states to establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all of the PM2.5 precursors. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule allows a state to demonstrate
that emissions of certain precursors do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in a nonattainment area,
in which case the state may exclude such precursor(s) from its control
evaluations for the specific NAAQS at issue. If a state successfully
demonstrates that the emissions of one or more of the PM2.5
precursors from all sources do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels in the subject area, then it is not necessary
to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for that precursor(s).
Alternatively, the transportation conformity regulations contain
criteria for determining whether emissions of one or more
PM2.5 precursors are insignificant for transportation
conformity purposes.\454\ For a pollutant or precursor to be considered
an insignificant contributor based on the transportation conformity
rule's criteria, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate that it
would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant and/or
precursor for a NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations
are based on factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control
measures, trends and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the
percentage of the total attainment plan emissions inventory for the
NAAQS at issue that is comprised of motor vehicle
[[Page 17428]]
emissions. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July 1, 2004 revision to the
Transportation Conformity Rule.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\454\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
\455\ 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40
CFR 93.124 where a state establishes appropriate mechanisms for such
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment
modeling that establishes the relative contribution of each
PM2.5 precursor pollutant. The applicability of emission
trading between conformity budgets for conformity purposes is described
in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
The EPA's process for determining the adequacy of a budget consists
of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budgets during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy.\456\ The EPA can notify the public by either posting an
announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets on the EPA's
adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), or through a Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking when the EPA reviews the adequacy of an
implementation plan budget simultaneously with its review and action on
the SIP itself (40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ 40 CFR 93.118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each RFP milestone
year (2017, 2020, and 2023), the projected attainment year (2024), and
one post-attainment year quantitative milestone (2026).\457\ The Plan
establishes separate direct PM2.5 and NOX subarea
budgets for each county, or partial county (for Kern County), in the
San Joaquin Valley.\458\ CARB calculated the budgets using
EMFAC2014,\459\ CARB's latest version of the EMFAC model for estimating
emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California that was
available at the time of Plan development, and the latest modeled
vehicle miles traveled and speed distributions from the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs from the Final 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement
Plan, adopted in September 2016. The budgets reflect winter average
emissions because those emissions are linked with the District's
attainment demonstration for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\457\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3-2.
\458\ 40 CFR 93.124(c) and (d).
\459\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the
availability of the EMFAC2014 model for use in state implementation
plan development and transportation conformity in California on
December 14, 2015. The EPA's approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions
model for SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the date of
publication of the notice in the Federal Register. EMFAC2014 must be
used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10
and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after
December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for
EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the requirements set forth in the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, the SJV PM2.5 Plan contains RFP
budgets for 2026, which is the year following the attainment year. As
explained below, we are not taking action on the 2026 budgets at this
time. The EPA is also not reviewing the submitted motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2017. These budgets would not be used in any
future transportation conformity determinations because the plan
contains budgets for 2020 and other years in the future.
The direct PM2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions but do not include paved road dust, unpaved
road dust, and road construction dust emissions.\460\ The State did not
include budgets for VOC, SO2, or ammonia. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the State submitted a PM2.5
precursor demonstration documenting that control of these precursors
would not significantly contribute to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA is proposing to approve the
precursor demonstration. Therefore, if the EPA approves the
demonstration, the State would not be required to submit budgets for
these precursors. The State included a discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for ammonia, SO2, and VOC, which
would demonstrate a finding of insignificance under the transportation
conformity rule.\461\ The State is not required to include re-entrained
road dust in the budgets under section 93.103(b)(3) unless the EPA or
the State has made a finding that these emissions are significant.
Neither the State nor the EPA has made such a finding. The Plan does
include a discussion of the significance/insignificance factors for re-
entrained road dust.\462\ The budgets included in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan are shown in Table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\460\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-122 to D-123.
\461\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
\462\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-121 and D-122.
Table 14--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard
[Winter average, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2020 2023 2024 2026
Budget year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................................ 0.9 29.3 0.9 25.9 0.8 15.5 0.8 15.0 0.8 14.3
Kern.......................................................... 0.8 28.7 0.8 23.8 0.7 13.6 0.7 13.4 0.8 12.8
Kings......................................................... 0.2 5.9 0.2 4.9 0.2 2.9 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.7
Madera........................................................ 0.2 5.5 0.2 4.4 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.3
Merced........................................................ 0.3 11.0 0.3 9.1 0.3 5.5 0.3 5.3 0.3 4.9
San Joaquin................................................... 0.7 15.5 0.6 12.3 0.6 7.9 0.6 7.6 0.6 6.9
Stanislaus.................................................... 0.4 12.3 0.4 9.8 0.4 6.2 0.4 6.0 0.4 5.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-2. Budgets are rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton.
Note: We are not proposing any action at this time on the 2017 RFP or the 2026 post-attainment year RFP budgets.
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that the EPA limit the duration the approval of the budgets
to the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\463\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conformity Trading Mechanism
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in direct PM2.5
emissions. For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State is proposing
to use
[[Page 17429]]
the 2:1 NOX: PM2.5 ratio. The ratio is based on a
sensitivity analysis based on a 30% reduction of NOX or
PM2.5 emissions and the corresponding impact on design
values at sites in Bakersfield and Fresno.
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the San Joaquin Valley to meet the NOX budget, the
NOX emission reductions available to supplement the
PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the
NOX budget has been met.\464\ The Plan also provides that
the San Joaquin Valley MPOs shall clearly document the calculations
used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126 and D-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5
for adequacy, prior to taking action on the plan itself, and did so
with respect to the PM2.5 budgets in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. On June 18, 2019, the EPA announced the
availability of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day
public comment period. This announcement was posted on the EPA's
Adequacy website at: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa. The comment period for this notification ended on July 18,
2019. We did not receive any comments during this comment period.
Based on our proposal to approve the State's demonstration that
emissions of ammonia, SO2, and VOCs do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, and the information about ammonia,
SO2, and VOC emissions in the Plan, the EPA proposes to find
that it is not necessary to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets
for transportation-related emissions of ammonia, SO2, and
VOC to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley. Based on the information about re-entrained road dust
in the Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary to include re-entrained road
dust emissions in the budgets for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley.
For the reasons discussed in sections IV.D and IV.E of this
proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and attainment
demonstrations, respectively, in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The
2020 and 2023 RFP budgets and 2024 attainment budgets, as shown in
Table 14 of this preamble, are consistent with these demonstrations,
are clearly identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, the EPA
proposes to approve the budgets listed in Table 14. We provide a more
detailed discussion in section IV of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
We are not proposing to approve the 2017 budget or the post-attainment
year 2026 RFP budget at this time. The budgets that the EPA is
proposing to approve relate to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
only, and our proposed approval does not affect the status of the
previously-approved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
related trading mechanism, which remain in effect for that
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although the post-attainment year quantitative milestone is a
required element of the Serious area plan, it is not necessary to
demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use the 2026
budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such time as
the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
the EPA is not taking action on the submitted budgets for 2026 in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan at this time. Additionally, the EPA has not
yet started the adequacy process for the 2026 budgets.
If the EPA were either to find adequate or to approve the post-
attainment milestone year budgets now, those budgets would have to be
used in transportation conformity determinations that are made after
the effective date of the adequacy finding or approval even if the San
Joaquin Valley ultimately attains the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Serious area attainment date. This would mean that the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs would be required to demonstrate conformity for the post-
attainment date milestone year and all later years addressed in the
conformity determination (e.g., the last year of the metropolitan
transportation plan) to the post-attainment date RFP budgets rather
than the budgets associated with the attainment year for the area
(i.e., the budgets for 2024). The EPA does not believe that it is
necessary to demonstrate conformity using these post-attainment year
budgets in areas that either the EPA anticipates will attain by the
attainment date or in areas that attain by the attainment date.
If and when the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley has
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, the EPA would begin the budget adequacy and
approval processes for the post-attainment year (2026) budgets. If the
EPA finds the 2026 budgets adequate or approves them, those budgets
will have to be used in subsequent transportation conformity
determinations. The EPA believes that initiating the process to act on
the submitted post-attainment year MVEBs following a determination that
the area has failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date
ensures that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to
new violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violations, or delay timely attainment or any required interim emission
reductions or milestones in the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
176(c)(1)(B).
As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used
in transportation conformity analyses that would be used in conjunction
with the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as allowed for
under 40 CFR 93.124(b). This trading mechanism would allow future
decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources to
offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a 2:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio. To ensure that the trading
mechanism does not affect the ability to meet the NOX
budget, the Plan provides that the NOX emission reductions
available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those
remaining after the NOX budget has been met. The San Joaquin
Valley MPOs will have to document clearly the calculations used in the
trading when demonstrating conformity, along with any additional
reductions of NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the
conformity analysis. The trading calculations must be performed prior
to the final rounding to demonstrate conformity with the budgets.
The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as described on pages D-
125 through D-127 in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
finds it is appropriate for transportation conformity purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
methodology for estimating the trading ratio for conformity purposes is
essentially an update (based on newer modeling) of the approach that
the EPA previously approved for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS \465\ and the 2012
[[Page 17430]]
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\466\
The State's approach in the previous plans was to model the ambient
PM2.5 effect of areawide NOX emissions reductions
and of areawide direct PM2.5 reductions, and to express the
ratio of these modeled sensitivities as an interpollutant trading
ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) (noting the EPA's
prior approval of MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76
FR 69896).
\466\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the updated analysis for the 2018 PM2.5 plan, the
State completed separate sensitivity analyses for the annual and 24-
hour standards and modeled only transportation related sources in the
nonattainment area. The ratio the State is proposing to use for
transportation conformity purposes is derived from air quality modeling
that evaluated the effect of reductions in transportation-related
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
on ambient concentrations at the Bakersfield-California Avenue,
Bakersfield-Planz, Fresno-Garland, and Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitoring sites. The modeling that the State performed to evaluate the
effectiveness of NOX and PM2.5 reductions on
ambient 24-hour concentrations showed NOX:PM2.5
ratios that range from a high of 2.3 at the Bakersfield-California
Avenue monitor to a low of 1.6 at the Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitor.\467\ We find that the State's approach is a reasonable method
to use to develop ratios for transportation conformity purposes. We
therefore propose to approve the 2:1 NOX for
PM2.5 trading mechanism as enforceable components of the
transportation conformity program for the San Joaquin Valley for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If approved, this trading ratio will
replace the 8:1 NOX for PM2.5 trading ratio
approved for the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\467\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the transportation conformity rule, once budgets are
approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets submitted for
the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by the previously
approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets as a SIP
revision. In other words, as a general matter, such approved budgets
cannot be superseded by revised budgets found adequate, but rather only
through approval of the revised budgets, unless the EPA specifies
otherwise in its approval of a SIP by limiting the duration of the
approval to last only until subsequently submitted budgets are found
adequate.\468\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submittal letter for the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that we limit the duration our approval of the budgets to the
period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets.\469\ The transportation conformity rule
allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\470\ However, we will
consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEBs only if
the request includes the following elements: \471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
\470\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
\471\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEBs in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the period before new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB has
requested that we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in
light of the EPA's recent approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of
the model (EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.\472\ EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the
previously approved version of the model, EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for
use by the State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. 84
FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the EPA's approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, which we are proposing to
approve in today's action, will become outdated and will need to be
revised using EMFAC2017. In addition, CARB states that, without the
ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or
more after the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017-derived budgets) is
submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process. We find that
CARB's explanation for limiting the duration of the approval of the
budgets is appropriate and provides us with a reasonable basis for
limiting the duration of the approval of the budgets.
We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must
submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as
the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).\473\ Therefore, we do not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons provided above, and in light
of CARB's explanation for why the budgets will become outdated and
should be replaced upon an adequacy finding for updated budgets, we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan to the period before we find revised budgets
based on EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not find a budget
in a submitted SIP to be adequate unless, among other criteria, the
budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP and attainment.
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the standards in the area.\474\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit
program meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and
189(b)(3).\475\ As part of our January 20, 2016 final action to
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley area as Serious nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 standards, we established a February 21, 2017
deadline for the State to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions
addressing the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the
Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent those
requirements had not already been met by the nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\476\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\474\ General Preamble at 13539 and 13541-42.
\475\ CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious area plans
include provisions submitted to meet the requirements for Moderate
areas in section 189(a)(1)).
\476\ 81 FR 2993, 2994 (January 20, 2016) and 40 CFR 52.245(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California submitted nonattainment NSR SIP revisions to address the
subpart 4 requirements for the San
[[Page 17431]]
Joaquin Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area on November
20, 2019.\477\ We are not proposing any action on this submission at
this time. We will act on this submission through a separate
rulemaking, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\477\ Letter dated November 15, 2019 from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. California previously submitted nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions for the San Joaquin Valley to address the subpart 4
requirements for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and
the EPA approved these SIP revisions on September 17, 2014 (79 FR
55637).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California
SIP, the following portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
The 2013 base year emission inventories (CAA section
172(c)(3));
the demonstration that BACM, including BACT, for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
will be implemented no later than 4 years after the area was
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 2024 (CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e));
plan provisions that require RFP toward attainment by the
applicable date (CAA section 172(c)(2));
quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every
three years until the area is redesignated attainment and that
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(CAA section 189(c));
motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020, 2023, and 2024
as shown in Table 14 of this proposed rule (CAA section 176(c) and 40
CFR part 93, subpart A); and
the inter-pollutant trading mechanism provided for use in
transportation conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124(b).
The EPA is proposing to grant the State's request for extension of
the Serious area attainment date from December 31, 2019, to December
31, 2024, based on a conclusion that the State has satisfied the
requirements for such extensions in section 188(e) of the Act. We may,
however, reconsider this proposal or deny California's request to
extend the attainment date if the EPA concludes based on new
information or public comments that the State has not satisfied the
requirements for such extensions.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For these reasons, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon
monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
John W. Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-05914 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
