Clean Air Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5, 49100-49137 [2021-18764]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49100
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0543; FRL–8846–01–
R9]
Any comments on this proposal
must be received by October 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2021–0543 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
mays.rory@epa.gov. For comments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
Agency (EPA).
online instructions for submitting
ACTION: Proposed rule.
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
Agency (EPA) proposes to take action on
submission, the EPA may publish any
portions of four state implementation
comment received to its public docket.
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
Do not submit electronically any
California to address Clean Air Act
information you consider to be
(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for the
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
or other information whose disclosure is
national ambient air quality standards
restricted by statute. Multimedia
(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) and for the
submissions (e.g., audio or video) must
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
be accompanied by a written comment.
Valley (SJV) PM2.5 nonattainment area.
The written comment is considered the
Specifically, the EPA proposes to
official comment and should include
approve all but the contingency measure
discussion of all points you wish to
element of the submitted Moderate area
make. The EPA will generally not
plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as
consider comments or comment
updated by the submitted Serious area
contents located outside of the primary
plan and related Valley State SIP
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
Strategy, as meeting all applicable
other file sharing system). For
Moderate area plan requirements for the
additional submission methods, please
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve 2022
contact the person identified in the FOR
motor vehicle emissions budgets for use
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
in transportation conformity analyses
For the full EPA public comment policy,
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA
information about CBI or multimedia
proposes to disapprove the contingency
submissions, and general guidance on
measure element with respect to the
making effective comments, please visit
‘‘Moderate’’ area requirements for the
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA also
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
proposes to reclassify the SJV PM2.5
assistance in a language other than
nonattainment area, including
English or if you are a person with
reservation areas of Indian country and
disabilities who needs a reasonable
any other area of Indian country within
accommodation at no cost to you, please
it where the EPA or a tribe has
contact the person identified in the FOR
demonstrated that the tribe has
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
jurisdiction, as a ‘‘Serious’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA
NAAQS based on the EPA’s
Region IX, by phone at (415) 972–3227
determination that the area cannot
or email at mays.rory@epa.gov.
practicably attain the standard by the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
applicable Moderate area attainment
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
date of December 31, 2021. Upon final
or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
reclassification of the SJV as a Serious
area for this NAAQS, California would
Table of Contents
be required to submit a Serious area
I. Background for Proposed Action
plan for the area that includes a
II. Summary of San Joaquin Valley 2016 and
demonstration of attainment by the
2018 PM2.5 Plans
applicable Serious area attainment date,
A. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Summary
which is no later than December 31,
B. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Summary
2025, or by the most expeditious
C. Procedural Requirements for SIPs and
alternative date practicable. However,
SIP Revisions
we note that California has already
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate
submitted such Serious area plan that
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Plans
Clean Air Plans; California; San
Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and
Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; Contingency Measures for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the EPA will address in a separate
rulemaking. Lastly, the EPA is
proposing to disapprove the
contingency measure element in the
Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IV. Review of San Joaquin Valley Plans for
Moderate Area Requirements
A. Emissions Inventory
B. PM2.5 Precursors
C. Air Quality Modeling
D. Reasonably Available Control Measures
and Control Strategy
E. Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements Under CAA Section 189(e)
F. Demonstration That Attainment by
Moderate Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
G. Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones
H. Contingency Measures
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment
and Serious Area SIP Requirements
A. Reclassification as Serious and
Applicable Attainment Date
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious
Area Plans
C. Statutory Deadline for Submission of
Serious Area Plan
VI. Reclassification of Areas of Indian
Country
VII. Review of Contingency Measure Element
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Requirements for Contingency Measures
B. Summary of State’s Contingency
Measure Element for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
C. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Proposed Action
On January 15, 2013, the EPA
strengthened the primary annual
NAAQS for particulate matter with a
diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5)
by lowering the level from 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to
12.0 mg/m3 (‘‘2012 PM2.5 NAAQS’’).1
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,
1 78 FR 3086 and 40 CFR 50.18. The EPA first
established NAAQS for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997 (62
FR 38652), including annual standards of 15.0 mg/
m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean
concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65
mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile
24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7) (‘‘1997 PM2.5
NAAQS’’). In addition, on October 17, 2006, the
EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS for
PM2.5 by lowering the level from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/
m3 (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’). 71 FR 61144 and 40
CFR 50.13. Unless otherwise noted, all references
to the PM2.5 standards in this notice are to the 2012
annual NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3 codified at 40 CFR
50.18.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
absences from school or work, and
restricted activity days), changes in lung
function, and increased respiratory
symptoms. 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 (‘‘secondary
PM2.5’’) as a result of various chemical
reactions among precursor pollutants
such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
oxides (SOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).3
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by
CAA section 107(d) to designate areas
throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. Under subpart 4
of part D of title I of the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations,
the EPA designates areas found to be
violating the PM2.5 NAAQS, and areas
with emissions that contribute to such
violations, as nonattainment and
classifies them initially as Moderate.4
States with Moderate areas have to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after the date of
designation.5 The EPA reclassifies as
Serious those Moderate areas that
cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by
the latest statutory attainment date and
those areas that fail to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date. States
with Serious areas are subject to more
stringent SIP revision requirements and
must attain the NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable, but not later than the end
of the tenth calendar year after
designation.
On January 15, 2015, the EPA
designated and classified the SJV as
Moderate nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.6 With respect to the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the SJV is designated
nonattainment and is classified as
Serious.7 The SJV 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,
FR 3086, 3088.
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/
002bF, October 2004.
4 CAA section 188(a) and 40 CFR 51.1002(a).
5 CAA section 188(c)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1004(a)(1)(i).
6 80 FR 2206 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
7 See the tables of area designations for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 40 CFR 81.305.
and the valley portion of Kern.8 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.
Under State law, 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
these plans. Authority for regulating
sources under state jurisdiction in the
SJV 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 and
some categories of consumer products.
States with areas designated as
nonattainment are required to submit
SIP revisions that address various
requirements, including the requirement
to demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than the maximum
attainment date established in the CAA
or EPA’s implementing regulations.
However, states with Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas may submit an
impracticability demonstration, in lieu
of a modeled attainment demonstration,
if the state can establish that the area
cannot practicably attain a particular
PM2.5 NAAQS by the outermost
statutory Moderate area attainment
date.9
On May 10, 2019, CARB made two
SIP submissions intended to address the
attainment plan requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 First, the ‘‘2016
Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5
Standard’’ (‘‘2016 PM2.5 Plan’’)
addresses the Moderate area attainment
plan requirements and includes a
demonstration of impracticability of
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV by the latest permissible Moderate
area attainment date of December 31,
2021. In this document, the EPA is
proposing action on all portions of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan. Second, the ‘‘2018 Plan
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
2 78
3 EPA,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
8 For a precise description of the geographic
boundaries of the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, see
40 CFR 81.305.
9 40 CFR 51.1002(b)(1).
10 CARB submitted the two plans electronically
on May 10, 2019, as an attachment to a letter dated
May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49101
Standards’’ (‘‘2018 PM2.5 Plan’’)
addresses the Serious area attainment
plan requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, in anticipation of the
reclassification of SJV from Moderate to
Serious for that PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan incorporates by reference the
‘‘San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the
2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘Valley State
SIP Strategy’’), a related plan adopted by
CARB on October 25, 2018, and
submitted to the EPA with the 2018
PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019. For the
purposes of this action, the relevant
portion of the Valley State SIP Strategy
includes the control measure
commitments associated with the
quantitative milestones for 2019 and
2022.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan updates several
elements in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan,
including the base year emissions
inventory, plan precursor
demonstration, controls analysis,
reasonable further progress (RFP) and
quantitative milestones, and motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs or
‘‘budgets’’). In this document, the EPA
is proposing action on those portions of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that apply to the
Moderate area plan requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the EPA
is not, at this time, proposing to act on
those portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
that are not relevant to our evaluation of
compliance with Moderate area plan
requirements for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
such as the best available control
measures (BACM) demonstration,
control strategy commitments,
attainment demonstration, RFP
demonstration and quantitative
milestones for later years, and MVEBs
for later years.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also addresses
attainment plan requirements for areas
classified as Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. In 2020, we approved those
portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that
pertain to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
excluding the contingency measures
element for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 In
this document, we are proposing action
on the portion of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
that addresses the contingency measure
requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Lastly, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses
the contingency measure requirement
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by reference
to, among other things, a District
contingency measure, and emissions
estimates for the year following the
attainment year for use in evaluating
whether the emissions reductions from
the contingency measure are
11 85
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
01SEP2
49102
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
sufficient.12 With respect to the District
contingency measure, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan calls for the District to amend
District Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’)
to include a requirement in the rule
with a trigger that would activate the
requirement should the EPA issue a
final rulemaking that SJV failed to meet
a regulatory requirement necessitating
implementation of a contingency
measure.
In response to the commitment made
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in June 2019 the
District adopted amendments to Rule
4901, including a new provision
(codified as section 5.7.3 of the
amended rule) that is a contingency
measure. On July 19, 2019, CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA
for approval.13 We have already taken
final action to approve the amended
Rule 4901 (including the new section
5.7.3) into the California SIP, but in our
approval we noted that we were not
evaluating the contingency measure in
section 5.7.3 of revised Rule 4901 for
compliance with all requirements of the
CAA and the EPA’s implementing
regulations that apply to such
measures.14 Rather, we approved the
new provision (section 5.7.3) into the
SIP as part of our approval of the entire
amended rule because the provision
strengthens the rule by providing a
possibility of additional curtailment
days and thus potentially additional
emissions reductions. We indicated that
we would evaluate whether section
5.7.3, in conjunction with other
submitted provisions, meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for contingency measures in a future
action. In this document, we are
evaluating District Rule 4901, and in
particular section 5.7.3, in the context of
our action on the contingency measure
element in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the contingency
measure element in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. Summary of San Joaquin Valley
2016 and 2018 PM2.5 Plans
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Summary
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board
adopted the 2016 PM2.5 Plan on
September 15, 2016, and CARB adopted
12 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H–24 to H–26.
13 Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
14 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of
District Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132–33 (January
9, 2020) (proposed approval of District Rule 4901).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
the plan on January 24, 2019.15 CARB
submitted the plan to the EPA on May
10, 2019.
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan is organized into
three chapters, five appendices, and two
attachments. Chapter 1 (‘‘Introduction’’)
provides general background, including
discussion of the federal PM2.5
standards, PM2.5 pollution and health
effects in the SJV, challenges to
attaining the standards, and the
District’s public process. Chapter 2
(‘‘Impracticability Demonstration and
Request for Reclassification’’) presents
CARB and the District’s demonstration,
based on air quality modeling, that
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
latest permissible attainment date of
December 31, 2021, is impracticable,
and a request for reclassification to
Serious. Chapter 3 (‘‘Demonstration of
Federal Clean Air Act Requirements’’)
describes how the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
addresses the federal requirements for
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
including a plan precursor
demonstration, reasonably available
control measures, RFP, quantitative
milestones, contingency measures,
stationary source permitting, and
transportation conformity. The 2016
PM2.5 Plan includes the following five
technical appendices:
• Appendix A (‘‘Air Quality
Modeling’’) provides the State’s
photochemical air quality modeling in
support of the plan’s impracticability
demonstration and precursor
demonstration;
• Appendix B (‘‘Emissions
Inventory’’) presents the base year and
future year emissions inventory for
direct PM2.5, NOX, ammonia, SOX, and
VOC;
• Appendix C (‘‘SIP Creditable
Incentive-Based Emission Reductions’’)
provides a demonstration of NOX
emission reductions from heavy-duty
off-road vehicle engine vehicle
replacements under the 2011 Carl
Moyer Guidelines in support of the
plan’s Moderate contingency measure
element;
• Appendix D (‘‘New Source Review
and Emission Reduction Credits’’)
discusses the use of emission reduction
credits (ERCs) in the context of the plan;
and
• Appendix E (‘‘Summary of
Significant Comments and Responses’’)
summarizes significant comments
received during the District’s 2016
public review period and the District’s
responses thereto.
15 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 16–9–
10, September 15, 2016, and CARB Resolution 19–
1, January 24, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In addition, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
includes Attachment 1 (‘‘Stationary and
Area Source Control Measure
Analyses’’) and Attachment 2 (‘‘Mobile
Source Control Measure Analyses’’),
which together resubmit the State’s
2015 analyses that the District’s
stationary and area source control
measures and CARB’s mobile source
control measures represent BACM and
most stringent measures (MSM).
Lastly, on December 13, 2019, CARB
submitted the following two additional
documents that CARB had prepared for
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and made available
for public review along with the plan,
but had inadvertently omitted them
from the May 10, 2019 SIP submission
to the EPA: 16 (i) The ‘‘Staff Report, ARB
Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016
Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5
Standard,’’ released September 16, 2016
(‘‘CARB 2016 Staff Report’’), that
provides CARB’s staff review of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan, including brief
summaries for each of the Moderate area
plan requirements; and (ii) the
‘‘Modeling Emission Inventory for the
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan in the
San Joaquin Valley,’’ August 23, 2016
(‘‘2016 Modeling Emissions Inventory’’)
that describes the development of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling emissions
inventory, estimation of the 2013 base
year emissions inventory, the
methodology used to develop the base
year and baseline emissions inventory,
and quality assurance of the modeling
emissions inventory.
B. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Summary
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board
adopted the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on
November 15, 2018, and CARB adopted
the plan on January 24, 2019.17 CARB
submitted the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to the
EPA on May 10, 2019, concurrently
with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
The following portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and related support
documents apply to the Moderate area
attainment plan requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV: (i)
Chapter 4 (‘‘Attainment Strategy for
PM2.5’’); (ii) Chapter 7 (‘‘Demonstration
of Federal Requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 Standard’’); 18 (iii) numerous
16 Letter dated December 11, 2019, from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
enclosures.
17 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18–
11–16, November 15, 2018, and CARB Resolution
19–1, January 24, 2019.
18 Chapter 5 (‘‘Demonstration of Federal
Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard’’) and
Chapter 6 (‘‘Demonstration of Federal Requirements
for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard’’) of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan pertain to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The EPA has acted on
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
2018 Staff Report’’); 19 and (v) the State’s
and District’s board resolutions
adopting the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.20
The appendices to the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, in order of their evaluation in this
proposal, include the following: (i)
Appendix (‘‘App.’’) B (‘‘Emissions
Inventory’’); (ii) 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
2018 Staff Report; (iii) control strategy
appendices, including App. C
(‘‘Stationary Source Control Measure
Analyses’’) and App. D (‘‘Mobile Source
Control Measures Analyses’’); and (iv)
App. H (‘‘RFP, Quantitative Milestones,
and Contingency’’). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
addresses requirements for MVEBs in
the ‘‘Transportation Conformity’’
section of App. D.21
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 appendices on
‘‘Public Education and Technology
Advancement’’ (App. F), ‘‘Ambient
PM2.5 Data Analysis’’ (App. A), ‘‘New
Source Review and Emission Reduction
Credits’’ (App. I) and ‘‘Summary of
Significant Comments and Responses’’
(App. M), as well other chapters and
appendices that are primarily relevant
to the Serious area plan requirements,
including App. E (‘‘Incentive-Based
Strategy’’), App. J (‘‘Modeling Emission
Inventory’’), App. K (‘‘Modeling
Attainment Demonstration’’), and App.
L (‘‘Modeling Protocol’’).
Chapter 6 in our rulemaking for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. See 80 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). The EPA
has proposed to act on Chapter 5 as part of a
separate rulemaking on the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. See 86 FR 38652 (July 22, 2021).
19 The CARB 2018 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 W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
transmitting the CARB 2018 Staff Report [on the
2018 PM2.5 Plan].
20 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.
21 See D–119 to D–131.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
Lastly, on February 11, 2020, CARB
submitted, via the EPA State Planning
Electronic Collaboration System, a
revised version of App. H (‘‘RFP,
Quantitative Milestones, and
Contingency’’) that replaces the version
submitted with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on
May 10, 2019. All references to App. H
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in this proposed
rule are to the revised version of
Appendix H submitted February 11,
2020.
C. Procedural Requirements for SIPs
and SIP Revisions
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l)
of the CAA require each state to provide
reasonable public notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing prior to
the adoption and submittal 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 an
opportunity for a public hearing was
provided consistent with the EPA’s
implementing regulations in 40 CFR
51.102.
Both the District and CARB satisfied
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements for reasonable public
notice and hearing prior to adoption and
submission of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The District
provided public notice and opportunity
for public comment prior to its
September 15, 2016 public hearing on
and adoption of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.22
CARB also provided public notice and
opportunity for public comment prior to
its October 20, 2016 public hearing,23
where the 2016 PM2.5 Plan was tabled.
Subsequently, 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.24 CARB also provided
public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its January 24, 2019
public hearing,25 when CARB adopted
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.26 The SIP submission includes
proof of publication of notices for the
22 SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Notice of Public Hearing, Adopt
the Proposed 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 Standard,’’ August 16, 2016, and SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution 16–9–10.
23 CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider
the 2016 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the
San Joaquin Valley,’’ September 20, 2016.
24 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.
25 CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider
the 2018 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the
San Joaquin Valley,’’ December 21, 2018.
26 CARB Resolution 19–1. See also J&K Court
Reporting, LLC, ‘‘Meeting, State of California Air
Resources Board,’’ October 20, 2016 (transcript of
CARB’s public hearing), 186–190.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49103
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.27 28
Therefore, we find that the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan meet the
procedural requirements for public
notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
We present our evaluation of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan (and 2018 PM2.5 Plan as
applicable to the Moderate area
attainment plan requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS) in Section IV of
this proposed rule. We present our
evaluation of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as
applicable to the contingency measure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in section VII of this proposed rule.
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Moderate PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Plans
With respect to the statutory
requirements for particulate matter (PM)
attainment plans, the general
nonattainment area planning
requirements of title I, part D of the
CAA are found in subpart 1, and the
attainment planning requirements
specifically for PM are found in subpart
4.
The EPA has a longstanding general
guidance document that interprets the
1990 amendments to the CAA,
commonly referred to as the General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (‘‘General Preamble’’).29 The
General Preamble addresses the
relationship between the subpart 1 and
subpart 4 requirements and provides
recommendations to states for meeting
certain statutory requirements for PM
attainment plans. As explained in the
General Preamble, specific requirements
applicable to Moderate area attainment
plan SIP submissions for the PM
NAAQS are set forth in subpart 4 of part
27 For the 2016 PM
2.5 Plan: CARB, ‘‘Board
Meeting Comments Log,’’ available at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.
php?listname=sjvpmplan2016 (accessed August 20,
2021); J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ‘‘Meeting, State of
California Air Resources Board,’’ October 16, 2016
(transcript of CARB’s public hearing), available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2016/
mt102016.pdf (accessed December 29, 2020); and
2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. E (‘‘Summary of Significant
Comments and Responses’’), noting that no
comments were received during the District’s 2016
public review.
28 For the 2018 PM
2.5 Plan: 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’’).
29 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992).
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
49104
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
D, title I of the Act, but such SIP
submissions must also meet the general
attainment planning provisions in
subpart 1 of part D, title I of the Act, to
the extent these provisions ‘‘are not
otherwise subsumed by, or integrally
related to,’’ the more specific subpart 4
requirements.30 The EPA provided
further guidance to States on PM plan
submissions in the Addendum to the
General Preamble (‘‘General Preamble
Addendum’’).31
To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA has also promulgated the ‘‘Fine
Particle Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standard: State Implementation
Plan Requirements; Final Rule’’ (‘‘PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule’’).32 The PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule establishes
regulatory requirements and provides
additional guidance applicable to
attainment plan submissions for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, addressed in this
section and section VII, respectively, of
this proposed rule.
The general subpart 1 statutory
requirements for attainment plans
include the following: (i) The section
172(c)(1) requirement for reasonably
available control measures (RACM)/
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) and attainment demonstrations;
(ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to
RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3)
requirement for emissions inventories;
(iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirement for
a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program; and (v) the
section 172(c)(9) requirement for
contingency measures.
The more specific subpart 4 statutory
requirements for Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas include the
following: (i) The section 189(a)(1)(A)
and 189(e) NNSR permit program
requirements; (ii) the section
189(a)(1)(B) requirement for attainment
demonstrations; (iii) the section
189(a)(1)(C) requirement for RACM; and
(iv) the section 189(c) requirements for
RFP and quantitative milestones. Under
subpart 4, states with Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas must provide for
attainment in the area as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than the latest
permissible attainment date under CAA
section 188(c), i.e., December 31, 2021,
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,
unless the EPA determines, per section
188(b)(1), that the area cannot
practicably attain the NAAQS by the
30 Id.
at 13538.
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
32 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
31 59
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
Moderate area attainment date.33 In
addition, under subpart 4, direct PM2.5
and all precursors to the formation of
PM2.5 are subject to control unless the
EPA approves a demonstration from the
state establishing that a given precursor
does not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5
NAAQS in the area.34
IV. Review of San Joaquin Valley Plans
for Moderate Area Requirements
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Requirements for Emissions
Inventories
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA 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. We refer to this
inventory as the ‘‘base year inventory.’’
The EPA has established regulatory
requirements for base year and other
emissions inventories in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule 35 and issued
guidance concerning emissions
inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.36
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 emissions inventory must
include direct PM2.5 emissions,
separately reported filterable and
condensable PM2.5 emissions,37 and
emissions of all chemical precursors to
the formation of secondary PM2.5: NOX,
SO2, VOC, and ammonia.38 In addition,
the emissions inventory base year for a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
33 Generally, under CAA section 188(c), the latest
permissible attainment date for a Moderate
nonattainment area is the end of the sixth calendar
year after the area’s designation as nonattainment.
Because the EPA designated and classified the San
Joaquin Valley as a Moderate nonattainment area
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 15, 2015
(80 FR 2206, 2217–2218), the latest permissible
attainment date for these NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley is December 31, 2021.
34 40 CFR 51.1006 and 51.1009.
35 40 CFR 51.1008.
36 81 FR 58010, 58078–58079 and ‘‘Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations,’’ EPA, May 2017 (‘‘Emissions
Inventory Guidance’’), available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airemissions-inventory-guidance-implementationozone-and-particulate.
37 The Emissions Inventory Guidance identifies
the types of sources for which the EPA expects
states to provide condensable PM emissions
inventories. Emissions Inventory Guidance, section
4.2.1 (‘‘Condensable PM Emissions’’), 63–65.
38 40 CFR 51.1008.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
must be one of the three years (i.e.,
2011–2013) for which monitored data
were used to designate the area as
nonattainment, or another technically
appropriate year justified by the state in
its Moderate area attainment plan
submission.39
In its SIP submission, a state must
include documentation explaining how
it calculated emissions data. In
estimating mobile source emissions, a
state should use the latest emissions
models and planning assumptions
available at the time it develops the SIP
submission. States are also required to
use the EPA’s ‘‘Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors’’ (‘‘AP–42’’)
road dust method for calculating reentrained road dust emissions from
paved roads.40 41 At the time the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan were
developed, California was required to
use EMFAC2014 to estimate tailpipe
and brake and tire wear emissions of
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and VOC from on-road
mobile sources.42
In addition to the base year inventory
submitted to meet the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(3), a state must also
submit future ‘‘baseline inventories’’ for
the projected attainment year, each RFP
milestone year, and any other year of
significance for meeting applicable CAA
requirements.43 By baseline inventories
we mean projected emissions
inventories for future years that account
for, among other things, the ongoing
39 40
CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i).
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
emissions tests results. (76 FR 6328, February 4,
2011). CARB used the revised 2011 AP–42
methodology in developing on-road mobile source
emissions.
41 AP–42 has been published since 1972 as the
primary source of the EPA’s emission factor
information. 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.
42 The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor)
is a computer model developed by CARB. The EPA
approved and announced the availability of
EMFAC2014 for use in SIP development and
transportation conformity in California on
December 14, 2015 (80 FR 77337). The EPA’s
approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model for
SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the
date of publication in the Federal Register. On
August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced
the availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to
the EMFAC model for use by state and local
governments to meet CAA requirements (84 FR
41717). EMFAC2017 was not available to the State
and District at the time they were developing the
2016 PM2.5 Plan and had only recently been
submitted to the EPA on July 20, 2018, prior to the
adoption of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
43 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2) and 51.1012(a)(2); see
also Emissions Inventory Guidance.
40 The
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of emissions for attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.48
The base year inventories for
stationary sources were developed using
actual emissions reports made by
facility operators. The State developed
2. Summary of State’s Emissions
the base year emissions inventories for
Inventories
area sources using the most recent
models and methodologies available at
Within the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the
the time the State was developing the
annual average planning inventories for 2016 PM Plan and 2018 PM Plan.49
2.5
2.5
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors
Importantly, CARB and the District
44
(NOX, ammonia, SOX, and VOC) for
updated the emissions inventory in the
the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area,
2018 PM2.5 Plan using the latest
together with documentation for the
available activity data and emission
inventories, are found in Appendix B
methodologies available at the time of
(‘‘Emissions Inventory’’). In addition,
plan development. The 2013 base year,
Appendix A (‘‘Air Quality Modeling’’)
annual average emissions inventories
contains inventory documentation
for most source categories did not
specific to the air quality modeling
change or only changed plus or minus
inventories. These portions of the 2016
0.1 tons per day (tpd) between the two
PM2.5 Plan contain annual average daily plans.50 However, the base year
emission inventories for 2013 thru 2022 emissions inventory from several
projected from the 2012 actual
important source categories were
emissions inventory,45 including the
smaller in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan relative
2013 base year, the 2019 RFP baseline
to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan based on the
year, the 2021 Moderate area attainment latest information. These include a 1.2
year, and the 2022 post-attainment RFP
tpd decrease in direct PM2.5 emissions
year. The winter average daily inventory from residential fuel combustion based
is used to evaluate sources of emissions on a 2016 emissions inventory
for attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS methodology update,51 a 0.4 tpd
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.46
decrease in direct PM2.5 emissions from
Similarly, within the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, farming operations based on updated
the annual average planning inventories estimates by the California Department
for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors, of Conservation of harvested acreage in
2010–2020 rather than 2000–2009,52
together with documentation for the
and a 0.9 tpd decrease in NOX emissions
inventories, are found in Appendix B
from trains based on updated
(‘‘Emissions Inventory’’). In addition,
locomotive data from 2016 on Class I
Appendix J (‘‘Modeling Emission
and Class II railroads.53 Overall, for the
Inventory’’) contains inventory
documentation specific to the air quality 2013 base year, total emissions of both
modeling inventories. These portions of direct PM2.5 and NOX were 0.9 tpd
smaller in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan relative
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contain annual
to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
average daily emission inventories for
Furthermore, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s
2013 thru 2028 projected from the 2012
actual emissions inventory, 47 including emissions inventory does not separately
report filterable and condensable PM2.5
the 2013 base year, the 2019 and 2022
emissions. However, the 2018 PM2.5
RFP baseline years, the 2025 Serious
Plan
includes background,
area attainment year, and the 2028 postmethodology, and inventories of
attainment RFP year. Both the annual
condensable and filterable PM2.5
average and the winter average daily
inventories are used to evaluate sources emissions from stationary point and
non-point combustion sources that are
expected to generate condensable
44
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
effects of economic growth and adopted
emission control requirements. The SIP
submission should include
documentation to explain how the state
calculated the emissions projections.
The 2016 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.
45 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–18.
46 The 2016 PM
2.5 Plan includes annual average
and winter day average inventories for PM2.5
planning purposes. The winter average daily
planning inventory corresponds to the months of
November through April, when daily, ambient
PM2.5 concentrations are typically highest. 2016
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B–19. 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) version 1.04.
47 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–18.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
48 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–19. The base year
inventory is from CEIDARS and future year
inventories were estimated using CEPAM, version
1.05.
49 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.3
(‘‘Emissions Inventory Summary and
Methodology’’), and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B,
section B.2 (‘‘Emissions Inventory Summary and
Methodology’’).
50 For example, paved road dust direct PM
2.5
emissions decreased 0.1 tpd while off-road
equipment NOX emissions increased by 0.1 tpd
between the 2016 and 2018 PM2.5 Plans.
51 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–26.
52 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–27.
53 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–34.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49105
PM2.5.54 It provides filterable and
condensable emissions estimates,
expressed as annual PM2.5 emissions
(tons per year), for all of the identified
source categories for the years
applicable to the Moderate area
timeframe, including the 2013 base year,
the 2019 RFP year, the 2021 Moderate
area attainment year, and the 2022 postattainment RFP year, as well as
subsequent years.
CARB used EMFAC2014 to estimate
on-road motor vehicle emissions based
on transportation activity data from the
2014 Regional Transportation Plan
adopted by the transportation planning
agencies in the SJV.55 Re-entrained
paved road dust emissions were
calculated using a CARB methodology
consistent with the EPA’s AP–42 road
dust methodology.56 CARB also
provided emissions inventories for offroad equipment, including aircraft,
trains, recreational boats, construction
equipment, and farming equipment,
among others. CARB uses a suite of
category-specific models to estimate offroad emissions for many categories and,
where a new model was not available,
used the OFFROAD2007 model.57
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.58 In the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District
provides for use of pre-base year ERCs
as offsets by accounting for such ERCs
in the projected emissions inventory for
the 2022 RFP year and the projected
2025 attainment year, respectively.59
The plans identify growth factors,
control factors, and estimated offset use
between 2013 and 2022, and between
2013 and 2025, for direct PM2.5, NOX,
SOX, and VOC emissions by source
category and lists all pre-base year ERCs
54 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–42 to B–44. The
EPA has approved the emissions inventory
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,
including the filterable and condensable PM2.5
inventories. 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020) (final rule);
and 85 FR 17382, 17389 (March 27, 2020) (proposed
rule).
55 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–33; and 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. B, B–37. We note that the vehicle miles
traveled data used in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
emissions inventory is from the final 2017 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program from each of
the SJV’s eight metropolitan planning organizations.
56 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–26; and 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. B, B–28.
57 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–33 through B–35;
and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B–38 through B–40.
58 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, B–19; and 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. B, B–19.
59 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–1 through D–5; and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, I–1 through I–5.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49106
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
issued by the District for PM10,60 NOX,
SOX, and VOC emissions, by facility.61
Table 1 provides a summary of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan’s winter (24-hour)
average inventories in tpd of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions for
the 2013 base year. Table 2 provides a
summary of 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s annual
average inventories of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions for the 2013
base year. For purposes of this proposal,
these annual average inventories
provide bases primarily for our
evaluation of the precursor
demonstration, control measure
analysis, impracticability
demonstration, RFP demonstration, and
MVEBs in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with
respect the Moderate area requirements.
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 Evaluation and Proposed Action
Consistent with the requirement that
inventories be based on the most current
and accurate information available to
the State and District at the time they
were developing the plans and
inventories, our evaluation for the SJV
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS relies
primarily on the emissions inventories
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The inventories
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan include the latest
version of California’s mobile source
emissions model, EMFAC2014, that had
been approved by the EPA at the time,
and the EPA’s most recent AP–42
methodology for paved road dust. The
inventories comprehensively address all
source categories in the SJV PM2.5
nonattainment area and are consistent
with the EPA’s inventory guidance.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.1008(a), the 2013 base year is one of
the three years for which monitored
60 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10
microns or less.
61 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, tables D–1 through D–
5; and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, tables I–1 through
I–5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
data were used for designating the area,
and it represents 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
the future baseline emissions
projections in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
2018 PM2.5 Plan reflect appropriate
calculation methods and the latest
planning assumptions at the time the
State and District were developing the
plans and inventories. 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
and area sources, the related rules must
be approved by the EPA into the SIP.
Given the State’s impracticability
demonstration for attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by the
outermost Moderate area attainment
date, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan describes the
District rules achieving post-2013
emission reductions that contribute
towards attaining the NAAQS.62 In our
rulemaking on the State’s attainment
plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV, we reviewed the baseline measures
identified as 2018 PM2.5 Plan baseline
controls to ensure that the measures that
are relied upon in the plan have been
submitted and approved as part of the
California SIP.63 That set of 2018 PM2.5
Plan baseline measures includes all
62 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 3–2. This includes
District rules for open burning; boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters; flares; glass melting
furnaces; stationary internal combustion engines;
and residential wood burning.
63 EPA, ‘‘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 V–A of EPA’s
General Evaluation TSD shows District rules with
post-2013 compliance dates that are reflected in the
future year baseline inventories of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, along with information on the EPA’s approval
of these rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
those baseline measures identified in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP
demonstration as achieving emission
reductions post-2013. Based on that
review, we confirm that the stationary
and area source baseline measures in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5
Plan are approved into the SIP and
support the emissions reductions for
future years in the SJV. With respect to
mobile sources, the EPA has acted in
recent years to approve CARB mobile
source regulations into the state-wide
portion of the California SIP.64 We
therefore find that the future year
baseline projections in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan are properly
supported by SIP-approved stationary,
area, and mobile source measures.65
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
future year baseline inventories in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1008(a)(2) and 51.1012(a)(2) and
provide an adequate basis for the
control measure, RFP, and
impracticability demonstrations in the
64 See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR
14447 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18,
2018).
65 The baseline emissions projections in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan assume implementation of CARB’s zero
emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and
greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, based on the
approved EMFAC2014 model and assumptions that
were available at the time of the SIP’s development.
On September 27, 2019, the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the EPA (the Agencies) issued
a notice of final rulemaking for the ‘‘Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part
One: One National Program’’ (‘‘SAFE I’’) that,
among other things, withdrew the EPA’s 2013
waiver of preemption of CARB’s ZEV sales mandate
and vehicle GHG standards. 84 FR 51310
(September 27, 2019). See also proposed SAFE rule
at 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018). In response to
SAFE I, CARB developed EMFAC off-model
adjustment factors to account for anticipated
changes in on-road emissions. On March 12, 2020,
the EPA informed CARB that the EPA considers
these adjustment factors to be acceptable for future
use. See letter dated March 12, 2020, from Elizabeth
J. Adams, EPA Region IX, to Steven Cliff, CARB. On
April 30, 2020 (85 FR 24174), the Agencies issued
a notice of final rulemaking for the ‘‘The Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for
Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks’’ (‘‘SAFE II’’), establishing the federal fuel
economy and GHG vehicle emissions standards
based on the August 2018 SAFE proposal. The
effect of both SAFE final rules (SAFE I and SAFE
II) on the on-road vehicle mix in the SJV
nonattainment area and on the resulting vehicular
emissions is expected to be minimal during the
timeframe addressed in this SIP revision. Therefore,
we anticipate the SAFE final rules would not
materially change the demonstration that it is
impracticable for the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Moderate area
to attain by the Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
respectively.
B. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Requirements for Control of PM2.5
Precursors
The provisions of subpart 4 of part D,
title I of the CAA do not define the term
‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM2.5, nor
do they explicitly require the control of
any specifically identified PM
precursor. The statutory definition of
‘‘air pollutant’’ in CAA section 302(g),
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.’’ The EPA has
identified NOX, SO2, VOC, and
ammonia as precursors to the formation
of PM2.5. 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., in CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that
the control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 (which
includes PM2.5) 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
RACM, RACT, BACM, best available
control technology (BACT), MSM, and
NNSR) 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. For
example, under the EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of the control
requirements that apply to stationary
and mobile sources of PM10 precursors
in the nonattainment area under CAA
section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,66 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.67
66 General
Preamble, 13539–13542.
67 Courts have upheld this approach to the
requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49107
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.68 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.69
We are evaluating the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
and 2018 PM2.5 Plan with respect to the
Moderate area requirements 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.
2. Summary of State’s Precursor
Demonstrations
The State presents analyses of PM2.5
precursors in both the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and primarily
relies on sensitivity-based contribution
analyses to determine whether each
PM2.5 plan precursor contributes
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We
summarize below key points from the
State’s analyses and conclusions for
each pollutant, focusing on the three
precursors (ammonia, SOX, and VOC)
that the State concludes do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the State’s
precursor demonstration and
conclusions are found in section 2.3
(‘‘Summary of Modeling Results’’),
section 3.3 (‘‘Precursor
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989
(9th Cir. 2005).
68 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
69 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49108
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Demonstration’’), and Appendix A (‘‘Air
Quality Modeling’’). The State estimates
that baseline anthropogenic emissions
of NOX, ammonia, SOX, and VOC will
decrease by 38 percent (%), 1%, 2%,
and 8%, respectively, between 2013 and
2021.70 The State does not present a
concentration-based analysis of the
contribution of each precursor to
ambient PM2.5 concentrations, but does
estimate PM2.5 component
concentrations in the 2013 base year
across all SJV monitoring sites.71 The
concentrations indicate that each
precursor may have a significant impact
on PM2.5 levels.72 The State presents a
sensitivity-based precursor analysis
using the modeled response of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations to a 15% increase
or decrease in the future baseline
emissions of each precursor in 2025 (the
latest permissible attainment year if the
area is reclassified to Serious for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS).73 For each
precursor, the State then takes the
difference between the PM2.5
concentrations from the 15% increase
and the 15% decrease to estimate the
ambient PM2.5 response to a 30% change
in the precursor, and reviews the
resulting change at each monitor to see
whether any response exceeds a
threshold of 0.2 mg/m3.74
The responses range from 0.5 mg/m3 to
1.5 mg/m3 for NOX; from 0.1 mg/m3 to 0.2
mg/m3 for ammonia; from 0.1 mg/m3 to
0.2 mg/m3 for SOX; and from –0.1 mg/m3
to 0.1 mg/m3 for VOC.75 The State
concludes that emissions of NOX (as
well as direct PM2.5) contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS but ammonia,
SOX, and VOC do not contribute
significantly to such exceedances.76 The
70 2016
PM2.5 Plan, 2–4 and Table 2–1.
at Table 2–4.
72 Using the species assignments recommended in
the Draft Precursor Demonstration Guidance (on
page 21) the relevant concentrations are as follows:
For NOX, the nitrate and associated ammonium is
up to 7.1 mg/m3; for SO2, sulfate is up to 1.7 mg/
m3; for ammonia, the sum of ammonium and nitrate
is up to 7.1 mg/m3; for VOC the only available
concentration is for ‘‘OM’’ (organic matter), which
is up to 8.7 mg/m3, and is likely much higher than
the secondary organic aerosol that is relevant for
VOC as a PM2.5 precursor. All these values are well
above the 0.2 mg/m3 threshold.
73 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A, section 5.4
(‘‘Precursor Sensitivity Analysis’’).
74 For the annual PM
2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
generally expects that a precursor demonstration
showing that the air quality impact of a given
precursor at all relevant locations does not exceed
a contribution threshold of 0.2 mg/m3 will be
adequate to exempt sources of that precursor from
control requirements. PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 17.
75 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A, tables 24, 26, 28, and
27, respectively.
76 Id. at 2–6 and 3–3, and App. A, A–52. We note
that direct PM2.5 emissions are considered a
primary source of ambient PM2.5 (i.e., no further
formation in the atmosphere is required), and
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
71 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
2016 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, section
5.5 (‘‘Discussion of Precursor
Sensitivity’’) includes additional
discussion of ammonia’s and VOC’s role
in the formation of ammonium nitrate
and VOC’s role in the formation of
secondary organic aerosols.
In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the State’s
precursor demonstration and
conclusions are found in Chapter 7
(‘‘Demonstration of Federal
Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 Standard’’)
and Appendix G (‘‘Precursor
Demonstration’’). CARB also provides
clarifying information on its precursor
assessment, including an Attachment A
to its letter transmitting the 2018 PM2.5
Plan to the EPA 77 and further
clarifications in four email
transmittals.78
The State estimates that
anthropogenic emissions of NOX,
ammonia, SOX, and VOC will decrease
by 64%, 1%, 6%, and 9%, respectively,
between 2013 and 2025.79 The 2018
PM2.5 Plan provides both concentrationbased and sensitivity-based analyses of
precursor contributions to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. Based
on these analyses, the State concludes
that emissions of NOX (as well as direct
PM2.5) contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV but ammonia,
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.
77 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
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’’).
78 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’’); 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’’); and email
dated April 26, 2021, from Laura Carr, CARB, to
Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, Subject: ‘‘RE:
Ammonia update,’’ with attachment ‘‘Ammonia in
San Joaquin Valley’’ (‘‘CARB’s April 26, 2021,
Precursor Clarification’’).
79 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7–5 and Table 7–2.
Notably, the estimated 64% reduction in NOX from
2013 to 2025 (per the 2018 PM2.5 Plan) is much
larger than the estimated 38% reduction in NOX
from 2013 to 2021 (per the 2016 PM2.5 Plan),
reflecting both additional years of reductions and
additional reductions anticipated from the 2018
PM2.5 Plan control strategy. We also note that a copy
of the contents of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G
appears in the CARB 2018 Staff Report, App. C4
(‘‘Precursor Demonstrations for Ammonia, SOX, and
ROG’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SOX, and VOC do not contribute
significantly to such exceedances.
While these analyses are primarily
designed to evaluate the role of
precursors in attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2024 and the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2025, they are
important to the consideration of
precursors for the State’s Moderate area
plan because they are based on updated
data (e.g., updated emissions
inventories, as discussed in section IV.A
of this proposed rule), use an updated
methodology to evaluate the sensitivity
of ambient PM2.5 to a range of precursor
emission reductions, consistent with the
EPA’s guidance, and best reflect the
State’s understanding of the control
strategies being implemented in the SJV.
We summarize the State’s analyses
and conclusions in the following
paragraphs. For ammonia, SOX, and
VOC, CARB assesses 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 compares those
concentrations to the recommended
annual average contribution threshold
of 0.2 mg/m3 from the EPA’s ‘‘Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance’’ 80 available at the
time the State developed the SIP.81 The
2015 annual average contributions of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC are 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, the State models the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 in the SJV
to reductions in each precursor
pollutant. For direct PM2.5 and NOX, the
State models the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 in the SJV to a 30% reduction in
anthropogenic emissions of each
pollutant in 2013, 2020, and 2024.82 The
State concludes that direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions reductions will continue
to have a significant impact on annual
80 ‘‘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.
81 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, 3. The 2018 PM2.5
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.
2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3–3 to 3–4.
82 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7–7. The sensitivitybased analysis used the same modeling platform as
that used for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment and
RFP demonstrations. 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.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and 24-hour PM2.5 design values in the
SJV, with NOX reductions being
particularly important.83
For ammonia, SOX, and VOC, the
State then models the sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 to 30% and 70%
reductions in anthropogenic emissions
of each precursor pollutant in 2013 (the
2018 PM2.5 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, and proxy for the modeled
attainment year of 2025 for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS).84 Depending on the
analysis year and percentage precursor
emission reduction, the sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 to reductions in annual
average precursor emissions ranges from
0.08 mg/m3 to 2.30 mg/m3 for ammonia;
from ¥0.05 mg/m3 to 0.15 mg/m3 for
SOX; and from ¥0.50 mg/m3 to 0.40 mg/
m3 for VOC.85
For ammonia, the modeled sensitivity
of ambient PM2.5 levels to a 30% or 70%
emission reduction exceed 0.2 mg/m3 in
certain years at specific monitoring
sites. We provide a detailed summary of
these modeling results and our
evaluations thereof in the ‘‘Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of
Ammonia Precursor Demonstration, San
Joaquin Valley Moderate Area PM2.5
Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’
August 2021 (‘‘EPA’s Ammonia
Precursor TSD’’). In contrast, for SOX
and VOC, the modeled sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 levels to a 30% or 70%
emission reduction in either precursor
is below 0.2 mg/m3, including a
disbenefit at certain monitoring sites
(i.e., ambient PM2.5 level increase), in all
scenarios except one. For 2013, the
State’s modeling shows an ambient
PM2.5 change greater than 0.2 mg/m3 in
response to a 70% VOC emission
reduction. According to the State,
however, such sensitivity results do not
reflect the atmospheric chemistry in the
SJV given the projected emission
reductions from 2013 to 2024 for all four
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83 Id.
Ch. 7, 7–7; 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).
84 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7–7. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan precursor demonstration assumes that 2025
attainment year sensitivities are very similar to
those modeled in 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G,
10. We note that the State only modeled 30% and
70% reductions in SOX for 2013, finding that the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to such changes were
below the EPA’s recommended threshold.
85 Id. at App. G, tables 2 through 7 for ammonia,
tables 8 and 9 for SOX, and tables 10 through 15
for VOC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
PM2.5 precursors, especially for VOC
and NOX.86
The State supplements the sensitivity
analysis, particularly for ammonia, 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.87 The PM2.5
Precursor Guidance confirms that these
factors may be relevant to a sensitivitybased contribution analysis.88
For ammonia, the State notes that a
53% reduction in (baseline) NOX
emissions is projected to occur between
2013 and 2024,89 so the conditions in
the early years will not persist and the
future year (2024) is more representative
of the Valley’s ambient conditions than
earlier years. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
precursor demonstration also presents a
review of District agricultural rules that
control VOC emissions and also provide
ammonia co-benefits. The State
concludes that a 30% reduction is a
reasonable upper bound on the
ammonia reductions to model. Finally,
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s precursor
demonstration presents extensive
support for the State’s conclusion
regarding an ambient excess of ammonia
relative to NOX, i.e., that particulate
ammonium nitrate formation is NOXlimited, beyond that presented in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan’s precursor
demonstration.
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated the State’s
precursor demonstrations in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as supplemented and
updated by the precursor
demonstrations in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
as well as other relevant information
available to the EPA, consistent with the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and the
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance. Based on this evaluation, the
EPA agrees with the State’s conclusion
that NOX emissions contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV and that NOX emission sources,
therefore, remain subject to control
86 For a more detailed summary of the State’s
precursor demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, see 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 24-hour PM2.5 Precursor TSD’’).
87 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, 5.
88 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).
89 2018 Plan, App. G, 8.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49109
requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of
part D, title I of the Act. Additionally,
for the reasons provided in the
following paragraphs, the EPA proposes
to approve the State’s comprehensive
precursor demonstrations for ammonia,
SOX, and VOC based on a conclusion
that emissions of these precursor
pollutants do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.
The State based its analyses on the
latest available data and studies
concerning ambient PM2.5 formation in
the SJV from precursor emissions. For
the required concentration-based
analysis, the State assessed the absolute
annual average contribution of each
precursor to ambient PM2.5 (i.e., in
2015). Given the absolute
concentrations in 2015 were above the
EPA’s recommended contribution
thresholds for both the 24-hour and
annual average PM2.5 NAAQS, the State
proceeded to a sensitivity-based
analysis, consistent with the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule.
For the sensitivity-based analysis, the
State performed its analyses in a
straightforward application of the EPA’s
recommended approach—i.e., for each
modeled year and level of emissions
reduction (in percentages), the State
estimated the ambient PM2.5 response
using the procedure recommended in
the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, and
compared the result to the EPA’s
recommended contribution threshold.90
The EPA finds that the performance of
the photochemical models were
adequate for use in estimating the
ambient PM2.5 responses.91 In
particular, for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
precursor demonstration, the State
considered the EPA’s recommended
range of emission reductions (30% to
70%) for the 2013 base year, 2020 (an
interim year), and 2024 (as a proxy for
the projected 2025 attainment year for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS), and quantified
90 For the 2016 PM
2.5 Plan precursor
demonstration, CARB modeled a 15% increase and
15% decrease in a precursor and took the difference
between the resulting PM2.5 concentrations to
estimate the ambient PM2.5 response to a 30%
change in the precursor, rather than a straight 30%
reduction, which would be expected to slightly
understate the response, as described in the EPA’s
Ammonia Precursor TSD. Nevertheless, this is a
reasonable approach and the State consulted with
the EPA on whether this approach using thenavailable modeling runs would be acceptable.
91 For the 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, the model
performance is discussed further 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’’). See further discussion in
section IV.C of this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49110
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the estimated response of ambient PM2.5
concentrations to precursor emission
changes in the SJV.
The State’s emissions projections in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5
Plan show that baseline emissions of
each of these precursors will decrease
from the 2013 base year to 2021 and
2025, respectively (i.e., none of these
pollutants is projected to increase).
These decreases are included in the
State’s modeled projections of ambient
PM2.5 levels in the SJV for purposes of
demonstrating attainment and RFP. The
State’s sensitivity analyses are
consistent with these projections, in
accordance with the EPA’s
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance.92
In the subsections that follow, we
summarize below our evaluation of the
State’s precursor demonstrations for
ammonia, SOX, and VOC for purposes of
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
a. Ammonia Precursor Demonstration
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
estimates the ambient PM2.5 response to
a 30% reduction in emissions in 2025
and, in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
estimates the ambient PM2.5 response to
both a 30% and a 70% emission
reduction in 2013, 2020, and 2024. We
have evaluated CARB’s sensitivity-based
contribution analyses for 2013, 2020,
and 2024 (in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan) and
for 2025 (in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan), and
CARB’s determination that 2024, as a
proxy for the projected attainment year
of 2025, is more representative of
conditions in the SJV for purposes of a
sensitivity-based analysis, as discussed
in the following paragraphs. We find it
appropriate for the State to consider
additional information as part of its
evaluation of whether the ammonia
contribution is significant and to rely on
the responses to the 30% modeled
ammonia emissions reduction in its
precursor demonstration for ammonia.
We provide a detailed evaluation of the
State’s precursor demonstration for
ammonia emissions in the EPA’s
Ammonia Precursor TSD.
As part of its analysis in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimates that the
ambient PM2.5 response to a 30%
reduction in ammonia emissions would
range from 0.1 mg/m3 to 0.2 mg/m3 in
2025 with 3 of 16 monitoring sites
having a response of 0.2 mg/m3.
However, the precursor demonstration
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the
ambient response to a 30% ammonia
emission reduction would exceed the
EPA’s recommended contribution
threshold of 0.2 mg/m3 at a number of
92 PM
2.5
Precursor Guidance, 35.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
monitoring sites, primarily in the 2013
and 2020 analysis years. For example,
the sensitivity results for a 30%
reduction in ammonia emission
reductions in 2020 (the closest analysis
year to 2021), show that the ambient
PM2.5 response at 9 of 15 monitoring
sites would exceed the 0.2 mg/m3
threshold. We consider two lines of
reasoning provided by the State to
support its conclusion that ammonia
emissions do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.
First, multiple researchers have
suggested that ammonia emissions are
underestimated in the SJV by a factor of
two to five or more.93 This conclusion
is based on comparing ambient and
satellite measurements to model results
that incorporate estimates of ammonia
emissions and comparing monitoring or
modeling results to what would be
expected based on the size(s) of the
ammonia and other precursor (e.g.,
NOX) emission inventories. In a
supplemental transmittal,94 CARB
described the results of two analyses
confirming the likely underestimation of
ammonia emissions. CARB compared
Community Multiscale Air Quality
(CMAQ) model predictions of ammonia
with the 2013 DISCOVER–AQ 95 aircraft
measurements and found that ammonia
was underpredicted, and noted that this
would result in the response to
ammonia reductions being
overpredicted. CARB also compared
2017 satellite measurements of
ammonia with CMAQ model
predictions and found that modeled
ammonia concentrations were half of
the magnitude of the satellite
observations at some locations, and the
modeled average in the SJV was about
25% less than observed. As a result of
the likely ammonia emissions
underestimation, the modeled response
to ammonia precursor reductions in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan’s precursor
93 See,
e.g., Parrish, D., ‘‘Synthesis of Policy
Relevant Findings from the CalNex 2010 Field
Study, Final Report to the Research Division of the
California Air Resources Board,’’ 2014, 63, https://
www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/; and Kelly,
J.T. et al. 2018, ‘‘Modeling NH4NO3 over the San
Joaquin Valley during the 2013 DISCOVER–AQ
campaign,’’ Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 123, 4727–4745, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018JD028290 at 4731. See also the EPA’s
Ammonia Precursor TSD for further discussion of
ammonia research studies.
94 CARB’s April 26, 2021, Precursor Clarification.
95 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstration may be unrealistically
large.
If ammonia emissions were increased
in the modeling to correct the likely
underestimation, then modeled
ammonia would be more abundant
relative to nitrate; particulate nitrate
formation would be more NOX-limited,
and less responsive to ammonia
reductions; and the modeled response to
ammonia reductions would be lower
than is reported in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
precursor demonstration and likely
below the EPA’s recommended
contribution threshold at most monitors
in 2021.
In addition, an upward revision in the
ammonia emission estimate would
make the model response more
consistent with the ambient
measurement studies discussed in the
submittal.96 The relevant studies
suggest a very low ambient sensitivity to
ammonia, based on measured excess
ammonia relative to NOX, the
abundance of particulate nitrate relative
to gaseous NOX, and the large
abundance of ammonia relative to nitric
acid.97 The studies all conclude that
there is a large amount of ammonia left
over after reacting with NOX, so that
ammonia emission reductions would be
expected mainly to reduce the amount
of ammonia excess, rather than to
reduce the particulate amonium nitrate.
Based on these evaluations, we find
that a correction to the likely
underestimation of the ammonia
emission inventory would likely result
in a modeled response to ammonia
reductions below the 0.2 mg/m3
contribution threshold in 2021.
Second, the air quality benefit of
ammonia emission reductions is
projected to decline steeply over time
and both the Moderate and Serious area
plans for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
SJV have been submitted to the EPA.
While a concentration-based analysis is
the initial step for a precursor
demonstration under the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule,98 a precursor
96 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, 6–7, and App. G, G–9 to G–
10; the CARB 2018 Staff Report, App. C, 12–15; and
Submittal Letter, Attachment A.
97 Lurmann et al. 2006, ‘‘Processes Influencing
Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin
Valley during Winter,’’ Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association (1995) 56(12):1679–93,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464573;
Markovic et al., 2014, ‘‘Measurements and
modeling of the inorganic chemical composition of
fine particulate matter and associated precursor
gases in California’s San Joaquin Valley during
CalNex 2010,’’ Journal of Geophysical Research—
Atmospheres, 119, 6853–6866, https://doi.org/
10.1002/2013JD021408. CalNex, or California
Research at the Nexus of Air Quality and Climate
Change, was a NOAA-sponsored field study during
summer 2010. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/
projects/calnex/.
98 40 CFR 51.1006 (a)(1)(i).
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
demonstration may then proceed to a
sensitivity-based contribution
analysis 99 to consider how sensitive
ambient PM2.5 levels would be to
emissions reductions. Precursor
concentration alone does not account
for complications of meteorology and
chemistry; ambient PM2.5 may be
relatively insensitive to emissions
reductions and, in some circumstances,
emissions reductions may even result in
increased ambient PM2.5, i.e., show a
‘‘disbenefit.’’ 100
In selecting the analysis year for a
precursor demonstration, we find it
appropriate to consider changes in
atmospheric chemistry that may occur
between the base or current year and the
attainment year because the changes
may ultimately affect the nonattainment
area’s progress toward expeditious
attainment. Based on these
considerations, we find it reasonable for
the State to focus on the ambient PM2.5
response to ammonia emission
reductions in 2024, rather than an
earlier year, as the modeled response in
2024 in the SJV better reflects the
potential benefit of ammonia control
measures for purposes of expeditious
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
We consider the precursor
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as
part of this evaluation, because the 2018
PM2.5 Plan contains a Serious area
attainment plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS based on modeled emissions
projections for 2024 and 2025 that are
relevant to our evaluation of the
ammonia precursor demonstration in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan provides updated analyses with
comprehensive modeling and additional
information beyond that provided in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan, and the 2024 model
results in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
corroborate the 2025 model results in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
The State’s precursor demonstrations
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan show that ambient sensitivity
to ammonia emission reductions in the
99 40
CFR 51.1006 (a)(1)(ii).
example of a disbenefit is ‘‘sulfate
replacement,’’ which can occur at intermediate
ammonia levels when there is not enough ammonia
to fully react with the SOX and NOX present.
Reducing SOX emissions reduces ambient
particulate ammonium sulfate. For each ammonium
sulfate, two ammonium ions are freed; both can
combine with a nitrate, forming two particulate
ammonium nitrate molecules. The net result of the
SOX emissions decrease is then an increase in
ambient PM2.5 concentration. See also the EPA’s 24hour PM2.5 Precursor TSD, 17–18; 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
100 An
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
SJV declines steeply over time. Between
2020 and 2024, the modeled response to
a 30% ammonia emission reduction
declines by 50% at the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site, which has the
highest projected PM2.5 level, and by
37% averaged over all monitoring sites.
In absolute terms, the ambient PM2.5
response declines from 0.24 mg/m3 in
2020 to 0.12 mg/m3 in 2024 at
Bakersfield-Planz, and from 0.23 mg/m3
to 0.14 mg/m3 as averaged over all
monitoring sites, with the decline being
generally larger for the sites with the
highest projected PM2.5 levels. Thus,
between 2020 and 2024, the number of
sites at which modeled sensitivity
exceeds the 0.2 mg/m3 threshold
declines from 9 of 15 to 1 or 2 of
15.101 102 As discussed above, ammonia
sensitivity declines because of the
shifting atmospheric chemistry caused
by NOX emissions decreases. NOX
emissions are projected to decrease 27%
between 2020 and 2024 due to baseline
measures (e.g., existing motor vehicle
controls). The decreased NOX emissions
will make ammonia more abundant
relative to NOX, and even less of a
limiting factor on PM2.5 formation. In
other words, the model response in the
future attainment year 2024 gives a
more realistic assessment of the
potential effect of ammonia controls
than past or current conditions.
Moreover, given the likely
underestimate in ammonia emissions in
the SJV, 2024 modeling results may be
more representative even of current
conditions than 2020 modeling results.
For example, if 2013 ammonia
emissions are underestimated by a
factor of three, as suggested by the
CalNex summary report,103 then the
2013 ratio of ammonia to NOX
emissions of 1.04 should be about 3.1,
instead. The emissions ratio of ammonia
to NOX in 2024 is 2.2, which is closer
to 3.1 than the emissions ratio of
ammonia to NOX in 2020, which is
1.6.104 Using 2024 modeling results
101 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 4 & 5, G–11.
The result for the Madera site is unclear since its
monitored concentrations are biased high.
102 For 2025, the 2016 PM
2.5 Plan states there are
no sites are above the contribution threshold. The
sensitivities show similar declines from 2020 to
2025 of 58% for the monitoring site with the
highest projected PM2.5 level and 46% averaged
over all monitoring sites. Because only a single
decimal place is provided for 2025, the percent
declines are more approximate. Extrapolating the
2018 PM2.5 Plan results to 2025, the percent
declines are 55% and 40%, respectively, which are
comparable to those for 2024.
103 Parrish, D., ‘‘Synthesis of Policy Relevant
Findings from the CalNex 2010 Field Study, Final
Report to the Research Division of the California Air
Resources Board,’’ 2014, 63, https://
www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/.
104 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B, tables B–2 (‘‘NOX’’)
and B–5 (‘‘Ammonia’’), annual average tpd, Grand
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49111
partly compensates for the likely
ammonia emissions underestimation.
Finally, the decision on whether to
control ammonia does not affect the
attainment year for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. From the 2020
sensitivity results,105 a 30% reduction
in ammonia emissions would reduce the
projected PM2.5 level in 2021 106 by 0.24
mg/m3. The design value would decrease
from a 2020 baseline value of 14.6 mg/
m3 down to 14.3 mg/m3. The State uses
a 30% ammonia emission reduction as
an upper bound in the modeling but
shows that even a 70% ammonia
emission reduction would reduce the
design value to only 13.8 mg/m3. The
result of a 30% or even a 70% ammonia
emission reduction, if those were
possible, would still be well above the
NAAQS level of 12.0 mg/m3. Attainment
would remain impracticable in 2021. A
decision to evaluate and possibly adopt
additional ammonia controls in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan would not remove the
need for a Serious area plan identifying
a later attainment year for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Such reductions would also have
little effect in 2025. Based on the 2024
sensitivity results,107 if ammonia
emissions were reduced by 30%, the
area’s 12.0 mg/m3 design value would be
reduced by 0.12 mg/m3, which would
not be considered significant (it is below
the EPA’s recommended threshold of
0.2 mg/m3). A 70% reduction might
lower the design value by 0.36 mg/m3 to
11.7 mg/m3. Conceivably that could
result in attainment of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in 2024 rather than 2025, but it
is not clear whether reductions of that
magnitude are feasible.
In sum, we find that the State
quantified the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 levels to reductions in ammonia
emissions using appropriate modeling
techniques that performed well; there is
likely an underestimation of ammonia
emissions in the SJV and, if corrected,
the modeled response to ammonia
reductions would be lower than
reported; and the State’s choice of 2024
and 2025 as the reference points for
purposes of evaluating the sensitivity of
Total for San Joaquin Valley, B–7 and B–16. The
ammonia to NOX ratio is 329.2/317.2 = 1.04 in
2013; 325.9/203.3 = 1.6 in 2020; and 324.6/148.9 =
2.2 in 2024.
105 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 4 and 6.
106 Sensitivity for the year 2021 is being
represented by model results for 2020. Given the
declining NOX emissions and corresponding
decline in ammonia sensitivity, the actual PM2.5
response to ammonia reductions for 2021 would be
lower than stated.
107 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 5 and 7, 11–
12. The response to 2025 ammonia reductions
would be lower than the values stated in the text,
due to the effect of declining NOX emissions.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49112
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ambient PM2.5 levels to ammonia
emission reductions is well-supported.
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
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. SOX Precursor Demonstration0.05
As described in section IV.B.2 of this
proposed rule, in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan,
CARB estimated the ambient PM2.5
response to a 30% reduction in SOX
emissions in 2025 to range from 0.1 mg/
m3 to 0.2 mg/m3, with half the
monitoring sites having a response of
0.2 mg/m3. In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
estimated the 2013 ambient PM2.5
response to a 30% SOX emission
reduction to range from ¥0.01 mg/m3 to
0.07 mg/m3 and estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response to a 70% SOX emission
reduction to range from ¥0.05 mg/m3 to
0.15 mg/m3.108 The State also provides
an emissions trend chart that shows
SOX emissions to be steady at
approximately 8 tpd from 2013 through
2024. Given that the relative levels of
SOX and ammonia emissions over that
timeframe remain similar, the State
concludes that the 2013 sensitivities are
also representative of future years.109
The State also provides the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2013, 2020, and 2024
to 30% and 70% reductions in SOX
emissions, all of which are below the
0.2 mg/m3 contribution threshold.110
We note that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s
sensitivity estimates for 2025 are at or
below the EPA’s recommended
contribution threshold of 0.2 mg/m3, and
that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s sensitivity
estimates for 2013 are well below that
threshold for both the 30% and 70%
emission reduction scenarios and even
negative for certain monitoring sites.
Given that the latter precursor
demonstration was based on updated
data and an updated methodology, and
the steady SOX emission levels over
2013 to 2025 (as opposed to increases),
the EPA agrees with the State’s
conclusion that the 2013 modeled
sensitivities provide a sufficient basis
for the SOX precursor demonstration.
The supplemental results provided by
the State for 2020 and 2024 support this
conclusion.
Therefore, on the basis of these
modeled ambient PM2.5 responses to
SOX emission reductions in the SJV, and
the facts and circumstances of the area,
108 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 15–16, tables 8 and
the EPA proposes to approve the State’s
demonstration that SOX emissions do
not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV.
c. VOC Precursor Demonstration
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
estimated the ambient PM2.5 response to
a 30% difference in VOC emissions in
2025 to range from ¥0.1 mg/m3 to 0.1
mg/m3. In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the State
found that the ambient PM2.5 response
to VOC emission reductions were
generally below the EPA’s
recommended contribution threshold of
0.2 mg/m3, 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.111
We note that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s
sensitivity estimates for 2025 are at or
below the EPA’s recommended
contribution threshold of 0.2 mg/m3, and
that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s sensitivity
estimates for 2020 and 2024 are well
below that threshold for both the 30%
and 70% emission reduction scenarios,
and even negative for certain monitoring
sites. The State also provides an
emissions trend chart that shows VOC
emissions are projected to decrease by
about 30 tpd, or 9% between 2013 and
2020 as well as between 2013 and 2024,
and concludes that 2013 sensitivity
results are not representative into the
future and that the 2020 and 2024
results are representative.112 Finally, the
State concludes that VOC emissions do
not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
The EPA has evaluated and agrees
with the State’s determination in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan that the projected 2024
attainment year is more representative
of conditions in the SJV for sensitivitybased analyses and that VOC reductions
in 2024 would mostly result in a
disbenefit to ambient PM2.5 levels. The
EPA agrees that the 9% VOC emissions
decrease from 2013 to 2024 supports
reliance on the 2024 modeling results.
Furthermore, there is a large decrease in
NOX emissions over this period, as
described in section IV.B.2 of this
proposed rule, that 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
9.
109 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 15.
September 2019 Precursor
Clarification.
110 CARB’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
111 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 18–19, tables 10 and
11.
112 2018
PO 00000
PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 19–20.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions reductions are expected to
result from baseline measures already in
effect. Therefore, we 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 SJV; as discussed in 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 2006 NAAQS
Precursor TSD’’), VOC reductions led to
less peroxyacetyl nitrate formation, and
greater availability of nitrate to form
particulate ammonium nitrate.113
For 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.
C. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality
Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires each state in which a Moderate
area is located to submit a plan that
includes a demonstration (including air
quality modeling) of either (i)
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, or (ii)
attainment by that date is impracticable.
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes a
demonstration that attainment by the
Moderate attainment date is
impracticable.
The EPA’s PM2.5 modeling
guidance 114 (‘‘Modeling Guidance’’ and
‘‘Modeling Guidance Update’’)
recommends that a photochemical
model, such as the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions or
CMAQ, be used 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 year undergoes a performance
evaluation to ensure that it satisfactorily
corroborates the concentrations
monitored in that year. The model may
then be used to simulate emissions
occurring in other years required for a
113 EPA’s
2006 NAAQS Precursor TSD, 22.
dated November 29, 2018, from
Richard Wayland, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors,
EPA, Subject: ‘‘Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze,’’ (‘‘Modeling Guidance’’), and
Memorandum dated June 28, 2011 from Tyler Fox,
Air Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA, to
Regional Air Program Managers, EPA, Subject:
‘‘Update to the 24 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Modeled
Attainment Test,’’ (‘‘Modeling Guidance Update’’).
114 Memorandum
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
plan, namely the base year (which may
differ from the base case year) and
future year.115 The modeled response to
the emission changes between those
years is used to calculate relative
response factors (RRFs) that 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. Because 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
day’s measured PM2.5 concentration
must be split into its species
components. The Modeling Guidance
provides additional detail on the
recommended approach.116
The EPA has not issued modeling
guidance specific to impracticability
demonstrations but believes that a state
seeking to make such a demonstration
generally should provide air quality
modeling similar to that required for an
attainment demonstration.117 The main
difference is that for an impracticability
demonstration, the implementation of
the SIP control strategy (including
RACM) does not result in attainment of
the standard by the Moderate area
attainment date.
For an attainment demonstration, a
thorough review of all modeling inputs
and assumptions (including consistency
with EPA guidance) is especially
important because the modeling must
ultimately support a conclusion that the
plan (including its control strategy) will
provide for timely attainment of the
applicable NAAQS. In contrast, for an
impracticability demonstration, the end
point is a reclassification to Serious,
which triggers the requirement for a
new Serious area attainment plan with
a new air quality modeling analysis, and
115 In this section, we use the terms ‘‘base case,’’
‘‘base year’’ or ‘‘baseline,’’ and ‘‘future year’’ as
described in section 2.3 of the EPA’s Modeling
Guidance. The ‘‘base case’’ modeling simulates
measured concentrations for a given time period,
using emissions and meteorology for that same year.
The modeling ‘‘base year’’ (which can be the same
as the base case year) is the emissions starting point
for the plan and for projections to the future year,
both of which are modeled for the attainment
demonstration. Modeling Guidance, 37–38. Note
that CARB sometimes uses ‘‘base year’’
synonymously with ‘‘base case’’ and ‘‘reference
year’’ instead of ‘‘base year.’’
116 Modeling Guidance, section 4.4, ‘‘What is the
Modeled Attainment Tests for the Annual Average
PM2.5 NAAQS.’’
117 81 FR 58010, 58048.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
a new control strategy.118 Thus, the
Serious area planning process would
provide an opportunity to refine the
modeling analysis and/or correct any
technical shortcomings in the
impracticability demonstration.
Therefore, the burden of proof will
generally be lower for an
impracticability demonstration
compared to an attainment
demonstration.119
2. Summary of State’s Air Quality
Modeling
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the State
discussed its air quality modeling in
section 2.3 (‘‘Summary of Modeling
Results’’) and Appendix A (‘‘Air Quality
Modeling’’) and concludes that it is not
practicable to attain the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV by December 31,
2021. The State used CMAQ (version
5.02) to model three simulations: A
2013 base year to demonstrate that the
model reasonably reproduced observed
PM2.5 concentrations, a 2013 reference
base year simulation that excluded
exceptional events such as wildfires,
and a 2021 future year based on the
reference year but using projected 2021
emissions. For the base year simulation,
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.
The State then generated site- and
species-specific RRFs for the
ammonium ion, nitrate ion, sulfate ion,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and a
combined grouping of other primary
PM2.5 material for the 2021 future year
simulation and calculated future year
design values by multiplying the
species- and site-specific RRFs by the
corresponding quarterly mean
component concentrations. The State
summed the quarterly mean
components to determine quarterly
mean PM2.5 concentrations, which it
subsequently averaged to determine the
annual design values. The future year
design values reflect the weighted
quarterly average concentration from the
projections of five years of data. The
State projected future year annual PM2.5
design values for the 2021 Moderate
area attainment year for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
The 2021 baseline simulation used
emission levels projected from the 2013
base year that reflect all control
measures adopted by the time of the
118 CAA
119 81
PO 00000
section 189(b)(1).
FR 58010, 58049.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49113
2016 PM2.5 Plan’s development that
would be implemented by December 31,
2021. This simulation indicates that the
2012 annual PM2.5 standard will not be
met in the SJV in 2021. The projected
2021 control scenario design value is
14.8 mg/m3 at Bakersfield-Planz, which
is typically the monitoring site that
records the highest PM2.5 levels in the
SJV.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a
modeled demonstration projecting that
the SJV will attain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2025. It
also includes a modeled demonstration
projecting attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2020,
with a design value of 14.6 mg/m3 at
Bakersfield-Planz. While the plan does
not explicitly have a demonstration of
impracticability of attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021, the latter
projections of annual PM2.5
concentrations in 2020 provides
additional information on which to
judge the practicability of attaining by
2021 in that it is the closest analysis
year available and represents modeling
based on updated data. These
projections lend support for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan indication that the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard will not be met
in the SJV in 2021.
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 SJV 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 2018 Staff
Report, which includes ambient trends
and other data in support of the
demonstration of attainment by 2025.
3. EPA Evaluation and Conclusion
CARB’s air quality modeling approach
investigated the many interconnected
facets of modeling ambient PM2.5 in the
SJV, 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
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
49114
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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, and adjustments to baseline
air quality for modeling. These analyses
are generally consistent with the EPA’s
recommendations in the Modeling
Guidance.
The model performance evaluation in
section 5.2 (‘‘CMAQ Model Evaluation’’)
of both Appendix A of the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and Appendix K of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan included statistical and graphical
measures of model performance.
The EPA previously evaluated and
approved the modeling conducted for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as part
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan; see 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
2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD’’)
accompanying that action for details.120
The conclusions in the EPA’s 2006
NAAQS Modeling TSD focused on the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; in this notice we
extend the evaluation with information
specific to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Unless otherwise noted, the discussion
applies to both the modeling in both the
2016 PM2.5 Plan (Appendix A) and 2018
PM2.5 Plan (Appendix K), since they
followed the same model platform
development procedures, and had
identical meteorological inputs, very
similar emissions inputs, and very
similar model performance.
Most aspects of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
modeling and the EPA’s evaluation of it
are the same for the 24-hour and the
annual averaging times, and the EPA
has found them adequate. These include
the modeling protocol, choice of model,
meteorological modeling, modeling
emissions inventory, choice of model,
modeling domain, and procedures for
model performance evaluation. One
aspect that differs between the 24-hour
and annual averaging times is the
specific calculation procedure for
estimating a future design value. In the
Modeling Guidance, for both averaging
times, the model is used to calculate
RRFs, the ratio of modeled future
concentrations to base year
concentrations, and the RRF is applied
to monitored base year concentrations.
This is done for each monitor, PM2.5
species, and calendar quarter. But for
the 24-hour averaging time, the
120 The model performance is discussed further in
section J (‘‘Air Quality Model Performance’’) of the
EPA’s 2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
procedure uses the highest individual
concentration days in each quarter,
whereas for the annual average, it uses
the average of all days in each quarter.
The EPA previously found that the
procedures used in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS generally
followed the EPA’s recommendations
and were adequate. For the current
action, the EPA finds that State
procedures 121 for estimating future
design values for the annual PM2.5
NAAQS generally followed the EPA’s
recommendations and are adequate.
Another modeling aspect that can
differ between 24-hour and annual
average is the focus of the model
performance evaluation on the
respective averaging times. For the 24hour average, it is especially important
that modeled concentrations on the
highest days are comparable to those on
the highest monitored days, since
calculation of the design value for the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS uses the 98th
percentile concentrations, i.e., the top
2%. For the annual average, peak
concentrations continue to be
important, but lower concentration days
are also important since all days are
included in the average. Under- and
over-predictions on non-peak days may
average out and have little overall effect
on the modeled annual concentration,
but systematic underprediction on nonpeak days could lead to model
underprediction of the annual average
concentration. This problem of model
bias is mitigated by the use of the model
in a relative sense as recommended in
the Modeling Guidance. In the RRF,
model bias ‘‘cancels out’’ to a degree
since it would be present in both its
numerator (future year) and its
denominator (base year); and applying
the RRF to monitored base year
concentration anchors the final model
prediction to unbiased real-world
concentrations. Further, RRFs are
calculated on a quarterly basis, so the
bias correction can better account for
emissions sources and atmospheric
chemistry that differ between the
seasons.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan did not have a
separate model performance evaluation
for the 24-hour and annual PM2.5
averaging times; it used statistical and
graphical analyses applicable to both.
For the most part, the EPA’s 2006
NAAQS Modeling TSD did not
distinguish between the two averaging
times either but drew conclusions for
the 24-hour averaging time rather than
the annual averaging time. It did note a
large negative bias (underprediction) in
the ammonium and nitrate performance
121 2018
PO 00000
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 18.
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
statistics 122 for the 2nd quarters for
monitoring sites in Bakersfield, Fresno,
and Visalia; and we add here that the
3rd quarter has similar negative bias.
The negative model bias in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan was slightly better than in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, i.e., the
underprediction was slightly less.
Underprediction of total PM2.5 in the
2nd and 3rd quarters is also evident in
time series plots for most monitoring
sites, though by only a small amount for
several monitoring sites.123 The EPA’s
2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD noted that
since those quarters have concentrations
that are less than half of those in the 1st
and 4th, this may not be much of a
concern for the annual average. (It is of
less concern for the 24-hour average,
since peak 24-hour concentrations occur
in winter, i.e., in the 1st and 4th
quarters.) As noted above, the RRF
procedure removes much of this bias, so
the underprediction in the model
performance evaluation does not
directly translate into an underpredicted
2020 design value. In addition, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan shows that annual model
performance for each PM2.5 species is
quite good relative to that seen in other
modeling studies, for multiple
performance statistics.124
The high days are generally captured
by the model, even though some are
underpredicted in December at certain
monitoring sites such as Fresno.
Overall, the modeled site maxima are
comparable to the measurements; also,
the frequency of high and low days
generally matches observations so the
annual as well as the daily model
performance is acceptable.
The EPA evaluated the State’s choice
of model for the impracticability
demonstration and the extensive
discussion in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan about
modeling procedures, tests, and
performance analyses, as well as the
State’s modeling choices, procedures,
test, and performance analyses in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan.125 We find the State’s
analyses consistent with the EPA’s
guidance on modeling for PM2.5
attainment planning purposes. Based on
these reviews, we find that the modeling
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5
122 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A 48ff, tables 15
through 18; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 48ff, tables
20 through 23.
123 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A, 107ff, Supplemental
materials, Figures S.37–S.52; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App.
K, 131ff, Supplemental materials, Figures S.41–
S.52.
124 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. A, 46, Figure 13; 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 54, Figure 14.
125 For a more detailed summary of the State’s air
quality modeling in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, rather
than the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to
the EPA’s 2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Plan is adequate for the purposes of
supporting the RFP demonstration and
the demonstration of impracticability in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
D. Reasonably Available Control
Measures and Control Strategy
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT and
Control Strategies
The general subpart 1 attainment plan
requirement for RACM/RACT is
described in CAA section 172(c)(1),
which requires that attainment plan
submissions ‘‘provide for the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology)’’ and provide for
attainment of the NAAQS.
The attainment planning
requirements specific to PM2.5 under
subpart 4 likewise impose an obligation
upon states with nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate to develop
attainment plans that require RACM/
RACT on sources of direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 plan precursors. CAA section
189(a)(1)(C) requires that Moderate area
PM2.5 SIPs contain provisions to assure
that RACM/RACT are implemented no
later than four years after designation of
the area. The EPA reads CAA section
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) together to
require that attainment plans for
Moderate nonattainment areas provide
for the implementation of RACM/RACT
for existing sources of PM2.5 and those
PM2.5 precursors subject to control in
the nonattainment area as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than four
years after designation.126
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
defines RACM as ‘‘any technologically
and economically feasible measure that
can be implemented in whole or in part
within 4 years after the effective date of
designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment
area and that achieves permanent and
enforceable reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions and/or PM2.5 plan precursor
emissions from sources in the area.
RACM includes reasonably available
control technology (RACT).’’ 127 The
EPA has historically defined RACT as
the lowest emission limitation that a
particular stationary source is capable of
meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available
126 This interpretation is consistent with guidance
provided in the General Preamble, 13540.
127 81 FR 58010, 58035.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
considering technological and economic
feasibility.128
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, those control measures that
otherwise meet the definition of RACM
but ‘‘can only be implemented in whole
or in part during the period beginning
4 years after the effective date of
designation of a nonattainment area and
no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year following the effective
date of designation of the area’’ must be
adopted and implemented as
‘‘additional reasonable measures.’’ 129
States must provide written
justification in a SIP submission for
eliminating potential control options
from further review on the basis of
technological or economic
infeasibility.130 An evaluation of
technological feasibility may include
consideration of factors such as a
source’s process and operating
conditions, raw materials, physical
plant layout, and non-air quality and
energy impacts (e.g., increased water
pollution, waste disposal, and energy
requirements).131 An evaluation of
economic feasibility may include
consideration of factors such as cost per
ton of pollution reduced (costeffectiveness), capital costs, and
operating and maintenance costs.132
Absent other indications, the EPA
presumes that it is reasonable for similar
sources to bear similar costs of emission
reductions. Economic feasibility of
RACM/RACT is thus largely informed
by evidence that other sources in a
source category have in fact applied the
control technology, process change, or
measure in question in similar
circumstances.133
Consistent with these requirements,
CARB and SJVUAPCD must implement
RACM, including RACT, for sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
no later than April 15, 2019, and must
implement additional reasonable
measures for these sources no later than
December 31, 2021.
2. Summary of State’s Control Strategy
The RACM/RACT evaluation for
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions in the SJV area is presented
in Chapter 3 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. Attachment 1 to
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan contains (1) a copy
128 General Preamble, 13541 and 57 FR 18070,
18073–18074.
129 40 CFR 51.1000, 51.1009(a)(4)(i)(B), and
51.1009(a)(4)(ii)(B).
130 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3).
131 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3); see also 57 FR 18070,
18073–18074.
132 Id.
133 57 FR 18070, 18074.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49115
of the BACM/BACT and MSM control
strategy evaluation for stationary and
area sources that the District adopted on
April 16, 2015, as part of its ‘‘2015 Plan
for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard’’ (‘‘2015
PM2.5 Plan’’), and (2) a copy of the
RACM/RACT control strategy
evaluation for stationary and area
sources that the District adopted on June
16, 2016, as part of its ‘‘2016 Plan for
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard’’
(‘‘2016 Ozone Plan’’).134 Attachment 2
to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan contains (1) a
copy of the BACM/BACT and MSM
control strategy evaluation for mobile
sources that CARB adopted on May 21,
2015, as part of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, and
(2) a copy of the RACM/RACT control
strategy evaluation for mobile sources
that CARB adopted on July 21, 2016, as
part of the 2016 Ozone Plan.135
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan and 2016 Ozone
Plan contain comprehensive analyses to
identify potential emission reduction
opportunities for sources of direct PM2.5
and NOX emissions and to determine
whether additional measures would be
technologically and economically
feasible for implementation in the
SJV.136 The District states in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan that it has not identified any
new emission control technologies that
could further reduce emissions in the
SJV area, that the cost of technologies
recently found not to be cost-effective
has not changed, and that potential
additional measures remain
economically infeasible, consistent with
the analyses and conclusions in the
2015 PM2.5 Plan and the 2016 Ozone
Plan.137 Based on these analyses, the
District concludes that the 2016 PM2.5
Plan satisfies the RACM/RACT
requirement for stationary and area
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
submitted May 10, 2019, supplements
these analyses by providing updated
evaluations of potential control
measures for sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions and the District’s
rationale for finding that additional
134 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Attachment 1 (comprising
2015 PM2.5 Plan, App. C (‘‘BACM and MSM for
Stationary and Area Sources’’)) and 2016 Ozone
Plan, App. C (‘‘Stationary and Area Source Control
Strategy Evaluations’’). See also SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution 15–4–7A, April 16,
2015 (adopting the 2015 PM2.5 Plan) and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 16–6–20,
June 16, 2016 (adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan).
135 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Attachment 2 (comprising
2015 PM2.5 Plan, App. D (‘‘BACM and MSM for
Mobile Sources (Provided by ARB)’’) and 2016
Ozone Plan, App. D (‘‘Mobile Source Control
Strategy’’). See also CARB Resolution 15–9, May 21,
2015 (adopting the 2015 PM2.5 Plan) and CARB
Resolution 16–8, July 21, 2016 (adopting the 2016
Ozone Plan).
136 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3–5 to 3–6.
137 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49116
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
control measures are not technologically
and economically feasible for
implementation in the SJV.138
With respect to mobile sources, the
2016 PM2.5 Plan states that CARB has
implemented the most stringent mobile
source emissions control program in the
nation, including emission standards for
new vehicles, in-use programs for
exiting vehicles and fleets, cleaner fuels,
and incentive programs to accelerate
penetration of cleanest vehicles.139
CARB states that its analyses of these
mobile source control measures are
presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and
the 2016 Ozone Plan (included as
Attachment 2 to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan)
and states that there are no additional
reasonably available control measures
that would advance attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.140 Based on
these analyses, CARB concludes that the
2016 PM2.5 Plan satisfies the RACM/
RACT requirement for mobile sources of
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions. The
2018 PM2.5 Plan, submitted May 10,
2019, supplements these analyses by
providing updated evaluations of
CARB’s mobile source control measures
and its rationale for finding that
additional control measures are not
technologically and economically
feasible for implementation in the SJV at
this time.141
Finally, with respect to transportation
control measures (TCMs), the 2016
PM2.5 Plan states that the eight county
metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) of the SJV (‘‘SJV MPOs’’)
identified and evaluated all TCMs
during development of the plan.142 The
plan states that the SJV MPOs
implement TCMs in CAA section 108(f)
consistent with the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality cost
effectiveness policy when developing
each MPO’s Regional Transportation
Plan. In 2016 the Valley MPOs revisited
the minimum cost effectiveness
standard for TCMs during the
development of the MPOs’ 2017 Federal
Transportation Improvement
Program.143 The District concludes that
the Valley MPOs are implementing all
reasonable TCMs under the MPOs’
jurisdictions and that adoption of
additional TCMs would not expedite
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
138 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. C (‘‘Stationary Source
Control Measure Analyses’’).
139 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–6.
140 CARB 2016 Staff Report, 13.
141 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D (‘‘Mobile Source
Control Measure Analyses’’).
142 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–6.
143 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–23 to 3–24. See also 2016
PM2.5 Plan, Attachment 2, App. D, section D.2.2 (D–
16 through D–18) and Attachment D (‘‘Adopted
Transportation Control Measures’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
the SJV.144 The 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
submitted May 10, 2019, supplements
these analyses by providing an updated
discussion of the transportation control
measures being implemented in the
SJV.145
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
We have reviewed the State and
District’s demonstrations in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan concerning RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measures for
mobile, stationary, and area sources of
direct PM2.5 and one PM2.5 plan
precursor (i.e., NOX) in the SJV. Our
evaluation relies primarily on our
previous evaluations of the State and
District rules in connection with our
February 12, 2019 approval of the SJV
RACM demonstration for the 2008
ozone NAAQS (for NOX emission
sources) 146 and in connection with our
July 22, 2020 approval of the State and
District’s demonstrations to meet the
BACM (including BACT) and MSM
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.147 We provide a detailed
discussion of these evaluations in the
technical support document for this
proposed rule.148 Based on these
reviews, we propose to find that the
District’s rules provide for the
implementation of RACM and
additional reasonable measures 149 for
144 2016
PM2.5 Plan, 3–6.
PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D–127 to D–128
(noting that the MPOs revisited the minimum cost
effectiveness standard during the development of
their 2018 Regional Transportation Plans and 2019
Federal Transportation Improvement Program and
concluded that they were implementing all
reasonable transportation control measures).
146 84 FR 3302.
147 85 FR 44192 (final rule approving 2018 PM
2.5
Plan as meeting, inter alia, BACM/BACT and MSM
requirements for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). Because the
RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measure
control strategy in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan is very
similar to the BACM/BACT and MSM control
strategy in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and because the
State’s and District’s control measure evaluations in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan substantially overlap with their
BACM/BACT and MSM control evaluations in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, we rely primarily on our
evaluation of the State’s and District’s BACM/BACT
and MSM control measure evaluations in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan (see proposed rule, 85 FR 17382 (March
27, 2020) and final rule, 85 FR 44192) to support
our evaluation of the RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measure control strategy in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan.
148 EPA, Region IX, Air Division, ‘‘Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of RACM/
RACT and Additional Reasonable Measures, San
Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ August 2021.
149 The 2018 PM
2.5 Plan identifies Rule 4901
(‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’), as amended June 20, 2019, as an
additional reasonable measure that is scheduled for
implementation beginning in 2020. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, Table 4–4 (‘‘Proposed Regulatory Measures’’).
The EPA approved Rule 4901 into the California
SIP on July 22, 2020. 85 FR 44206 (final rule
145 2018
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stationary and area sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX and that CARB’s current
program implements RACM and
additional reasonable measures for
mobile sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions for purposes of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
With respect to transportation
controls, we find that the SJV MPOs
have well-established TCM
development programs in which TCMs
are continuously identified, reviewed,
and evaluated throughout the
transportation planning process.
Overall, we believe that the programs
developed and administered by CARB
and the SJV MPOs provide for the
implementation of RACM and
additional reasonable measures for
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX in the
SJV.
For these reasons, we propose to find
that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan provides for the
implementation of RACM and
additional reasonable measures for all
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX as
expeditiously as practicable, for
purposes of implementing the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV in accordance
with the requirements of CAA section
189(a)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 51.1009.
E. Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the CAA 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.150
The control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of direct PM2.5
in a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at a minimum, the
requirements of an NNSR permit
program meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A).
In the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, we
established a deadline for states to
submit NNSR plan revisions to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS 18 months
after an area is initially designated and
classified as a Moderate nonattainment
area.151
California submitted NNSR SIP
revisions for the SJV to address the
subpart 4 requirements for Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas on May 19,
approving Rule 4901) and 85 FR 44192
(determination that Rule 4901 implements BACM
and MSM for residential wood burning).
150 General Preamble, 13539 and 13541–13542.
151 81 FR 58010, 58115.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
2011.152 The EPA fully approved these
SIP revisions on September 17, 2014.153
California also submitted NNSR SIP
revisions for the SJV to address the
subpart 4 requirements for Moderate
and Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas
on November 20, 2019. The EPA is
evaluating this SIP submission and will
act on it in a separate rulemaking.
Accordingly, in this action, the EPA is
not addressing the NNSR control
requirements that apply to major
stationary sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors in the SJV under CAA
section 189(e).
F. Demonstration That Attainment by
Moderate Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
1. Requirements for Attainment/
Impracticability of Attainment
Demonstrations
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires that each Moderate area
attainment plan include a
demonstration that the plan provides for
attainment by the applicable Moderate
area attainment date or, alternatively,
that attainment by such date is
impracticable. This provision explicitly
requires that a demonstration of
attainment be based on air quality
modeling but does not require such
modeling for an impracticability
demonstration. Although the EPA
expects that most impracticability
demonstrations will also be supported
by air quality modeling, it may be
possible in some cases to support an
impracticability demonstration with
ambient PM2.5 data and other relevant
non-modeling information.154
Section 188(c) of the CAA states, in
relevant part, that the Moderate area
attainment date ‘‘shall be as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the area’s designation as
nonattainment . . . .’’ For the SJV,
which was initially designated as
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
standard effective April 15, 2015, the
applicable Moderate area attainment
date under section 188(c) for this
standard is as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December
31, 2021.
In SIP submissions that demonstrate
impracticability, the state should
document how its required control
strategy in the attainment plan
represents the application of RACM/
RACT and additional reasonable
measures, at minimum, to existing
sources. The EPA believes it is
appropriate to require adoption of all
available control measures that are
reasonable, i.e., technologically and
economically feasible, in areas that do
not demonstrate timely attainment, even
where those measures cannot be
implemented within the 4-year
timeframe for implementation of
RACM/RACT under CAA section
189(a)(1)(C). The impracticability
demonstration will then be based on a
showing that the area cannot attain by
the applicable attainment date,
notwithstanding implementation of the
required controls.
2. Summary of State’s Impracticability
Demonstration
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes a
demonstration, based on air quality
49117
modeling, that even with the
implementation of RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures for all
appropriate sources, attainment by
December 31, 2021, is not practicable.
The impracticability demonstration is
included in Appendix A of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan. As described in section
IV.C.2 of this proposed rule, the
projected 2021 control scenario design
value is 14.8 mg/m3 at Bakersfield-Planz,
which is typically the monitoring site
that records the highest PM2.5 levels in
the SJV.
As further described in section IV.C.2
of this proposed rule, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan includes a modeled demonstration
that projects annual PM2.5
concentrations in 2020 that provides
additional information on which to
judge the practicability of attaining by
2021 in that it is the closest analysis
year available and represents modeling
based on updated data. These
projections lend support for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan conclusion that the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard will not be met
in the SJV in 2021.
Table 3 shows the projected annual
PM2.5 concentrations at the four PM2.5
monitoring sites in the SJV that are
equipped with comprehensive
particulate matter species
characterization, as well as BakersfieldPlanz, given that it is the site with the
highest annual PM2.5 concentrations in
the base year and projected future year.
From the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the
projections are for 2021 (latest
permissible Moderate area attainment
year); from the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
projections are for 2020 (the analysis
year closest to 2021).
TABLE 3—PROJECTED ANNUAL PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED MONITORING SITES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
[μg/m3]
2016 PM2.5 Plan
Site location
2013
Bakersfield-Planz .....................................
Bakersfield-California Ave ........................
Visalia North Church ................................
Fresno-Garland ........................................
Modesto-14th St .......................................
Difference
(2013–2021)
2021
17.3
16.0
16.2
15.0
13.0
2018 PM2.5 Plan
14.8
13.6
13.7
12.9
11.2
2013
¥2.5
¥2.4
¥2.5
¥2.1
¥1.8
Difference
(2013–2021)
2020
17.2
16.0
16.2
15.0
13.0
14.6
13.5
13.5
12.4
11.0
¥2.6
¥2.5
¥2.7
¥2.6
¥2.0
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sources: 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 2–2, and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, Table 25.
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
The impracticability demonstration in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan is based on air
quality modeling that is generally
consistent with applicable EPA
guidance. We find the modeling
152 Letter dated May 19, 2011, from Robert D.
Fletcher, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
adequate to support the impracticability
demonstration in the plan, as discussed
in section IV.C.3 of this notice.
Similarly, the attainment modeling
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan is
generally consistent with applicable
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPA guidance and provides additional
support that it is impracticable to attain
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
We have also evaluated the State’s
control measure demonstration, which
relies on its BACM/MSM
153 79
154 81
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
FR 55637.
FR 58010, 58048 and 58049.
01SEP2
49118
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
demonstration, as updated by the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, and find that it provides for
the expeditious implementation of all
RACM/RACT and additional reasonable
measures that may feasibly be
implemented at this time, consistent
with the requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, as discussed
in section IV.D of this notice.
Finally, we have reviewed available
monitored data to assess the
practicability of attaining by 2021.
Specifically, the certified 2018–2020
annual average design value for SJV is
17.6 mg/m3 (at Bakersfield-Planz), with
exceedances of the 12.0 mg/m3 standard
throughout the area.155 We note that the
SJV may have experienced higher than
normal PM2.5 concentrations in 2018
and 2020 due to wildfires in the
surrounding areas during the summer
and fall months.156 This monitored data
similarly supports the State’s
demonstration that it is impracticable to
attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
end of 2021.
Based on this evaluation, we propose
to approve the State’s demonstration in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan that attainment of
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by
the Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2021, is impracticable,
consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii). On this
basis, we also propose to reclassify the
SJV as a Serious nonattainment area,
which would trigger requirements for
the State to submit a Serious area
attainment plan consistent with the
requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part
D, title I of the Act (as described in
section V of this notice).
G. Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Requirements for Reasonable Further
Progress and Quantitative Milestones
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA states
that all nonattainment area plans shall
155 EPA design value workbook dated May 24,
2021, ‘‘pm25_designvalues_2018_2020_final_05_
24_21.xlsx,’’ worksheets ‘‘Table 1a’’ and ‘‘Table 5a.’’
The certified design value includes all available
data; no data flagged for exceptional events have
been excluded. The EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) contains ambient air pollution data collected
by federal, state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies from thousands of monitors. More
information is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
aqs. See also EPA, 2010–2020 AQS Design Value
Report, AMP480, June 30, 2021.
156 Concentrations at all 17 monitors in the SJV
with data spanning 2018 to 2020 are significantly
higher in 2018 and 2020 relative to concentrations
in 2019, possibly due to the wildfires in those years.
86 FR 38652, 38665, Table 5 (July 22, 2021)
(proposed rule on the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3).
Notwithstanding the potential effect of wildfires,
ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV remain well above
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS standard of 12.0 mg/m3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
require RFP. In addition, CAA section
189(c) requires that all PM2.5
nonattainment area plans include
quantitative milestones that the state
must achieve every three years until the
area is redesignated to attainment and
that demonstrate RFP. Section 171(1)
defines RFP as ‘‘such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required
by [Part D] or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable
date.’’ Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4
of part D, title I of the Act requires a set
percentage of emission reductions that
states must achieve in any given year for
purposes of satisfying the RFP
requirement.
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA has interpreted the RFP
requirement to require that
nonattainment area plans show annual
incremental emission reductions
sufficient to maintain generally linear
progress toward attainment by the
applicable deadline.157 As discussed in
the EPA’s guidance in the General
Preamble Addendum,158 requiring
linear progress in reductions of direct
PM2.5 and any individual precursor in a
PM2.5 plan may be appropriate in the
following situations:
• 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
contributes significantly to PM2.5 levels
over the standard), and/or
• the emission reductions necessary
to attain the PM2.5 standard are
inventory-wide.159
The General Preamble Addendum
indicates that requiring linear progress
may be less appropriate in other
situations, such as in situations where:
• there are a limited number of
sources of direct PM2.5 or a precursor,
• the relationships between
individual sources and air quality are
relatively well defined, and/or
• the emission control systems
utilized (e.g., at major point sources)
will result in a swift and dramatic
emission reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized
by any of these latter conditions, RFP
may be better represented as stepwise
progress as controls are implemented
and achieve significant reductions soon
157 59
FR 41998, 42015.
thereafter. For example, if an area’s
nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major sources, the
EPA’s guidance indicates that ‘‘RFP
should be met by ‘adherence to an
ambitious compliance schedule’ which
is likely to periodically yield significant
emission reductions of direct PM2.5 or a
PM2.5 precursor.’’ 160
Attainment plans for the PM2.5
NAAQS must include detailed
schedules for compliance with emission
regulations in the nonattainment area
and provide corresponding emissions
projections for each applicable
milestone year that represent generally
linear or stepwise progress in reducing
emissions on an annual basis.161 In
reviewing an attainment plan under
subpart 4, the EPA considers whether
the annual incremental emission
reductions to be achieved are reasonable
in light of the statutory objective of
timely attainment. Although early
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.162
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
establishes specific regulatory
requirements for purposes of satisfying
the Act’s RFP requirements and
provides 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 a
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 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
160 Id.
158 Id.
161 40
159 Id.
162 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
CFR 51.1012(a) and 59 FR 41998, 42016.
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
attainment year.163 States should
estimate the RFP projected emissions for
each quantitative milestone year by
sector on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis.164 In an area that cannot
practicably attain the PM2.5 standard by
the applicable Moderate area attainment
date, full implementation of a control
strategy that satisfies the Moderate area
control requirements represents RFP
towards attainment.165
Section 189(c) requires that
attainment plans include quantitative
milestones that demonstrate RFP. The
purpose of the quantitative milestones is
to allow for periodic evaluation of the
area’s progress towards attainment of
the 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
will 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 emission controls in the attainment
plan and the requirement to quantify
those required emission reductions. The
CAA also requires states to submit
milestone reports (due 90 days after
each milestone), and these reports
should include calculations and any
assumptions made by the state
concerning how RFP has been met, e.g.,
through quantification of emission
reductions to date.166 The Act requires
states to include RFP and quantitative
milestones even for areas that cannot
practicably attain.
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.167 Consistent
with this longstanding interpretation of
the Act, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule requires that each plan for a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
contain quantitative milestones to be
achieved no later than milestone dates
4.5 years and 7.5 years from the date of
designation of the area.168 Because the
EPA designated the SJV nonattainment
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS effective
April 15, 2015,169 the applicable
quantitative milestone dates for
purposes of this NAAQS in the SJV are
October 15, 2019, and October 15, 2022.
Following reclassification of the SJV as
Serious for the 2012 PM2.5 standard,
later milestones would be addressed by
the Serious area plan.170
2. Summary of State’s Reasonable
Further Progress Demonstrations and
Quantitative Milestones
a. 2016 PM2.5 Plan RFP and Quantitative
Milestones
The RFP demonstration and
quantitative milestones are discussed in
section 3.5 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. The
plan estimates that emissions of direct
49119
PM2.5 and NOX will generally decline
from the 2013 base year and states that
emissions of each of these pollutants
will remain at or below the levels
needed to show ‘‘generally linear
progress’’ through 2022, the Moderate
area post-attainment milestone year for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.171 The Plan’s
emissions inventory shows that direct
PM2.5 and NOX are emitted by a large
number and range of sources in the SJV
and that the emission reductions needed
for these pollutants are inventorywide.172 The Plan states that all RACM
and RACT for stationary, area, and
mobile sources have been identified and
adopted, and identifies the District rules
achieving emission reductions post2013 in Table 3–2 and CARB regulations
contributing to attainment in Table 3–3.
Table 3–6 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
presents target RFP emission levels,
based on linear emission reductions
from 2013 through 2022, and the RFP
projected emissions, based on the plan’s
baseline emissions inventory and
control strategy (i.e., RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures) for
each quantitative milestone year (2019
and 2022).173 We reproduce Table 3–6,
in part, along with the plan’s 2013 base
year inventory from Table 3–5, in Table
4. Based on these analyses, the District
and CARB conclude that their adopted
control strategy will achieve sufficient
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX to result in emission levels at
or below the RFP and quantitative
milestone target emission levels for
2019 and 2022.174
TABLE 4—2016 PM2.5 PLAN: ANNUAL PM2.5 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR BASE YEAR AND MODERATE AREA PLAN
MILESTONE YEARS
[Annual average, tpd]
Pollutant
2019 RFP target
emissions level
2013 baseline
Direct PM2.5 .....................................................
NOX ..................................................................
63.4
318.1
2019 projected
emissions level
60.8
229.5
2022 RFP target
emissions level
60.2
219.4
59.5
185.2
2022 projected
emissions level
59.5
185.2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2016 PM2.5 Plan, tables 3–5 and 3–6. We corrected the 2019 RFP Target Emissions Level for NOX in Table 3–6 to reflect the value
in Table 3–5 that was transcribed incorrectly as 229.1 tpd.
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan documents the
State’s conclusion that all RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measures for
these pollutants are being implemented
as expeditiously as practicable and
163 40
CFR 51.1012(a).
FR 58010, 58056.
165 Id. at 58056, 58057.
166 General Preamble Addendum, 42016–42017.
167 General Preamble, 13539 and General
Preamble Addendum, 42016.
168 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
169 80 FR 2206.
170 General Preamble Addendum, 42016.
164 81
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
identifies projected levels of direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions that reflect
full implementation of the State,
District, and SJV MPOs’ RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measure
control strategy for these pollutants.175
The control strategy that provides the
basis for these emission projections is
described in attachments 1 and 2 of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan.
171 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 3–6. We note that
Appendix B (‘‘Emissions Inventory’’) of the plan
indicates that emissions of ammonia, SOX, and VOC
will also generally decline from the 2013 base year,
but the RFP plan does not address these three
precursor pollutants given the State’s conclusion
that they do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV. 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3–10.
172 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, App. B.
173 Table 3–6 identifies only emission levels for
milestone years that must be addressed by the
Moderate area plan (i.e., 2019 and 2022).
174 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–10, and CARB 2016 Staff
Report, 13.
175 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–5 through 3–7; see also
evaluation of RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable control measures in section IV.D of this
proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49120
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
For quantitative milestones, the 2016
PM2.5 Plan identifies 2019 and 2022 as
the applicable milestone years and
includes milestones to track the State’s
and District’s implementation of control
measures and to document updated
emissions data.176 For 2019, the
milestone includes a ‘‘list of measures
in the SIP control strategy and key
implementation requirements,’’
including compliance milestones in
CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation and
in the District’s Rule 4901 on residential
wood burning. For 2022, the milestone
includes a ‘‘list of measures in the SIP
control strategy and key implementation
requirements,’’ including compliance
milestones in CARB’s Truck and Bus
Regulation.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. 2018 PM2.5 Plan RFP and Quantitative
Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
provides the State’s updated RFP
demonstration and quantitative
milestones, based on updated data (e.g.,
updated emissions inventories, as
discussed in section IV.A of this
proposed rule) for the 2019 and 2022
milestone years. 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.177 Given the State’s
conclusions that ammonia, SOX, and
VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, as
discussed in section IV.B of this
proposed rule, the RFP demonstration
provided by the State addresses
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX.178
Similarly, the State developed
quantitative milestones based upon the
2018 PM2.5 Plan’s strategy for reducing
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX.179
Like the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan estimates that emissions of
direct PM2.5 and NOX will generally
decline from the 2013 base year to the
2022 RFP milestone year and beyond,
and that direct PM2.5 and NOX are
emitted by a large number and range of
sources in the SJV. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
relies on the same set of identified
176 2016
PM2.5 Plan, 3–13.
177 Appendix H to 2018 PM
2.5 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.
178 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, H–1.
179 Id. at H–23 to H–24 (for State milestones) and
H–20 to H–21 (for District milestones).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
control measures as the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
to demonstrate RFP through 2022, i.e.,
the baseline measures reflected in each
plan’s emissions inventory.180
In addition to these baseline
measures, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s control
strategy includes specific control
measure commitments for purposes of
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by
2025, including commitments by the
State and District to develop and
propose to their respective boards
specific regulatory and incentive-based
measures identified in the plan by
specific years leading up to 2025,
including 2019 and 2022.181 Although
the attainment demonstration does not
rely on these control measure
commitments for emission reductions
until 2024,182 the RFP and quantitative
milestone elements of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan rely on these control measure
commitments to demonstrate that the
plan requires RFP toward attainment.183
Specifically, for the 2019 milestone
year, Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
describes the District’s quantitative
milestone as a report on ‘‘[t]he status of
SIP measures adopted between 2017
and 2019 as per the schedule included
in the adopted Plan, including
Residential Wood Burning Strategy and
Commercial Under-Fired Charbroiler
incentive-based strategy.’’ 184 The
schedule for development of new or
revised SIP measures is in Chapter 4 of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and identifies an
‘‘action date’’ between 2017 and 2019
for one District measure: ‘‘Rule 4901,
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters (Hot-spot Strategy).’’ 185
180 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H–4 to H–15.
Resolution 18–49 (October 25, 2018), 5;
2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4–8; 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’’); CARB 2018 Staff Report, 14; SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution 18–11–16 (November
15, 2018), 10–11; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, tables 4–
4 and 4–5; 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’’).
182 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’’).
183 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, H–4 to H–10
(describing commitments by CARB and SJVUAPCD
to adopt additional measures to fulfill tonnage
commitments for 2024 and 2025, including
‘‘action’’ and ‘‘implementation’’ dates occuring
before 2024 to ensure expeditious progress toward
attainment).
184 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, H–20.
185 Id. at Ch. 4, 4–12 (Table 4–4). See also 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
181 CARB
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Appendix H describes CARB’s
quantitative milestones as a report on
three measure-specific milestones: (1)
Actions taken between 2017 and 2019 to
implement the Truck and Bus
Regulation that required particulate
filters and cleaner engine standards on
existing heavy-duty diesel trucks and
buses in California; (2) implementation
of the ‘‘In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled
Fleets Regulation’’ (the ‘‘Off-Road
Regulation’’) that began in 2014 for large
fleets and in 2017 for medium fleets and
limited emissions from existing off-road
diesel vehicles operated in California;
and (3) the ‘‘status of SIP measures
adopted between 2017 and 2019,
including the California Low-NOX
Engine Standard for new on-road heavyduty engines used in medium- and
heavy-duty trucks purchased in
California.’’ 186 The schedule for
development of new or revised CARB
measures is in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and identifies ‘‘action’’ dates
between 2017 and 2019 for eight CARB
measures: ‘‘Lower Opacity Limits for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles,’’ ‘‘Amended
Warranty Requirements for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ the ‘‘Low-NOX Engine
Standard,’’ ‘‘Innovative Clean Transit,’’
‘‘Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last
Mile Delivery),’’ ‘‘Zero-Emission Airport
Shuttle Buses,’’ ‘‘Zero-Emission Airport
Ground Support Equipment,’’ and
‘‘Transport Refrigeration Units Used for
Cold Storage.’’ 187
For the 2022 milestone year,
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
describes the District’s quantitative
milestone as a report on ‘‘[t]he status of
SIP measures adopted between 2019
and 2022 as per the schedule included
in the adopted Plan, including
Residential Wood Burning Strategy and
Commercial Under-Fired Charbroiler
incentive-based strategy.’’ 188 The
schedule for development of new or
revised SIP measures in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan identifies ‘‘action dates’’ between
2019 and 2022 for 12 District measures
listed in tables 4–4 and 4–5 of Chapter
4, including, for example, ‘‘Rule 4311,
Flares,’’ ‘‘Rule 4702, Internal
Combustion Engines,’’ and ‘‘Rule 4354,
Commitments with 2018 PM2.5 Plan,’’ stating the
District’s intent to take action on the listed rules
and measures by beginning the public process on
each measure and then proposing the rule or
measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board).
186 Id. at H–23.
187 Id. at 4–28 (Table 4–8). See also 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 2018 Staff Report, 14–15
(stating CARB’s intent to ‘‘bring to the Board or take
action on the list of proposed State measures for the
Valley’’ by the action dates specified in Table 2).
188 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, H–20.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Glass Melting Furnaces.’’ 189 Appendix
H describes CARB’s quantitative
milestone as a report on two measurespecific milestones: (1) Actions taken
between 2019 and 2022 to implement
the Truck and Bus Regulation that
required particulate filters and cleaner
engine standards on existing heavy-duty
diesel trucks and buses in California,
and (2) the ‘‘status of SIP measures
adopted between 2019 and 2022,
including Advanced Clean Cars 2 and
the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program.’’ The schedule
for development of new or revised
CARB measures in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies ‘‘action’’ dates between 2019
and 2022 for 13 CARB measures listed
in Table 4–8 of Chapter 4, including, for
example, the ‘‘Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,’’
‘‘Small Off-Road Engines,’’ and the
‘‘Low-Emission Diesel Fuel
Requirement.’’ 190
49121
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies October 15, 2019, and October
15, 2022, as applicable milestone dates
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.191 Table H–
11 in Appendix H presents the RFP
projected emissions levels for 2019 and
2022, based on the plan’s emissions
inventory and baseline measures. We
reproduce Table H–11, in part, along
with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s base year
inventory for 2013 from Appendix B, in
Table 5.
TABLE 5—2018 PM2.5 PLAN: ANNUAL PM2.5 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR BASE YEAR AND MODERATE AREA PLAN
MILESTONE YEARS
[Annual average, tpd]
Pollutant
2013 Base year
Direct PM2.5 .....................................................
NOX ..................................................................
2019 RFP target
emissions
level a
62.5
317.2
2019 projected
emissions level
59.2
214.5
2022 RFP target
emissions level
59.2
214.5
58.4
179.8
2022 projected
emissions level
58.4
179.8
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, tables B–1 and B–2, and App. H, Table H–11.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The majority of the NOX and PM2.5
reductions from 2013 to 2019 and 2022
result from CARB’s current mobile
source control program, which 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. 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 towards attainment of the PM2.5
standards. These include control
measures for stationary internal
combustion engines, residential
fireplaces and woodstoves, glass
manufacturing facilities, agricultural
burning sources, and various sizes of
boilers, steam generators, and process
heaters used in industrial operations.
CARB’s mobile source BACM and MSM
analysis in Appendix D of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and the District’s stationary
and area source BACM and MSM
analysis in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan provide a more
comprehensive overview of each of
these programs and regulations, among
many others.192
189 Id. at Ch. 4, 4–12 and 4–13 (tables 4–4 and 4–
5). See also 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,’’ stating the District’s intent
to take action on the listed rules and measures by
beginning the public process on each measure and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. Reasonable Further Progress
The EPA has evaluated the RFP
demonstrations in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
and 2018 PM2.5 Plan (Appendix H) and
proposes to find that they satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for RFP. Because the RFP demonstration
in Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
is based on updated emissions data and
updated information about the control
strategies being implemented in the SJV,
we focus our evaluation on Appendix H
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
First, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018
PM2.5 Plan document the State’s,
District’s, and MPOs’ conclusions that
they are implementing all RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measures for
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions in the
SJV as expeditiously as practicable.193
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also identifies the
State’s and District’s schedules for
developing and proposing certain new
or revised control measures listed in
their respective control measure
commitments. These schedules are
found in tables 4–4, 4–5, and 4–8 of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan and in Table H–2 of
Appendix H.
Second, the RFP demonstration
contains projected emission levels for
direct PM2.5 and NOX for each
applicable milestone year. These
projections are based on continued
implementation of the existing control
measures in the area (i.e., baseline
measures) and reflect full
implementation of the State, District,
and MPOs’ RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measures control strategy for
these pollutants.
As shown in tables 4 and 5 of this
proposed rule, the projected RFP
emission levels in each plan for 2019
and 2022 are equal to the target RFP
emission levels in 2019 and 2022,
respectively. We note that the 2013 base
year emissions in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
emissions inventory are 0.9 tpd lower
for both direct PM2.5 and NOX compared
to the base year emissions in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan’s emissions inventory, and
that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s projected RFP
emission levels for the 2019 and 2022
milestone years represent emission
reductions that exceed those of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan’s projected RFP levels by 0.1
tpd direct PM2.5 and 4.0 tpd NOX in
2019, and by 0.2 tpd direct PM2.5 and
4.5 tpd NOX in 2022. In other words, the
2018 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP demonstration
indicates a slightly faster pace of
emission reductions relative to those in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP
demonstration, and thus represents a
slightly more stringent RFP
demonstration than that in the 2016
then proposing the rule or measure to the
SJVUAPCD Governing Board).
190 Id. at 4–28 (Table 4–8). See also 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 2018 Staff Report, 14–15
(stating CARB’s intent to ‘‘bring to the Board or take
action on the list of proposed State measures for the
Valley’’ by the action dates specified in Table 2).
191 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H–12.
192 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, Ch. IV, and App. C.
193 The RACM/RACT and additional reasonable
measures control strategy that provides the basis for
the RFP demonstration is described in attachments
1 and 2 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49122
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
PM2.5 Plan. These projected emissions
levels demonstrate that the RACM/
RACT and additional reasonable
measures control strategy in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan will achieve RFP toward
attainment.
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows
that overall pollutant emissions in each
milestone year will be at levels that
reflect generally linear progress toward
attainment. The RFP target emissions
levels for 2019 and 2022 identified in
both the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan reflect consistent progress in
emission reductions from the 2013 base
year to the 2022 post-attainment
milestone year for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, based on the implementation
of the RACT/RACT and additional
reasonable measures control strategy.
For these reasons, we propose to
determine that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as
revised and supplemented by Appendix
H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, satisfies the
requirements for RFP in CAA section
172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012 for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
b. Quantitative Milestones
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan identifies the
appropriate years (2019 and 2022) for
quantitative milestones and Appendix H
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies specific
quantitative milestone dates (i.e.,
October 15, 2019, and October 15, 2022)
that are consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
Both plans also identify the target
emission levels for direct PM2.5 and
NOX to be achieved by these milestone
dates through implementation of the
control strategy. Finally, Appendix H of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies
commitments by the State and the
District to develop and propose new or
revised control measures on a fixed
timeframe, for purposes of attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable. These target emission levels
and associated control requirements,
together with the State’s and District’s
commitments to develop and propose
new or revised control measures on a
fixed timeframe, provide for objective
evaluation of the area’s progress towards
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State’s quantitative milestones in
Appendix H are to implement specific
baseline measures identified in the plan
(i.e., the Truck and Bus Regulation and
the Off-Road Regulation) and to develop
and propose several new or revised
measures listed in the State’s control
measure commitments that apply to
heavy-duty trucks and buses and nonroad equipment sources.194 These
194 The EPA is excluding the ‘‘Advanced Clean
Cars 2’’ measure from the milestones because this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
commitments to develop and propose
additional direct PM2.5 and NOX control
measures for mobile sources are part of
CARB’s strategy for attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. Similarly, the
District’s quantitative milestones in
Appendix H are to develop and propose
several new or revised measures listed
in the District’s control measure
commitments that apply to sources such
as residential wood burning,
conservation management practices,
glass melting furnaces, and internal
combustion engines. These
commitments to develop and propose
additional direct PM2.5 and NOX control
measures for stationary and area sources
are part of the District’s strategy for
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV. Thus, the State’s and District’s
obligations to implement the identified
baseline control measures and to fulfil
their respective commitments to
develop and propose new or revised
control measures for purposes of
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
provide objective means for evaluating
the SJV’s progress toward timely
attainment.
For these reasons, we propose to
determine that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as
revised and supplemented by Appendix
H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, satisfies the
requirements for quantitative milestones
in CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR
51.1013 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.
We note that on January 13, 2020,
CARB submitted the SJV ‘‘2019
Quantitative Milestone Report for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ (‘‘2019 QM
Report’’) to the EPA.195 The EPA is
currently reviewing the SJV 2019 QM
Report and will determine, as part of its
action on the submitted report, whether
the State and District have met their
identified quantitative milestones for
2019.
H. Contingency Measures
We are presenting our review of the
SIP submittals for compliance with
contingency measure requirements in
two different sections of this document.
In this section, we present our review of
the submittals with respect to the
contingency measure requirements for
the SJV as a Moderate area for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for which the state has
submitted an impracticability
measure is scheduled for implementation in 2026,
well after both the 2022 post-attainment RFP
milestone year and the projected 2025 attainment
year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 7.
195 Letter dated January 13, 2020, from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
enclosures.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstration. In section VII of this
document, we present our review of the
submittals with respect to the
contingency measure requirements for
the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
1. Requirements for Contingency
Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states
required to make an attainment plan SIP
submission must include contingency
measures that they will implement if the
area fails to meet RFP (‘‘RFP
contingency measures’’) or fails to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (‘‘attainment
contingency measures’’). Under the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, states
must include contingency measures that
will be implemented following a
determination by the EPA that the state
has failed: (1) To meet any RFP
requirement in the approved SIP; (2) to
meet any quantitative milestone in the
approved SIP; (3) to submit a required
quantitative milestone report; or (4) to
attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date.196
Contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or control measures that
are ready to be implemented quickly
upon failure to meet RFP or failure of
the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date.197
The EPA does not interpret the
requirement for contingency measures
for failing to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date to apply to a
Moderate area that a state adequately
demonstrates cannot practicably attain
the NAAQS by the statutory attainment
date. Rather, the EPA believes it is
appropriate for the state to identify and
adopt these contingency measures in a
timely way as part of the Serious area
attainment plan that it will develop
once the EPA reclassifies such an area.
However, if a state with a Moderate area
that the EPA has found cannot
practicably attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date fails to meet RFP, when
reviewed as part of the quantitative
milestone either 4.5 or 7.5 years after
designation, then the requirement to
implement contingency measures would
be triggered as required by CAA section
172(c)(9).198
The purpose of contingency measures
is to continue progress in reducing
emissions while a state revises its SIP to
meet the missed RFP requirement or to
correct ongoing nonattainment. Neither
the CAA nor the EPA’s implementing
regulations establish a specific level of
196 40
CFR 51.1014(a).
FR 58010, 58066 and General Preamble
Addendum, 42015.
198 81 FR 58010, 58067.
197 81
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
emission reductions that
implementation of contingency
measures must achieve, but the EPA
recommends that contingency measures
should provide for emission reductions
equivalent to approximately one year of
reductions needed for RFP in the
nonattainment area, calculated as the
overall level of reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment divided by the
number of years from the base year to
the attainment year. In general, we
expect all actions needed to effect full
implementation of the measures to
occur within 60 days after the EPA
notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP
or to attain.199
To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1014, the contingency measures
adopted as part of a PM2.5 attainment
plan must consist of control measures
for the area that are not otherwise
required to meet other attainment plan
requirements (e.g., to meet RACM/RACT
requirements) and must specify the
timeframe within which their
requirements become effective following
any of the EPA determinations specified
in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). In a 2016 decision
called Bahr v. EPA (‘‘Bahr’’),200 the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
the EPA’s interpretation of CAA section
172(c)(9) to allow approval of alreadyimplemented control measures as
contingency measures. In Bahr, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that
contingency measures must be measures
that are triggered and implemented only
after the EPA determines that an area
fails to meet RFP requirements or to
attain by the applicable attainment date,
and the state must not have begun to
implement such measures before this
determination is made. Thus, already
implemented measures cannot serve as
contingency measures under CAA
section 172(c)(9). To comply with
section 172(c)(9), as interpreted in the
Bahr decision, a state must develop,
adopt, and submit one or more
contingency measures to be triggered
upon a failure to meet any RFP
requirement, failure to meet a
quantitative milestone requirement, or
failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date regardless of
the extent to which alreadyimplemented measures would achieve
surplus emission reductions beyond
those necessary to meet RFP or
quantitative milestone requirements and
beyond those predicted to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS.
199 81 FR 58010, 58066. See also General
Preamble 13512, 13543–13544, and General
Preamble Addendum, 42014–42015.
200 Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235–1237 (9th
Cir. 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
2. Summary of State’s Contingency
Measures
a. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Contingency
Measures
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes a
contingency measure element that is
intended to address a potential failure to
meet RFP but, consistent with the plan’s
demonstration that it is impracticable to
attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2021, that does not
address a potential failure to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.201 Rather, the State and District
conclude that they intend to identify
and adopt contingency measures for
failure to attain as part of the Serious
area attainment plan (and, in fact, have
done so in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan). The
State and District use the plan’s RFP
analysis through 2022 to calculate the
amount of direct PM2.5 and NOX
emission reductions that represents one
year’s worth of RFP. Specifically, the
State and District divided the difference
in emissions in 2022 and 2013 by nine
to estimate one year’s worth of RFP. The
2016 PM2.5 Plan estimates that one
year’s worth of RFP is 0.4 tpd of direct
PM2.5 and 14.8 tpd of NOX.202 The
contingency measure element does not
address ammonia, SOX, and VOC in
light of the State and District’s
conclusion that each of these three
pollutants does not contribute
significantly to exceedances of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. In addition,
the contingency measure element in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan only addresses the
potential failure to meet the 2019 RFP
milestone, not the potential failure to
meet the 2022 RFP milestone.
CARB and the District prepared the
2016 PM2.5 Plan prior to the Bahr
decision, and thus did not include any
contingency measures that would only
be triggered conditionally and
prospectively, upon a future failure to
meet RFP or other relevant event.
Instead, CARB and the District relied
only on emissions reductions from
already-implemented measures to
satisfy the contingency measure
requirement. To demonstrate sufficient
reductions for contingency purposes,
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan relies on three types
of emission reductions: (1) 0.6 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 9.7 tpd NOX emission
reductions that are surplus to those
needed by 2019 to meet that year’s
linear RFP target emissions, (2) 0.3 tpd
NOX emission reductions from the
January 2015 amendment to Rule 4905
(‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces’’) as being surplus to those
201 2016
202 2016
PO 00000
PM2.5 Plan, 3–13 to 3–17.
PM2.5 Plan, Table 3–8.
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49123
captured in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan’s
emissions inventory, and (3) 3.0 tpd
NOX of incentive-based emission
reductions in conjunction with Rule
9610 (‘‘State Implementation Plan
Credit for Emission Reductions
Generated Through Incentive
Programs’’).203
CARB and the District then
established a ratio of 1:8.8 to trade
direct PM2.5 emissions for NOX
emissions based on the 2016 PM2.5
Plan’s precursor sensitivity analysis for
the traditional high design value sites in
Bakersfield.204 After accounting for the
0.4 tpd direct PM2.5 emission reductions
that would meet the 2019 RFP target
emission reductions, per the 2019 RFP
target emission reductions, the
contingency measure element relies on
this trading ratio to convert 0.2 tpd of
additional direct PM2.5 emission
reductions in 2019 into 1.8 tpd of NOX
emission reductions equivalent (after
rounding to the tenths place).205 Then,
after accounting for NOX emission
reductions that would meet the 2019
RFP target emissions reductions, the
contingency measure element sums 9.7
tpd of surplus NOX emission reductions
with 0.3 tpd from the 2015 amendment
to Rule 4905, 1.8 tpd from the surplus
direct PM2.5 conversion, and 3.0 tpd
from the incentive-based emission
reductions. The sum of these four types
of reductions equals 14.8 tpd NOX,
which matches the State’s estimate of
one year’s worth of RFP.
Therefore, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
concludes that these emission
reductions (equivalent to one year’s
worth of progress, i.e., 0.4 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 14.8 tpd NOX) are sufficient
to satisfy the contingency measure
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the SJV.
b. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Contingency
Measures
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses the
contingency measure requirement for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by reference to
the contingency measure portion of a
December 2018 SIP submission that
involved enhanced enforcement of
CARB regulations in the SJV, a
commitment to amend the District’s
residential wood burning rule (District
Rule 4901) to include contingent
provisions, and emissions estimates for
the year following the attainment year
for use in evaluating whether the
emissions reductions from the
203 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–15 and 3–16. See also 2016
PM2.5 Plan, App. C (‘‘SIP Creditable Incentive-Based
Emission Reductions’’).
204 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, 3–17.
205 Id. at Table 3–7.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49124
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
contingency measures are sufficient.206
Recently, CARB withdrew the enhanced
enforcement contingency measure of the
December 2018 SIP submission as it
pertained to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.207 In addition, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan does not include updated
emissions estimates for the years
following the 2019 and 2022 RFP
milestone years with which to evaluate
the sufficiency of contingency measure
intended to address the applicable
Moderate area requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the contingency
measure element of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
only includes estimates for the year
(2026) following the Serious area
attainment year (2025), and thus, these
estimates are not relevant for evaluating
the sufficiency of contingency measures
submitted to comply with the Moderate
area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Accordingly, we have evaluated the
relevant portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and District Rule 4901 (specifically,
section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901), and the
contingency measure element in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan as discussed above, for
compliance with the applicable
requirements for Moderate areas for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, while the
2018 PM2.5 Plan does not provide
updated emissions estimates for the
years following the 2019 and 2022 RFP
milestone years, the updated emission
estimates in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan do
provide the basis for an updated
estimate of one year’s worth of RFP for
the purposes of evaluating the
sufficiency of contingency measures to
meet the applicable Moderate area
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The updated estimates of
emissions one year’s worth of RFP based
on the updated emissions estimates in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are 0.5 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 15.3 tpd NOX.208 This is
slightly more reductions than the 0.4
tpd direct PM2.5 and 14.8 tpd NOX
emission reductions estimated as one
year’s RFP within the 2016 PM2.5 Plan,
consistent with the slightly faster pace
of emission reductions reflected in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan and discussed in
section IV.G.3 of this proposed rule.
206 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H–24 to H–26.
207 Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
with enclosures.
208 The estimate of one year’s RFP is based on
difference between the annual average base year
(2013) emissions and the corresponding emissions
in the 2022 RFP milestone year, per Appendix B of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, divided by nine (i.e., the
number of years between 2013 and 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
With respect to the District
contingency measure, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan calls for the District to amend
District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters)
to include a requirement in the rule
with a trigger that would be activated
should the EPA issue a final rulemaking
that the SJV failed to meet a regulatory
requirement necessitating
implementation of a contingency
measure. In response to the commitment
made in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in June
2019, the District adopted amendments
to Rule 4901 including a contingency
measure (in section 5.7.3 of the
amended rule), and, as an attachment to
a letter dated July 19, 2019, CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA
for approval.209 The EPA has taken final
action to approve amended Rule 4901,
but in that approval, we noted that we
were not evaluating the contingency
measure in section 5.7.3 of revised Rule
4901 for compliance with all
requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s
implementing regulations that apply to
such measures.210 Rather, we approved
the measure into the SIP because it
strengthened the rule by providing a
possibility of additional curtailment
days, and thus potentially additional
emissions reductions. We indicated that
we would evaluate whether this
provision, in conjunction with other
submitted provisions, meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for contingency measures in future
actions. In this proposal, we are now
evaluating District Rule 4901,
specifically, section 5.7.3, for
compliance with the requirements for
contingency measures for Moderate
areas that cannot practicably attain the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
Moderate area attainment date.
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit
emissions 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 for advertising the
sale of seasoned wood consistent with a
moisture content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered,
episodic wood burning curtailment
requirement that applies during four
winter months, November through
February. During a level one episodic
wood burning curtailment, section 5.7.1
prohibits any person from operating a
209 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, July 19, 2019.
210 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of
District Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132–33 (January
9, 2020) (proposed approval of District Rule 4901).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wood burning fireplace or unregistered
wood burning heater but permits the use
of a properly operated wood burning
heater that meets certification
requirements and has a current
registration with the District. Sections
5.9 through 5.11 impose specific
registration requirements on any person
operating a wood burning fireplace or
wood burning heater and section 5.12
imposes specific certification
requirements on wood burning heater
professionals. During a level two
episodic wood burning curtailment,
operation of any wood burning device is
prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019–2020 wood burning
season, the District imposed a level one
curtailment when the PM2.5
concentration was forecasted to be
between 20–65 mg/m3 and imposed a
level two curtailment when the PM2.5
concentration was forecasted to be
above 65 mg/m3 or the PM10
concentration was forecasted to be
above 135 mg/m3. In 2019 the District
adopted revisions to Rule 4901 to lower
the wood burning curtailment
thresholds in the ‘‘hot spot’’ counties of
Madera, Fresno, and Kern. The District
lowered the level one PM2.5 threshold
for these three counties from 20 mg/m3
to 12 mg/m3, and the level two PM2.5
threshold from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3.
The District did not modify the
curtailment thresholds for other
counties (i.e., Kings, Merced, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare
counties) in the SJV, and those levels
remained at 20 mg/m3 for level one and
65 mg/m3 for level two.
The District’s 2019 revision to Rule
4901 also included the addition of a
contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of
the rule, requiring that 60 days
following the effective date of an EPA
final rulemaking that the SJV has failed
to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the PM2.5 curtailment levels for
any county that has failed to attain the
applicable standard will be lowered to
the curtailment levels in place for hot
spot counties.
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
We have evaluated the contingency
measure element in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan,
as amended in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and
we find that the fact that the element
focuses only on direct PM2.5 and NOX
(and not ammonia, SO2, and VOC) is
acceptable in light of our proposed
approval of the precursor demonstration
in section IV.B of this document.
PM2.5 attainment plan SIP submission
for Moderate areas that cannot
practicably attain by the Moderate area
attainment date must include
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
contingency measures for potential
failures to meet RFP, submit a
quantitative milestone report or meet
the quantitative milestones associated
with the period 4.5 and 7.5 years after
designation (in this case, the 2019 and
2022 RFP milestone years). With respect
to both RFP milestone years, we find
that the contingency measure element is
inadequate to meet the Moderate area
contingency measure requirements for
several reasons.
First, the emission reductions relied
upon in the contingency measure
element to show compliance with the
contingency measure requirement (i.e.,
those surplus to RFP, reductions from
the 2015 amendments to Rule 4905, and
incentive-based emission reductions
from projects in 2011–2016 in
conjunction with District Rule 9610)
come from measures that are not
prospective (i.e., to-be-triggered) but
rather come from measures that have
already been implemented, and thus
would not constitute contingency
measures under CAA section 172(c)(9)
consistent with the Bahr decision.211
We recognize that the District has
taken action to fulfill the commitment
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to revise District
Rule 4901 to include specific to-betriggered contingency provisions.
However, the contingency measure
provision (section 5.7.3) added to the
rule is only triggered by a finding of
failure to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date and not by
failures to meet a quantitative
milestone, submit a quantitative
milestone report, or failure to meet an
RFP requirement. Thus, the rule does
not include contingency provisions to
address the types of failures that are the
triggering events for contingency
measures for Moderate areas that cannot
practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date.
Therefore, section 5.7.3 of District Rule
4901 does not meet the contingency
measure requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for the
SJV with respect to Moderate area
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Second, as a general matter, we find
that surplus emissions reductions in the
years following RFP milestone years can
be taken into account in determining
whether a contingency measure or
211 We note that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in
Bahr v. EPA was published on September 12, 2016,
just three days before the SJVUAPCD adopted the
2016 PM2.5 Plan on September 15, 2016.
Subsequently, the District and CARB addressed the
Bahr decision within their discussion of
contingency measures for the Serious area plan for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
(i.e., the 2018 PM2.5 Plan).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
contingency measures are adequate for a
given area for a given pollutant
notwithstanding the fact that the
contingency measure or contingency
measures would not achieve reductions
equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP.
However, the contingency measure
element in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan provides
no emissions estimates for the year
following the 2022 RFP milestone year
for such an evaluation. The contingency
measure element of the nonattainment
area plan only provides estimates of
surplus emissions reductions in 2019.
Furthermore, with respect to the
emissions analysis for 2019, neither
Rule 9610 (‘‘State Implementation Plan
Credit for Emission Reductions
Generated Through Incentive
Programs’’) nor the list of Carl Moyer
incentive projects in Appendix C of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan may be relied upon as
a source for surplus emissions
reductions because Rule 9610 is not an
emission reduction measure 212 and
because the Carl Moyer incentive
projects listed in Appendix C of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan do not satisfy CAA
requirements for SIP emission reduction
credit, as interpreted in the EPA’s
guidance.213 In addition, the emission
reductions that might otherwise be
considered surplus due to the 2015
adoption of tighter emissions limits in
District Rule 4905 would not be
considered surplus without additional
documentation because of the option in
Rule 4905 to pay mitigation fees in lieu
of compliance with emissions limits.214
212 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final approval of
Rule 9610), 79 FR 28652 (May 19, 2014) (proposed
approval noting that ‘‘[Rule 9610] does not establish
any emission limitation, control measure, or other
requirement that applies directly to an emission
source’’), and EPA, Region IX Air Division,
‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 9610, State
Implementation Plan Credit for Emission
Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs,’’
May 2014, 4–5 (noting that Rule 9610 ‘‘does not
apply to any emission source and does not directly
impact emissions’’).
213 The EPA’s longstanding position with respect
to incentive-based control measures is that SIP
credit may be allowed for such measures only
where the State submits enforceable mechanisms to
ensure that the emission reductions necessary to
meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved—
e.g., an enforceable commitment to monitor and
report on emission reductions achieved and to
rectify any shortfall in a timely manner. See, e.g.,
80 FR 19020, 19026. The 2016 PM2.5 Plan does not
contain such enforceable mechanisms addressing
the Carl Moyer projects listed in Appendix C.
214 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, fn. 8. The EPA
approved the 2015 amended version of District Rule
4905 at 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49125
Third, as a general matter, we agree
that the use of trading ratios established
through modeling techniques to convert
surplus reductions of direct PM2.5
emissions to equivalent PM2.5 precursor
emissions may be appropriate as part of
the explanation for why a given
contingency measure or measures are
sufficient in an area with respect to a
specific NAAQS. In this instance,
however, we note that reliance on
trading surplus direct PM2.5 reductions
for NOX reductions at a ratio of 1:8.8
may overestimate the amount of
equivalent NOX reductions based on the
information in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. For
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the State
conducted further analysis of the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to emission
reductions in PM2.5 precursors, as
discussed in section IV.I.2 of this
proposal. Based on this updated
analysis for Bakersfield and Fresno
sites, the State proposes to use a 1:6.5
trading ratio between direct PM2.5 and
NOX for purposes of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan’s MVEBs. This suggests that, while
for a different CAA purpose (i.e., MVEB
rather than contingency measures), any
excess direct PM2.5 used for evaluation
of contingency measures would be
equivalent to fewer NOX emissions
reductions than assumed for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan.
Therefore, in light of the deficiencies
described in the preceding paragraphs,
we are proposing to disapprove the
contingency measure element of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan, as amended in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, for failure to meet the
requirements for contingency measures
under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40
CFR 51.1014(a) in the SJV with respect
to Moderate area requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. More specifically,
we are proposing to disapprove the
contingency measure element for failure
to provide for the implementation of
specific measures to be undertaken if
the area fails, with respect to the 2019
and 2022 RFP milestone years, to meet
RFP, to submit a quantitative milestone
report (2022 RFP milestone year
only),215 or to meet the quantitative
milestones and that, once triggered,
provide sufficient emissions reductions
to meet the purposes of contingency
measures under the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations.
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
federal actions in nonattainment and
215 CARB and the District have prepared and
submitted the 2019 quantitative milestone report
and we are currently reviewing it for adequacy.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
49126
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
maintenance areas to conform to the
SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of
the NAAQS and achieving timely
attainment of the standards. Conformity
to the SIP’s goals means that such
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen
the severity of an existing violation, or
(3) delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the EPA’s
transportation conformity rule, codified
at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this
rule, MPOs in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state
and local air quality and transportation
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the
FTA to demonstrate that an area’s
regional transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from
existing and planned highway and
transit systems are less than or equal to
the MVEBs contained in all control
strategy SIPs. An attainment,
maintenance, or RFP SIP should include
budgets for the attainment year, each
required RFP milestone year, and the
last year of the maintenance plan, as
appropriate. 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.216
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, each attainment plan submittal for
a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
must contain quantitative milestones to
be achieved no later than 4.5 years and
7.5 years after the date the area was
designated nonattainment.217 The
second of these milestone dates, October
15, 2022,218 falls after the latest
permissible Moderate area attainment
date for the SJV, which is December 31,
2021. As the EPA explained in the
preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, it is important to include a postattainment 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.219
Moderate area plans demonstrating that
216 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
218 Because the SJV was designated
nonattainment effective April 15, 2015, the first
milestone date is October 15, 2019, and the second
milestone date is October 15, 2022. 80 FR 2206.
219 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063–58064.
217 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
attainment by the Moderate area
attainment date is impracticable must,
therefore, include budgets for both of
the milestone dates. States that submit
impracticability demonstrations for
Moderate areas under CAA section
189(a)(1)(B)(ii), however, are not
required to submit budgets for the
attainment year because the submitted
SIP does not demonstrate attainment.220
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 contribute
significantly 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 transportation-related
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.221 Additionally, as the EPA
explained in its May 6, 2005
transportation conformity rule
amendments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, it is
not necessary for a SIP to explicitly state
that VOC, SO2, and/or ammonia are
insignificant precursors. Instead, states
should consider the on-road
contribution of all four precursors to the
PM2.5 problem as they develop their
SIPs and establish emissions budgets for
those precursors for which on-road
emissions need to be addressed in order
to attain the PM2.5 standard as
expeditiously as practicable. Conformity
determinations must address all
precursors for which the SIP establishes
a budget and need not address those
precursors for which the state has not
established a budget because the
emissions of that precursor are
insignificant.222
220 Id.
at 58055.
CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and
93.122(f); see also transportation conformity rule
preambles at 69 FR 40004, 40031–40036 (July 1,
2004), 70 FR 24280, 24283–24285 (May 6, 2005)
and 70 FR 31354 (June 1, 2005).
222 70 FR 24280, 24287 (May 6, 2005).
221 40
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.223
The criteria for insignificance
determinations are provided in 40 CFR
93.109(f). In order for a pollutant or
precursor to be considered an
insignificant contributor, 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/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 SIP inventory
that is comprised of motor vehicle
emissions. The EPA’s rationale for
providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July
1, 2004, revision to the transportation
conformity rule.224
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
budget during a public comment period;
and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. 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)).
For budgets to be approvable, they
must meet, at a minimum, the EPA’s
adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)).
To meet these requirements, the budgets
must be consistent with the attainment
and RFP requirements and reflect all of
the motor vehicle control measures
223 40
224 69
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
FR 40004.
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Plan as superseding the corresponding
budgets from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
The budgets in both the 2016 PM2.5
2. Summary of State’s Motor Vehicle
Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan were
Emissions Budgets
calculated using EMFAC2014 and the
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets latest modeled vehicle activity data
(vehicle miles traveled and speed
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2019 (RFP
distributions) available at the time of
milestone year) and 2022 (postplan development. In the case of the
attainment RFP milestone year) and no
2016 PM2.5 Plan, vehicle activity data
other year given the plan’s
demonstration of the impracticability of are derived from the draft 2017 Federalattaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by
Statewide Transportation Improvement
2021.226 Similarly, for the Moderate area Program (2017 FSTIP) from each of the
timeframe, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes SJV’s eight MPOs. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOX for
budgets are based on updated motor
vehicle activity data from the most
2019 and 2022 RFP milestone years.227
recently amended 2017 FSTIP (as of
We consider the 2019 and 2022 RFP
January 2018) from each of the SJV’s
milestone budgets from the 2018 PM2.5
contained in the attainment and RFP
demonstrations.225
49127
eight MPOs. The budgets reflect annual
average emissions consistent with the
annual averaging period of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s
RFP demonstration.
As with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan includes direct PM2.5 budgets
for tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear
emissions, but does not include paved
road dust, unpaved road dust, and road
construction dust emissions. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan also includes budgets for
NOX, as a regulated precursor under the
plan, but does not include budgets for
VOC, SO2, or ammonia.228 The budgets
included in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with
respect to the Moderate area timeframe
are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6—2019 AND 2022 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MVEBS FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
[Annual average, tpd]
2019 (RFP year)
2022 (post-attainment year)
County
NOX
PM2.5
Fresno ..............................................................................................................
Kern (San Joaquin Valley portion) ..................................................................
Kings ................................................................................................................
Madera .............................................................................................................
Merced .............................................................................................................
San Joaquin .....................................................................................................
Stanislaus ........................................................................................................
Tulare ...............................................................................................................
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
PM2.5
27.6
25.1
5.1
4.6
9.4
12.7
10.5
9.3
NOX
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
21.2
19.4
4.1
3.5
7.6
10.0
8.1
6.9
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3–3. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth.
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 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the State is proposing to use
the 6.5:1 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 (i.e., updated analysis
relative to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). For the sake of
comparison, in approving the budgets
for the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA approved a
trading mechanism for transportation
conformity analyses that allowed for
such one-way trades (i.e., only excess
NOX can be used to offset PM2.5, not
vice versa) at a 9:1 NOX:PM2.5 ratio.229
225 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity
requirements and applicable policies on MVEBs,
please visit our transportation conformity website
at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/index.htm.
226 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 3–11.
227 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3–3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
To ensure that the trading mechanism
does not affect the ability of the SJV 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.230 The Plan also provides that
the SJV 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.
In the submittal letter for the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that we
limit the duration of our approval of the
budgets to the period before the
effective date of the EPA’s adequacy
finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets.231
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in section
IV.F of this proposed rule, we are
proposing to approve the State’s
228 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D–121 to D–123.
FR 69896, at 69923 (November 9, 2011).
230 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–126 and D–127.
231 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 3.
232 The differences between the two sets of
budgets are minor. For 2019, there is no difference
229 76
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstration that it is impracticable to
attain the 2012 PM2.5 standard in the
SJV by the applicable Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021,
and are proposing to reclassify the area
as Serious. Accordingly, we are
proposing action on the Moderate postattainment year budgets for 2022 for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. The EPA
is not reviewing the submitted motor
vehicle emissions budgets for 2019
because that year will not be an
applicable conformity analysis year in
the next conformity analysis for the SJV
MPOs. Also, as noted above, we
consider the 2022 RFP milestone
budgets from the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as
superseding the corresponding budgets
from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and thus are
proposing action only on the former.232
The EPA generally first conducts a
preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or
maintenance plan for PM2.5 for
between the budgets in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. For 2022, there is no difference
between the two sets of budgets for direct PM2.5,
and, with the exception of San Joaquin County, the
difference between the two sets of budgets for NOX
is less than or equal to 0.1 tpd. For San Joaquin
County, the 2022 NOX budget is 0.7 tpd higher
under the 2018 PM2.5 Plan than the corresponding
budget from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49128
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan establishes
budgets for the 2022 RFP milestone year
for direct PM2.5 and NOX, but not for the
other PM2.5 precursor emissions (i.e.,
VOC, SO2, and ammonia). We propose
to find that it is not necessary to
establish motor vehicle emissions
budgets for transportation-related
emissions of VOC, SO2, and ammonia to
attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV based on our proposal to
approve the State’s demonstration that
emissions of VOC, SO2, and ammonia
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV, as discussed in
section IV.B of this proposed rule. Our
finding in this regard is also supported
by information about VOC, SO2, and
ammonia in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
documenting the small contribution by
motor vehicles to regional precursor
inventories and to PM2.5 design values
within the SJV.233 In addition, based on
similar documentation about reentrained road dust and constructionrelated fugitive dust in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR
93.102(b)(3) and 93.122(f), the EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary
to include re-entrained road dust
emissions or road construction dust in
the direct PM2.5 budgets for 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV.234
For the reasons discussed in sections
IV.G of this proposed rule, the EPA
proposes to approve the RFP
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
233 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D. pages D–121, D–122
and D–123. Motor vehicle emissions of VOC
represent approximately 10% of the total VOC
emissions in the SJV, but VOC controls are
generally ineffective at reducing ambient PM2.5
levels. Motor vehicle emissions of SO2 are less than
one tpd, and motor vehicle emissions of ammonia
represent approximately 1% of total ammonia
emissions in the SJV.
234 Id. Paved and unpaved road dust emissions
represent less than 17% of the total PM2.5 emissions
in the SJV but contribute only approximately 4%
to the design values. Construction dust emissions
are less than 5% of the total PM2.5 emissions in the
SJV. In addition, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan does not
include additional control measures for these
sources.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
The 2022 RFP budgets, as shown in
Table 6 of this proposed rule, are
consistent with this demonstration, 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 6. We
provide a more detailed discussion in
the EPA’s memo to file regarding
MVEB.235 We are not proposing to
approve the 2018 PM2.5 Plan’s budgets
that pertain solely to the Serious area
time frame (i.e., 2025 attainment year
budget or the post-attainment year 2028
budget for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS) at
this time. The budgets that the EPA is
proposing to approve relate to the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS only, and our
proposed approval does not affect the
status of the previously-approved
MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and related trading
mechanisms that remain in effect for
that PM2.5 NAAQS.
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).
Furthermore, the trading ratio in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan is based on updated air
quality modeling and analysis relative
to the analysis that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
relies on (i.e., analysis and trading ratio
in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS). The trading mechanism
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan would allow
future decreases in annual NOX
emissions from on-road mobile sources
to offset any on-road increases in annual
direct PM2.5 emissions using a 6.5:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio for conformity for the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 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 SJV 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 SJV for the
2012 annual 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 236 and
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.237 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
SJV 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 7.1 at the Bakersfield-California
Avenue monitor to a low of 6.0 at the
two Fresno monitors.238 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 6.5:1
NOX for PM2.5 trading mechanism as
enforceable components of the
transportation conformity program for
the SJV for the 2012 annual 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
235 Memorandum of July 30, 2021, from Rory
Mays and Karina O’Connor, Air Planning Office,
Air and Radiation Division, Region IX, EPA, ‘‘EPA
Review of 2018 PM2.5 Plan Transportation
Conformity Emission Budgets for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (Moderate Area Requirements).’’
236 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).
237 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
238 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D–126.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
SIP revision. 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.239
In the submittal letter for the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that we
limit the duration of our approval of the
budgets to the period before the
effective date of the EPA’s adequacy
finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets.240 The transportation
conformity rule allows us to limit the
approval of budgets.241 However, we
will consider a state’s request to limit an
approval of its MVEBs only if the
request includes the following
elements: 242 (1) An acknowledgement
and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become
outdated or deficient; (2) a commitment
to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and (3) 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 approval of EMFAC2017, an
updated version of the EMFAC2014
used for the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.243 EMFAC2017 updates vehicle
mix and emissions data of the
previously approved version of the
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 this
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-
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
239 40
CFR 93.118(e)(1).
dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 3.
241 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
242 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting
our prior approval of MVEBs in certain California
SIPs.
243 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.
240 Letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
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).244 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.
Lastly, in section IV.H of this
proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to
disapprove the contingency measure
element of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as
amended in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, with
respect to Moderate area requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. If the EPA
were to finalize the proposed
disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Moderate area contingency measure
element, the area would be eligible for
a protective finding under the
transportation conformity rule because
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5
Plan reflect adopted control measures
that fully satisfy the emissions
reductions requirements for RFP for
years 2019 and 2022.245
V. Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP
Requirements
A. Reclassification as Serious and
Applicable Attainment Date
Section 188 of the Act outlines the
process for classification of PM2.5
nonattainment areas and establishes the
applicable attainment dates. Under
section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA has
general authority to reclassify at any
time before the applicable attainment
date any area that the EPA determines
cannot practicably attain the standard
by such date. Accordingly, section
244 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).
245 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49129
188(b)(1) of the Act is a general
expression of delegated rulemaking
authority. In addition, subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate
that the EPA reclassify ‘‘appropriate’’
PM10 nonattainment areas at specified
time frames (i.e., by December 31, 1991,
for the initial PM10 nonattainment areas,
and within 18 months after the SIP
submittal due date for subsequent
nonattainment areas). These
subparagraphs do not restrict the EPA’s
general authority but simply specify
that, at a minimum, it must be exercised
at certain times.246
We have reviewed the air quality
modeling and impracticability
demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan,
as well as the air quality modeling in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. Based on our review,
we agree with the District’s conclusion
that implementation of the State/
District’s SIP control strategy, including
RACM/RACT and additional reasonable
measures, is insufficient to bring the SJV
into attainment of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the December 31, 2021
Moderate area attainment deadline. See
sections IV.C and IV.F of this proposed
rule. In addition, we have reviewed
recent PM2.5 monitoring data for SJV
available in the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) database. These data
show that annual PM2.5 levels in the SJV
continue to be above 12.0 mg/m3, the
numerical level of the 2012 PM2.5
standard, and the recent trends in the
SJV annual PM2.5 levels indicate that the
SJV will not attain by the end of
2021.247
In accordance with section 188(b)(1)
of the Act, the EPA is proposing to
reclassify the SJV from Moderate to
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard of 12.0 mg/m3,
based on the EPA’s determination that
the SJV cannot practicably attain the
standard by the applicable attainment
date of December 31, 2021.
Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, 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 SJV as
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS effective April 15, 2015.248
Therefore, upon final reclassification of
246 For a general discussion of the EPA’s
interpretation of the reclassification provisions in
section 188(b)(1) of the Act, see the General
Preamble, 13537–13538.
247 EPA design value workbook dated May 24,
2021, ‘‘pm25_designvalues_2018_2020_final_05_
24_21.xlsx,’’ worksheets ‘‘Table1a’’ and ‘‘Table5a,’’
and EPA, 2010–2020 AQS Design Value Report,
AMP480, June 30, 2021.
248 80 FR 2206.
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49130
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area,
the latest permissible attainment date
under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for
purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
this area, will be December 31, 2025.
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a
state may apply to the EPA for a single
extension of the Serious area attainment
date of up to five additional years,
which the EPA may grant if the state
satisfies certain statutory 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.249
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Serious Area Plans
Upon reclassification as a Serious
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, California will be required to
submit additional SIP revisions to
satisfy the statutory requirements that
apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
areas, including the requirements of
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.
The Serious area SIP elements that
California will be required to submit are
as follows:
1. Provisions to assure that BACM,250
including BACT for stationary sources,
for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
249 For a discussion of the EPA’s interpretation of
the requirements of section 188(e), see General
Preamble Addendum, 42002; 65 FR 19964 (April
13, 2000) (proposed action on PM10 Plan for
Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25,
2002) (final action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa
County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding
EPA action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County,
Arizona but generally upholding the EPA’s
interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).
250 The EPA defines BACM as, among other
things, the maximum degree of emission 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 and 42014).
BACM must be implemented for all categories of
sources in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
unless the State adequately demonstrates that a
particular source category does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the PM2.5
standard. (Id. at 42011, 42012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
precursors shall be implemented no
later than four years after the area is
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
2. a demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan provides
for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but not later than December
31, 2025, or where the state is seeking
an extension of the attainment date
under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by December 31, 2025,
is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable
and not later than December 31, 2030
(CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2),
and 188(e));
3. plan provisions that require RFP
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
4. quantitative milestones that are to
be achieved every three years until the
area is redesignated to attainment and
that demonstrate RFP toward attainment
by the applicable date (CAA section
189(c));
5. 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));
6. 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));
7. contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP (including quantitative milestones
and related reports) or to attain by the
applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)); and
8. a revision to the NNSR program to
lower the applicable ‘‘major stationary
source’’ 251 thresholds from 100 tpy to
70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) and to
satisfy the subpart 4 control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA
section 189(e)).
As discussed in section IV.E of this
proposed rule, California submitted
NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to
address the subpart 4 NNSR
requirements for Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas on November 20,
2019. The EPA is evaluating this SIP
submission and will act on it in a
separate rulemaking.
Finally, reclassification of the SJV as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
251 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 tpy of PM10 (CAA sections
189(b)(3)).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
annual PM2.5 NAAQS would lower the
de minimis threshold under the CAA’s
general conformity requirements (40
CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to
70 tpy for PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors.252 In this case, however,
reclassification would have no impact
on the applicable general conformity de
minimis thresholds, because the SJV is
already subject to the 70 tpy de minimis
threshold for PM2.5 and all PM2.5
precursors as a result of the EPA’s
previous actions reclassifying the area
as Serious nonattainment for the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.253
C. Statutory Deadline for Submission of
Serious Area Plan
When the EPA reclassifies a
nonattainment area to a higher
classification, the CAA sets the
parameters for establishing deadlines for
attainment plan SIP submissions for that
higher classification. The State has
already made submissions intended to
address the Serious area attainment plan
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
for the SJV, yet the EPA reclassification
rulemaking must still establish the
submission deadlines, as discussed in
the following paragraphs. Among other
things, such deadlines make clear the
time frame for any future SIP
submission should the State find the
need to withdraw any particular
element of the Serious area plan
requirements (i.e., without the submittal
of a replacement element meeting the
completeness criteria).
For an area reclassified as a Serious
nonattainment area before the
applicable attainment date under CAA
section 188(b)(1), section 189(b)(2)
requires the state to submit the required
BACM provisions ‘‘no later than 18
months after reclassification of the area
as a Serious Area’’ and to submit the
required attainment demonstration ‘‘no
later than 4 years after reclassification of
the area to Serious.’’ Section 189(b)(2)
establishes outer bounds on the SIP
submission deadlines as necessary or
appropriate to assure consistency among
the required submissions and to
implement the statutory requirements.
The Act provides the state with up to
18 months after final reclassification of
an area to Serious to submit the required
BACM provisions. Because an up-todate emissions inventory serves as the
foundation for a state’s BACM/BACT
determination, the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule requires the state to
submit the emissions inventory required
under CAA section 172(c)(3) within 18
252 40
253 80
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
CFR 93.153(b), 81 FR 58010, 58126.
FR 18528 and 81 FR 1514, respectively.
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
months after the effective date of final
reclassification.254 Similarly, because an
effective evaluation of BACM/BACT
measures requires evaluation of the
precursor pollutants that must be
controlled to provide for expeditious
attainment in the area, if the state
chooses to submit an optional precursor
insignificance demonstration to support
a determination to exclude a PM2.5
precursor from the required control
measure evaluations for the area, the
EPA requires that the state submit any
such demonstration by this same date.
An 18-month time frame for submission
of these plan elements is consistent with
both the time frame for submission of
BACM/BACT provisions under CAA
section 189(b)(2) and the time frame for
submission of subpart 1 plan elements
under section 172(b) of the Act.255
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule also
establishes a specific deadline for
submission of the attainment
demonstration and attainment-related
plan elements following discretionary
reclassification, which is the earlier of
four years from the date of
reclassification, or the end of the eighth
calendar year after designation.256 In
this case, the earlier of these two dates
will be the end of the eighth calendar
year after designation—i.e., December
31, 2023. The attainment-related plan
elements required within the same
timeframe as the attainment
demonstration are as follows: (1) The
RFP demonstration required under
section 172(c)(2); (2) the quantitative
milestones required under section
189(c); (3) any additional control
measures necessary to meet the
requirements of section 172(c)(6); and
(4) the contingency measures required
under section 172(c)(9). Although
section 189(b)(2) generally provides for
up to four years after a discretionary
reclassification for the state to submit
the required attainment demonstration,
given the timing of this reclassification
action less than two years before the
Moderate area attainment date, it is
appropriate in this case for the EPA to
establish an earlier SIP submission
deadline to assure timely
implementation of the statutory
requirements.
Finally, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule establishes a regulatory
requirement that the state submit
FR 58010, 58077.
172(b) requires the EPA to establish,
concurrent with nonattainment area designations, a
schedule extending no later than three years from
the date of the nonattainment designation for states
to submit plans or plan revisions meeting the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(2) and
172(c) of the CAA.
256 81 FR 58010, 58077.
revised NNSR program requirements no
later than 18 months after final
reclassification.257 The Act does not
specify a deadline for the state’s
submission of SIP revisions to meet
NNSR program requirements to lower
the ‘‘major stationary source’’ threshold
from 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA section
189(b)(3)) and to address the control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA
section 189(e)) 258 following
reclassification of a Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area as Serious
nonattainment under subpart 4.
Pursuant to the EPA’s gap-filling
authority in CAA section 301(a) and to
effectuate the statutory control
requirements in section 189 of the Act,
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
requires the state to submit these NNSR
SIP revisions, as well as any necessary
analysis of and additional control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM2.5 precursors, no later
than 18 months after the effective date
of final reclassification of the SJV as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 standard. This due date will
ensure that necessary control
requirements for major sources are
established in advance of the required
attainment demonstration. An 18-month
timeframe for submission of the NNSR
SIP revisions also aligns with the
statutory deadline for submission of
BACM and BACT provisions and the
broader analysis of PM2.5 precursors for
potential controls on existing sources in
the area.
Accordingly, if we finalize our
proposal to reclassify the SJV as a
Serious nonattainment area for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, California would be
required to submit the emissions
inventory required under CAA section
172(c)(3), the BACM/BACT provisions
required under CAA section
189(b)(1)(B), and any NNSR SIP
revisions required to satisfy the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3)
and 189(e) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
no later than 18 months after the
effective date of a final reclassification
action. Additionally, California would
be required to submit the Serious area
attainment demonstration and all
attainment-related plan elements no
later than the end of the eighth calendar
year after designation—i.e., by
December 31, 2023.
254 81
255 Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
257 Id.
at 58078.
189(e) requires that the 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.
258 Section
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49131
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
submitted on May 10, 2019, includes a
Serious area plan containing an
attainment demonstration, emissions
inventory, attainment-related plan
elements, and BACM/BACT provisions.
Also, the State submitted a SIP revision
for the Serious area NNSR requirements
on November 20, 2019. The EPA intends
to evaluate and act on the Serious area
plan and NNSR SIP submissions for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV through
separate rulemakings, as appropriate.
VI. Reclassification of Areas of Indian
Country
Eight Indian tribes are located within
the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment
area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These
tribes include Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians of California,
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians
of California, Northfork Rancheria of
Mono Indians of California, Picayune
Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of
California, Santa Rosa Indian
Community of the Santa Rosa
Rancheria, California, Table Mountain
Rancheria, Tejon Indian Tribe, and Tule
River Indian Tribe of the Tule River
Reservation, California.
We have considered the relevance of
our proposal to reclassify the SJV as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 standard for each tribe located
therein. We believe that the same facts
and circumstances that support the
proposal for the non-Indian country
lands also support the proposal for
reservation areas of Indian country 259
and any other areas of Indian country
where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that the tribe has
jurisdiction located within the SJV
nonattainment area. The EPA is
therefore proposing to exercise our
authority under CAA section 188(b)(1)
to reclassify areas of Indian country
geographically located in the SJV
nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1)
broadly authorizes the EPA to reclassify
a nonattainment area—including any
Indian country located within such an
area—that the EPA determines cannot
practicably attain the relevant standard
by the applicable attainment date.
259 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151
refers to the following: ‘‘(a) all land within the
limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and
including rights-of-way running through the
reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities
within the borders of the United States whether
within the original or subsequently acquired
territory thereof, and whether within or without the
limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through the same.’’
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
49132
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Directly-emitted PM2.5 and its
precursor pollutants (i.e., NOX, SO2,
VOC, and ammonia) are emitted
throughout a nonattainment area and
can be transported throughout that
nonattainment area. Therefore,
boundaries for nonattainment areas are
drawn to encompass both areas with
direct sources of the pollutant problem
as well as nearby areas in the same
airshed. Initial classifications apply to
the entire nonattainment area, i.e., they
exactly match the nonattainment area
boundaries. The EPA believes this
approach best ensures public health
protection from the adverse effects of
PM2.5 pollution. Therefore, it is
generally counterproductive from an air
quality and planning perspective to
have a disparate classification for a land
area located within the boundaries of a
nonattainment area, such as the
reservation areas of Indian country
contained within the SJV PM2.5
nonattainment area. Violations of the
2012 PM2.5 standard, which are
measured and modeled throughout the
nonattainment area, as well as shared
meteorological conditions, would
dictate the same conclusion.
Furthermore, emission increases in
portions of a PM2.5 nonattainment area
that are left classified as Moderate could
counteract the effects of efforts to attain
the standard within the overall area
because less stringent requirements
would apply in those Moderate portions
relative to those that would apply in the
portions of the area reclassified to
Serious.
Uniformity of classification
throughout a nonattainment area is thus
a guiding principle and premise when
an area is being reclassified. In this
particular case, we are proposing to
determine, based on the State’s
demonstration and current ambient air
quality trends, that the entire SJV
nonattainment area, including all
reservations areas of Indian country and
any other area located within the SJV
where a tribe has jurisdiction, cannot
practicably attain the 2012 PM2.5
standard by the applicable Moderate
area attainment date of December 31,
2021.
In light of the considerations outlined
above that support retention of a
uniformly-classified PM2.5
nonattainment area, and our proposal to
find that it is impracticable for the area
to attain by the applicable attainment
date, we propose to reclassify the entire
SJV nonattainment area, including
reservation areas of Indian country and
any other area of Indian country located
within it where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that the tribe has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
jurisdiction, as Serious nonattainment
for the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
Generally, the effect of reclassification
is to lower the applicable ‘‘major
source’’ threshold for purposes of the
NNSR program and the Title V
operating permit program from 100 tpy
to 70 tpy,260 thus subjecting additional
new or modified stationary sources to
these requirements. Reclassification also
lowers the de minimis threshold under
the CAA’s general conformity
requirements from 100 tpy to 70 tpy.261
In this case, however, reclassification
would not change the ‘‘major source’’
thresholds because, as a result of the
EPA’s January 2016 reclassification of
the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the area is
already subject to the 70 tpy major
source threshold for Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas in CAA section
189(b)(3).262 Likewise, reclassification
would have no impact on the applicable
general conformity de minimis
thresholds, because the SJV is already
subject to the 70 tpy de minimis
threshold for PM2.5 and all PM2.5
precursors as a result of the EPA’s
previous reclassification of the area as
Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.263
The EPA has contacted tribal officials
to invite government-to-government
consultation on this rulemaking
effort.264 The EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials. We note that
although eligible tribes may seek EPA
approval of relevant tribal programs
under the CAA, none of the affected
tribes will be required to submit an
implementation plan as a result of this
reclassification.
VII. Review of Contingency Measure
Element for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Requirements for Contingency
Measures
With one exception, the SIP
requirements for contingency measures
that apply to areas classified as Serious
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are the same
as those described in section IV.H.1 of
this document for areas that are
classified as Moderate for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and cannot practicably
260 CAA
sections 189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B).
CFR part 93, subpart B.
262 81 FR 2993.
263 Id. and 40 CFR 93.153(b).
264 We sent letters dated March 3, 2021, to tribal
officials offering government-to-government
consultation. See also a summary of the EPA’s
outreach to tribes in the San Joaquin Valley;
memorandum dated August 3, 2021, from Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA Region IX, to Docket No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2021–0543. We did not receive any request
for consultation.
261 40
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
attain the NAAQS by the statutory
attainment date, and thus, are not
repeated here. However, in addition to
the contingency measures requirements
that apply to Moderate areas with
adequate impracticability
demonstrations, states with areas
classified as Serious must identify and
adopt contingency measures to address
the potential for the area to fail to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
B. Summary of State’s Contingency
Measure Element for 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS
The EPA deferred action on the
contingency measure element of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS when we took final action on
the other elements in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan for that NAAQS.265 In this section
of this document, we are proposing
action on the contingency measure
element of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses the
contingency measure requirement for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
reference to the contingency measure
portion of a December 2018 SIP
submission that involved enhanced
enforcement of CARB regulations in the
SJV, a commitment to amend the
District’s residential wood burning rule
(i.e., District Rule 4901) to include
contingent provisions, and updated
emissions estimates for the year
following the attainment year for use in
evaluating whether the emissions
reductions from the contingency
measures are sufficient.266 Recently,
CARB withdrew the enhanced
enforcement portion of the December
2018 SIP submission as it pertained to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.267
Accordingly, we have evaluated the
relevant portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and District Rule 4901 (specifically,
section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901) for
compliance with the applicable
requirements for Serious areas for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to the District
contingency measure, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan calls for the District to amend
District Rule 4901 to include a
requirement in the rule with a trigger
that that would be activated should the
EPA issue a final rulemaking that the
SJV failed to meet a regulatory
requirement necessitating
265 85
FR 44192, at 44193 (July 22, 2020).
PM2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H–24 to H–26.
267 Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
with enclosures.
266 2018
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
implementation of a contingency
measure. In response to the commitment
made in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in June
2019, the District adopted amendments
to Rule 4901 including a contingency
measure (in section 5.7.3 of the
amended rule), and CARB submitted the
amended rule to the EPA for approval
as an attachment to a letter dated July
19, 2019.268 The EPA has taken final
action to approve amended Rule 4901,
but in that approval, we noted that we
were not evaluating the contingency
measure in section 5.7.3 of revised Rule
4901 for compliance with all
requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s
implementing regulations that apply to
such measures.269 Rather, we approved
the measure into the SIP because it
strengthened the rule by providing a
possibility of additional curtailment
days, and thus potentially additional
emissions reductions. We indicated that
we would evaluate whether this
provision, in conjunction with other
submitted provisions, meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for contingency measures in future
actions. In this proposal, we are now
evaluating District Rule 4901,
specifically, section 5.7.3, for
compliance with the requirements for
contingency measures for purposes of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit
emissions 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 for advertising the
sale of seasoned wood consistent with a
moisture content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered,
episodic wood burning curtailment
requirement that applies during four
winter months, November through
February. During a level one episodic
wood burning curtailment, section 5.7.1
prohibits any person from operating a
wood burning fireplace or unregistered
wood burning heater but permits the use
of a properly operated wood burning
heater that meets certification
requirements and has a current
registration with the District. Sections
5.9 through 5.11 impose specific
registration requirements on any person
operating a wood burning fireplace or
wood burning heater and section 5.12
imposes specific certification
requirements on wood burning heater
268 Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
269 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of
District Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132–33 (January
9, 2020) (proposed approval of District Rule 4901).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
professionals. During a level two
episodic wood burning curtailment,
operation of any wood burning device is
prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019–2020 wood burning
season, the District imposed a level one
curtailment when the PM2.5
concentration was forecasted to be
between 20–65 mg/m3 and imposed a
level two curtailment when the PM2.5
concentration was forecasted to be
above 65 mg/m3 or the PM10
concentration was forecasted to be
above 135 mg/m3. In 2019, the District
adopted revisions to Rule 4901 to lower
the wood burning curtailment
thresholds in the ‘‘hot spot’’ counties of
Madera, Fresno, and Kern. The District
lowered the level one PM2.5 threshold
for these three counties from 20 mg/m3
to 12 mg/m3, and the level two PM2.5
threshold from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3.
The District did not modify the
curtailment thresholds for other
counties in the SJV, and those levels
remained at 20 mg/m3 for level one and
65 mg/m3 for level two.
The District’s 2019 revision to Rule
4901 also included the addition of a
contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of
the rule, requiring that 60 days
following the effective date of an EPA
final rulemaking that the SJV has failed
to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the PM2.5 curtailment levels for
any county that has failed to attain the
applicable standard will be lowered to
the curtailment levels in place for hot
spot counties. The District estimates
that the potential emissions reduction in
direct PM2.5 would be in the range of
0.014 tpd (if the contingency is triggered
in Kings County but not the other nonhot-spot counties) to 0.387 tpd (if the
contingency is triggered in all five of the
non-hot-spot counties), but there would
be no emissions reduction if, at the time
of the determination of failure to attain
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
attainment date, violations of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were only observed at
monitors in the hot-spot counties.270
Corresponding potential emissions
reduction in NOX would be in the range
of 0.002 tpd to 0.060 tpd, respectively,
but as noted in the preceding
paragraphs there may be no emissions
reduction if the violations are monitored
in the hot-spot counties only.271
270 See Table B–13 in Appendix B from the
District’s Final Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for
revisions to Rule 4901.
271 NO emissions reductions from the
X
contingency measure are based on the District’s
estimates for direct PM2.5 emissions using the ratio
of direct PM2.5 to NOX in Table 1 of the District’s
Final Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for revisions to
Rule 4901.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
49133
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also provides
estimates of regional emissions in the
year following the attainment year with
which to evaluate the sufficiency of the
emissions reductions from the
contingency measure (i.e., section 5.7.3
of Rule 4901). For the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the attainment year is 2024
and the year after the attainment year is
therefore 2025.272 Based on Table H–5
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the annual
average emission reductions from 2024
to 2025 due to baseline measures and
CARB and the District’s aggregate
tonnage commitment are estimated to be
0 tpd direct PM2.5 and 5.2 tpd NOX. For
comparison purposes, one year’s worth
of RFP (based on emissions estimates in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan) is approximately
0.6 tpd direct PM2.5 and 18.4 tpd
NOX.273
C. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we have
similarly evaluated the contingency
measure demonstration in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and associated contingency
provision of the 2019 amendment to
Rule 4901. Specifically, we have
evaluated the contingency provision in
District Rule 4901 (i.e., section 5.7.3 of
the rule) against the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR
51.1014 for both attainment and RFP
contingency measures, the latter of
which also includes submittal of
quantitation milestone reports and
compliance with quantitative
milestones.
As noted in our summary of the
State’s submission, the contingency
provision in District Rule 4901 is
structured to provide for
implementation if the area fails to attain
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, not before, and
is therefore consistent with CAA section
172(c)(9). However, as structured by the
District, the contingency provision of
Rule 4901 (i.e., section 5.7.3) would
provide for emissions reductions only in
Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and/or Tulare counties, not the ‘‘hot
spot’’ counties of Fresno, Kern, and
Madera, and only if a violating
monitoring site (i.e., a site where the
collected data represent a violation of
the NAAQS) is located in said county.
In other words, if the EPA’s
determination of failure to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date indicates violations at monitoring
location sites in Fresno and Kern (‘‘hot
spot’’ counties) and Tulare (non-hotspot county) counties, the contingency
272 85
FR 44192, 44192.
year’s worth of RFP is based on the
difference between the emissions estimates for 2013
and 2024 in Table H–6 of Appendix H, divided by
11 (i.e., the number of years from 2013 to 2024).
273 One
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
49134
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
provision would provide for emissions
reductions by lowering the wood
burning curtailment thresholds in only
Tulare County. The ‘‘hot spot’’ counties
are already subject to the lower wood
burning curtailment thresholds in the
rule and thus would not be affected by
the finding of failure to attain
determination and the other non-‘‘hot
spot’’ counties (i.e., other than Tulare
County in this example) would not be
subject to the lower wood burning
curtailment thresholds.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1014,
the contingency provision in District
Rule 4901 identifies a specific triggering
mechanism. In this case, the triggering
mechanism in the rule is the EPA’s final
determination that the SJV has failed to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.274 The rule
also specifies a timeframe within which
its requirements become effective after a
failure-to-attain determination (i.e., on
and after 60 days from the effective date
of the EPA’s final determination), and
would take effect with minimal further
action by the state or the EPA. However,
the contingency provision in District
Rule 4901 does not address the potential
for State failures to meet a quantitative
milestone, submit a quantitative
milestone report, or failure to meet an
RFP requirement.275
In addition, the contingency measure
provision of Rule 4901 is not structured
to achieve any additional emissions
reductions if the EPA finds that the
monitoring locations in the ‘‘hot spot’’
counties (i.e., Fresno, Kern, or Madera
Counties) are the only ones in the SJV
that are violating the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS as of the attainment date. To
qualify as a contingency measure, a
274 Section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 states that ‘‘the
District shall notify the public of an Episodic
Curtailment for the PM2.5 curtailment levels
described in Sections 5.7.1.2 and 5.7.2.2 for any
county that has failed to attain the applicable
standard.’’ (emphasis added) We interpret this to
mean that the District would apply the more
stringent curtailment provisions for any county
identified in the EPA’s final rule making the
determination that the San Joaquin Valley failed to
attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS.
275 We note that section 5.7.3 of District Rule
4901 applies the lower thresholds ‘‘on and after
sixty days following the effective date of EPA final
rulemaking,’’ which is appropriate as a contingency
measure trigger for a failure to attain by the
applicable attainment date given that the EPA
conducts rulemaking to make such determinations.
However, for the three other contingency triggers,
i.e., State failures to meet a quantitative milestone,
submit a quantitative milestone report, or failure to
meet an RFP requirement, the EPA may not conduct
rulemaking but instead make the determinations
through correspondence directly to the state. Thus,
we recommend that section 5.7.3 of District Rule
4901 be amended to refer to ‘‘EPA final
determinations’’ rather than to ‘‘EPA final
rulemaking’’ when the rule is amended to include
the additional contingency measure triggers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
measure must be structured to achieve
emissions reductions, if triggered, and
the contingency provision of District
Rule 4901 provides for such reductions
only under certain circumstances and
should be revised to provide for
additional emissions reductions in the
SJV (if triggered) regardless of which
monitoring site(s) is determined to be
violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as of
the attainment date.276
Next, we considered the adequacy of
the section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901
from the standpoint of the magnitude of
emissions reductions the measures
would provide (if triggered). Neither the
CAA nor the EPA’s implementing
regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS
establish a specific amount of emissions
reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but
we generally expect that contingency
measures should provide for emissions
reductions approximately equivalent to
one year’s worth of RFP, which amounts
to reductions of approximately 0.6 tpd
of direct PM2.5 and 18.4 tpd of NOX for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.277
As noted in our summary of the State’s
submission, the emissions reductions
from the contingency provisions in
District Rule 4901 would amount to
approximately 0.00 tpd to 0.387 tpd of
direct PM2.5, which equates to
approximately 0% to 67% of one year’s
worth of RFP for direct PM2.5. With
respect to NOX emissions reductions,
the contingency provisions in District
Rule 4901 would amount to
approximately 0.00 tpd to 0.06 tpd,
which equates to approximately 0% to
0.3% of one year’s worth of RFP for
NOX.
The State’s contingency measure
element in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides
the larger SIP planning context in which
to judge the adequacy of the amount of
emission reductions resulting from the
contingency measure by calculating the
surplus emissions reductions estimated
to be achieved in the year after the
276 The EPA believes that the most
straightforward remedy under these circumstances
would be for the District to amend section 5.7.3 of
Rule 4901 to extend the lower wood burning
curtailment thresholds region-wide if the EPA
determines that the area has failed to attain the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
277 The calculation of one year’s worth of RFP is
based on dividing the values in column E of table
H–6 of Appendix H (updated February 11, 2020) of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan by 11, i.e., the number of years
between 2013 and 2024. As part of the EPA’s final
approval of the State’s attainment plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we concluded 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. 85 FR 17382, at
17390–17396 (March 27, 2020) (proposed rule);
finalized at 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
attainment year. More specifically, the
2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies additional
NOX reductions in the year following
the attainment year of 2024. For the SJV,
the estimates of additional reductions in
the post-attainment year (2025) are 0 tpd
direct PM2.5 and 5.2 tpd NOX.278
Generally, we will consider such
surplus emissions reductions in
evaluating the sufficiency of the
emissions reductions from contingency
measures identified by the state,
however, in this case, because the
identified contingency measure may
result in no emissions reductions, the
larger planning context is not relevant to
our review of the sufficiency of the
contingency measure.
For these reasons, we propose to
disapprove the contingency measure
element of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan under
CAA section 179(c)(9) and 40 CFR
51.1014 with respect to the State’s
Serious area attainment plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. While
the contingency measure provision of
the 2019 amendment to Rule 4901 has
an adequate triggering mechanism for
failure to attain, we propose to
disapprove it because it may result in no
emissions reductions if the area fails to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Furthermore, as the
contingency measure element and the
contingency provision of Rule 4901 lack
any to-be-triggered measure for failure
to meet a quantitative milestone, submit
a quantitative milestone report, or
failure to meet an RFP requirement, we
propose that the submission is also
inadequate for RFP contingency
measures.
Lastly, if the EPA finalizes the
proposed disapproval of the
contingency measure element for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the area would be
eligible for a protective finding under
the transportation conformity rule
because the 2018 PM2.5 Plan reflects
adopted control measures and contains
enforceable commitments that fully
satisfy the emissions reductions
requirements for RFP and attainment for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.279
278 These estimates are based on the annual
average emission reductions from 2024 to 2025 due
to baseline measures and CARB and the District’s
aggregate tonnage commitment in Table H–5 of
Appendix H (updated February 11, 2020) of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. We also note that Table H–13 of
Appendix H indicates that the year-over-year
reductions for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is 0.1 tpd direct PM2.5 and 4.2 tpd NOX. However,
the estimates in Table H–13 reflect emissions
changes associated only with mobile sources
whereas the appropriate comparison includes the
entire emissions inventory.
279 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA
is proposing to approve the following
elements of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
2018 PM2.5 Plan submitted by California
to address the CAA’s Moderate area
planning requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment
area:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. The 2013 base year emissions
inventories in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as revised
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1008(a);
2. The reasonably available control
measures/reasonably available control
technology demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan, as supplemented in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
3. The demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan that attainment by the Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021, is
impracticable as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 40 CFR
51.1011(a);
4. The reasonable further progress
demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as
revised in 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40
CFR 51.1012(a);
5. The quantitative milestones in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as revised in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and the Valley State SIP Strategy, as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 189(c) and
40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1); and
6. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for
2022 in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as shown in
Table 6 of this proposed rule because they
are derived from an approvable RFP
demonstration and meet the requirements of
CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. With respect to the budgets, we
are proposing to limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets to last only until the
effective date of the EPA’s adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets. We
are proposing to do so at CARB’s request and
in light of the benefits of using EMFAC2017derived budgets prior to our taking final
action on the future SIP revision that
includes the updated budgets.
Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3),
the EPA proposes to disapprove the
contingency measure element of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, as revised in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan and supplemented by section 5.7.3
of District Rule 4901, and the
contingency measure element of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, as supplemented by section
5.7.3 of District Rule 4901, because,
among other reasons, the elements
include no specific measures to be
undertaken if the state fails to submit a
quantitative milestone report for the
area, or if the area fails to meet RFP or
a quantitative milestone. In addition,
with respect to the contingency measure
element in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (as supplemented
by section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901),
the element includes a specific measure
that may not result in any emissions
reductions following a failure to attain
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date under certain
circumstances.
If we finalize the disapproval of the
contingency measure elements as
proposed, the offset sanction in CAA
section 179(b)(2) would apply in the SJV
18 months after the effective date of a
final disapproval, and the highway
funding sanctions in CAA section
179(b)(1) would apply in the area six
months after the offset sanction is
imposed.280 Neither sanction will be
imposed under the CAA if the State
submits and we approve, prior to the
implementation of the sanctions, a SIP
revision that corrects the deficiencies
that we identify in our final action. The
EPA intends to work with CARB and the
SJVUAPCD to correct the deficiencies in
a timely manner.
In addition to the sanctions, CAA
section 110(c)(1) provides that the EPA
must promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) addressing
any disapproved elements of the plan
two years after the effective date of
disapproval unless the State submits,
and the EPA approves, the required SIP
submittal. As a result of the EPA’s
December 6, 2018 determination that
California had failed to submit the
required contingency measures for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, among other required SIP
submissions for the SJV,281 the EPA is
already subject to a statutory deadline to
promulgate a FIP for this purpose no
later than two years after the effective
date of that determination.282
Also, because we previously approved
the Serious area plan RFP and
attainment demonstrations and the
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,283 and because in
this proposed rule we are proposing to
approve the Moderate area plan RACM,
additional reasonable measures, and
RFP demonstrations, and motor vehicle
emission budgets for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, we are proposing to issue a
protective finding under 40 CFR
93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of the
contingency measures elements.
Without a protective finding, the final
disapprovals would result in a
conformity freeze, under which only
projects in the first four years of the
most recent conforming Regional
280 40
281 83
CFR 52.31.
FR 62720.
Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Transportation Improvement Programs
(TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a
freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs, or RTP/TIP
amendments can be found to conform
until another control strategy
implementation plan revision fulfilling
the same CAA requirements is
submitted, the EPA finds its motor
vehicle emissions budget(s) adequate
pursuant to § 93.118 or approves the
submission, and conformity to the
implementation plan revision is
determined.284 Under a protective
finding, the final disapproval of the
contingency measures elements would
not result in a transportation conformity
freeze in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment
area and the MPOs may continue to
make transportation conformity
determinations.
Finally, pursuant to CAA section
188(b)(1), the EPA is proposing to
reclassify the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment
area, including reservation areas of
Indian country and any other area
where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction within the SJV, as Serious
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
standard based on the agency’s
determination that the SJV cannot
practicably attain the standard by the
Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2021. Upon final
reclassification as a Serious area,
California will be required to submit,
within 18 months after the effective date
of the reclassification, an emissions
inventory, provisions to assure that
BACM shall be implemented no later
than four years after the date of
reclassification, and any NNSR SIP
revisions required to satisfy the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3)
and 189(e). California will also be
required to submit, by December 31,
2023, a Serious area plan that satisfies
the requirements of part D of title I of
the Act. This plan must include a
demonstration that the SJV will attain
the 2012 PM2.5 standard as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 2025, or by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable
and no later than December 31, 2030, in
accordance with the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b) and 188(e).
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
submitted concurrently with the 2016
PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019, includes a
Serious area attainment demonstration,
emissions inventory, attainment-related
plan elements, and BACM/BACT
provisions. The State also submitted a
SIP submission for the Serious area
NNSR requirements on November 20,
282 Id.
283 85
PO 00000
FR 44192.
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
284 40
Sfmt 4702
49135
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
CFR 93.120(a)(2).
01SEP2
49136
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
2019. The EPA intends to evaluate and
act on the Serious area plan and NNSR
SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV through separate
rulemakings, as appropriate.285
In addition, because the EPA is
proposing to similarly reclassify
reservation areas of Indian country and
any other area of Indian country where
the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that
the tribe has jurisdiction within the SJV
PM2.5 nonattainment area as Serious
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
standard, consistent with our proposed
reclassification of the surrounding nonIndian country lands, the EPA has
invited consultation with interested
tribes concerning this issue. Although
eligible tribes may seek the EPA’s
approval of relevant tribal programs
under the CAA, none of the affected
tribes will be required to submit an
implementation plan as a result of this
reclassification.
We will accept comments from the
public on these proposals for the next
30 days. The deadline and instructions
for submission of comments are
provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections at the beginning of this
proposed rule.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/
lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
The proposed actions are not a
significant regulatory action and were
therefore not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The proposed actions do not impose
an information collection burden under
the PRA because they do not contain
any information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that the proposed actions will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The proposed actions
will not impose any requirements on
small entities. This proposed rule would
approve or disapprove State plans as
meeting federal requirements and would
285 We are establishing deadlines for submittal of
SIP revisions that have already been submitted to
timely address any elements that may be withdrawn
in the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
Additionally, the proposed rule would
reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and would not itself
regulate small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
The proposed actions do not contain
an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule would
approve or disapprove State plans as
meeting federal requirements and would
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
Additionally, the proposed rule would
reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and would not itself
impose any federal intergovernmental
mandate. The proposed actions would
not require any tribe to submit
implementation plans.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed actions do not have
federalism implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes.’’
Eight Indian tribes are located within
the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment
area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The Big
Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono
Indians of California, the Cold Springs
Rancheria of Mono Indians of
California, the Northfork Rancheria of
Mono Indians of California, the
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi
Indians of California, the Santa Rosa
Indian Community of the Santa Rosa
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rancheria, California, the Table
Mountain Rancheria, the Tejon Indian
Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe
of the Tule River Reservation,
California.
The EPA’s proposed actions on the
SIP elements submitted by California to
address the Moderate area requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the
contingency measure requirement for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would not have
tribal implications because the SIP is
not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed actions on the SIP
submittals do not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175.
The EPA has concluded that the
proposed reclassification might have
tribal implications for the purposes of
Executive Order 13175, but would not
impose substantial direct costs upon the
tribes, nor would it preempt tribal law.
The proposed reclassification from
Moderate to Serious for a PM2.5 NAAQS
would typically affect the EPA’s
implementation of the new source
review program because of the lower
‘‘major source’’ threshold triggered by
reclassification (70 tons per year for
direct PM2.5 and precursors to PM2.5).
However, because the SJV
nonattainment area is already classified
as Serious for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the lower thresholds already
apply within the nonattainment area,
and the proposed reclassification from
Moderate to Serious for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS would have no additional
effect. The same is true for any tribal
projects that require federal permits,
approvals, or funding. Such projects are
subject to the requirements of the EPA’s
general conformity rule, and federal
permits, approvals, or funding for the
projects would typically become more
difficult to obtain because of the lower
de minimis thresholds triggered by
reclassification but, in this case, the
lower de minimis thresholds already
apply within the SJV.
Given the potential implications, the
EPA contacted tribal officials during the
process of developing this proposed rule
to provide an opportunity to have
meaningful and timely input into its
development. On March 3, 2021, we
sent letters to leaders of the eight tribes
with areas of Indian country in the SJV
nonattainment area inviting
government-to-government consultation
on the rulemaking effort. We requested
that the tribal leaders, or their
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
designated consultation representatives,
notify us of their interest in governmentto-government consultation by April 5,
2021. We intend to continue
communicating with all eight tribes
located within the boundaries of the SJV
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS as we move forward in
developing a final rule. The EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. The proposed rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it would approve or disapprove
a State plan implementing a federal
standard, and reclassify the SJV
nonattainment area as Serious
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Aug 31, 2021
Jkt 253001
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, triggering Serious area
planning requirements under the CAA.
This proposed action does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, because it is not
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
The EPA has determined that the
proposed actions will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because they do not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
49137
the environment. The proposed actions
would only approve or disapprove State
plans implementing a federal standard,
and reclassify the SJV nonattainment
area as Serious nonattainment for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering
additional Serious area planning
requirements under the CAA.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Particulate matter.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 25, 2021.
Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021–18764 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM
01SEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49100-49137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18764]
[[Page 49099]]
Vol. 86
Wednesday,
No. 167
September 1, 2021
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and
Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS;
Contingency Measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 49100]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0543; FRL-8846-01-R9]
Clean Air Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area
Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; Contingency Measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to take
action on portions of four state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') and for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV)
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to
approve all but the contingency measure element of the submitted
Moderate area plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as updated by
the submitted Serious area plan and related Valley State SIP Strategy,
as meeting all applicable Moderate area plan requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve 2022 motor vehicle emissions
budgets for use in transportation conformity analyses for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA proposes to disapprove the contingency
measure element with respect to the ``Moderate'' area requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA also proposes to reclassify
the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, including reservation
areas of Indian country and any other area of Indian country within it
where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has
jurisdiction, as a ``Serious'' nonattainment area for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the EPA's determination that the area
cannot practicably attain the standard by the applicable Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021. Upon final reclassification of
the SJV as a Serious area for this NAAQS, California would be required
to submit a Serious area plan for the area that includes a
demonstration of attainment by the applicable Serious area attainment
date, which is no later than December 31, 2025, or by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable. However, we note that
California has already submitted such Serious area plan that the EPA
will address in a separate rulemaking. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to
disapprove the contingency measure element in the Serious area plan for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Any comments on this proposal must be received by October 1,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0543 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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 (e.g., audio or video) 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. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, by phone at (415) 972-3227 or email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for Proposed Action
II. Summary of San Joaquin Valley 2016 and 2018 PM2.5
Plans
A. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Summary
B. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Summary
C. Procedural Requirements for SIPs and SIP Revisions
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate PM2.5
Nonattainment Area Plans
IV. Review of San Joaquin Valley Plans for Moderate Area
Requirements
A. Emissions Inventory
B. PM2.5 Precursors
C. Air Quality Modeling
D. Reasonably Available Control Measures and Control Strategy
E. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA
Section 189(e)
F. Demonstration That Attainment by Moderate Area Attainment
Date Is Impracticable
G. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
H. Contingency Measures
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP
Requirements
A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious Area Plans
C. Statutory Deadline for Submission of Serious Area Plan
VI. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country
VII. Review of Contingency Measure Element for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Requirements for Contingency Measures
B. Summary of State's Contingency Measure Element for 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
C. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Proposed Action
On January 15, 2013, the EPA strengthened the primary annual NAAQS
for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less
(PM2.5) by lowering the level from 15.0 micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (``2012 PM2.5
NAAQS'').\1\ 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\ 78 FR 3086 and 40 CFR 50.18. The EPA first established NAAQS
for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), including
annual standards of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65
[micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations (40 CFR 50.7) (``1997 PM2.5 NAAQS''). In
addition, on October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour
(daily) NAAQS for PM2.5 by lowering the level from 65
[micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'').
71 FR 61144 and 40 CFR 50.13. Unless otherwise noted, all references
to the PM2.5 standards in this notice are to the 2012
annual NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ codified at 40 CFR 50.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 49101]]
absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in
lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. 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 (``secondary
PM2.5'') as a result of various chemical reactions among
precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
oxides (SOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 78 FR 3086, 3088.
\3\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Under subpart 4 of part D of
title I of the CAA and applicable implementing regulations, the EPA
designates areas found to be violating the PM2.5 NAAQS, and
areas with emissions that contribute to such violations, as
nonattainment and classifies them initially as Moderate.\4\ States with
Moderate areas have to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the date of designation.\5\ The EPA reclassifies as Serious those
Moderate areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the latest
statutory attainment date and those areas that fail to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date. States with Serious areas are
subject to more stringent SIP revision requirements and must attain the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the end of
the tenth calendar year after designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CAA section 188(a) and 40 CFR 51.1002(a).
\5\ CAA section 188(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2015, the EPA designated and classified the SJV as
Moderate nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ With
respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the SJV is designated nonattainment and is
classified as Serious.\7\ The SJV 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.\8\ 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. Under State law, 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 these plans. Authority for
regulating sources under state jurisdiction in the SJV 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 and some categories of consumer products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 80 FR 2206 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
\7\ See the tables of area designations for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in 40 CFR 81.305.
\8\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with areas designated as nonattainment are required to
submit SIP revisions that address various requirements, including the
requirement to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the maximum attainment date established
in the CAA or EPA's implementing regulations. However, states with
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas may submit an
impracticability demonstration, in lieu of a modeled attainment
demonstration, if the state can establish that the area cannot
practicably attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS by the outermost
statutory Moderate area attainment date.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 40 CFR 51.1002(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2019, CARB made two SIP submissions intended to address
the attainment plan requirements for areas designated as nonattainment
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\10\ First, the ``2016 Moderate
Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard'' (``2016
PM2.5 Plan'') addresses the Moderate area attainment plan
requirements and includes a demonstration of impracticability of
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by the latest
permissible Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2021. In this
document, the EPA is proposing action on all portions of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan. Second, the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 Standards'' (``2018 PM2.5 Plan'')
addresses the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, in anticipation of the reclassification of SJV
from Moderate to Serious for that PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan incorporates by reference the ``San Joaquin
Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP Strategy''), a related plan
adopted by CARB on October 25, 2018, and submitted to the EPA with the
2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019. For the purposes of this
action, the relevant portion of the Valley State SIP Strategy includes
the control measure commitments associated with the quantitative
milestones for 2019 and 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CARB submitted the two plans electronically on May 10,
2019, as an attachment to a letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan updates several elements in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, including the base year emissions inventory,
plan precursor demonstration, controls analysis, reasonable further
progress (RFP) and quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets''). In this document, the EPA is proposing
action on those portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that apply
to the Moderate area plan requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. However, the EPA is not, at this time, proposing to act on those
portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that are not relevant to our
evaluation of compliance with Moderate area plan requirements for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the best available control measures
(BACM) demonstration, control strategy commitments, attainment
demonstration, RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones for later
years, and MVEBs for later years.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also addresses attainment plan
requirements for areas classified as Serious for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In 2020, we approved those portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that pertain to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
excluding the contingency measures element for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ In this document, we are proposing action
on the portion of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that addresses the
contingency measure requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses the contingency
measure requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by reference
to, among other things, a District contingency measure, and emissions
estimates for the year following the attainment year for use in
evaluating whether the emissions reductions from the contingency
measure are
[[Page 49102]]
sufficient.\12\ With respect to the District contingency measure, the
2018 PM2.5 Plan calls for the District to amend District
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') to
include a requirement in the rule with a trigger that would activate
the requirement should the EPA issue a final rulemaking that SJV failed
to meet a regulatory requirement necessitating implementation of a
contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H-24 to H-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the commitment made in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, in June 2019 the District adopted amendments to Rule 4901,
including a new provision (codified as section 5.7.3 of the amended
rule) that is a contingency measure. On July 19, 2019, CARB submitted
the amended rule to the EPA for approval.\13\ We have already taken
final action to approve the amended Rule 4901 (including the new
section 5.7.3) into the California SIP, but in our approval we noted
that we were not evaluating the contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of
revised Rule 4901 for compliance with all requirements of the CAA and
the EPA's implementing regulations that apply to such measures.\14\
Rather, we approved the new provision (section 5.7.3) into the SIP as
part of our approval of the entire amended rule because the provision
strengthens the rule by providing a possibility of additional
curtailment days and thus potentially additional emissions reductions.
We indicated that we would evaluate whether section 5.7.3, in
conjunction with other submitted provisions, meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements for contingency measures in a future action. In
this document, we are evaluating District Rule 4901, and in particular
section 5.7.3, in the context of our action on the contingency measure
element in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and the contingency measure element in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\14\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of District
Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132-33 (January 9, 2020) (proposed approval
of District Rule 4901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of San Joaquin Valley 2016 and 2018 PM2.5 Plans
A. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Summary
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
on September 15, 2016, and CARB adopted the plan on January 24,
2019.\15\ CARB submitted the plan to the EPA on May 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 16-9-10, September 15,
2016, and CARB Resolution 19-1, January 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan is organized into three chapters,
five appendices, and two attachments. Chapter 1 (``Introduction'')
provides general background, including discussion of the federal
PM2.5 standards, PM2.5 pollution and health
effects in the SJV, challenges to attaining the standards, and the
District's public process. Chapter 2 (``Impracticability Demonstration
and Request for Reclassification'') presents CARB and the District's
demonstration, based on air quality modeling, that attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the latest permissible attainment date of
December 31, 2021, is impracticable, and a request for reclassification
to Serious. Chapter 3 (``Demonstration of Federal Clean Air Act
Requirements'') describes how the 2016 PM2.5 Plan addresses
the federal requirements for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
areas, including a plan precursor demonstration, reasonably available
control measures, RFP, quantitative milestones, contingency measures,
stationary source permitting, and transportation conformity. The 2016
PM2.5 Plan includes the following five technical appendices:
Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling'') provides the State's
photochemical air quality modeling in support of the plan's
impracticability demonstration and precursor demonstration;
Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory'') presents the base
year and future year emissions inventory for direct PM2.5,
NOX, ammonia, SOX, and VOC;
Appendix C (``SIP Creditable Incentive-Based Emission
Reductions'') provides a demonstration of NOX emission
reductions from heavy-duty off-road vehicle engine vehicle replacements
under the 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines in support of the plan's Moderate
contingency measure element;
Appendix D (``New Source Review and Emission Reduction
Credits'') discusses the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs) in
the context of the plan; and
Appendix E (``Summary of Significant Comments and
Responses'') summarizes significant comments received during the
District's 2016 public review period and the District's responses
thereto.
In addition, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes Attachment 1
(``Stationary and Area Source Control Measure Analyses'') and
Attachment 2 (``Mobile Source Control Measure Analyses''), which
together resubmit the State's 2015 analyses that the District's
stationary and area source control measures and CARB's mobile source
control measures represent BACM and most stringent measures (MSM).
Lastly, on December 13, 2019, CARB submitted the following two
additional documents that CARB had prepared for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and made available for public review along with
the plan, but had inadvertently omitted them from the May 10, 2019 SIP
submission to the EPA: \16\ (i) The ``Staff Report, ARB Review of the
San Joaquin Valley 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 Standard,'' released September 16, 2016 (``CARB 2016
Staff Report''), that provides CARB's staff review of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, including brief summaries for each of the
Moderate area plan requirements; and (ii) the ``Modeling Emission
Inventory for the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan in the San
Joaquin Valley,'' August 23, 2016 (``2016 Modeling Emissions
Inventory'') that describes the development of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan's modeling emissions inventory, estimation of the
2013 base year emissions inventory, the methodology used to develop the
base year and baseline emissions inventory, and quality assurance of
the modeling emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Letter dated December 11, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Summary
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
on November 15, 2018, and CARB adopted the plan on January 24,
2019.\17\ CARB submitted the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to the EPA on
May 10, 2019, concurrently with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16, November 15,
2018, and CARB Resolution 19-1, January 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
related support documents apply to the Moderate area attainment plan
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV: (i)
Chapter 4 (``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5''); (ii) Chapter
7 (``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 Standard''); \18\ (iii) numerous
[[Page 49103]]
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 2018 Staff Report''); \19\ and (v) the State's and District's
board resolutions adopting the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Chapter 5 (``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 Standard'') and Chapter 6 (``Demonstration of
Federal Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan pertain to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The EPA has
acted on Chapter 6 in our rulemaking for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. See 80 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). The EPA has proposed to act
on Chapter 5 as part of a separate rulemaking on the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 86 FR 38652 (July 22, 2021).
\19\ The CARB 2018 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 W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, transmitting the CARB 2018 Staff
Report [on the 2018 PM2.5 Plan].
\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appendices to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in order of their
evaluation in this proposal, include the following: (i) Appendix
(``App.'') B (``Emissions Inventory''); (ii) 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 2018 Staff Report; (iii) control
strategy appendices, including App. C (``Stationary Source Control
Measure Analyses'') and App. D (``Mobile Source Control Measures
Analyses''); and (iv) App. H (``RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and
Contingency''). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses requirements
for MVEBs in the ``Transportation Conformity'' section of App. D.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 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 appendices on ``Public Education and Technology Advancement''
(App. F), ``Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis'' (App. A), ``New
Source Review and Emission Reduction Credits'' (App. I) and ``Summary
of Significant Comments and Responses'' (App. M), as well other
chapters and appendices that are primarily relevant to the Serious area
plan requirements, including App. E (``Incentive-Based Strategy''),
App. J (``Modeling Emission Inventory''), App. K (``Modeling Attainment
Demonstration''), and App. L (``Modeling Protocol'').
Lastly, on February 11, 2020, CARB submitted, via the EPA State
Planning Electronic Collaboration System, a revised version of App. H
(``RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency'') that replaces the
version submitted with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019.
All references to App. H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in this
proposed rule are to the revised version of Appendix H submitted
February 11, 2020.
C. Procedural Requirements for SIPs and SIP Revisions
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) of the CAA require each state
to provide reasonable public notice and an opportunity for a public
hearing prior to the adoption and submittal 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 an opportunity for a
public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submission of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. The District provided public notice and
opportunity for public comment prior to its September 15, 2016 public
hearing on and adoption of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.\22\ CARB
also provided public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to
its October 20, 2016 public hearing,\23\ where the 2016
PM2.5 Plan was tabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Hearing, Adopt the Proposed
2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard,''
August 16, 2016, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 16-9-10.
\23\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2016
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' September 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, 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.\24\ CARB also provided
public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its January
24, 2019 public hearing,\25\ when CARB adopted the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\26\ 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.27 28
Therefore, we find that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan meet the procedural requirements for public
notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.
\25\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2018
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' December 21, 2018.
\26\ CARB Resolution 19-1. See also J&K Court Reporting, LLC,
``Meeting, State of California Air Resources Board,'' October 20,
2016 (transcript of CARB's public hearing), 186-190.
\27\ For the 2016 PM2.5 Plan: CARB, ``Board Meeting
Comments Log,'' available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=sjvpmplan2016 (accessed August 20, 2021); J&K
Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California Air Resources
Board,'' October 16, 2016 (transcript of CARB's public hearing),
available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2016/mt102016.pdf
(accessed December 29, 2020); and 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. E
(``Summary of Significant Comments and Responses''), noting that no
comments were received during the District's 2016 public review.
\28\ For the 2018 PM2.5 Plan: 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present our evaluation of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan (and
2018 PM2.5 Plan as applicable to the Moderate area
attainment plan requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS) in
Section IV of this proposed rule. We present our evaluation of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan as applicable to the contingency measure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in section VII of this
proposed rule.
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate PM2.5
Nonattainment Area Plans
With respect to the statutory requirements for particulate matter
(PM) attainment plans, the general nonattainment area planning
requirements of title I, part D of the CAA are found in subpart 1, and
the attainment planning requirements specifically for PM are found in
subpart 4.
The EPA has a longstanding general guidance document that
interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, commonly referred to as the
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (``General Preamble'').\29\ The General Preamble
addresses the relationship between the subpart 1 and subpart 4
requirements and provides recommendations to states for meeting certain
statutory requirements for PM attainment plans. As explained in the
General Preamble, specific requirements applicable to Moderate area
attainment plan SIP submissions for the PM NAAQS are set forth in
subpart 4 of part
[[Page 49104]]
D, title I of the Act, but such SIP submissions must also meet the
general attainment planning provisions in subpart 1 of part D, title I
of the Act, to the extent these provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed
by, or integrally related to,'' the more specific subpart 4
requirements.\30\ The EPA provided further guidance to States on PM
plan submissions in the Addendum to the General Preamble (``General
Preamble Addendum'').\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
\30\ Id. at 13538.
\31\ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has also
promulgated the ``Fine Particle Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule''
(``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule'').\32\ The PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule establishes regulatory requirements and provides
additional guidance applicable to attainment plan submissions for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, addressed in this
section and section VII, respectively, of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general subpart 1 statutory requirements for attainment plans
include the following: (i) The section 172(c)(1) requirement for
reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available
control technology (RACT) and attainment demonstrations; (ii) the
section 172(c)(2) requirement to RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3)
requirement for emissions inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5)
requirement for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting
program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency
measures.
The more specific subpart 4 statutory requirements for Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas include the following: (i) The
section 189(a)(1)(A) and 189(e) NNSR permit program requirements; (ii)
the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement for attainment demonstrations;
(iii) the section 189(a)(1)(C) requirement for RACM; and (iv) the
section 189(c) requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. Under
subpart 4, states with Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas
must provide for attainment in the area as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than the latest permissible attainment date under CAA
section 188(c), i.e., December 31, 2021, for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV, unless the EPA determines, per section 188(b)(1),
that the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the Moderate area
attainment date.\33\ In addition, under subpart 4, direct
PM2.5 and all precursors to the formation of
PM2.5 are subject to control unless the EPA approves a
demonstration from the state establishing that a given precursor does
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Generally, under CAA section 188(c), the latest permissible
attainment date for a Moderate nonattainment area is the end of the
sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment.
Because the EPA designated and classified the San Joaquin Valley as
a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
effective April 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206, 2217-2218), the latest
permissible attainment date for these NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley is December 31, 2021.
\34\ 40 CFR 51.1006 and 51.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Review of San Joaquin Valley Plans for Moderate Area Requirements
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA 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. We refer to this inventory as the ``base year inventory.'' The
EPA has established regulatory requirements for base year and other
emissions inventories in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
\35\ and issued guidance concerning emissions inventories for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
\36\ 81 FR 58010, 58078-58079 and ``Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' 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 emissions inventory must include direct
PM2.5 emissions, separately reported filterable and
condensable PM2.5 emissions,\37\ and emissions of all
chemical precursors to the formation of secondary PM2.5:
NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia.\38\ In addition, the
emissions inventory base year for a Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area must be one of the three years (i.e., 2011-2013) for
which monitored data were used to designate the area as nonattainment,
or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its
Moderate area attainment plan submission.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Emissions Inventory Guidance identifies the types of
sources for which the EPA expects states to provide condensable PM
emissions inventories. Emissions Inventory Guidance, section 4.2.1
(``Condensable PM Emissions''), 63-65.
\38\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
\39\ 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its SIP submission, a state must include documentation
explaining how it calculated emissions data. In estimating mobile
source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and
planning assumptions available at the time it develops the SIP
submission. 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.40 41 At the time the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
2018 PM2.5 Plan were developed, California was required to
use EMFAC2014 to estimate tailpipe and brake and tire wear emissions of
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and VOC from on-road
mobile sources.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 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 emissions tests
results. (76 FR 6328, February 4, 2011). CARB used the revised 2011
AP-42 methodology in developing on-road mobile source emissions.
\41\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source
of the EPA's emission factor information. 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.
\42\ The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) is a computer
model developed by CARB. The EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2014 for use in SIP development and
transportation conformity in California on December 14, 2015 (80 FR
77337). The EPA's approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model for SIP
and conformity purposes was effective on the date of publication in
the Federal Register. On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and
announced the availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the
EMFAC model for use by state and local governments to meet CAA
requirements (84 FR 41717). EMFAC2017 was not available to the State
and District at the time they were developing the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and had only recently been submitted to the
EPA on July 20, 2018, prior to the adoption of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), a state must also submit future
``baseline inventories'' for the projected attainment year, each RFP
milestone year, and any other year of significance for meeting
applicable CAA requirements.\43\ By baseline inventories we mean
projected emissions inventories for future years that account for,
among other things, the ongoing
[[Page 49105]]
effects of economic growth and adopted emission control requirements.
The SIP submission should include documentation to explain how the
state calculated the emissions projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2) and 51.1012(a)(2); see also Emissions
Inventory Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Emissions Inventories
Within the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the annual average planning
inventories for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5
precursors (NOX, ammonia, SOX,\44\ and VOC) for
the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, together with
documentation for the inventories, are found in Appendix B (``Emissions
Inventory''). In addition, Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling'')
contains inventory documentation specific to the air quality modeling
inventories. These portions of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan contain
annual average daily emission inventories for 2013 thru 2022 projected
from the 2012 actual emissions inventory,\45\ including the 2013 base
year, the 2019 RFP baseline year, the 2021 Moderate area attainment
year, and the 2022 post-attainment RFP year. The winter average daily
inventory is used to evaluate sources of emissions for attainment of
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The 2016 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.
\45\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-18.
\46\ The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes annual average and
winter day average inventories for PM2.5 planning
purposes. The winter average daily planning inventory corresponds to
the months of November through April, when daily, ambient
PM2.5 concentrations are typically highest. 2016
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-19. 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) version 1.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, within the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the annual
average planning inventories for direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors, together with documentation for the
inventories, are found in Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory''). In
addition, Appendix J (``Modeling Emission Inventory'') contains
inventory documentation specific to the air quality modeling
inventories. These portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contain
annual average daily emission inventories for 2013 thru 2028 projected
from the 2012 actual emissions inventory, \47\ including the 2013 base
year, the 2019 and 2022 RFP baseline years, the 2025 Serious area
attainment year, and the 2028 post-attainment RFP year. Both the annual
average and the winter average daily inventories are used to evaluate
sources of emissions for attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-18.
\48\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-19. The base year
inventory is from CEIDARS and future year inventories were estimated
using CEPAM, 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 inventories for area sources using
the most recent models and methodologies available at the time the
State was developing the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018
PM2.5 Plan.\49\ Importantly, CARB and the District updated
the emissions inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan using the
latest available activity data and emission methodologies available at
the time of plan development. The 2013 base year, annual average
emissions inventories for most source categories did not change or only
changed plus or minus 0.1 tons per day (tpd) between the two plans.\50\
However, the base year emissions inventory from several important
source categories were smaller in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
relative to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan based on the latest
information. These include a 1.2 tpd decrease in direct
PM2.5 emissions from residential fuel combustion based on a
2016 emissions inventory methodology update,\51\ a 0.4 tpd decrease in
direct PM2.5 emissions from farming operations based on
updated estimates by the California Department of Conservation of
harvested acreage in 2010-2020 rather than 2000-2009,\52\ and a 0.9 tpd
decrease in NOX emissions from trains based on updated
locomotive data from 2016 on Class I and Class II railroads.\53\
Overall, for the 2013 base year, total emissions of both direct
PM2.5 and NOX were 0.9 tpd smaller in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan relative to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.3
(``Emissions Inventory Summary and Methodology''), and 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.2 (``Emissions Inventory
Summary and Methodology'').
\50\ For example, paved road dust direct PM2.5
emissions decreased 0.1 tpd while off-road equipment NOX
emissions increased by 0.1 tpd between the 2016 and 2018
PM2.5 Plans.
\51\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-26.
\52\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-27.
\53\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's emissions inventory
does not separately report filterable and condensable PM2.5
emissions. However, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan 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.\54\ It provides filterable and condensable emissions
estimates, expressed as annual PM2.5 emissions (tons per
year), for all of the identified source categories for the years
applicable to the Moderate area timeframe, including the 2013 base
year, the 2019 RFP year, the 2021 Moderate area attainment year, and
the 2022 post-attainment RFP year, as well as subsequent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-42 to B-44. The EPA
has approved the emissions inventory submission for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, including the filterable and
condensable PM2.5 inventories. 85 FR 44192 (July 22,
2020) (final rule); and 85 FR 17382, 17389 (March 27, 2020)
(proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB used EMFAC2014 to estimate on-road motor vehicle emissions
based on transportation activity data from the 2014 Regional
Transportation Plan adopted by the transportation planning agencies in
the SJV.\55\ Re-entrained paved road dust emissions were calculated
using a CARB methodology consistent with the EPA's AP-42 road dust
methodology.\56\ CARB also provided emissions inventories for off-road
equipment, including aircraft, trains, recreational boats, construction
equipment, and farming equipment, among others. CARB uses a suite of
category-specific models to estimate off-road emissions for many
categories and, where a new model was not available, used the
OFFROAD2007 model.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-33; and 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-37. We note that the vehicle miles
traveled data used in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's emissions
inventory is from the final 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program from each of the SJV's eight metropolitan planning
organizations.
\56\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-26; and 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-28.
\57\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-33 through B-35; and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-38 through B-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\58\
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
District provides for use of pre-base year ERCs as offsets by
accounting for such ERCs in the projected emissions inventory for the
2022 RFP year and the projected 2025 attainment year, respectively.\59\
The plans identify growth factors, control factors, and estimated
offset use between 2013 and 2022, and between 2013 and 2025, for direct
PM2.5, NOX, SOX, and VOC emissions by
source category and lists all pre-base year ERCs
[[Page 49106]]
issued by the District for PM10,\60\ NOX,
SOX, and VOC emissions, by facility.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-19; and 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-19.
\59\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-1 through D-5; and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, I-1 through I-5.
\60\ Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less.
\61\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, tables D-1 through D-5;
and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, tables I-1 through I-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides a summary of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's
winter (24-hour) average inventories in tpd of direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emissions for the 2013 base year. Table
2 provides a summary of 2018 PM2.5 Plan's annual average
inventories of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions for the 2013 base year. For purposes of this proposal, these
annual average inventories provide bases primarily for our evaluation
of the precursor demonstration, control measure analysis,
impracticability demonstration, RFP demonstration, and MVEBs in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan with respect the Moderate area requirements.
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 Evaluation and Proposed Action
Consistent with the requirement that inventories be based on the
most current and accurate information available to the State and
District at the time they were developing the plans and inventories,
our evaluation for the SJV for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS relies
primarily on the emissions inventories in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. The inventories in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan include the
latest version of California's mobile source emissions model,
EMFAC2014, that had been approved by the EPA at the time, and the EPA's
most recent AP-42 methodology for paved road dust. The inventories
comprehensively address all source categories in the SJV
PM2.5 nonattainment area and are consistent with the EPA's
inventory guidance.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008(a), the 2013 base year is one of
the three years for which monitored data were used for designating the
area, and it represents 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 the future baseline emissions projections in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan reflect
appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning assumptions at
the time the State and District were developing the plans and
inventories. 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 and area sources, the
related rules must be approved by the EPA into the SIP.
Given the State's impracticability demonstration for attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by the outermost Moderate area
attainment date, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan describes the District
rules achieving post-2013 emission reductions that contribute towards
attaining the NAAQS.\62\ In our rulemaking on the State's attainment
plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, we reviewed the
baseline measures identified as 2018 PM2.5 Plan baseline
controls to ensure that the measures that are relied upon in the plan
have been submitted and approved as part of the California SIP.\63\
That set of 2018 PM2.5 Plan baseline measures includes all
[[Page 49107]]
those baseline measures identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's
RFP demonstration as achieving emission reductions post-2013. Based on
that review, we confirm that the stationary and area source baseline
measures in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5
Plan are approved into the SIP and support the emissions reductions for
future years in the SJV. With respect to mobile sources, the EPA has
acted in recent years to approve CARB mobile source regulations into
the state-wide portion of the California SIP.\64\ We therefore find
that the future year baseline projections in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan are properly supported by SIP-
approved stationary, area, and mobile source measures.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 3-2. This includes
District rules for open burning; boilers, steam generators, and
process heaters; flares; glass melting furnaces; stationary internal
combustion engines; and residential wood burning.
\63\ EPA, ``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 V-A
of EPA's General Evaluation TSD shows District rules with post-2013
compliance dates that are reflected in the future year baseline
inventories of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, along with
information on the EPA's approval of these rules.
\64\ See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
\65\ The baseline emissions projections in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan assume implementation of CARB's zero emissions
vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards,
based on the approved EMFAC2014 model and assumptions that were
available at the time of the SIP's development. On September 27,
2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the EPA (the
Agencies) issued a notice of final rulemaking for the ``Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One
National Program'' (``SAFE I'') that, among other things, withdrew
the EPA's 2013 waiver of preemption of CARB's ZEV sales mandate and
vehicle GHG standards. 84 FR 51310 (September 27, 2019). See also
proposed SAFE rule at 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018). In response to
SAFE I, CARB developed EMFAC off-model adjustment factors to account
for anticipated changes in on-road emissions. On March 12, 2020, the
EPA informed CARB that the EPA considers these adjustment factors to
be acceptable for future use. See letter dated March 12, 2020, from
Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA Region IX, to Steven Cliff, CARB. On April
30, 2020 (85 FR 24174), the Agencies issued a notice of final
rulemaking for the ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks'' (``SAFE II''), establishing the federal fuel economy and
GHG vehicle emissions standards based on the August 2018 SAFE
proposal. The effect of both SAFE final rules (SAFE I and SAFE II)
on the on-road vehicle mix in the SJV nonattainment area and on the
resulting vehicular emissions is expected to be minimal during the
timeframe addressed in this SIP revision. Therefore, we anticipate
the SAFE final rules would not materially change the demonstration
that it is impracticable for the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Moderate
area to attain by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 future year baseline inventories in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2) and 51.1012(a)(2) and provide an
adequate basis for the control measure, RFP, and impracticability
demonstrations in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018
PM2.5 Plan, respectively.
B. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Requirements for Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The provisions of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA do not
define the term ``precursor'' for purposes of PM2.5, nor do
they explicitly require the control of any specifically identified PM
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant'' in CAA section
302(g), 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.'' The EPA has identified
NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the
formation of PM2.5. 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., in CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 (which includes
PM2.5) 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 RACM, RACT, BACM, best available control
technology (BACT), MSM, and NNSR) 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. For example, under the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the control requirements that apply to stationary and
mobile sources of PM10 precursors in the nonattainment area
under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\66\ 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.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ General Preamble, 13539-13542.
\67\ 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.\68\ 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.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are evaluating the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018
PM2.5 Plan with respect to the Moderate area requirements 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.
2. Summary of State's Precursor Demonstrations
The State presents analyses of PM2.5 precursors in both
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
primarily relies on sensitivity-based contribution analyses to
determine whether each PM2.5 plan precursor contributes
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. We summarize below key points from the State's
analyses and conclusions for each pollutant, focusing on the three
precursors (ammonia, SOX, and VOC) that the State concludes
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the State's precursor
demonstration and conclusions are found in section 2.3 (``Summary of
Modeling Results''), section 3.3 (``Precursor
[[Page 49108]]
Demonstration''), and Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling''). The State
estimates that baseline anthropogenic emissions of NOX,
ammonia, SOX, and VOC will decrease by 38 percent (%), 1%,
2%, and 8%, respectively, between 2013 and 2021.\70\ The State does not
present a concentration-based analysis of the contribution of each
precursor to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, but does estimate
PM2.5 component concentrations in the 2013 base year across
all SJV monitoring sites.\71\ The concentrations indicate that each
precursor may have a significant impact on PM2.5 levels.\72\
The State presents a sensitivity-based precursor analysis using the
modeled response of ambient PM2.5 concentrations to a 15%
increase or decrease in the future baseline emissions of each precursor
in 2025 (the latest permissible attainment year if the area is
reclassified to Serious for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS).\73\ For
each precursor, the State then takes the difference between the
PM2.5 concentrations from the 15% increase and the 15%
decrease to estimate the ambient PM2.5 response to a 30%
change in the precursor, and reviews the resulting change at each
monitor to see whether any response exceeds a threshold of 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 2-4 and Table 2-1.
\71\ Id. at Table 2-4.
\72\ Using the species assignments recommended in the Draft
Precursor Demonstration Guidance (on page 21) the relevant
concentrations are as follows: For NOX, the nitrate and
associated ammonium is up to 7.1 [micro]g/m\3\; for SO2,
sulfate is up to 1.7 [micro]g/m\3\; for ammonia, the sum of ammonium
and nitrate is up to 7.1 [micro]g/m\3\; for VOC the only available
concentration is for ``OM'' (organic matter), which is up to 8.7
[micro]g/m\3\, and is likely much higher than the secondary organic
aerosol that is relevant for VOC as a PM2.5 precursor.
All these values are well above the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold.
\73\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, section 5.4
(``Precursor Sensitivity Analysis'').
\74\ For the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA generally
expects that a precursor demonstration showing that the air quality
impact of a given precursor at all relevant locations does not
exceed a contribution threshold of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ will be adequate
to exempt sources of that precursor from control requirements.
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The responses range from 0.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ for
NOX; from 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ for
ammonia; from 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ for
SOX; and from -0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for
VOC.\75\ The State concludes that emissions of NOX (as well
as direct PM2.5) contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS but
ammonia, SOX, and VOC do not contribute significantly to
such exceedances.\76\ The 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A,
section 5.5 (``Discussion of Precursor Sensitivity'') includes
additional discussion of ammonia's and VOC's role in the formation of
ammonium nitrate and VOC's role in the formation of secondary organic
aerosols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, tables 24, 26, 28, and
27, respectively.
\76\ Id. at 2-6 and 3-3, and App. A, A-52. We note that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the State's precursor
demonstration and conclusions are found in Chapter 7 (``Demonstration
of Federal Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 Standard'') and
Appendix G (``Precursor Demonstration''). CARB also provides clarifying
information on its precursor assessment, including an Attachment A to
its letter transmitting the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to the EPA \77\
and further clarifications in four email transmittals.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. 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'').
\78\ 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''); 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''); and email dated April 26,
2021, from Laura Carr, CARB, to Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX,
Subject: ``RE: Ammonia update,'' with attachment ``Ammonia in San
Joaquin Valley'' (``CARB's April 26, 2021, Precursor
Clarification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State estimates that anthropogenic emissions of NOX,
ammonia, SOX, and VOC will decrease by 64%, 1%, 6%, and 9%,
respectively, between 2013 and 2025.\79\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
provides both concentration-based and sensitivity-based analyses of
precursor contributions to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in
the SJV. Based on these analyses, the State concludes that emissions of
NOX (as well as direct PM2.5) contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV but ammonia, SOX, and VOC
do not contribute significantly to such exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7-5 and Table 7-2.
Notably, the estimated 64% reduction in NOX from 2013 to
2025 (per the 2018 PM2.5 Plan) is much larger than the
estimated 38% reduction in NOX from 2013 to 2021 (per the
2016 PM2.5 Plan), reflecting both additional years of
reductions and additional reductions anticipated from the 2018
PM2.5 Plan control strategy. We also note that a copy of
the contents of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G appears in
the CARB 2018 Staff Report, App. C4 (``Precursor Demonstrations for
Ammonia, SOX, and ROG'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these analyses are primarily designed to evaluate the role of
precursors in attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 2024
and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2025, they are important
to the consideration of precursors for the State's Moderate area plan
because they are based on updated data (e.g., updated emissions
inventories, as discussed in section IV.A of this proposed rule), use
an updated methodology to evaluate the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 to a range of precursor emission reductions,
consistent with the EPA's guidance, and best reflect the State's
understanding of the control strategies being implemented in the SJV.
We summarize the State's analyses and conclusions in the following
paragraphs. For ammonia, SOX, and VOC, CARB assesses 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
compares those concentrations to the recommended annual average
contribution threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ from the EPA's ``Draft
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance'' \80\ available at the time the
State developed the SIP.\81\ The 2015 annual average contributions of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC are 5.2 [micro]g/m\3\, 1.6 [micro]g/
m\3\ and 6.2 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ``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.
\81\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 3. The 2018
PM2.5 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. 2018 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, the State models the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
in the SJV to reductions in each precursor pollutant. For direct
PM2.5 and NOX, the State models the sensitivity
of ambient PM2.5 in the SJV to a 30% reduction in
anthropogenic emissions of each pollutant in 2013, 2020, and 2024.\82\
The State concludes that direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions reductions will continue to have a significant impact on
annual
[[Page 49109]]
and 24-hour PM2.5 design values in the SJV, with
NOX reductions being particularly important.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7-7. The sensitivity-
based analysis used the same modeling platform as that used for the
2018 PM2.5 Plan's attainment and RFP demonstrations. 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.
\83\ Id. Ch. 7, 7-7; 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, the State then models the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to 30% and 70% reductions in
anthropogenic emissions of each precursor pollutant in 2013 (the 2018
PM2.5 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, and proxy for the modeled
attainment year of 2025 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS).\84\
Depending on the analysis year and percentage precursor emission
reduction, the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to reductions in
annual average precursor emissions ranges from 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\ to
2.30 [micro]g/m\3\ for ammonia; from -0.05 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ for SOX; and from -0.50 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.40
[micro]g/m\3\ for VOC.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 7, 7-7. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan precursor demonstration assumes that 2025
attainment year sensitivities are very similar to those modeled in
2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 10. We note that the State
only modeled 30% and 70% reductions in SOX for 2013,
finding that the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to such
changes were below the EPA's recommended threshold.
\85\ Id. at App. G, tables 2 through 7 for ammonia, tables 8 and
9 for SOX, and tables 10 through 15 for VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ammonia, the modeled sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
levels to a 30% or 70% emission reduction exceed 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ in
certain years at specific monitoring sites. We provide a detailed
summary of these modeling results and our evaluations thereof in the
``Technical Support Document, EPA Evaluation of Ammonia Precursor
Demonstration, San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area PM2.5 Plan
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' August 2021 (``EPA's Ammonia
Precursor TSD''). In contrast, for SOX and VOC, the modeled
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to a 30% or 70% emission
reduction in either precursor is below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, including a
disbenefit at certain monitoring sites (i.e., ambient PM2.5
level increase), in all scenarios except one. For 2013, the State's
modeling shows an ambient PM2.5 change greater than 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ in response to a 70% VOC emission reduction. According to
the State, however, such sensitivity results do not reflect the
atmospheric chemistry in the SJV given the projected emission
reductions from 2013 to 2024 for all four PM2.5 precursors,
especially for VOC and NOX.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ For a more detailed summary of the State's precursor
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, see 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 24-hour PM2.5 Precursor
TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State supplements the sensitivity analysis, particularly for
ammonia, 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.\87\ The PM2.5 Precursor Guidance confirms
that these factors may be relevant to a sensitivity-based contribution
analysis.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 5.
\88\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ammonia, the State notes that a 53% reduction in (baseline)
NOX emissions is projected to occur between 2013 and
2024,\89\ so the conditions in the early years will not persist and the
future year (2024) is more representative of the Valley's ambient
conditions than earlier years. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan's
precursor demonstration also presents a review of District agricultural
rules that control VOC emissions and also provide ammonia co-benefits.
The State concludes that a 30% reduction is a reasonable upper bound on
the ammonia reductions to model. Finally, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan's precursor demonstration presents extensive support for the
State's conclusion regarding an ambient excess of ammonia relative to
NOX, i.e., that particulate ammonium nitrate formation is
NOX-limited, beyond that presented in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan's precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 2018 Plan, App. G, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstrations in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan, as supplemented and updated by the
precursor demonstrations in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as well as
other relevant information available to the EPA, consistent with the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and the recommendations in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. Based on this evaluation, the EPA
agrees with the State's conclusion that NOX emissions
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and that NOX
emission sources, therefore, remain subject to control requirements
under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act. Additionally, for
the reasons provided in the following paragraphs, the EPA proposes to
approve the State's comprehensive precursor demonstrations for ammonia,
SOX, and VOC based on a conclusion that emissions of these
precursor pollutants do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.
The State based its analyses on the latest available data and
studies concerning ambient PM2.5 formation in the SJV from
precursor emissions. For the required concentration-based analysis, the
State assessed the absolute annual average contribution of each
precursor to ambient PM2.5 (i.e., in 2015). Given the
absolute concentrations in 2015 were above the EPA's recommended
contribution thresholds for both the 24-hour and annual average
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State proceeded to a sensitivity-based
analysis, consistent with the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.
For the sensitivity-based analysis, the State performed its
analyses in a straightforward application of the EPA's recommended
approach--i.e., for each modeled year and level of emissions reduction
(in percentages), the State estimated the ambient PM2.5
response using the procedure recommended in the PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, and compared the result to the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold.\90\ The EPA finds that the performance of the
photochemical models were adequate for use in estimating the ambient
PM2.5 responses.\91\ In particular, for the 2018
PM2.5 Plan precursor demonstration, the State considered the
EPA's recommended range of emission reductions (30% to 70%) for the
2013 base year, 2020 (an interim year), and 2024 (as a proxy for the
projected 2025 attainment year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS),
and quantified
[[Page 49110]]
the estimated response of ambient PM2.5 concentrations to
precursor emission changes in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ For the 2016 PM2.5 Plan precursor demonstration,
CARB modeled a 15% increase and 15% decrease in a precursor and took
the difference between the resulting PM2.5 concentrations
to estimate the ambient PM2.5 response to a 30% change in
the precursor, rather than a straight 30% reduction, which would be
expected to slightly understate the response, as described in the
EPA's Ammonia Precursor TSD. Nevertheless, this is a reasonable
approach and the State consulted with the EPA on whether this
approach using then-available modeling runs would be acceptable.
\91\ For the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the model performance
is discussed further 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''). See further discussion in
section IV.C of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's emissions projections in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan show that baseline emissions of each
of these precursors will decrease from the 2013 base year to 2021 and
2025, respectively (i.e., none of these pollutants is projected to
increase). These decreases are included in the State's modeled
projections of ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV for purposes
of demonstrating attainment and RFP. The State's sensitivity analyses
are consistent with these projections, in accordance with the EPA's
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the subsections that follow, we summarize below our evaluation
of the State's precursor demonstrations for ammonia, SOX,
and VOC for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
a. Ammonia Precursor Demonstration
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimates the ambient
PM2.5 response to a 30% reduction in emissions in 2025 and,
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimates the ambient
PM2.5 response to both a 30% and a 70% emission reduction in
2013, 2020, and 2024. We have evaluated CARB's sensitivity-based
contribution analyses for 2013, 2020, and 2024 (in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan) and for 2025 (in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan), and CARB's determination that 2024, as a proxy for the projected
attainment year of 2025, is more representative of conditions in the
SJV for purposes of a sensitivity-based analysis, as discussed in the
following paragraphs. We find it appropriate for the State to consider
additional information as part of its evaluation of whether the ammonia
contribution is significant and to rely on the responses to the 30%
modeled ammonia emissions reduction in its precursor demonstration for
ammonia. We provide a detailed evaluation of the State's precursor
demonstration for ammonia emissions in the EPA's Ammonia Precursor TSD.
As part of its analysis in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
estimates that the ambient PM2.5 response to a 30% reduction
in ammonia emissions would range from 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ in 2025 with 3 of 16 monitoring sites having a response
of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\. However, the precursor demonstration in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan indicates that the ambient response to a 30%
ammonia emission reduction would exceed the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ at a number of monitoring
sites, primarily in the 2013 and 2020 analysis years. For example, the
sensitivity results for a 30% reduction in ammonia emission reductions
in 2020 (the closest analysis year to 2021), show that the ambient
PM2.5 response at 9 of 15 monitoring sites would exceed the
0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold. We consider two lines of reasoning
provided by the State to support its conclusion that ammonia emissions
do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
First, multiple researchers have suggested that ammonia emissions
are underestimated in the SJV by a factor of two to five or more.\93\
This conclusion is based on comparing ambient and satellite
measurements to model results that incorporate estimates of ammonia
emissions and comparing monitoring or modeling results to what would be
expected based on the size(s) of the ammonia and other precursor (e.g.,
NOX) emission inventories. In a supplemental
transmittal,\94\ CARB described the results of two analyses confirming
the likely underestimation of ammonia emissions. CARB compared
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model predictions of ammonia
with the 2013 DISCOVER-AQ \95\ aircraft measurements and found that
ammonia was underpredicted, and noted that this would result in the
response to ammonia reductions being overpredicted. CARB also compared
2017 satellite measurements of ammonia with CMAQ model predictions and
found that modeled ammonia concentrations were half of the magnitude of
the satellite observations at some locations, and the modeled average
in the SJV was about 25% less than observed. As a result of the likely
ammonia emissions underestimation, the modeled response to ammonia
precursor reductions in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's precursor
demonstration may be unrealistically large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See, e.g., Parrish, D., ``Synthesis of Policy Relevant
Findings from the CalNex 2010 Field Study, Final Report to the
Research Division of the California Air Resources Board,'' 2014, 63,
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/; and Kelly, J.T. et
al. 2018, ``Modeling NH4NO3 over the San
Joaquin Valley during the 2013 DISCOVER-AQ campaign,'' Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123, 4727-4745, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028290 at 4731. See also the EPA's Ammonia Precursor
TSD for further discussion of ammonia research studies.
\94\ CARB's April 26, 2021, Precursor Clarification.
\95\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If ammonia emissions were increased in the modeling to correct the
likely underestimation, then modeled ammonia would be more abundant
relative to nitrate; particulate nitrate formation would be more
NOX-limited, and less responsive to ammonia reductions; and
the modeled response to ammonia reductions would be lower than is
reported in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's precursor demonstration
and likely below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold at most
monitors in 2021.
In addition, an upward revision in the ammonia emission estimate
would make the model response more consistent with the ambient
measurement studies discussed in the submittal.\96\ The relevant
studies suggest a very low ambient sensitivity to ammonia, based on
measured excess ammonia relative to NOX, the abundance of
particulate nitrate relative to gaseous NOX, and the large
abundance of ammonia relative to nitric acid.\97\ The studies all
conclude that there is a large amount of ammonia left over after
reacting with NOX, so that ammonia emission reductions would
be expected mainly to reduce the amount of ammonia excess, rather than
to reduce the particulate amonium nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, 6-7, and App. G, G-9 to G-10;
the CARB 2018 Staff Report, App. C, 12-15; and Submittal Letter,
Attachment A.
\97\ Lurmann et al. 2006, ``Processes Influencing Secondary
Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter,'' Journal
of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995) 56(12):1679-93,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464573; Markovic et al.,
2014, ``Measurements and modeling of the inorganic chemical
composition of fine particulate matter and associated precursor
gases in California's San Joaquin Valley during CalNex 2010,''
Journal of Geophysical Research--Atmospheres, 119, 6853-6866,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021408. CalNex, or California Research
at the Nexus of Air Quality and Climate Change, was a NOAA-sponsored
field study during summer 2010. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these evaluations, we find that a correction to the likely
underestimation of the ammonia emission inventory would likely result
in a modeled response to ammonia reductions below the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\
contribution threshold in 2021.
Second, the air quality benefit of ammonia emission reductions is
projected to decline steeply over time and both the Moderate and
Serious area plans for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the SJV have
been submitted to the EPA. While a concentration-based analysis is the
initial step for a precursor demonstration under the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule,\98\ a precursor
[[Page 49111]]
demonstration may then proceed to a sensitivity-based contribution
analysis \99\ to consider how sensitive ambient PM2.5 levels
would be to emissions reductions. Precursor concentration alone does
not account for complications of meteorology and chemistry; ambient
PM2.5 may be relatively insensitive to emissions reductions
and, in some circumstances, emissions reductions may even result in
increased ambient PM2.5, i.e., show a ``disbenefit.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 40 CFR 51.1006 (a)(1)(i).
\99\ 40 CFR 51.1006 (a)(1)(ii).
\100\ An example of a disbenefit is ``sulfate replacement,''
which can occur at intermediate ammonia levels when there is not
enough ammonia to fully react with the SOX and
NOX present. Reducing SOX emissions reduces
ambient particulate ammonium sulfate. For each ammonium sulfate, two
ammonium ions are freed; both can combine with a nitrate, forming
two particulate ammonium nitrate molecules. The net result of the
SOX emissions decrease is then an increase in ambient
PM2.5 concentration. See also the EPA's 24-hour
PM2.5 Precursor TSD, 17-18; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In selecting the analysis year for a precursor demonstration, we
find it appropriate to consider changes in atmospheric chemistry that
may occur between the base or current year and the attainment year
because the changes may ultimately affect the nonattainment area's
progress toward expeditious attainment. Based on these considerations,
we find it reasonable for the State to focus on the ambient
PM2.5 response to ammonia emission reductions in 2024,
rather than an earlier year, as the modeled response in 2024 in the SJV
better reflects the potential benefit of ammonia control measures for
purposes of expeditious attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
We consider the precursor demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan as part of this evaluation, because the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
contains a Serious area attainment plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS based on modeled emissions projections for 2024 and 2025 that are
relevant to our evaluation of the ammonia precursor demonstration in
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides
updated analyses with comprehensive modeling and additional information
beyond that provided in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, and the 2024
model results in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan corroborate the 2025
model results in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
The State's precursor demonstrations in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan show that ambient sensitivity
to ammonia emission reductions in the SJV declines steeply over time.
Between 2020 and 2024, the modeled response to a 30% ammonia emission
reduction declines by 50% at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site,
which has the highest projected PM2.5 level, and by 37%
averaged over all monitoring sites. In absolute terms, the ambient
PM2.5 response declines from 0.24 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2020 to
0.12 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2024 at Bakersfield-Planz, and from 0.23
[micro]g/m\3\ to 0.14 [micro]g/m\3\ as averaged over all monitoring
sites, with the decline being generally larger for the sites with the
highest projected PM2.5 levels. Thus, between 2020 and 2024,
the number of sites at which modeled sensitivity exceeds the 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ threshold declines from 9 of 15 to 1 or 2 of
15.101 102 As discussed above, ammonia sensitivity declines
because of the shifting atmospheric chemistry caused by NOX
emissions decreases. NOX emissions are projected to decrease
27% between 2020 and 2024 due to baseline measures (e.g., existing
motor vehicle controls). The decreased NOX emissions will
make ammonia more abundant relative to NOX, and even less of
a limiting factor on PM2.5 formation. In other words, the
model response in the future attainment year 2024 gives a more
realistic assessment of the potential effect of ammonia controls than
past or current conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 4 & 5, G-11.
The result for the Madera site is unclear since its monitored
concentrations are biased high.
\102\ For 2025, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan states there are
no sites are above the contribution threshold. The sensitivities
show similar declines from 2020 to 2025 of 58% for the monitoring
site with the highest projected PM2.5 level and 46%
averaged over all monitoring sites. Because only a single decimal
place is provided for 2025, the percent declines are more
approximate. Extrapolating the 2018 PM2.5 Plan results to
2025, the percent declines are 55% and 40%, respectively, which are
comparable to those for 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, given the likely underestimate in ammonia emissions in
the SJV, 2024 modeling results may be more representative even of
current conditions than 2020 modeling results. For example, if 2013
ammonia emissions are underestimated by a factor of three, as suggested
by the CalNex summary report,\103\ then the 2013 ratio of ammonia to
NOX emissions of 1.04 should be about 3.1, instead. The
emissions ratio of ammonia to NOX in 2024 is 2.2, which is
closer to 3.1 than the emissions ratio of ammonia to NOX in
2020, which is 1.6.\104\ Using 2024 modeling results partly compensates
for the likely ammonia emissions underestimation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Parrish, D., ``Synthesis of Policy Relevant Findings from
the CalNex 2010 Field Study, Final Report to the Research Division
of the California Air Resources Board,'' 2014, 63, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/calnex/.
\104\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, tables B-2
(``NOX'') and B-5 (``Ammonia''), annual average tpd,
Grand Total for San Joaquin Valley, B-7 and B-16. The ammonia to
NOX ratio is 329.2/317.2 = 1.04 in 2013; 325.9/203.3 =
1.6 in 2020; and 324.6/148.9 = 2.2 in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the decision on whether to control ammonia does not affect
the attainment year for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. From
the 2020 sensitivity results,\105\ a 30% reduction in ammonia emissions
would reduce the projected PM2.5 level in 2021 \106\ by 0.24
[micro]g/m\3\. The design value would decrease from a 2020 baseline
value of 14.6 [micro]g/m\3\ down to 14.3 [micro]g/m\3\. The State uses
a 30% ammonia emission reduction as an upper bound in the modeling but
shows that even a 70% ammonia emission reduction would reduce the
design value to only 13.8 [micro]g/m\3\. The result of a 30% or even a
70% ammonia emission reduction, if those were possible, would still be
well above the NAAQS level of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Attainment would
remain impracticable in 2021. A decision to evaluate and possibly adopt
additional ammonia controls in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan would not
remove the need for a Serious area plan identifying a later attainment
year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 4 and 6.
\106\ Sensitivity for the year 2021 is being represented by
model results for 2020. Given the declining NOX emissions
and corresponding decline in ammonia sensitivity, the actual
PM2.5 response to ammonia reductions for 2021 would be
lower than stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such reductions would also have little effect in 2025. Based on the
2024 sensitivity results,\107\ if ammonia emissions were reduced by
30%, the area's 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ design value would be reduced by
0.12 [micro]g/m\3\, which would not be considered significant (it is
below the EPA's recommended threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\). A 70%
reduction might lower the design value by 0.36 [micro]g/m\3\ to 11.7
[micro]g/m\3\. Conceivably that could result in attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2024 rather than 2025, but it is not clear
whether reductions of that magnitude are feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, tables 5 and 7, 11-12.
The response to 2025 ammonia reductions would be lower than the
values stated in the text, due to the effect of declining
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we find that the State quantified the sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 levels to reductions in ammonia emissions
using appropriate modeling techniques that performed well; there is
likely an underestimation of ammonia emissions in the SJV and, if
corrected, the modeled response to ammonia reductions would be lower
than reported; and the State's choice of 2024 and 2025 as the reference
points for purposes of evaluating the sensitivity of
[[Page 49112]]
ambient PM2.5 levels to ammonia emission reductions is well-
supported. 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
b. SOX Precursor Demonstration0.05
As described in section IV.B.2 of this proposed rule, in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimated the ambient PM2.5
response to a 30% reduction in SOX emissions in 2025 to
range from 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, with half the
monitoring sites having a response of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\. In the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimated the 2013 ambient PM2.5
response to a 30% SOX emission reduction to range from -0.01
[micro]g/m\3\ to 0.07 [micro]g/m\3\ and estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response to a 70% SOX emission reduction to
range from -0.05 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\.\108\ The State
also provides an emissions trend chart that shows SOX
emissions to be steady at approximately 8 tpd from 2013 through 2024.
Given that the relative levels of SOX and ammonia emissions
over that timeframe remain similar, the State concludes that the 2013
sensitivities are also representative of future years.\109\ The State
also provides the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013, 2020, and
2024 to 30% and 70% reductions in SOX emissions, all of
which are below the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 15-16, tables 8 and 9.
\109\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 15.
\110\ CARB's September 2019 Precursor Clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's sensitivity estimates
for 2025 are at or below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold
of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, and that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's
sensitivity estimates for 2013 are well below that threshold for both
the 30% and 70% emission reduction scenarios and even negative for
certain monitoring sites. Given that the latter precursor demonstration
was based on updated data and an updated methodology, and the steady
SOX emission levels over 2013 to 2025 (as opposed to
increases), the EPA agrees with the State's conclusion that the 2013
modeled sensitivities provide a sufficient basis for the SOX
precursor demonstration. The supplemental results provided by the State
for 2020 and 2024 support this conclusion.
Therefore, on the basis of these modeled ambient PM2.5
responses to SOX emission reductions in the SJV, 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 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
c. VOC Precursor Demonstration
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, CARB estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response to a 30% difference in VOC emissions in 2025
to range from -0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\. In the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the State found that the ambient
PM2.5 response to VOC emission reductions were generally
below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\, 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.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 18-19, tables 10 and
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's sensitivity estimates
for 2025 are at or below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold
of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, and that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's
sensitivity estimates for 2020 and 2024 are well below that threshold
for both the 30% and 70% emission reduction scenarios, and even
negative for certain monitoring sites. The State also provides an
emissions trend chart that shows VOC emissions are projected to
decrease by about 30 tpd, or 9% between 2013 and 2020 as well as
between 2013 and 2024, and concludes that 2013 sensitivity results are
not representative into the future and that the 2020 and 2024 results
are representative.\112\ Finally, the State concludes that VOC
emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has evaluated and agrees with the State's determination in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that the projected 2024 attainment year
is more representative of conditions in the SJV for sensitivity-based
analyses and that VOC reductions in 2024 would mostly result in a
disbenefit to ambient PM2.5 levels. The EPA agrees that the
9% VOC emissions decrease from 2013 to 2024 supports reliance on the
2024 modeling results. Furthermore, there is a large decrease in
NOX emissions over this period, as described in section
IV.B.2 of this proposed rule, that 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 reductions are expected to result from baseline measures
already in effect. Therefore, we 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 SJV; as discussed in 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 2006 NAAQS
Precursor TSD''), VOC reductions led to less peroxyacetyl nitrate
formation, and greater availability of nitrate to form particulate
ammonium nitrate.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ EPA's 2006 NAAQS Precursor TSD, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.
C. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires each state in which a
Moderate area is located to submit a plan that includes a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) of either (i) attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, or (ii)
attainment by that date is impracticable. The 2016 PM2.5
Plan includes a demonstration that attainment by the Moderate
attainment date is impracticable.
The EPA's PM2.5 modeling guidance \114\ (``Modeling
Guidance'' and ``Modeling Guidance Update'') recommends that a
photochemical model, such as the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions or CMAQ, be used 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 year undergoes a performance evaluation to ensure that it
satisfactorily corroborates the concentrations monitored in that year.
The model may then be used to simulate emissions occurring in other
years required for a
[[Page 49113]]
plan, namely the base year (which may differ from the base case year)
and future year.\115\ The modeled response to the emission changes
between those years is used to calculate relative response factors
(RRFs) that 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. Because 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 day's
measured PM2.5 concentration must be split into its species
components. The Modeling Guidance provides additional detail on the
recommended approach.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Memorandum dated November 29, 2018, from Richard Wayland,
Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, EPA,
Subject: ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' (``Modeling
Guidance''), and Memorandum dated June 28, 2011 from Tyler Fox, Air
Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA, to Regional Air Program
Managers, EPA, Subject: ``Update to the 24 Hour PM2.5
NAAQS Modeled Attainment Test,'' (``Modeling Guidance Update'').
\115\ In this section, we use the terms ``base case,'' ``base
year'' or ``baseline,'' and ``future year'' as described in section
2.3 of the EPA's Modeling Guidance. The ``base case'' modeling
simulates measured concentrations for a given time period, using
emissions and meteorology for that same year. The modeling ``base
year'' (which can be the same as the base case year) is the
emissions starting point for the plan and for projections to the
future year, both of which are modeled for the attainment
demonstration. Modeling Guidance, 37-38. Note that CARB sometimes
uses ``base year'' synonymously with ``base case'' and ``reference
year'' instead of ``base year.''
\116\ Modeling Guidance, section 4.4, ``What is the Modeled
Attainment Tests for the Annual Average PM2.5 NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has not issued modeling guidance specific to
impracticability demonstrations but believes that a state seeking to
make such a demonstration generally should provide air quality modeling
similar to that required for an attainment demonstration.\117\ The main
difference is that for an impracticability demonstration, the
implementation of the SIP control strategy (including RACM) does not
result in attainment of the standard by the Moderate area attainment
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ 81 FR 58010, 58048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an attainment demonstration, a thorough review of all modeling
inputs and assumptions (including consistency with EPA guidance) is
especially important because the modeling must ultimately support a
conclusion that the plan (including its control strategy) will provide
for timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS. In contrast, for an
impracticability demonstration, the end point is a reclassification to
Serious, which triggers the requirement for a new Serious area
attainment plan with a new air quality modeling analysis, and a new
control strategy.\118\ Thus, the Serious area planning process would
provide an opportunity to refine the modeling analysis and/or correct
any technical shortcomings in the impracticability demonstration.
Therefore, the burden of proof will generally be lower for an
impracticability demonstration compared to an attainment
demonstration.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ CAA section 189(b)(1).
\119\ 81 FR 58010, 58049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Air Quality Modeling
In the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the State discussed its air
quality modeling in section 2.3 (``Summary of Modeling Results'') and
Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling'') and concludes that it is not
practicable to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by
December 31, 2021. The State used CMAQ (version 5.02) to model three
simulations: A 2013 base year to demonstrate that the model reasonably
reproduced observed PM2.5 concentrations, a 2013 reference
base year simulation that excluded exceptional events such as
wildfires, and a 2021 future year based on the reference year but using
projected 2021 emissions. For the base year simulation, 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.
The State then generated site- and species-specific RRFs for the
ammonium ion, nitrate ion, sulfate ion, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and a combined grouping of other primary PM2.5
material for the 2021 future year simulation and calculated future year
design values by multiplying the species- and site-specific RRFs by the
corresponding quarterly mean component concentrations. The State summed
the quarterly mean components to determine quarterly mean
PM2.5 concentrations, which it subsequently averaged to
determine the annual design values. The future year design values
reflect the weighted quarterly average concentration from the
projections of five years of data. The State projected future year
annual PM2.5 design values for the 2021 Moderate area
attainment year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The 2021 baseline simulation used emission levels projected from
the 2013 base year that reflect all control measures adopted by the
time of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's development that would be
implemented by December 31, 2021. This simulation indicates that the
2012 annual PM2.5 standard will not be met in the SJV in
2021. The projected 2021 control scenario design value is 14.8
[micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-Planz, which is typically the monitoring
site that records the highest PM2.5 levels in the SJV.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a modeled demonstration
projecting that the SJV will attain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by December 31, 2025. It also includes a modeled demonstration
projecting attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2020, with a design value of 14.6 [micro]g/m\3\ at
Bakersfield-Planz. While the plan does not explicitly have a
demonstration of impracticability of attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021, the latter projections of annual
PM2.5 concentrations in 2020 provides additional information
on which to judge the practicability of attaining by 2021 in that it is
the closest analysis year available and represents modeling based on
updated data. These projections lend support for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan indication that the 2012 annual PM2.5
standard will not be met in the SJV in 2021.
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
SJV 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 2018 Staff Report, which includes ambient trends and other
data in support of the demonstration of attainment by 2025.
3. EPA Evaluation and Conclusion
CARB's air quality modeling approach investigated the many
interconnected facets of modeling ambient PM2.5 in the SJV,
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
[[Page 49114]]
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, and adjustments to baseline air
quality for modeling. These analyses are generally consistent with the
EPA's recommendations in the Modeling Guidance.
The model performance evaluation in section 5.2 (``CMAQ Model
Evaluation'') of both Appendix A of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
Appendix K of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan included statistical and
graphical measures of model performance.
The EPA previously evaluated and approved the modeling conducted
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan; see 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 2006
NAAQS Modeling TSD'') accompanying that action for details.\120\ The
conclusions in the EPA's 2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD focused on the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; in this notice we extend the evaluation with
information specific to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Unless
otherwise noted, the discussion applies to both the modeling in both
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan (Appendix A) and 2018 PM2.5
Plan (Appendix K), since they followed the same model platform
development procedures, and had identical meteorological inputs, very
similar emissions inputs, and very similar model performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ The model performance is discussed further in section J
(``Air Quality Model Performance'') of the EPA's 2006 NAAQS Modeling
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most aspects of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan modeling and the
EPA's evaluation of it are the same for the 24-hour and the annual
averaging times, and the EPA has found them adequate. These include the
modeling protocol, choice of model, meteorological modeling, modeling
emissions inventory, choice of model, modeling domain, and procedures
for model performance evaluation. One aspect that differs between the
24-hour and annual averaging times is the specific calculation
procedure for estimating a future design value. In the Modeling
Guidance, for both averaging times, the model is used to calculate
RRFs, the ratio of modeled future concentrations to base year
concentrations, and the RRF is applied to monitored base year
concentrations. This is done for each monitor, PM2.5
species, and calendar quarter. But for the 24-hour averaging time, the
procedure uses the highest individual concentration days in each
quarter, whereas for the annual average, it uses the average of all
days in each quarter. The EPA previously found that the procedures used
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS generally followed the EPA's recommendations and were adequate.
For the current action, the EPA finds that State procedures \121\ for
estimating future design values for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
generally followed the EPA's recommendations and are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another modeling aspect that can differ between 24-hour and annual
average is the focus of the model performance evaluation on the
respective averaging times. For the 24-hour average, it is especially
important that modeled concentrations on the highest days are
comparable to those on the highest monitored days, since calculation of
the design value for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS uses the 98th
percentile concentrations, i.e., the top 2%. For the annual average,
peak concentrations continue to be important, but lower concentration
days are also important since all days are included in the average.
Under- and over-predictions on non-peak days may average out and have
little overall effect on the modeled annual concentration, but
systematic underprediction on non-peak days could lead to model
underprediction of the annual average concentration. This problem of
model bias is mitigated by the use of the model in a relative sense as
recommended in the Modeling Guidance. In the RRF, model bias ``cancels
out'' to a degree since it would be present in both its numerator
(future year) and its denominator (base year); and applying the RRF to
monitored base year concentration anchors the final model prediction to
unbiased real-world concentrations. Further, RRFs are calculated on a
quarterly basis, so the bias correction can better account for
emissions sources and atmospheric chemistry that differ between the
seasons.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan did not have a separate model
performance evaluation for the 24-hour and annual PM2.5
averaging times; it used statistical and graphical analyses applicable
to both. For the most part, the EPA's 2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD did not
distinguish between the two averaging times either but drew conclusions
for the 24-hour averaging time rather than the annual averaging time.
It did note a large negative bias (underprediction) in the ammonium and
nitrate performance statistics \122\ for the 2nd quarters for
monitoring sites in Bakersfield, Fresno, and Visalia; and we add here
that the 3rd quarter has similar negative bias. The negative model bias
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan was slightly better than in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, i.e., the underprediction was slightly less.
Underprediction of total PM2.5 in the 2nd and 3rd quarters
is also evident in time series plots for most monitoring sites, though
by only a small amount for several monitoring sites.\123\ The EPA's
2006 NAAQS Modeling TSD noted that since those quarters have
concentrations that are less than half of those in the 1st and 4th,
this may not be much of a concern for the annual average. (It is of
less concern for the 24-hour average, since peak 24-hour concentrations
occur in winter, i.e., in the 1st and 4th quarters.) As noted above,
the RRF procedure removes much of this bias, so the underprediction in
the model performance evaluation does not directly translate into an
underpredicted 2020 design value. In addition, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan shows that annual model performance for each
PM2.5 species is quite good relative to that seen in other
modeling studies, for multiple performance statistics.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A 48ff, tables 15 through
18; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 48ff, tables 20 through 23.
\123\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, 107ff, Supplemental
materials, Figures S.37-S.52; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K,
131ff, Supplemental materials, Figures S.41-S.52.
\124\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, 46, Figure 13; 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 54, Figure 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high days are generally captured by the model, even though some
are underpredicted in December at certain monitoring sites such as
Fresno. Overall, the modeled site maxima are comparable to the
measurements; also, the frequency of high and low days generally
matches observations so the annual as well as the daily model
performance is acceptable.
The EPA evaluated the State's choice of model for the
impracticability demonstration and the extensive discussion in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan about modeling procedures, tests, and performance
analyses, as well as the State's modeling choices, procedures, test,
and performance analyses in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\125\ We
find the State's analyses consistent with the EPA's guidance on
modeling for PM2.5 attainment planning purposes. Based on
these reviews, we find that the modeling in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and 2018 PM2.5
[[Page 49115]]
Plan is adequate for the purposes of supporting the RFP demonstration
and the demonstration of impracticability in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ For a more detailed summary of the State's air quality
modeling in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with respect to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, rather than the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to the EPA's 2006 NAAQS
Modeling TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Reasonably Available Control Measures and Control Strategy
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT and Control Strategies
The general subpart 1 attainment plan requirement for RACM/RACT is
described in CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires that attainment plan
submissions ``provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology)'' and provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
The attainment planning requirements specific to PM2.5
under subpart 4 likewise impose an obligation upon states with
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate to develop attainment plans
that require RACM/RACT on sources of direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 plan precursors. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires
that Moderate area PM2.5 SIPs contain provisions to assure
that RACM/RACT are implemented no later than four years after
designation of the area. The EPA reads CAA section 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C) together to require that attainment plans for Moderate
nonattainment areas provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT for
existing sources of PM2.5 and those PM2.5
precursors subject to control in the nonattainment area as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than four years after
designation.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ This interpretation is consistent with guidance provided
in the General Preamble, 13540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule defines RACM as ``any
technologically and economically feasible measure that can be
implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the effective date
of designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that
achieves permanent and enforceable reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 plan precursor
emissions from sources in the area. RACM includes reasonably available
control technology (RACT).'' \127\ The EPA has historically defined
RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular stationary
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 81 FR 58010, 58035.
\128\ General Preamble, 13541 and 57 FR 18070, 18073-18074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, those control
measures that otherwise meet the definition of RACM but ``can only be
implemented in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years
after the effective date of designation of a nonattainment area and no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year following the effective
date of designation of the area'' must be adopted and implemented as
``additional reasonable measures.'' \129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 40 CFR 51.1000, 51.1009(a)(4)(i)(B), and
51.1009(a)(4)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must provide written justification in a SIP submission for
eliminating potential control options from further review on the basis
of technological or economic infeasibility.\130\ An evaluation of
technological feasibility may include consideration of factors such as
a source's process and operating conditions, raw materials, physical
plant layout, and non-air quality and energy impacts (e.g., increased
water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements).\131\ An
evaluation of economic feasibility may include consideration of factors
such as cost per ton of pollution reduced (cost-effectiveness), capital
costs, and operating and maintenance costs.\132\ Absent other
indications, the EPA presumes that it is reasonable for similar sources
to bear similar costs of emission reductions. Economic feasibility of
RACM/RACT is thus largely informed by evidence that other sources in a
source category have in fact applied the control technology, process
change, or measure in question in similar circumstances.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3).
\131\ 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3); see also 57 FR 18070, 18073-18074.
\132\ Id.
\133\ 57 FR 18070, 18074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with these requirements, CARB and SJVUAPCD must
implement RACM, including RACT, for sources of direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 plan precursors no later than April 15, 2019, and
must implement additional reasonable measures for these sources no
later than December 31, 2021.
2. Summary of State's Control Strategy
The RACM/RACT evaluation for sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions in the SJV area is presented in Chapter 3 of
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. Attachment 1 to the 2016
PM2.5 Plan contains (1) a copy of the BACM/BACT and MSM
control strategy evaluation for stationary and area sources that the
District adopted on April 16, 2015, as part of its ``2015 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 Standard'' (``2015 PM2.5 Plan''), and
(2) a copy of the RACM/RACT control strategy evaluation for stationary
and area sources that the District adopted on June 16, 2016, as part of
its ``2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 Ozone
Plan'').\134\ Attachment 2 to the 2016 PM2.5 Plan contains
(1) a copy of the BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy evaluation for
mobile sources that CARB adopted on May 21, 2015, as part of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, and (2) a copy of the RACM/RACT control strategy
evaluation for mobile sources that CARB adopted on July 21, 2016, as
part of the 2016 Ozone Plan.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Attachment 1 (comprising 2015
PM2.5 Plan, App. C (``BACM and MSM for Stationary and
Area Sources'')) and 2016 Ozone Plan, App. C (``Stationary and Area
Source Control Strategy Evaluations''). See also SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 15-4-7A, April 16, 2015 (adopting the 2015
PM2.5 Plan) and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 16-6-
20, June 16, 2016 (adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan).
\135\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Attachment 2 (comprising 2015
PM2.5 Plan, App. D (``BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources
(Provided by ARB)'') and 2016 Ozone Plan, App. D (``Mobile Source
Control Strategy''). See also CARB Resolution 15-9, May 21, 2015
(adopting the 2015 PM2.5 Plan) and CARB Resolution 16-8,
July 21, 2016 (adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 PM2.5 Plan and 2016 Ozone Plan contain
comprehensive analyses to identify potential emission reduction
opportunities for sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions and to determine whether additional measures would be
technologically and economically feasible for implementation in the
SJV.\136\ The District states in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan that it
has not identified any new emission control technologies that could
further reduce emissions in the SJV area, that the cost of technologies
recently found not to be cost-effective has not changed, and that
potential additional measures remain economically infeasible,
consistent with the analyses and conclusions in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan and the 2016 Ozone Plan.\137\ Based on these
analyses, the District concludes that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement for stationary and area sources of
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan, submitted May 10, 2019, supplements these
analyses by providing updated evaluations of potential control measures
for sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions and
the District's rationale for finding that additional
[[Page 49116]]
control measures are not technologically and economically feasible for
implementation in the SJV.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3-5 to 3-6.
\137\ Id.
\138\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C (``Stationary Source
Control Measure Analyses'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to mobile sources, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
states that CARB has implemented the most stringent mobile source
emissions control program in the nation, including emission standards
for new vehicles, in-use programs for exiting vehicles and fleets,
cleaner fuels, and incentive programs to accelerate penetration of
cleanest vehicles.\139\ CARB states that its analyses of these mobile
source control measures are presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
and the 2016 Ozone Plan (included as Attachment 2 to the 2016
PM2.5 Plan) and states that there are no additional
reasonably available control measures that would advance attainment of
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\140\ Based on these analyses,
CARB concludes that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan satisfies the RACM/
RACT requirement for mobile sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan, submitted May
10, 2019, supplements these analyses by providing updated evaluations
of CARB's mobile source control measures and its rationale for finding
that additional control measures are not technologically and
economically feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-6.
\140\ CARB 2016 Staff Report, 13.
\141\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D (``Mobile Source
Control Measure Analyses'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to transportation control measures (TCMs),
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan states that the eight county
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) of the SJV (``SJV MPOs'')
identified and evaluated all TCMs during development of the plan.\142\
The plan states that the SJV MPOs implement TCMs in CAA section 108(f)
consistent with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality cost
effectiveness policy when developing each MPO's Regional Transportation
Plan. In 2016 the Valley MPOs revisited the minimum cost effectiveness
standard for TCMs during the development of the MPOs' 2017 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program.\143\ The District concludes that
the Valley MPOs are implementing all reasonable TCMs under the MPOs'
jurisdictions and that adoption of additional TCMs would not expedite
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\144\ The 2018
PM2.5 Plan, submitted May 10, 2019, supplements these
analyses by providing an updated discussion of the transportation
control measures being implemented in the SJV.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-6.
\143\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-23 to 3-24. See also 2016
PM2.5 Plan, Attachment 2, App. D, section D.2.2 (D-16
through D-18) and Attachment D (``Adopted Transportation Control
Measures'').
\144\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-6.
\145\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-127 to D-128 (noting
that the MPOs revisited the minimum cost effectiveness standard
during the development of their 2018 Regional Transportation Plans
and 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program and concluded
that they were implementing all reasonable transportation control
measures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
We have reviewed the State and District's demonstrations in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan concerning RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measures for mobile, stationary, and area sources of direct
PM2.5 and one PM2.5 plan precursor (i.e.,
NOX) in the SJV. Our evaluation relies primarily on our
previous evaluations of the State and District rules in connection with
our February 12, 2019 approval of the SJV RACM demonstration for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (for NOX emission sources) \146\ and in
connection with our July 22, 2020 approval of the State and District's
demonstrations to meet the BACM (including BACT) and MSM requirements
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\147\ We provide a detailed
discussion of these evaluations in the technical support document for
this proposed rule.\148\ Based on these reviews, we propose to find
that the District's rules provide for the implementation of RACM and
additional reasonable measures \149\ for stationary and area sources of
direct PM2.5 and NOX and that CARB's current
program implements RACM and additional reasonable measures for mobile
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for
purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 84 FR 3302.
\147\ 85 FR 44192 (final rule approving 2018 PM2.5
Plan as meeting, inter alia, BACM/BACT and MSM requirements for 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS). Because the RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measure control strategy in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan is very similar to the BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy in
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and because the State's and
District's control measure evaluations in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan substantially overlap with their BACM/BACT and MSM control
evaluations in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, we rely primarily on
our evaluation of the State's and District's BACM/BACT and MSM
control measure evaluations in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan (see
proposed rule, 85 FR 17382 (March 27, 2020) and final rule, 85 FR
44192) to support our evaluation of the RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measure control strategy in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan.
\148\ EPA, Region IX, Air Division, ``Technical Support
Document, EPA Evaluation of RACM/RACT and Additional Reasonable
Measures, San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' August 2021.
\149\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies Rule 4901
(``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters''), as amended
June 20, 2019, as an additional reasonable measure that is scheduled
for implementation beginning in 2020. 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
Table 4-4 (``Proposed Regulatory Measures''). The EPA approved Rule
4901 into the California SIP on July 22, 2020. 85 FR 44206 (final
rule approving Rule 4901) and 85 FR 44192 (determination that Rule
4901 implements BACM and MSM for residential wood burning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to transportation controls, we find that the SJV MPOs
have well-established TCM development programs in which TCMs are
continuously identified, reviewed, and evaluated throughout the
transportation planning process. Overall, we believe that the programs
developed and administered by CARB and the SJV MPOs provide for the
implementation of RACM and additional reasonable measures for sources
of direct PM2.5 and NOX in the SJV.
For these reasons, we propose to find that the 2016
PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of RACM and
additional reasonable measures for all sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX as expeditiously as practicable,
for purposes of implementing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV
in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and 40
CFR 51.1009.
E. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the CAA 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.\150\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at a minimum, the requirements of an NNSR permit program
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A). In
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, we established a deadline
for states to submit NNSR plan revisions to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS 18 months after an area is initially designated
and classified as a Moderate nonattainment area.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ General Preamble, 13539 and 13541-13542.
\151\ 81 FR 58010, 58115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California submitted NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to address the
subpart 4 requirements for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
areas on May 19,
[[Page 49117]]
2011.\152\ The EPA fully approved these SIP revisions on September 17,
2014.\153\ California also submitted NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to
address the subpart 4 requirements for Moderate and Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas on November 20, 2019. The EPA is
evaluating this SIP submission and will act on it in a separate
rulemaking. Accordingly, in this action, the EPA is not addressing the
NNSR control requirements that apply to major stationary sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the SJV
under CAA section 189(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Letter dated May 19, 2011, from Robert D. Fletcher, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
\153\ 79 FR 55637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Demonstration That Attainment by Moderate Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
1. Requirements for Attainment/Impracticability of Attainment
Demonstrations
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that each Moderate area
attainment plan include a demonstration that the plan provides for
attainment by the applicable Moderate area attainment date or,
alternatively, that attainment by such date is impracticable. This
provision explicitly requires that a demonstration of attainment be
based on air quality modeling but does not require such modeling for an
impracticability demonstration. Although the EPA expects that most
impracticability demonstrations will also be supported by air quality
modeling, it may be possible in some cases to support an
impracticability demonstration with ambient PM2.5 data and
other relevant non-modeling information.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 81 FR 58010, 58048 and 58049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 188(c) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that the
Moderate area attainment date ``shall be as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after
the area's designation as nonattainment . . . .'' For the SJV, which
was initially designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
standard effective April 15, 2015, the applicable Moderate area
attainment date under section 188(c) for this standard is as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2021.
In SIP submissions that demonstrate impracticability, the state
should document how its required control strategy in the attainment
plan represents the application of RACM/RACT and additional reasonable
measures, at minimum, to existing sources. The EPA believes it is
appropriate to require adoption of all available control measures that
are reasonable, i.e., technologically and economically feasible, in
areas that do not demonstrate timely attainment, even where those
measures cannot be implemented within the 4-year timeframe for
implementation of RACM/RACT under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). The
impracticability demonstration will then be based on a showing that the
area cannot attain by the applicable attainment date, notwithstanding
implementation of the required controls.
2. Summary of State's Impracticability Demonstration
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes a demonstration, based on
air quality modeling, that even with the implementation of RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measures for all appropriate sources,
attainment by December 31, 2021, is not practicable. The
impracticability demonstration is included in Appendix A of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan. As described in section IV.C.2 of this proposed
rule, the projected 2021 control scenario design value is 14.8
[micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-Planz, which is typically the monitoring
site that records the highest PM2.5 levels in the SJV.
As further described in section IV.C.2 of this proposed rule, the
2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a modeled demonstration that
projects annual PM2.5 concentrations in 2020 that provides
additional information on which to judge the practicability of
attaining by 2021 in that it is the closest analysis year available and
represents modeling based on updated data. These projections lend
support for the 2016 PM2.5 Plan conclusion that the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard will not be met in the SJV in 2021.
Table 3 shows the projected annual PM2.5 concentrations
at the four PM2.5 monitoring sites in the SJV that are
equipped with comprehensive particulate matter species
characterization, as well as Bakersfield-Planz, given that it is the
site with the highest annual PM2.5 concentrations in the
base year and projected future year. From the 2016 PM2.5
Plan, the projections are for 2021 (latest permissible Moderate area
attainment year); from the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the projections
are for 2020 (the analysis year closest to 2021).
Table 3--Projected Annual PM2.5 Concentrations at Selected Monitoring Sites in the San Joaquin Valley
[[micro]g/m3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 PM2.5 Plan 2018 PM2.5 Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site location Difference Difference
2013 2021 (2013-2021) 2013 2020 (2013-2021)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield-Planz....................................... 17.3 14.8 -2.5 17.2 14.6 -2.6
Bakersfield-California Ave.............................. 16.0 13.6 -2.4 16.0 13.5 -2.5
Visalia North Church.................................... 16.2 13.7 -2.5 16.2 13.5 -2.7
Fresno-Garland.......................................... 15.0 12.9 -2.1 15.0 12.4 -2.6
Modesto-14th St......................................... 13.0 11.2 -1.8 13.0 11.0 -2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 2-2, and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, Table 25.
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
The impracticability demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan is based on air quality modeling that is generally consistent with
applicable EPA guidance. We find the modeling adequate to support the
impracticability demonstration in the plan, as discussed in section
IV.C.3 of this notice. Similarly, the attainment modeling demonstration
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan is generally consistent with
applicable EPA guidance and provides additional support that it is
impracticable to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.
We have also evaluated the State's control measure demonstration,
which relies on its BACM/MSM
[[Page 49118]]
demonstration, as updated by the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and find
that it provides for the expeditious implementation of all RACM/RACT
and additional reasonable measures that may feasibly be implemented at
this time, consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, as
discussed in section IV.D of this notice.
Finally, we have reviewed available monitored data to assess the
practicability of attaining by 2021. Specifically, the certified 2018-
2020 annual average design value for SJV is 17.6 [micro]g/m\3\ (at
Bakersfield-Planz), with exceedances of the 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ standard
throughout the area.\155\ We note that the SJV may have experienced
higher than normal PM2.5 concentrations in 2018 and 2020 due
to wildfires in the surrounding areas during the summer and fall
months.\156\ This monitored data similarly supports the State's
demonstration that it is impracticable to attain the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ EPA design value workbook dated May 24, 2021,
``pm25_designvalues_2018_2020_final_05_24_21.xlsx,'' worksheets
``Table 1a'' and ``Table 5a.'' The certified design value includes
all available data; no data flagged for exceptional events have been
excluded. The EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air
pollution data collected by federal, state, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies from thousands of monitors. More
information is available at: https://www.epa.gov/aqs. See also EPA,
2010-2020 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, June 30, 2021.
\156\ Concentrations at all 17 monitors in the SJV with data
spanning 2018 to 2020 are significantly higher in 2018 and 2020
relative to concentrations in 2019, possibly due to the wildfires in
those years. 86 FR 38652, 38665, Table 5 (July 22, 2021) (proposed
rule on the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\). Notwithstanding the
potential effect of wildfires, ambient PM2.5 levels in
the SJV remain well above the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS standard
of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this evaluation, we propose to approve the State's
demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan that attainment of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by the Moderate area attainment
date of December 31, 2021, is impracticable, consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii). On this basis, we also
propose to reclassify the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area, which
would trigger requirements for the State to submit a Serious area
attainment plan consistent with the requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of
part D, title I of the Act (as described in section V of this notice).
G. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative
Milestones
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA states that all nonattainment area
plans shall require RFP. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires that
all PM2.5 nonattainment area plans include quantitative
milestones that the state must achieve every three years until the area
is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate RFP. Section 171(1)
defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' Neither subpart 1 nor
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act requires a set percentage of
emission reductions that states must achieve in any given year for
purposes of satisfying the RFP requirement.
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has interpreted
the RFP requirement to require that nonattainment area plans show
annual incremental emission reductions sufficient to maintain generally
linear progress toward attainment by the applicable deadline.\157\ As
discussed in the EPA's guidance in the General Preamble Addendum,\158\
requiring linear progress in reductions of direct PM2.5 and
any individual precursor in a PM2.5 plan may be appropriate
in the following situations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 59 FR 41998, 42015.
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 contributes significantly to PM2.5 levels over
the standard), and/or
the emission reductions necessary to attain the
PM2.5 standard are inventory-wide.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Preamble Addendum indicates that requiring linear
progress may be less appropriate in other situations, such as in
situations where:
there are a limited number of sources of direct
PM2.5 or a precursor,
the relationships between individual sources and air
quality are relatively well defined, and/or
the emission control systems utilized (e.g., at major
point sources) will result in a swift and dramatic emission reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter
conditions, RFP may be better represented as 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 sources, the EPA's guidance indicates that
``RFP should be met by `adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule'
which is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions
of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS must include
detailed schedules for compliance with emission regulations in the
nonattainment area and provide corresponding emissions projections for
each applicable milestone year that represent generally linear or
stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual basis.\161\ In
reviewing an attainment plan under subpart 4, the EPA considers whether
the annual incremental emission reductions to be achieved are
reasonable in light of the statutory objective of timely attainment.
Although early 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.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a) and 59 FR 41998, 42016.
\162\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule establishes specific
regulatory requirements for purposes of satisfying the Act's RFP
requirements and provides 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 a 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 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
[[Page 49119]]
attainment year.\163\ States should estimate the RFP projected
emissions for each quantitative milestone year by sector on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis.\164\ In an area that cannot practicably
attain the PM2.5 standard by the applicable Moderate area
attainment date, full implementation of a control strategy that
satisfies the Moderate area control requirements represents RFP towards
attainment.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
\164\ 81 FR 58010, 58056.
\165\ Id. at 58056, 58057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(c) requires that attainment plans include quantitative
milestones that demonstrate RFP. The purpose of the quantitative
milestones is to allow for periodic evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the 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 will 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 emission controls in the attainment plan
and the requirement to quantify those required emission reductions. The
CAA also requires states to submit milestone reports (due 90 days after
each milestone), and these reports should include calculations and any
assumptions made by the state concerning how RFP has been met, e.g.,
through quantification of emission reductions to date.\166\ The Act
requires states to include RFP and quantitative milestones even for
areas that cannot practicably attain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ 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.\167\
Consistent with this longstanding interpretation of the Act, the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule requires that each plan for a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area contain quantitative
milestones to be achieved no later than milestone dates 4.5 years and
7.5 years from the date of designation of the area.\168\ Because the
EPA designated the SJV nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS effective April 15, 2015,\169\ the applicable quantitative
milestone dates for purposes of this NAAQS in the SJV are October 15,
2019, and October 15, 2022. Following reclassification of the SJV as
Serious for the 2012 PM2.5 standard, later milestones would
be addressed by the Serious area plan.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ General Preamble, 13539 and General Preamble Addendum,
42016.
\168\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
\169\ 80 FR 2206.
\170\ General Preamble Addendum, 42016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations and
Quantitative Milestones
a. 2016 PM2.5 Plan RFP and Quantitative Milestones
The RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones are discussed in
section 3.5 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan. The plan estimates that
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX will generally
decline from the 2013 base year and states that emissions of each of
these pollutants will remain at or below the levels needed to show
``generally linear progress'' through 2022, the Moderate area post-
attainment milestone year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\171\ The
Plan's emissions inventory shows that direct PM2.5 and
NOX are emitted by a large number and range of sources in
the SJV and that the emission reductions needed for these pollutants
are inventory-wide.\172\ The Plan states that all RACM and RACT for
stationary, area, and mobile sources have been identified and adopted,
and identifies the District rules achieving emission reductions post-
2013 in Table 3-2 and CARB regulations contributing to attainment in
Table 3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 3-6. We note that
Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory'') of the plan indicates that
emissions of ammonia, SOX, and VOC will also generally
decline from the 2013 base year, but the RFP plan does not address
these three precursor pollutants given the State's conclusion that
they do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 2016
PM2.5 Plan, 3-10.
\172\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3-6 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan presents target RFP
emission levels, based on linear emission reductions from 2013 through
2022, and the RFP projected emissions, based on the plan's baseline
emissions inventory and control strategy (i.e., RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures) for each quantitative milestone year
(2019 and 2022).\173\ We reproduce Table 3-6, in part, along with the
plan's 2013 base year inventory from Table 3-5, in Table 4. Based on
these analyses, the District and CARB conclude that their adopted
control strategy will achieve sufficient reductions in emissions of
direct PM2.5 and NOX to result in emission levels
at or below the RFP and quantitative milestone target emission levels
for 2019 and 2022.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Table 3-6 identifies only emission levels for milestone
years that must be addressed by the Moderate area plan (i.e., 2019
and 2022).
\174\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-10, and CARB 2016 Staff
Report, 13.
Table 4--2016 PM2.5 Plan: Annual PM2.5 Emissions Inventory for Base Year and Moderate Area Plan Milestone Years
[Annual average, tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 RFP target 2019 projected 2022 RFP target 2022 projected
Pollutant 2013 baseline emissions level emissions level emissions level emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5.................................................. 63.4 60.8 60.2 59.5 59.5
NOX........................................................... 318.1 229.5 219.4 185.2 185.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 PM2.5 Plan, tables 3-5 and 3-6. We corrected the 2019 RFP Target Emissions Level for NOX in Table 3-6 to reflect the value in Table 3-5
that was transcribed incorrectly as 229.1 tpd.
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan documents the State's conclusion
that all RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures for these
pollutants are being implemented as expeditiously as practicable and
identifies projected levels of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions that reflect full implementation of the State,
District, and SJV MPOs' RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measure
control strategy for these pollutants.\175\ The control strategy that
provides the basis for these emission projections is described in
attachments 1 and 2 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-5 through 3-7; see also
evaluation of RACM/RACT and additional reasonable control measures
in section IV.D of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49120]]
For quantitative milestones, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
identifies 2019 and 2022 as the applicable milestone years and includes
milestones to track the State's and District's implementation of
control measures and to document updated emissions data.\176\ For 2019,
the milestone includes a ``list of measures in the SIP control strategy
and key implementation requirements,'' including compliance milestones
in CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation and in the District's Rule 4901 on
residential wood burning. For 2022, the milestone includes a ``list of
measures in the SIP control strategy and key implementation
requirements,'' including compliance milestones in CARB's Truck and Bus
Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 2018 PM2.5 Plan RFP and Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides the State's
updated RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones, based on updated
data (e.g., updated emissions inventories, as discussed in section IV.A
of this proposed rule) for the 2019 and 2022 milestone years. 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.\177\ Given the State's conclusions that ammonia,
SOX, and VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV, as discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, the RFP
demonstration provided by the State addresses emissions of direct
PM2.5 and NOX.\178\ Similarly, the State
developed quantitative milestones based upon the 2018 PM2.5
Plan's strategy for reducing emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ 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.
\178\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-1.
\179\ Id. at H-23 to H-24 (for State milestones) and H-20 to H-
21 (for District milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX
will generally decline from the 2013 base year to the 2022 RFP
milestone year and beyond, and that direct PM2.5 and
NOX are emitted by a large number and range of sources in
the SJV. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan relies on the same set of
identified control measures as the 2016 PM2.5 Plan to
demonstrate RFP through 2022, i.e., the baseline measures reflected in
each plan's emissions inventory.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-4 to H-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these baseline measures, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan's control strategy includes specific control measure commitments
for purposes of attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2025,
including commitments by the State and District to develop and propose
to their respective boards specific regulatory and incentive-based
measures identified in the plan by specific years leading up to 2025,
including 2019 and 2022.\181\ Although the attainment demonstration
does not rely on these control measure commitments for emission
reductions until 2024,\182\ the RFP and quantitative milestone elements
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan rely on these control measure
commitments to demonstrate that the plan requires RFP toward
attainment.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5; 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-8; 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''); CARB 2018 Staff Report, 14; SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018), 10-11; 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, tables 4-4 and 4-5; 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'').
\182\ 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'').
\183\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-4 to H-10
(describing commitments by CARB and SJVUAPCD to adopt additional
measures to fulfill tonnage commitments for 2024 and 2025, including
``action'' and ``implementation'' dates occuring before 2024 to
ensure expeditious progress toward attainment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, for the 2019 milestone year, Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan describes the District's quantitative milestone
as a report on ``[t]he status of SIP measures adopted between 2017 and
2019 as per the schedule included in the adopted Plan, including
Residential Wood Burning Strategy and Commercial Under-Fired
Charbroiler incentive-based strategy.'' \184\ The schedule for
development of new or revised SIP measures is in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and identifies an ``action date'' between 2017
and 2019 for one District measure: ``Rule 4901, Wood Burning Fireplaces
and Wood Burning Heaters (Hot-spot Strategy).'' \185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-20.
\185\ Id. at Ch. 4, 4-12 (Table 4-4). See also 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,'' stating
the District's intent to take action on the listed rules and
measures by beginning the public process on each measure and then
proposing the rule or measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix H describes CARB's quantitative milestones as a report on
three measure-specific milestones: (1) Actions taken between 2017 and
2019 to implement the Truck and Bus Regulation that required
particulate filters and cleaner engine standards on existing heavy-duty
diesel trucks and buses in California; (2) implementation of the ``In-
Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation'' (the ``Off-Road
Regulation'') that began in 2014 for large fleets and in 2017 for
medium fleets and limited emissions from existing off-road diesel
vehicles operated in California; and (3) the ``status of SIP measures
adopted between 2017 and 2019, including the California Low-NOX Engine
Standard for new on-road heavy-duty engines used in medium- and heavy-
duty trucks purchased in California.'' \186\ The schedule for
development of new or revised CARB measures is in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and identifies ``action'' dates between 2017 and
2019 for eight CARB measures: ``Lower Opacity Limits for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,'' ``Amended Warranty Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles,''
the ``Low-NOX Engine Standard,'' ``Innovative Clean
Transit,'' ``Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last Mile Delivery),''
``Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses,'' ``Zero-Emission Airport Ground
Support Equipment,'' and ``Transport Refrigeration Units Used for Cold
Storage.'' \187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Id. at H-23.
\187\ Id. at 4-28 (Table 4-8). See also 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 2018 Staff Report, 14-15 (stating
CARB's intent to ``bring to the Board or take action on the list of
proposed State measures for the Valley'' by the action dates
specified in Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2022 milestone year, Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan describes the District's quantitative milestone
as a report on ``[t]he status of SIP measures adopted between 2019 and
2022 as per the schedule included in the adopted Plan, including
Residential Wood Burning Strategy and Commercial Under-Fired
Charbroiler incentive-based strategy.'' \188\ The schedule for
development of new or revised SIP measures in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan identifies ``action dates'' between 2019 and 2022 for 12 District
measures listed in tables 4-4 and 4-5 of Chapter 4, including, for
example, ``Rule 4311, Flares,'' ``Rule 4702, Internal Combustion
Engines,'' and ``Rule 4354,
[[Page 49121]]
Glass Melting Furnaces.'' \189\ Appendix H describes CARB's
quantitative milestone as a report on two measure-specific milestones:
(1) Actions taken between 2019 and 2022 to implement the Truck and Bus
Regulation that required particulate filters and cleaner engine
standards on existing heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses in California,
and (2) the ``status of SIP measures adopted between 2019 and 2022,
including Advanced Clean Cars 2 and the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program.'' The schedule for development of new or
revised CARB measures in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies
``action'' dates between 2019 and 2022 for 13 CARB measures listed in
Table 4-8 of Chapter 4, including, for example, the ``Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' ``Small Off-Road
Engines,'' and the ``Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Requirement.'' \190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-20.
\189\ Id. at Ch. 4, 4-12 and 4-13 (tables 4-4 and 4-5). See also
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,'' stating
the District's intent to take action on the listed rules and
measures by beginning the public process on each measure and then
proposing the rule or measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board).
\190\ Id. at 4-28 (Table 4-8). See also 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 2018 Staff Report, 14-15 (stating
CARB's intent to ``bring to the Board or take action on the list of
proposed State measures for the Valley'' by the action dates
specified in Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies October 15,
2019, and October 15, 2022, as applicable milestone dates for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.\191\ Table H-11 in Appendix H presents the RFP
projected emissions levels for 2019 and 2022, based on the plan's
emissions inventory and baseline measures. We reproduce Table H-11, in
part, along with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's base year inventory
for 2013 from Appendix B, in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H-12.
Table 5--2018 PM2.5 Plan: Annual PM2.5 Emissions Inventory for Base Year and Moderate Area Plan Milestone Years
[Annual average, tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 RFP target
Pollutant 2013 Base year emissions level 2019 projected 2022 RFP target 2022 projected
a emissions level emissions level emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5.................................................. 62.5 59.2 59.2 58.4 58.4
NOX........................................................... 317.2 214.5 214.5 179.8 179.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, tables B-1 and B-2, and App. H, Table H-11.
The majority of the NOX and PM2.5 reductions
from 2013 to 2019 and 2022 result from CARB's current mobile source
control program, which 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. 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 towards attainment of the PM2.5
standards. These include control measures for stationary internal
combustion engines, residential fireplaces and woodstoves, glass
manufacturing facilities, agricultural burning sources, and various
sizes of boilers, steam generators, and process heaters used in
industrial operations. CARB's mobile source BACM and MSM analysis in
Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the District's
stationary and area source BACM and MSM analysis in Appendix C of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan provide a more comprehensive overview of
each of these programs and regulations, among many others.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Ch. IV, and App. C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. Reasonable Further Progress
The EPA has evaluated the RFP demonstrations in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan (Appendix H) and
proposes to find that they satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements for RFP. Because the RFP demonstration in Appendix H of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan is based on updated emissions data and
updated information about the control strategies being implemented in
the SJV, we focus our evaluation on Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
First, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5
Plan document the State's, District's, and MPOs' conclusions that they
are implementing all RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures for
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions in the SJV as
expeditiously as practicable.\193\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also
identifies the State's and District's schedules for developing and
proposing certain new or revised control measures listed in their
respective control measure commitments. These schedules are found in
tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-8 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and in Table
H-2 of Appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ The RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures control
strategy that provides the basis for the RFP demonstration is
described in attachments 1 and 2 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the RFP demonstration contains projected emission levels
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for each applicable
milestone year. These projections are based on continued implementation
of the existing control measures in the area (i.e., baseline measures)
and reflect full implementation of the State, District, and MPOs' RACM/
RACT and additional reasonable measures control strategy for these
pollutants.
As shown in tables 4 and 5 of this proposed rule, the projected RFP
emission levels in each plan for 2019 and 2022 are equal to the target
RFP emission levels in 2019 and 2022, respectively. We note that the
2013 base year emissions in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's emissions
inventory are 0.9 tpd lower for both direct PM2.5 and
NOX compared to the base year emissions in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan's emissions inventory, and that the 2018
PM2.5 Plan's projected RFP emission levels for the 2019 and
2022 milestone years represent emission reductions that exceed those of
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's projected RFP levels by 0.1 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 4.0 tpd NOX in 2019, and by 0.2 tpd
direct PM2.5 and 4.5 tpd NOX in 2022. In other
words, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's RFP demonstration indicates a
slightly faster pace of emission reductions relative to those in the
2016 PM2.5 Plan's RFP demonstration, and thus represents a
slightly more stringent RFP demonstration than that in the 2016
[[Page 49122]]
PM2.5 Plan. These projected emissions levels demonstrate
that the RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures control strategy
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan will achieve RFP toward attainment.
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows that overall pollutant
emissions in each milestone year will be at levels that reflect
generally linear progress toward attainment. The RFP target emissions
levels for 2019 and 2022 identified in both the 2016 PM2.5
Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan reflect consistent progress in
emission reductions from the 2013 base year to the 2022 post-attainment
milestone year for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the
implementation of the RACT/RACT and additional reasonable measures
control strategy.
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as revised and supplemented by Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, satisfies the requirements for RFP in CAA
section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012 for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV.
b. Quantitative Milestones
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan identifies the appropriate years
(2019 and 2022) for quantitative milestones and Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan identifies specific quantitative milestone dates
(i.e., October 15, 2019, and October 15, 2022) that are consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). Both plans also identify the
target emission levels for direct PM2.5 and NOX
to be achieved by these milestone dates through implementation of the
control strategy. Finally, Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies commitments by the State and the District to develop and
propose new or revised control measures on a fixed timeframe, for
purposes of attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable. These target emission levels and associated control
requirements, together with the State's and District's commitments to
develop and propose new or revised control measures on a fixed
timeframe, provide for objective evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to implement
specific baseline measures identified in the plan (i.e., the Truck and
Bus Regulation and the Off-Road Regulation) and to develop and propose
several new or revised measures listed in the State's control measure
commitments that apply to heavy-duty trucks and buses and non-road
equipment sources.\194\ These commitments to develop and propose
additional direct PM2.5 and NOX control measures
for mobile sources are part of CARB's strategy for attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. Similarly, the District's
quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to develop and propose
several new or revised measures listed in the District's control
measure commitments that apply to sources such as residential wood
burning, conservation management practices, glass melting furnaces, and
internal combustion engines. These commitments to develop and propose
additional direct PM2.5 and NOX control measures
for stationary and area sources are part of the District's strategy for
attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. Thus, the State's
and District's obligations to implement the identified baseline control
measures and to fulfil their respective commitments to develop and
propose new or revised control measures for purposes of attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS provide objective means for evaluating the
SJV's progress toward timely attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ The EPA is excluding the ``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure
from the milestones because this measure is scheduled for
implementation in 2026, well after both the 2022 post-attainment RFP
milestone year and the projected 2025 attainment year for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. Valley
State SIP Strategy, Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as revised and supplemented by Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, satisfies the requirements for quantitative
milestones in CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013 for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
We note that on January 13, 2020, CARB submitted the SJV ``2019
Quantitative Milestone Report for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS''
(``2019 QM Report'') to the EPA.\195\ The EPA is currently reviewing
the SJV 2019 QM Report and will determine, as part of its action on the
submitted report, whether the State and District have met their
identified quantitative milestones for 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Letter dated January 13, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Contingency Measures
We are presenting our review of the SIP submittals for compliance
with contingency measure requirements in two different sections of this
document. In this section, we present our review of the submittals with
respect to the contingency measure requirements for the SJV as a
Moderate area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for which the state
has submitted an impracticability demonstration. In section VII of this
document, we present our review of the submittals with respect to the
contingency measure requirements for the SJV for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states required to make an attainment
plan SIP submission must include contingency measures that they will
implement if the area fails to meet RFP (``RFP contingency measures'')
or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
(``attainment contingency measures''). Under the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, states must include contingency measures that will
be implemented following a determination by the EPA that the state has
failed: (1) To meet any RFP requirement in the approved SIP; (2) to
meet any quantitative milestone in the approved SIP; (3) to submit a
required quantitative milestone report; or (4) to attain the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\196\
Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures
that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or
failure of the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
\197\ 81 FR 58010, 58066 and General Preamble Addendum, 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does not interpret the requirement for contingency measures
for failing to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date to
apply to a Moderate area that a state adequately demonstrates cannot
practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date. Rather,
the EPA believes it is appropriate for the state to identify and adopt
these contingency measures in a timely way as part of the Serious area
attainment plan that it will develop once the EPA reclassifies such an
area. However, if a state with a Moderate area that the EPA has found
cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the attainment date fails to
meet RFP, when reviewed as part of the quantitative milestone either
4.5 or 7.5 years after designation, then the requirement to implement
contingency measures would be triggered as required by CAA section
172(c)(9).\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ 81 FR 58010, 58067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP
requirement or to correct ongoing nonattainment. Neither the CAA nor
the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of
[[Page 49123]]
emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must
achieve, but the EPA recommends that contingency measures should
provide for emission reductions equivalent to approximately one year of
reductions needed for RFP in the nonattainment area, calculated as the
overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by
the number of years from the base year to the attainment year. In
general, we expect all actions needed to effect full implementation of
the measures to occur within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state
of a failure to meet RFP or to attain.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ 81 FR 58010, 58066. See also General Preamble 13512,
13543-13544, and General Preamble Addendum, 42014-42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency
measures adopted as part of a PM2.5 attainment plan must
consist of control measures for the area that are not otherwise
required to meet other attainment plan requirements (e.g., to meet
RACM/RACT requirements) and must specify the timeframe within which
their requirements become effective following any of the EPA
determinations specified in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). In a 2016 decision
called Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr''),\200\ the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) to allow
approval of already-implemented control measures as contingency
measures. In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that contingency
measures must be measures that are triggered and implemented only after
the EPA determines that an area fails to meet RFP requirements or to
attain by the applicable attainment date, and the state must not have
begun to implement such measures before this determination is made.
Thus, already implemented measures cannot serve as contingency measures
under CAA section 172(c)(9). To comply with section 172(c)(9), as
interpreted in the Bahr decision, a state must develop, adopt, and
submit one or more contingency measures to be triggered upon a failure
to meet any RFP requirement, failure to meet a quantitative milestone
requirement, or failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date regardless of the extent to which already-implemented
measures would achieve surplus emission reductions beyond those
necessary to meet RFP or quantitative milestone requirements and beyond
those predicted to achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Contingency Measures
a. 2016 PM2.5 Plan Contingency Measures
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes a contingency measure
element that is intended to address a potential failure to meet RFP
but, consistent with the plan's demonstration that it is impracticable
to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2021, that
does not address a potential failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\201\ Rather, the State and District
conclude that they intend to identify and adopt contingency measures
for failure to attain as part of the Serious area attainment plan (and,
in fact, have done so in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan). The State and
District use the plan's RFP analysis through 2022 to calculate the
amount of direct PM2.5 and NOX emission
reductions that represents one year's worth of RFP. Specifically, the
State and District divided the difference in emissions in 2022 and 2013
by nine to estimate one year's worth of RFP. The 2016 PM2.5
Plan estimates that one year's worth of RFP is 0.4 tpd of direct
PM2.5 and 14.8 tpd of NOX.\202\ The contingency
measure element does not address ammonia, SOX, and VOC in
light of the State and District's conclusion that each of these three
pollutants does not contribute significantly to exceedances of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. In addition, the contingency measure
element in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan only addresses the potential
failure to meet the 2019 RFP milestone, not the potential failure to
meet the 2022 RFP milestone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-13 to 3-17.
\202\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 3-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and the District prepared the 2016 PM2.5 Plan prior
to the Bahr decision, and thus did not include any contingency measures
that would only be triggered conditionally and prospectively, upon a
future failure to meet RFP or other relevant event. Instead, CARB and
the District relied only on emissions reductions from already-
implemented measures to satisfy the contingency measure requirement. To
demonstrate sufficient reductions for contingency purposes, the 2016
PM2.5 Plan relies on three types of emission reductions: (1)
0.6 tpd direct PM2.5 and 9.7 tpd NOX emission
reductions that are surplus to those needed by 2019 to meet that year's
linear RFP target emissions, (2) 0.3 tpd NOX emission
reductions from the January 2015 amendment to Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-
Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces'') as being surplus to those captured
in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's emissions inventory, and (3) 3.0
tpd NOX of incentive-based emission reductions in
conjunction with Rule 9610 (``State Implementation Plan Credit for
Emission Reductions Generated Through Incentive Programs'').\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-15 and 3-16. See also 2016
PM2.5 Plan, App. C (``SIP Creditable Incentive-Based
Emission Reductions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and the District then established a ratio of 1:8.8 to trade
direct PM2.5 emissions for NOX emissions based on
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan's precursor sensitivity analysis for the
traditional high design value sites in Bakersfield.\204\ After
accounting for the 0.4 tpd direct PM2.5 emission reductions
that would meet the 2019 RFP target emission reductions, per the 2019
RFP target emission reductions, the contingency measure element relies
on this trading ratio to convert 0.2 tpd of additional direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in 2019 into 1.8 tpd of
NOX emission reductions equivalent (after rounding to the
tenths place).\205\ Then, after accounting for NOX emission
reductions that would meet the 2019 RFP target emissions reductions,
the contingency measure element sums 9.7 tpd of surplus NOX
emission reductions with 0.3 tpd from the 2015 amendment to Rule 4905,
1.8 tpd from the surplus direct PM2.5 conversion, and 3.0
tpd from the incentive-based emission reductions. The sum of these four
types of reductions equals 14.8 tpd NOX, which matches the
State's estimate of one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, 3-17.
\205\ Id. at Table 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the 2016 PM2.5 Plan concludes that these
emission reductions (equivalent to one year's worth of progress, i.e.,
0.4 tpd direct PM2.5 and 14.8 tpd NOX) are
sufficient to satisfy the contingency measure requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
b. 2018 PM2.5 Plan Contingency Measures
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses the contingency measure
requirement for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by reference to the
contingency measure portion of a December 2018 SIP submission that
involved enhanced enforcement of CARB regulations in the SJV, a
commitment to amend the District's residential wood burning rule
(District Rule 4901) to include contingent provisions, and emissions
estimates for the year following the attainment year for use in
evaluating whether the emissions reductions from the
[[Page 49124]]
contingency measures are sufficient.\206\ Recently, CARB withdrew the
enhanced enforcement contingency measure of the December 2018 SIP
submission as it pertained to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.\207\ In addition, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan does not include
updated emissions estimates for the years following the 2019 and 2022
RFP milestone years with which to evaluate the sufficiency of
contingency measure intended to address the applicable Moderate area
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, with respect
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the contingency measure element of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan only includes estimates for the year
(2026) following the Serious area attainment year (2025), and thus,
these estimates are not relevant for evaluating the sufficiency of
contingency measures submitted to comply with the Moderate area
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H-24 to H-26.
\207\ Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we have evaluated the relevant portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and District Rule 4901 (specifically, section
5.7.3 of Rule 4901), and the contingency measure element in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan as discussed above, for compliance with the
applicable requirements for Moderate areas for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, while the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
does not provide updated emissions estimates for the years following
the 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone years, the updated emission estimates
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan do provide the basis for an updated
estimate of one year's worth of RFP for the purposes of evaluating the
sufficiency of contingency measures to meet the applicable Moderate
area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The updated
estimates of emissions one year's worth of RFP based on the updated
emissions estimates in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are 0.5 tpd
direct PM2.5 and 15.3 tpd NOX.\208\ This is
slightly more reductions than the 0.4 tpd direct PM2.5 and
14.8 tpd NOX emission reductions estimated as one year's RFP
within the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, consistent with the slightly
faster pace of emission reductions reflected in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and discussed in section IV.G.3 of this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ The estimate of one year's RFP is based on difference
between the annual average base year (2013) emissions and the
corresponding emissions in the 2022 RFP milestone year, per Appendix
B of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, divided by nine (i.e., the
number of years between 2013 and 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the District contingency measure, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan calls for the District to amend District Rule
4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) to include a
requirement in the rule with a trigger that would be activated should
the EPA issue a final rulemaking that the SJV failed to meet a
regulatory requirement necessitating implementation of a contingency
measure. In response to the commitment made in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, in June 2019, the District adopted amendments to
Rule 4901 including a contingency measure (in section 5.7.3 of the
amended rule), and, as an attachment to a letter dated July 19, 2019,
CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA for approval.\209\ The EPA
has taken final action to approve amended Rule 4901, but in that
approval, we noted that we were not evaluating the contingency measure
in section 5.7.3 of revised Rule 4901 for compliance with all
requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations that
apply to such measures.\210\ Rather, we approved the measure into the
SIP because it strengthened the rule by providing a possibility of
additional curtailment days, and thus potentially additional emissions
reductions. We indicated that we would evaluate whether this provision,
in conjunction with other submitted provisions, meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements for contingency measures in future actions. In
this proposal, we are now evaluating District Rule 4901, specifically,
section 5.7.3, for compliance with the requirements for contingency
measures for Moderate areas that cannot practicably attain the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, July 19, 2019.
\210\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of District
Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132-33 (January 9, 2020) (proposed approval
of District Rule 4901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions 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 for
advertising the sale of seasoned wood consistent with a moisture
content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered, episodic wood burning curtailment
requirement that applies during four winter months, November through
February. During a level one episodic wood burning curtailment, section
5.7.1 prohibits any person from operating a wood burning fireplace or
unregistered wood burning heater but permits the use of a properly
operated wood burning heater that meets certification requirements and
has a current registration with the District. Sections 5.9 through 5.11
impose specific registration requirements on any person operating a
wood burning fireplace or wood burning heater and section 5.12 imposes
specific certification requirements on wood burning heater
professionals. During a level two episodic wood burning curtailment,
operation of any wood burning device is prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019-2020 wood burning season, the District imposed a
level one curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was
forecasted to be between 20-65 [micro]g/m\3\ and imposed a level two
curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was forecasted to
be above 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or the PM10 concentration was
forecasted to be above 135 [micro]g/m\3\. In 2019 the District adopted
revisions to Rule 4901 to lower the wood burning curtailment thresholds
in the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern. The District
lowered the level one PM2.5 threshold for these three
counties from 20 [micro]g/m\3\ to 12 [micro]g/m\3\, and the level two
PM2.5 threshold from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
The District did not modify the curtailment thresholds for other
counties (i.e., Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare
counties) in the SJV, and those levels remained at 20 [micro]g/m\3\ for
level one and 65 [micro]g/m\3\ for level two.
The District's 2019 revision to Rule 4901 also included the
addition of a contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of the rule,
requiring that 60 days following the effective date of an EPA final
rulemaking that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the
PM2.5 curtailment levels for any county that has failed to
attain the applicable standard will be lowered to the curtailment
levels in place for hot spot counties.
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
We have evaluated the contingency measure element in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as amended in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
and we find that the fact that the element focuses only on direct
PM2.5 and NOX (and not ammonia, SO2,
and VOC) is acceptable in light of our proposed approval of the
precursor demonstration in section IV.B of this document.
PM2.5 attainment plan SIP submission for Moderate areas
that cannot practicably attain by the Moderate area attainment date
must include
[[Page 49125]]
contingency measures for potential failures to meet RFP, submit a
quantitative milestone report or meet the quantitative milestones
associated with the period 4.5 and 7.5 years after designation (in this
case, the 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone years). With respect to both RFP
milestone years, we find that the contingency measure element is
inadequate to meet the Moderate area contingency measure requirements
for several reasons.
First, the emission reductions relied upon in the contingency
measure element to show compliance with the contingency measure
requirement (i.e., those surplus to RFP, reductions from the 2015
amendments to Rule 4905, and incentive-based emission reductions from
projects in 2011-2016 in conjunction with District Rule 9610) come from
measures that are not prospective (i.e., to-be-triggered) but rather
come from measures that have already been implemented, and thus would
not constitute contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9)
consistent with the Bahr decision.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ We note that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bahr v. EPA
was published on September 12, 2016, just three days before the
SJVUAPCD adopted the 2016 PM2.5 Plan on September 15,
2016. Subsequently, the District and CARB addressed the Bahr
decision within their discussion of contingency measures for the
Serious area plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley (i.e., the 2018 PM2.5 Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that the District has taken action to fulfill the
commitment in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan to revise District Rule
4901 to include specific to-be-triggered contingency provisions.
However, the contingency measure provision (section 5.7.3) added to the
rule is only triggered by a finding of failure to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and not by
failures to meet a quantitative milestone, submit a quantitative
milestone report, or failure to meet an RFP requirement. Thus, the rule
does not include contingency provisions to address the types of
failures that are the triggering events for contingency measures for
Moderate areas that cannot practicably attain the PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Therefore, section 5.7.3 of
District Rule 4901 does not meet the contingency measure requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for the SJV with respect to
Moderate area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Second, as a general matter, we find that surplus emissions
reductions in the years following RFP milestone years can be taken into
account in determining whether a contingency measure or contingency
measures are adequate for a given area for a given pollutant
notwithstanding the fact that the contingency measure or contingency
measures would not achieve reductions equivalent to one year's worth of
RFP. However, the contingency measure element in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan provides no emissions estimates for the year
following the 2022 RFP milestone year for such an evaluation. The
contingency measure element of the nonattainment area plan only
provides estimates of surplus emissions reductions in 2019.
Furthermore, with respect to the emissions analysis for 2019,
neither Rule 9610 (``State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission
Reductions Generated Through Incentive Programs'') nor the list of Carl
Moyer incentive projects in Appendix C of the 2016 PM2.5
Plan may be relied upon as a source for surplus emissions reductions
because Rule 9610 is not an emission reduction measure \212\ and
because the Carl Moyer incentive projects listed in Appendix C of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan do not satisfy CAA requirements for SIP
emission reduction credit, as interpreted in the EPA's guidance.\213\
In addition, the emission reductions that might otherwise be considered
surplus due to the 2015 adoption of tighter emissions limits in
District Rule 4905 would not be considered surplus without additional
documentation because of the option in Rule 4905 to pay mitigation fees
in lieu of compliance with emissions limits.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final approval of Rule 9610),
79 FR 28652 (May 19, 2014) (proposed approval noting that ``[Rule
9610] does not establish any emission limitation, control measure,
or other requirement that applies directly to an emission source''),
and EPA, Region IX Air Division, ``Technical Support Document for
EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District's Rule 9610, State Implementation Plan Credit for
Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs,'' May
2014, 4-5 (noting that Rule 9610 ``does not apply to any emission
source and does not directly impact emissions'').
\213\ The EPA's longstanding position with respect to incentive-
based control measures is that SIP credit may be allowed for such
measures only where the State submits enforceable mechanisms to
ensure that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA
requirements are achieved--e.g., an enforceable commitment to
monitor and report on emission reductions achieved and to rectify
any shortfall in a timely manner. See, e.g., 80 FR 19020, 19026. The
2016 PM2.5 Plan does not contain such enforceable
mechanisms addressing the Carl Moyer projects listed in Appendix C.
\214\ 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, fn. 8. The EPA approved the 2015
amended version of District Rule 4905 at 81 FR 17390 (March 29,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, as a general matter, we agree that the use of trading ratios
established through modeling techniques to convert surplus reductions
of direct PM2.5 emissions to equivalent PM2.5
precursor emissions may be appropriate as part of the explanation for
why a given contingency measure or measures are sufficient in an area
with respect to a specific NAAQS. In this instance, however, we note
that reliance on trading surplus direct PM2.5 reductions for
NOX reductions at a ratio of 1:8.8 may overestimate the
amount of equivalent NOX reductions based on the information
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. For the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
the State conducted further analysis of the sensitivity of ambient
PM2.5 to emission reductions in PM2.5 precursors,
as discussed in section IV.I.2 of this proposal. Based on this updated
analysis for Bakersfield and Fresno sites, the State proposes to use a
1:6.5 trading ratio between direct PM2.5 and NOX
for purposes of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's MVEBs. This suggests
that, while for a different CAA purpose (i.e., MVEB rather than
contingency measures), any excess direct PM2.5 used for
evaluation of contingency measures would be equivalent to fewer
NOX emissions reductions than assumed for the 2016
PM2.5 Plan.
Therefore, in light of the deficiencies described in the preceding
paragraphs, we are proposing to disapprove the contingency measure
element of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as amended in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, for failure to meet the requirements for
contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014(a)
in the SJV with respect to Moderate area requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. More specifically, we are proposing to
disapprove the contingency measure element for failure to provide for
the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area
fails, with respect to the 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone years, to meet
RFP, to submit a quantitative milestone report (2022 RFP milestone year
only),\215\ or to meet the quantitative milestones and that, once
triggered, provide sufficient emissions reductions to meet the purposes
of contingency measures under the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ CARB and the District have prepared and submitted the 2019
quantitative milestone report and we are currently reviewing it for
adequacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and
[[Page 49126]]
maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's
regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by
showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and
transit systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in all
control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should
include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone
year, and the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate.
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.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each attainment
plan submittal for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area must
contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than 4.5 years
and 7.5 years after the date the area was designated
nonattainment.\217\ The second of these milestone dates, October 15,
2022,\218\ falls after the latest permissible Moderate area attainment
date for the SJV, which is December 31, 2021. 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.\219\ Moderate area plans
demonstrating that attainment by the Moderate area attainment date is
impracticable must, therefore, include budgets for both of the
milestone dates. States that submit impracticability demonstrations for
Moderate areas under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii), however, are not
required to submit budgets for the attainment year because the
submitted SIP does not demonstrate attainment.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
\218\ Because the SJV was designated nonattainment effective
April 15, 2015, the first milestone date is October 15, 2019, and
the second milestone date is October 15, 2022. 80 FR 2206.
\219\ 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-58064.
\220\ Id. at 58055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 contribute
significantly 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 transportation-related
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.\221\
Additionally, as the EPA explained in its May 6, 2005 transportation
conformity rule amendments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, it is not
necessary for a SIP to explicitly state that VOC, SO2, and/
or ammonia are insignificant precursors. Instead, states should
consider the on-road contribution of all four precursors to the
PM2.5 problem as they develop their SIPs and establish
emissions budgets for those precursors for which on-road emissions need
to be addressed in order to attain the PM2.5 standard as
expeditiously as practicable. Conformity determinations must address
all precursors for which the SIP establishes a budget and need not
address those precursors for which the state has not established a
budget because the emissions of that precursor are insignificant.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and 93.122(f); see
also transportation conformity rule preambles at 69 FR 40004, 40031-
40036 (July 1, 2004), 70 FR 24280, 24283-24285 (May 6, 2005) and 70
FR 31354 (June 1, 2005).
\222\ 70 FR 24280, 24287 (May 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criteria for insignificance determinations are provided in 40
CFR 93.109(f). In order for a pollutant or precursor to be considered
an insignificant contributor, 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/
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 SIP inventory that is comprised of motor
vehicle emissions. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July 1, 2004, revision to the
transportation conformity rule.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 budget during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. 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)).
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and
RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures
[[Page 49127]]
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for 2019 (RFP milestone year) and
2022 (post-attainment RFP milestone year) and no other year given the
plan's demonstration of the impracticability of attaining the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021.\226\ Similarly, for the Moderate area
timeframe, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone
years.\227\ We consider the 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone budgets from
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as superseding the corresponding budgets
from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, Table 3-11.
\227\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budgets in both the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan were calculated using EMFAC2014 and the latest
modeled vehicle activity data (vehicle miles traveled and speed
distributions) available at the time of plan development. In the case
of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, vehicle activity data are derived
from the draft 2017 Federal-Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (2017 FSTIP) from each of the SJV's eight MPOs. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan budgets are based on updated motor vehicle
activity data from the most recently amended 2017 FSTIP (as of January
2018) from each of the SJV's eight MPOs. The budgets reflect annual
average emissions consistent with the annual averaging period of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's RFP
demonstration.
As with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan includes direct PM2.5 budgets for tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions, but does not include paved road dust, unpaved
road dust, and road construction dust emissions. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan also includes budgets for NOX, as a
regulated precursor under the plan, but does not include budgets for
VOC, SO2, or ammonia.\228\ The budgets included in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan with respect to the Moderate area timeframe are
shown in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-121 to D-123.
Table 6--2019 and 2022 San Joaquin Valley MVEBs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
[Annual average, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 (RFP year) 2022 (post-attainment year)
County ---------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.......................................... 0.9 27.6 0.9 21.2
Kern (San Joaquin Valley portion)............... 0.8 25.1 0.8 19.4
Kings........................................... 0.2 5.1 0.2 4.1
Madera.......................................... 0.2 4.6 0.2 3.5
Merced.......................................... 0.3 9.4 0.3 7.6
San Joaquin..................................... 0.6 12.7 0.6 10.0
Stanislaus...................................... 0.4 10.5 0.4 8.1
Tulare.......................................... 0.4 9.3 0.4 6.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3-3. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth.
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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State is proposing
to use the 6.5:1 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 (i.e.,
updated analysis relative to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). For the sake of comparison, in approving
the budgets for the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA approved a trading mechanism for
transportation conformity analyses that allowed for such one-way trades
(i.e., only excess NOX can be used to offset
PM2.5, not vice versa) at a 9:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ 76 FR 69896, at 69923 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the SJV 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.\230\ The Plan also provides that the SJV 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126 and D-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the budgets to
the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for
any subsequently submitted budgets.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in section IV.F of this proposed rule, we
are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that it is
impracticable to attain the 2012 PM2.5 standard in the SJV
by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2021,
and are proposing to reclassify the area as Serious. Accordingly, we
are proposing action on the Moderate post-attainment year budgets for
2022 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. The EPA is not
reviewing the submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2019
because that year will not be an applicable conformity analysis year in
the next conformity analysis for the SJV MPOs. Also, as noted above, we
consider the 2022 RFP milestone budgets from the 2018 PM2.5
Plan as superseding the corresponding budgets from the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and thus are proposing action only on the
former.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ The differences between the two sets of budgets are minor.
For 2019, there is no difference between the budgets in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. For 2022,
there is no difference between the two sets of budgets for direct
PM2.5, and, with the exception of San Joaquin County, the
difference between the two sets of budgets for NOX is
less than or equal to 0.1 tpd. For San Joaquin County, the 2022
NOX budget is 0.7 tpd higher under the 2018
PM2.5 Plan than the corresponding budget from the 2016
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5
for
[[Page 49128]]
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.
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan establishes budgets for the 2022 RFP
milestone year for direct PM2.5 and NOX, but not
for the other PM2.5 precursor emissions (i.e., VOC,
SO2, and ammonia). We propose to find that it is not
necessary to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for
transportation-related emissions of VOC, SO2, and ammonia to
attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV based on our
proposal to approve the State's demonstration that emissions of VOC,
SO2, and ammonia do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV, as discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule. Our
finding in this regard is also supported by information about VOC,
SO2, and ammonia in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
documenting the small contribution by motor vehicles to regional
precursor inventories and to PM2.5 design values within the
SJV.\233\ In addition, based on similar documentation about re-
entrained road dust and construction-related fugitive dust in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3) and
93.122(f), the EPA proposes to find that it is not necessary to include
re-entrained road dust emissions or road construction dust in the
direct PM2.5 budgets for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D. pages D-121, D-122 and
D-123. Motor vehicle emissions of VOC represent approximately 10% of
the total VOC emissions in the SJV, but VOC controls are generally
ineffective at reducing ambient PM2.5 levels. Motor
vehicle emissions of SO2 are less than one tpd, and motor
vehicle emissions of ammonia represent approximately 1% of total
ammonia emissions in the SJV.
\234\ Id. Paved and unpaved road dust emissions represent less
than 17% of the total PM2.5 emissions in the SJV but
contribute only approximately 4% to the design values. Construction
dust emissions are less than 5% of the total PM2.5
emissions in the SJV. In addition, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
does not include additional control measures for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed in sections IV.G of this proposed rule,
the EPA proposes to approve the RFP demonstration in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. The 2022 RFP budgets, as shown in Table 6 of
this proposed rule, are consistent with this demonstration, 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 6. We provide a more detailed
discussion in the EPA's memo to file regarding MVEB.\235\ We are not
proposing to approve the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's budgets that
pertain solely to the Serious area time frame (i.e., 2025 attainment
year budget or the post-attainment year 2028 budget for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS) at this time. The budgets that the EPA is
proposing to approve relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
only, and our proposed approval does not affect the status of the
previously-approved MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
related trading mechanisms that remain in effect for that
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Memorandum of July 30, 2021, from Rory Mays and Karina
O'Connor, Air Planning Office, Air and Radiation Division, Region
IX, EPA, ``EPA Review of 2018 PM2.5 Plan Transportation
Conformity Emission Budgets for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS (Moderate Area Requirements).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). Furthermore, the trading ratio in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan is based on updated air quality modeling and
analysis relative to the analysis that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan
relies on (i.e., analysis and trading ratio in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). The trading
mechanism in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan would allow future
decreases in annual NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in annual direct
PM2.5 emissions using a 6.5:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio for conformity for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 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 SJV 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
SJV for the 2012 annual 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 \236\ and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\237\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ 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).
\237\ 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 SJV 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 7.1 at the Bakersfield-California Avenue monitor to a
low of 6.0 at the two Fresno monitors.\238\ 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
6.5:1 NOX for PM2.5 trading mechanism as
enforceable components of the transportation conformity program for the
SJV for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ 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
[[Page 49129]]
SIP revision. 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.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the budgets to
the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for
any subsequently submitted budgets.\240\ The transportation conformity
rule allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\241\ However, we will
consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEBs only if
the request includes the following elements: \242\ (1) An
acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets under
consideration have become outdated or deficient; (2) a commitment to
update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and (3) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, 3.
\241\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
\242\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEBs in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of the
EMFAC2014 used for the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\243\
EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the previously
approved version of the EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ 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 this 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).\244\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, in section IV.H of this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing
to disapprove the contingency measure element of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as amended in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
with respect to Moderate area requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. If the EPA were to finalize the proposed
disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Moderate area
contingency measure element, the area would be eligible for a
protective finding under the transportation conformity rule because the
2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018 PM2.5 Plan reflect
adopted control measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions
requirements for RFP for years 2019 and 2022.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP
Requirements
A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date
Section 188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and establishes the applicable
attainment dates. Under section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA has
general authority to reclassify at any time before the applicable
attainment date any area that the EPA determines cannot practicably
attain the standard by such date. Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) of the
Act is a general expression of delegated rulemaking authority. In
addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate that
the EPA reclassify ``appropriate'' PM10 nonattainment areas
at specified time frames (i.e., by December 31, 1991, for the initial
PM10 nonattainment areas, and within 18 months after the SIP
submittal due date for subsequent nonattainment areas). These
subparagraphs do not restrict the EPA's general authority but simply
specify that, at a minimum, it must be exercised at certain times.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ For a general discussion of the EPA's interpretation of
the reclassification provisions in section 188(b)(1) of the Act, see
the General Preamble, 13537-13538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the air quality modeling and impracticability
demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, as well as the air
quality modeling in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. Based on our
review, we agree with the District's conclusion that implementation of
the State/District's SIP control strategy, including RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures, is insufficient to bring the SJV into
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2021
Moderate area attainment deadline. See sections IV.C and IV.F of this
proposed rule. In addition, we have reviewed recent PM2.5
monitoring data for SJV available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. These data show that annual PM2.5 levels in the
SJV continue to be above 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\, the numerical level of the
2012 PM2.5 standard, and the recent trends in the SJV annual
PM2.5 levels indicate that the SJV will not attain by the
end of 2021.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ EPA design value workbook dated May 24, 2021,
``pm25_designvalues_2018_2020_final_05_24_21.xlsx,'' worksheets
``Table1a'' and ``Table5a,'' and EPA, 2010-2020 AQS Design Value
Report, AMP480, June 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is
proposing to reclassify the SJV from Moderate to Serious nonattainment
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\,
based on the EPA's determination that the SJV cannot practicably attain
the standard by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2021.
Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, 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 SJV as
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 15,
2015.\248\ Therefore, upon final reclassification of
[[Page 49130]]
the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area, the latest permissible
attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for purposes of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area, will be December 31, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ 80 FR 2206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date of up to five
additional years, which the EPA may grant if the state satisfies
certain statutory 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.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ For a discussion of the EPA's interpretation of the
requirements of section 188(e), see General Preamble Addendum,
42002; 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on
PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718
(July 25, 2002) (final action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa
County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381
F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding EPA action on PM10
Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but generally upholding the EPA's
interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious Area Plans
Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, California will be required to submit
additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that
apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including the
requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.
The Serious area SIP elements that California will be required to
submit are as follows:
1. Provisions to assure that BACM,\250\ including BACT for
stationary sources, 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));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ The EPA defines BACM as, among other things, the maximum
degree of emission 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 and 42014). BACM must be implemented for all
categories of sources in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area unless the State adequately demonstrates that a particular
source category does not contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the PM2.5 standard. (Id. at 42011, 42012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later
than December 31, 2025, or where the state is seeking an extension of
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by December 31, 2025, is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable and not later than December 31, 2030 (CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2), and 188(e));
3. plan provisions that require RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2));
4. quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
5. 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));
6. 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));
7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP (including quantitative milestones and related reports) or to
attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. a revision to the NNSR program to lower the applicable ``major
stationary source'' \251\ thresholds from 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA
section 189(b)(3)) and to satisfy the subpart 4 control requirements
for major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA
section 189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ 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 tpy of PM10 (CAA
sections 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section IV.E of this proposed rule, California
submitted NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to address the subpart 4 NNSR
requirements for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas on
November 20, 2019. The EPA is evaluating this SIP submission and will
act on it in a separate rulemaking.
Finally, reclassification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS would lower the de minimis
threshold under the CAA's general conformity requirements (40 CFR part
93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 70 tpy for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.\252\ In this case, however,
reclassification would have no impact on the applicable general
conformity de minimis thresholds, because the SJV is already subject to
the 70 tpy de minimis threshold for PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors as a result of the EPA's previous actions
reclassifying the area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 annual and
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ 40 CFR 93.153(b), 81 FR 58010, 58126.
\253\ 80 FR 18528 and 81 FR 1514, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Statutory Deadline for Submission of Serious Area Plan
When the EPA reclassifies a nonattainment area to a higher
classification, the CAA sets the parameters for establishing deadlines
for attainment plan SIP submissions for that higher classification. The
State has already made submissions intended to address the Serious area
attainment plan requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for
the SJV, yet the EPA reclassification rulemaking must still establish
the submission deadlines, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Among other things, such deadlines make clear the time frame for any
future SIP submission should the State find the need to withdraw any
particular element of the Serious area plan requirements (i.e., without
the submittal of a replacement element meeting the completeness
criteria).
For an area reclassified as a Serious nonattainment area before the
applicable attainment date under CAA section 188(b)(1), section
189(b)(2) requires the state to submit the required BACM provisions
``no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a
Serious Area'' and to submit the required attainment demonstration ``no
later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.''
Section 189(b)(2) establishes outer bounds on the SIP submission
deadlines as necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the
required submissions and to implement the statutory requirements.
The Act provides the state with up to 18 months after final
reclassification of an area to Serious to submit the required BACM
provisions. Because an up-to-date emissions inventory serves as the
foundation for a state's BACM/BACT determination, the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule requires the state to submit the emissions
inventory required under CAA section 172(c)(3) within 18
[[Page 49131]]
months after the effective date of final reclassification.\254\
Similarly, because an effective evaluation of BACM/BACT measures
requires evaluation of the precursor pollutants that must be controlled
to provide for expeditious attainment in the area, if the state chooses
to submit an optional precursor insignificance demonstration to support
a determination to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from the
required control measure evaluations for the area, the EPA requires
that the state submit any such demonstration by this same date. An 18-
month time frame for submission of these plan elements is consistent
with both the time frame for submission of BACM/BACT provisions under
CAA section 189(b)(2) and the time frame for submission of subpart 1
plan elements under section 172(b) of the Act.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ 81 FR 58010, 58077.
\255\ Section 172(b) requires the EPA to establish, concurrent
with nonattainment area designations, a schedule extending no later
than three years from the date of the nonattainment designation for
states to submit plans or plan revisions meeting the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(2) and 172(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule also establishes a
specific deadline for submission of the attainment demonstration and
attainment-related plan elements following discretionary
reclassification, which is the earlier of four years from the date of
reclassification, or the end of the eighth calendar year after
designation.\256\ In this case, the earlier of these two dates will be
the end of the eighth calendar year after designation--i.e., December
31, 2023. The attainment-related plan elements required within the same
timeframe as the attainment demonstration are as follows: (1) The RFP
demonstration required under section 172(c)(2); (2) the quantitative
milestones required under section 189(c); (3) any additional control
measures necessary to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(6); and
(4) the contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9). Although
section 189(b)(2) generally provides for up to four years after a
discretionary reclassification for the state to submit the required
attainment demonstration, given the timing of this reclassification
action less than two years before the Moderate area attainment date, it
is appropriate in this case for the EPA to establish an earlier SIP
submission deadline to assure timely implementation of the statutory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ 81 FR 58010, 58077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule establishes a
regulatory requirement that the state submit revised NNSR program
requirements no later than 18 months after final reclassification.\257\
The Act does not specify a deadline for the state's submission of SIP
revisions to meet NNSR program requirements to lower the ``major
stationary source'' threshold from 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA section
189(b)(3)) and to address the control requirements for major stationary
sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA section 189(e)) \258\
following reclassification of a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
area as Serious nonattainment under subpart 4. Pursuant to the EPA's
gap-filling authority in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate the
statutory control requirements in section 189 of the Act, the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule requires the state to submit
these NNSR SIP revisions, as well as any necessary analysis of and
additional control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, no later than 18 months after the
effective date of final reclassification of the SJV as Serious
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard. This due date
will ensure that necessary control requirements for major sources are
established in advance of the required attainment demonstration. An 18-
month timeframe for submission of the NNSR SIP revisions also aligns
with the statutory deadline for submission of BACM and BACT provisions
and the broader analysis of PM2.5 precursors for potential
controls on existing sources in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ Id. at 58078.
\258\ Section 189(e) requires that the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, if we finalize our proposal to reclassify the SJV as a
Serious nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
California would be required to submit the emissions inventory required
under CAA section 172(c)(3), the BACM/BACT provisions required under
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), and any NNSR SIP revisions required to
satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS no later than 18 months after the effective
date of a final reclassification action. Additionally, California would
be required to submit the Serious area attainment demonstration and all
attainment-related plan elements no later than the end of the eighth
calendar year after designation--i.e., by December 31, 2023.
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan submitted on May 10,
2019, includes a Serious area plan containing an attainment
demonstration, emissions inventory, attainment-related plan elements,
and BACM/BACT provisions. Also, the State submitted a SIP revision for
the Serious area NNSR requirements on November 20, 2019. The EPA
intends to evaluate and act on the Serious area plan and NNSR SIP
submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV through
separate rulemakings, as appropriate.
VI. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These tribes
include Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California, Cold
Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, Northfork Rancheria of
Mono Indians of California, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of
California, Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria,
California, Table Mountain Rancheria, Tejon Indian Tribe, and Tule
River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California.
We have considered the relevance of our proposal to reclassify the
SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard for
each tribe located therein. We believe that the same facts and
circumstances that support the proposal for the non-Indian country
lands also support the proposal for reservation areas of Indian country
\259\ and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe
has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction located within the SJV
nonattainment area. The EPA is therefore proposing to exercise our
authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) to reclassify areas of Indian
country geographically located in the SJV nonattainment area. Section
188(b)(1) broadly authorizes the EPA to reclassify a nonattainment
area--including any Indian country located within such an area--that
the EPA determines cannot practicably attain the relevant standard by
the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to
the following: ``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-
way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian
communities within the borders of the United States whether within
the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether
within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49132]]
Directly-emitted PM2.5 and its precursor pollutants
(i.e., NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia) are emitted
throughout a nonattainment area and can be transported throughout that
nonattainment area. Therefore, boundaries for nonattainment areas are
drawn to encompass both areas with direct sources of the pollutant
problem as well as nearby areas in the same airshed. Initial
classifications apply to the entire nonattainment area, i.e., they
exactly match the nonattainment area boundaries. The EPA believes this
approach best ensures public health protection from the adverse effects
of PM2.5 pollution. Therefore, it is generally
counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to have
a disparate classification for a land area located within the
boundaries of a nonattainment area, such as the reservation areas of
Indian country contained within the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment
area. Violations of the 2012 PM2.5 standard, which are
measured and modeled throughout the nonattainment area, as well as
shared meteorological conditions, would dictate the same conclusion.
Furthermore, emission increases in portions of a PM2.5
nonattainment area that are left classified as Moderate could
counteract the effects of efforts to attain the standard within the
overall area because less stringent requirements would apply in those
Moderate portions relative to those that would apply in the portions of
the area reclassified to Serious.
Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is
thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being
reclassified. In this particular case, we are proposing to determine,
based on the State's demonstration and current ambient air quality
trends, that the entire SJV nonattainment area, including all
reservations areas of Indian country and any other area located within
the SJV where a tribe has jurisdiction, cannot practicably attain the
2012 PM2.5 standard by the applicable Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021.
In light of the considerations outlined above that support
retention of a uniformly-classified PM2.5 nonattainment
area, and our proposal to find that it is impracticable for the area to
attain by the applicable attainment date, we propose to reclassify the
entire SJV nonattainment area, including reservation areas of Indian
country and any other area of Indian country located within it where
the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction, as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
Generally, the effect of reclassification is to lower the
applicable ``major source'' threshold for purposes of the NNSR program
and the Title V operating permit program from 100 tpy to 70 tpy,\260\
thus subjecting additional new or modified stationary sources to these
requirements. Reclassification also lowers the de minimis threshold
under the CAA's general conformity requirements from 100 tpy to 70
tpy.\261\ In this case, however, reclassification would not change the
``major source'' thresholds because, as a result of the EPA's January
2016 reclassification of the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the area is already subject to the 70
tpy major source threshold for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
areas in CAA section 189(b)(3).\262\ Likewise, reclassification would
have no impact on the applicable general conformity de minimis
thresholds, because the SJV is already subject to the 70 tpy de minimis
threshold for PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors as a
result of the EPA's previous reclassification of the area as Serious
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B).
\261\ 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
\262\ 81 FR 2993.
\263\ Id. and 40 CFR 93.153(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-
government consultation on this rulemaking effort.\264\ The EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials. We note that although eligible tribes may seek EPA
approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the
affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan as a
result of this reclassification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ We sent letters dated March 3, 2021, to tribal officials
offering government-to-government consultation. See also a summary
of the EPA's outreach to tribes in the San Joaquin Valley;
memorandum dated August 3, 2021, from Rory Mays, Air Planning
Office, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Docket No.
EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0543. We did not receive any request for
consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Review of Contingency Measure Element for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
A. Requirements for Contingency Measures
With one exception, the SIP requirements for contingency measures
that apply to areas classified as Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are the same as those described in section IV.H.1 of this
document for areas that are classified as Moderate for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the
statutory attainment date, and thus, are not repeated here. However, in
addition to the contingency measures requirements that apply to
Moderate areas with adequate impracticability demonstrations, states
with areas classified as Serious must identify and adopt contingency
measures to address the potential for the area to fail to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
B. Summary of State's Contingency Measure Element for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA deferred action on the contingency measure element of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS when we
took final action on the other elements in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan for that NAAQS.\265\ In this section of this document, we are
proposing action on the contingency measure element of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ 85 FR 44192, at 44193 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses the contingency measure
requirement for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by reference to
the contingency measure portion of a December 2018 SIP submission that
involved enhanced enforcement of CARB regulations in the SJV, a
commitment to amend the District's residential wood burning rule (i.e.,
District Rule 4901) to include contingent provisions, and updated
emissions estimates for the year following the attainment year for use
in evaluating whether the emissions reductions from the contingency
measures are sufficient.\266\ Recently, CARB withdrew the enhanced
enforcement portion of the December 2018 SIP submission as it pertained
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H (revised February 11,
2020), H-24 to H-26.
\267\ Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we have evaluated the relevant portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and District Rule 4901 (specifically, section
5.7.3 of Rule 4901) for compliance with the applicable requirements for
Serious areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to the District contingency measure, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan calls for the District to amend District Rule
4901 to include a requirement in the rule with a trigger that that
would be activated should the EPA issue a final rulemaking that the SJV
failed to meet a regulatory requirement necessitating
[[Page 49133]]
implementation of a contingency measure. In response to the commitment
made in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in June 2019, the District
adopted amendments to Rule 4901 including a contingency measure (in
section 5.7.3 of the amended rule), and CARB submitted the amended rule
to the EPA for approval as an attachment to a letter dated July 19,
2019.\268\ The EPA has taken final action to approve amended Rule 4901,
but in that approval, we noted that we were not evaluating the
contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of revised Rule 4901 for
compliance with all requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing
regulations that apply to such measures.\269\ Rather, we approved the
measure into the SIP because it strengthened the rule by providing a
possibility of additional curtailment days, and thus potentially
additional emissions reductions. We indicated that we would evaluate
whether this provision, in conjunction with other submitted provisions,
meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for contingency
measures in future actions. In this proposal, we are now evaluating
District Rule 4901, specifically, section 5.7.3, for compliance with
the requirements for contingency measures for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\269\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of District
Rule 4901); 85 FR 1131, 1132-33 (January 9, 2020) (proposed approval
of District Rule 4901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions 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 for
advertising the sale of seasoned wood consistent with a moisture
content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered, episodic wood burning curtailment
requirement that applies during four winter months, November through
February. During a level one episodic wood burning curtailment, section
5.7.1 prohibits any person from operating a wood burning fireplace or
unregistered wood burning heater but permits the use of a properly
operated wood burning heater that meets certification requirements and
has a current registration with the District. Sections 5.9 through 5.11
impose specific registration requirements on any person operating a
wood burning fireplace or wood burning heater and section 5.12 imposes
specific certification requirements on wood burning heater
professionals. During a level two episodic wood burning curtailment,
operation of any wood burning device is prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019-2020 wood burning season, the District imposed a
level one curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was
forecasted to be between 20-65 [micro]g/m\3\ and imposed a level two
curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was forecasted to
be above 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or the PM10 concentration was
forecasted to be above 135 [micro]g/m\3\. In 2019, the District adopted
revisions to Rule 4901 to lower the wood burning curtailment thresholds
in the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern. The District
lowered the level one PM2.5 threshold for these three
counties from 20 [micro]g/m\3\ to 12 [micro]g/m\3\, and the level two
PM2.5 threshold from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
The District did not modify the curtailment thresholds for other
counties in the SJV, and those levels remained at 20 [micro]g/m\3\ for
level one and 65 [micro]g/m\3\ for level two.
The District's 2019 revision to Rule 4901 also included the
addition of a contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of the rule,
requiring that 60 days following the effective date of an EPA final
rulemaking that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the
PM2.5 curtailment levels for any county that has failed to
attain the applicable standard will be lowered to the curtailment
levels in place for hot spot counties. The District estimates that the
potential emissions reduction in direct PM2.5 would be in
the range of 0.014 tpd (if the contingency is triggered in Kings County
but not the other non-hot-spot counties) to 0.387 tpd (if the
contingency is triggered in all five of the non-hot-spot counties), but
there would be no emissions reduction if, at the time of the
determination of failure to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
the attainment date, violations of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were
only observed at monitors in the hot-spot counties.\270\ Corresponding
potential emissions reduction in NOX would be in the range
of 0.002 tpd to 0.060 tpd, respectively, but as noted in the preceding
paragraphs there may be no emissions reduction if the violations are
monitored in the hot-spot counties only.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ See Table B-13 in Appendix B from the District's Final
Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for revisions to Rule 4901.
\271\ NOX emissions reductions from the contingency
measure are based on the District's estimates for direct
PM2.5 emissions using the ratio of direct
PM2.5 to NOX in Table 1 of the District's
Final Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for revisions to Rule 4901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also provides estimates of regional
emissions in the year following the attainment year with which to
evaluate the sufficiency of the emissions reductions from the
contingency measure (i.e., section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901). For the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the attainment year is 2024 and the year after
the attainment year is therefore 2025.\272\ Based on Table H-5 in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, the annual average emission reductions from
2024 to 2025 due to baseline measures and CARB and the District's
aggregate tonnage commitment are estimated to be 0 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 5.2 tpd NOX. For comparison purposes,
one year's worth of RFP (based on emissions estimates in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan) is approximately 0.6 tpd direct PM2.5
and 18.4 tpd NOX.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ 85 FR 44192, 44192.
\273\ One year's worth of RFP is based on the difference between
the emissions estimates for 2013 and 2024 in Table H-6 of Appendix
H, divided by 11 (i.e., the number of years from 2013 to 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we have similarly evaluated
the contingency measure demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and associated contingency provision of the 2019 amendment to Rule
4901. Specifically, we have evaluated the contingency provision in
District Rule 4901 (i.e., section 5.7.3 of the rule) against the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for both
attainment and RFP contingency measures, the latter of which also
includes submittal of quantitation milestone reports and compliance
with quantitative milestones.
As noted in our summary of the State's submission, the contingency
provision in District Rule 4901 is structured to provide for
implementation if the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, not before, and is therefore consistent with CAA section
172(c)(9). However, as structured by the District, the contingency
provision of Rule 4901 (i.e., section 5.7.3) would provide for
emissions reductions only in Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and/or Tulare counties, not the ``hot spot'' counties of Fresno, Kern,
and Madera, and only if a violating monitoring site (i.e., a site where
the collected data represent a violation of the NAAQS) is located in
said county. In other words, if the EPA's determination of failure to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date indicates violations
at monitoring location sites in Fresno and Kern (``hot spot'' counties)
and Tulare (non-hot-spot county) counties, the contingency
[[Page 49134]]
provision would provide for emissions reductions by lowering the wood
burning curtailment thresholds in only Tulare County. The ``hot spot''
counties are already subject to the lower wood burning curtailment
thresholds in the rule and thus would not be affected by the finding of
failure to attain determination and the other non-``hot spot'' counties
(i.e., other than Tulare County in this example) would not be subject
to the lower wood burning curtailment thresholds.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency provision in
District Rule 4901 identifies a specific triggering mechanism. In this
case, the triggering mechanism in the rule is the EPA's final
determination that the SJV has failed to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\274\ The rule
also specifies a timeframe within which its requirements become
effective after a failure-to-attain determination (i.e., on and after
60 days from the effective date of the EPA's final determination), and
would take effect with minimal further action by the state or the EPA.
However, the contingency provision in District Rule 4901 does not
address the potential for State failures to meet a quantitative
milestone, submit a quantitative milestone report, or failure to meet
an RFP requirement.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ Section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 states that ``the District
shall notify the public of an Episodic Curtailment for the
PM2.5 curtailment levels described in Sections 5.7.1.2
and 5.7.2.2 for any county that has failed to attain the applicable
standard.'' (emphasis added) We interpret this to mean that the
District would apply the more stringent curtailment provisions for
any county identified in the EPA's final rule making the
determination that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS.
\275\ We note that section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901 applies
the lower thresholds ``on and after sixty days following the
effective date of EPA final rulemaking,'' which is appropriate as a
contingency measure trigger for a failure to attain by the
applicable attainment date given that the EPA conducts rulemaking to
make such determinations. However, for the three other contingency
triggers, i.e., State failures to meet a quantitative milestone,
submit a quantitative milestone report, or failure to meet an RFP
requirement, the EPA may not conduct rulemaking but instead make the
determinations through correspondence directly to the state. Thus,
we recommend that section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901 be amended to
refer to ``EPA final determinations'' rather than to ``EPA final
rulemaking'' when the rule is amended to include the additional
contingency measure triggers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the contingency measure provision of Rule 4901 is not
structured to achieve any additional emissions reductions if the EPA
finds that the monitoring locations in the ``hot spot'' counties (i.e.,
Fresno, Kern, or Madera Counties) are the only ones in the SJV that are
violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as of the attainment date. To
qualify as a contingency measure, a measure must be structured to
achieve emissions reductions, if triggered, and the contingency
provision of District Rule 4901 provides for such reductions only under
certain circumstances and should be revised to provide for additional
emissions reductions in the SJV (if triggered) regardless of which
monitoring site(s) is determined to be violating the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as of the attainment date.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ The EPA believes that the most straightforward remedy
under these circumstances would be for the District to amend section
5.7.3 of Rule 4901 to extend the lower wood burning curtailment
thresholds region-wide if the EPA determines that the area has
failed to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we considered the adequacy of the section 5.7.3 of District
Rule 4901 from the standpoint of the magnitude of emissions reductions
the measures would provide (if triggered). Neither the CAA nor the
EPA's implementing regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS establish
a specific amount of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but we generally expect that
contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions
approximately equivalent to one year's worth of RFP, which amounts to
reductions of approximately 0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 18.4
tpd of NOX for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV.\277\ As noted in our summary of the State's submission, the
emissions reductions from the contingency provisions in District Rule
4901 would amount to approximately 0.00 tpd to 0.387 tpd of direct
PM2.5, which equates to approximately 0% to 67% of one
year's worth of RFP for direct PM2.5. With respect to
NOX emissions reductions, the contingency provisions in
District Rule 4901 would amount to approximately 0.00 tpd to 0.06 tpd,
which equates to approximately 0% to 0.3% of one year's worth of RFP
for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ The calculation of one year's worth of RFP is based on
dividing the values in column E of table H-6 of Appendix H (updated
February 11, 2020) of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan by 11, i.e.,
the number of years between 2013 and 2024. As part of the EPA's
final approval of the State's attainment plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we concluded 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. 85 FR 17382, at 17390-17396 (March 27,
2020) (proposed rule); finalized at 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's contingency measure element in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan provides the larger SIP planning context in which
to judge the adequacy of the amount of emission reductions resulting
from the contingency measure by calculating the surplus emissions
reductions estimated to be achieved in the year after the attainment
year. More specifically, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies
additional NOX reductions in the year following the
attainment year of 2024. For the SJV, the estimates of additional
reductions in the post-attainment year (2025) are 0 tpd direct
PM2.5 and 5.2 tpd NOX.\278\ Generally, we will
consider such surplus emissions reductions in evaluating the
sufficiency of the emissions reductions from contingency measures
identified by the state, however, in this case, because the identified
contingency measure may result in no emissions reductions, the larger
planning context is not relevant to our review of the sufficiency of
the contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ These estimates are based on the annual average emission
reductions from 2024 to 2025 due to baseline measures and CARB and
the District's aggregate tonnage commitment in Table H-5 of Appendix
H (updated February 11, 2020) of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. We
also note that Table H-13 of Appendix H indicates that the year-
over-year reductions for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is 0.1 tpd direct PM2.5 and 4.2 tpd NOX.
However, the estimates in Table H-13 reflect emissions changes
associated only with mobile sources whereas the appropriate
comparison includes the entire emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we propose to disapprove the contingency measure
element of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan under CAA section 179(c)(9)
and 40 CFR 51.1014 with respect to the State's Serious area attainment
plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. While the
contingency measure provision of the 2019 amendment to Rule 4901 has an
adequate triggering mechanism for failure to attain, we propose to
disapprove it because it may result in no emissions reductions if the
area fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
Furthermore, as the contingency measure element and the contingency
provision of Rule 4901 lack any to-be-triggered measure for failure to
meet a quantitative milestone, submit a quantitative milestone report,
or failure to meet an RFP requirement, we propose that the submission
is also inadequate for RFP contingency measures.
Lastly, if the EPA finalizes the proposed disapproval of the
contingency measure element for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
area would be eligible for a protective finding under the
transportation conformity rule because the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
reflects adopted control measures and contains enforceable commitments
that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements for RFP and
attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49135]]
VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and 2018
PM2.5 Plan submitted by California to address the CAA's
Moderate area planning requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the SJV nonattainment area:
1. The 2013 base year emissions inventories in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as revised in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR
51.1008(a);
2. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably
available control technology demonstration in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as supplemented in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C);
3. The demonstration in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan that
attainment by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31,
2021, is impracticable as meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.1011(a);
4. The reasonable further progress demonstration in the 2016
PM2.5 Plan, as revised in 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1012(a);
5. The quantitative milestones in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan, as revised in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the Valley
State SIP Strategy, as meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1); and
6. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2022 in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan as shown in Table 6 of this proposed rule
because they are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration and
meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. With respect to the budgets, we are proposing to limit
the duration of the approval of the budgets to last only until the
effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any subsequently
submitted budgets. We are proposing to do so at CARB's request and
in light of the benefits of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets prior to
our taking final action on the future SIP revision that includes the
updated budgets.
Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to disapprove
the contingency measure element of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as revised in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and supplemented by section 5.7.3 of District
Rule 4901, and the contingency measure element of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as
supplemented by section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901, because, among
other reasons, the elements include no specific measures to be
undertaken if the state fails to submit a quantitative milestone report
for the area, or if the area fails to meet RFP or a quantitative
milestone. In addition, with respect to the contingency measure element
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
(as supplemented by section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901), the element
includes a specific measure that may not result in any emissions
reductions following a failure to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date under certain circumstances.
If we finalize the disapproval of the contingency measure elements
as proposed, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply
in the SJV 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval,
and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply
in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed.\280\
Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if the State submits and
we approve, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP
revision that corrects the deficiencies that we identify in our final
action. The EPA intends to work with CARB and the SJVUAPCD to correct
the deficiencies in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ 40 CFR 52.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that
the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing
any disapproved elements of the plan two years after the effective date
of disapproval unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, the
required SIP submittal. As a result of the EPA's December 6, 2018
determination that California had failed to submit the required
contingency measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required SIP submissions for the
SJV,\281\ the EPA is already subject to a statutory deadline to
promulgate a FIP for this purpose no later than two years after the
effective date of that determination.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ 83 FR 62720.
\282\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, because we previously approved the Serious area plan RFP and
attainment demonstrations and the motor vehicle emissions budgets for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,\283\ and because in this proposed rule
we are proposing to approve the Moderate area plan RACM, additional
reasonable measures, and RFP demonstrations, and motor vehicle emission
budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we are proposing to issue
a protective finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of
the contingency measures elements. Without a protective finding, the
final disapprovals would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same CAA
requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec. 93.118 or approves the submission,
and conformity to the implementation plan revision is determined.\284\
Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of the contingency
measures elements would not result in a transportation conformity
freeze in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area and the MPOs may
continue to make transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ 85 FR 44192.
\284\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(1), the EPA is proposing to
reclassify the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area, including
reservation areas of Indian country and any other area where the EPA or
a tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction within the SJV,
as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard based
on the agency's determination that the SJV cannot practicably attain
the standard by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2021.
Upon final reclassification as a Serious area, California will be
required to submit, within 18 months after the effective date of the
reclassification, an emissions inventory, provisions to assure that
BACM shall be implemented no later than four years after the date of
reclassification, and any NNSR SIP revisions required to satisfy the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e). California will also
be required to submit, by December 31, 2023, a Serious area plan that
satisfies the requirements of part D of title I of the Act. This plan
must include a demonstration that the SJV will attain the 2012
PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 2025, or by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable and no later than December 31, 2030, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b) and 188(e).
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, submitted concurrently
with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019, includes a Serious
area attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, attainment-related
plan elements, and BACM/BACT provisions. The State also submitted a SIP
submission for the Serious area NNSR requirements on November 20,
[[Page 49136]]
2019. The EPA intends to evaluate and act on the Serious area plan and
NNSR SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV
through separate rulemakings, as appropriate.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ We are establishing deadlines for submittal of SIP
revisions that have already been submitted to timely address any
elements that may be withdrawn in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because the EPA is proposing to similarly reclassify
reservation areas of Indian country and any other area of Indian
country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has
jurisdiction within the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area as
Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard,
consistent with our proposed reclassification of the surrounding non-
Indian country lands, the EPA has invited consultation with interested
tribes concerning this issue. Although eligible tribes may seek the
EPA's approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the
affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan as a
result of this reclassification.
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments
are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of
this proposed rule.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
The proposed actions are not a significant regulatory action and
were therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The proposed actions do not impose an information collection burden
under the PRA because they do not contain any information collection
activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that the proposed actions will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. The proposed actions will not impose any requirements on small
entities. This proposed rule would approve or disapprove State plans as
meeting federal requirements and would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Additionally, the
proposed rule would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and would not itself
regulate small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
The proposed actions do not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule would approve or
disapprove State plans as meeting federal requirements and would not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Additionally, the proposed rule would reclassify the SJV nonattainment
area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and
would not itself impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. The
proposed actions would not require any tribe to submit implementation
plans.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed actions do not have federalism implications. They will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The Big Sandy
Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs
Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Northfork Rancheria of
Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi
Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa
Rosa Rancheria, California, the Table Mountain Rancheria, the Tejon
Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River
Reservation, California.
The EPA's proposed actions on the SIP elements submitted by
California to address the Moderate area requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and the contingency measure requirement for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would not have tribal implications because
the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
actions on the SIP submittals do not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175.
The EPA has concluded that the proposed reclassification might have
tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, but
would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it
preempt tribal law. The proposed reclassification from Moderate to
Serious for a PM2.5 NAAQS would typically affect the EPA's
implementation of the new source review program because of the lower
``major source'' threshold triggered by reclassification (70 tons per
year for direct PM2.5 and precursors to PM2.5).
However, because the SJV nonattainment area is already classified as
Serious for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the lower
thresholds already apply within the nonattainment area, and the
proposed reclassification from Moderate to Serious for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS would have no additional effect. The same is
true for any tribal projects that require federal permits, approvals,
or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of the EPA's
general conformity rule, and federal permits, approvals, or funding for
the projects would typically become more difficult to obtain because of
the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification but, in
this case, the lower de minimis thresholds already apply within the
SJV.
Given the potential implications, the EPA contacted tribal
officials during the process of developing this proposed rule to
provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. On March 3, 2021, we sent letters to leaders of the eight
tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area
inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking
effort. We requested that the tribal leaders, or their
[[Page 49137]]
designated consultation representatives, notify us of their interest in
government-to-government consultation by April 5, 2021. We intend to
continue communicating with all eight tribes located within the
boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS as we move forward in developing a final rule. The EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. The proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it would approve or disapprove a State
plan implementing a federal standard, and reclassify the SJV
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering Serious area planning requirements
under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA has determined that the proposed actions will not have
potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because
they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or
the environment. The proposed actions would only approve or disapprove
State plans implementing a federal standard, and reclassify the SJV
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering additional Serious area planning
requirements under the CAA.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 25, 2021.
Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-18764 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
