[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44528-44548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19017]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9983-00--Region 9]


Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve portions of three state implementation plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``the Act'') requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin 
Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. First, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 
8-Hour Ozone Standard (``2016 Ozone Plan'') that address the 
requirements to demonstrate attainment by the applicable attainment 
date and implementation of reasonably available control measures, among 
other requirements. Second, the EPA is proposing to approve the 
portions of the Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State 
Implementation Plan (``2016 State Strategy'') related to the ozone 
control strategy for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards, 
including a specific aggregate emissions reduction commitment. Lastly, 
the EPA is proposing to approve an air district rule addressing the 
emission statement requirement for ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA 
is not taking action at this time on the portions of the San Joaquin 
Valley 2016 Ozone Plan that address the requirements for a reasonable 
further progress (RFP) demonstration, motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(MVEBs), a base year emissions inventory, and contingency measures for 
failure to attain or to meet reasonable further progress milestones. We 
intend to address these remaining elements in a forthcoming proposal.

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0535 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3407, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory Context
    A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations and SIPs
    B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
    C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 Ozone Nonattainment 
Area SIPs
II. Submissions From the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone 
Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley
    A. Summary of Submissions
    B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and 
Submission of SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Emission Statement
    C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and 
Control Strategy
    D. Attainment Demonstration
    E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress 
Demonstration
    F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures To Offset 
Emissions Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled
    G. Contingency Measures To Provide for RFP and Attainment
    H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers
    I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
    J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas
IV. Other Commitments To Reduce Emissions
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Regulatory Context

A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations and SIPs

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants, 
referred

[[Page 44529]]

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including 
on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial 
facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment 
and paints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State of California typically refers to reactive organic 
gases (ROG) in its ozone-related submissions since VOC in general 
can include both reactive and unreactive gases. However, since ROG 
and VOC inventories pertain to common chemical species (e.g., 
benzene, xylene, etc.), we refer to this set of gases as VOC in this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects 
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults 
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung 
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms 
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for 
pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously 
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997.\3\ In 2008, the EPA 
revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by setting the 
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts per million 
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ Although the EPA further 
tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this action 
relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 0.12 parts per 
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 
(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm 
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    \4\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \5\ Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR 
65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The San Joaquin Valley 
was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards on May 21, 
2012, and classified as Extreme.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CAA, after the EPA designates areas as nonattainment for 
a NAAQS, states with nonattainment areas are required to submit SIP 
revisions that provide for, among other things, attainment of the NAAQS 
within certain prescribed periods that vary depending on the severity 
of nonattainment. Areas classified as Extreme must attain the NAAQS 
within 20 years of the effective date of the nonattainment 
designation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CAA section 181(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.1102 and 51.1103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and 
submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP revisions, and it has 
broad authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements 
for mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts 
in California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources 
and are generally responsible for the development of regional air 
quality plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or ``District'') develops and 
adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning 
requirements applicable to that region. Such plans are then submitted 
to CARB for adoption and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the 
California SIP.

B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 
standards consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 
Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The 
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area stretches over 250 miles from 
north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over 
23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain 
range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra 
Nevada range to the east.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The population of the San Joaquin Valley in 2015 was estimated to 
be nearly 4.2 million people, and is projected to increase by 25.3 
percent in 2030 to over 5.2 million people.\9\ Ambient 8-hour ozone 
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley are above the level of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maximum design value for the area, based 
on certified data at the Parlier monitor (Air Quality System ID: 06-
019-4001), is 0.092 ppm for the 2015-2017 period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The population estimates and projections include all of Kern 
County, not just the portion of Kern County within the jurisdiction 
of the SJVAPCD. See Chapter 1 and table 1-1 of the District's 2016 
Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.
    \10\ See Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report, 
20180621_DVRpt_SJV_2008-8hrO3_2015-2017.pdf in the docket for this 
proposed action. The AQS is a database containing ambient air 
pollution data collected by the EPA and state, local, and tribal air 
pollution control agencies from over thousands of monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 
Area SIPs

    States must implement the 2008 ozone standards under Title 1, part 
D of the CAA, which includes section 172 (``Nonattainment plan 
provisions in general'') and sections 181-185 of subpart 2 
(``Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas''). To assist 
states in developing effective plans to address ozone nonattainment 
problems, in 2015 the EPA issued a SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 
2008 ozone standards (``2008 Ozone SRR'') that addresses e.g., 
attainment dates, requirements for emissions inventories, attainment 
and RFP demonstrations, and the transition from the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standards to the 2008 8-hour ozone standards and associated anti-
backsliding requirements.\11\ The 2008 Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR 
part 51, subpart AA. We discuss each of the CAA and regulatory 
requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR was challenged, and on February 16, 2018, 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') 
published its decision in South Coast Air Quality Management. District 
v. EPA \12\ vacating portions of the 2008 Ozone SRR. The 2008 Ozone SRR 
required the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans to be the 
emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a 
triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under 
subpart A (``Air Emissions Reporting Requirements'') of 40 CFR part 51, 
and it allowed states to use an alternative year, between 2008 and 
2012, for the baseline emissions inventory provided the state 
demonstrates why the alternative baseline year is appropriate. In the 
South Coast decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the provisions of the 
2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to justify and use an alternative 
baseline year for demonstrating RFP. The RFP demonstrations in several 
California ozone plans developed to address nonattainment area 
requirements for the 2008 ozone standards, including the ozone plan for 
the South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley, are based on the 
alternative baseline year of 2012. In response to the South Coast 
decision regarding alternative baseline years, the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit 
requesting rehearing on the RFP

[[Page 44530]]

baseline year issue to clarify that nonattainment areas may use the 
year of the nonattainment designation (i.e., 2012 for the 2008 ozone 
standards) as the baseline year for calculating RFP.\13\ Because the 
D.C. Circuit has not yet issued a response to the petitions filed for 
rehearing, the EPA is not proposing action at this time on the San 
Joaquin Valley's RFP demonstration for the 2008 ozone standards.\14\ 
Several required attainment plan elements are related to the RFP 
demonstration, namely the MVEBs, the base year emissions inventory, and 
contingency measures. Therefore, the EPA is also not proposing action 
at this time on these three elements. For completeness, however, in 
this proposed action, we provide a summary of all the required 
elements, including those for which we will be proposing action at a 
later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882 
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South Coast'').
    \13\ See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, docket item #1727571, 
filed April 20, 2018.
    \14\ The EPA also filed a petition for rehearing in the D.C. 
Circuit but did not request rehearing of the RFP baseline year 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Submissions From the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone 
Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley

A. Summary of Submissions

    On August 24, 2016, in response to the area's designation as 
nonattainment and classification of Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
CARB submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a revision to the 
California SIP.\15\ Prior to submittal to the EPA, CARB approved the 
2016 Ozone Plan, which had previously been adopted by the District and 
forwarded to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 
August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan submittal consists of documents originating 
from the District (e.g., the 2016 Ozone Plan with Appendices and the 
District Governing Board Resolution) and CARB (e.g., the CARB Staff 
Report and Appendices, and the CARB Resolution adopting the 2016 Ozone 
Plan and CARB Staff Report as a SIP revision).\16\ The 2016 Ozone Plan 
addresses the requirements for base year and projected future year 
emissions inventories, air quality modeling demonstrating attainment of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment year, provisions 
demonstrating implementation of reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, 
provisions for transportation control strategies and measures, a 
demonstration of RFP, and contingency measures for failure to make RFP 
or attain, among other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See four enclosures to the August 24, 2016 letter from CARB 
to EPA Region 9: (I) District Submittal, including letter from 
Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives for the District, 
to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, and five appendices 
titled: (1) ARB SIP Completeness Checklist, (2) 2016 Ozone Plan with 
Appendices, (3) Governing Board Resolution Adopting the 2016 Ozone 
Plan, (4) Governing Board Memo, and (5) Evidence of Public Hearing; 
(II) CARB Evidence of Public Notice and Transcript; (III) CARB Staff 
Report; (IV) CARB Resolution 16-8 adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan and 
CARB Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses compliance with the emission 
statement requirement under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) in terms of 
District Rule 1160, ``Emission Statements.'' District Rule 1160 was 
adopted by the District on November 18, 1992, and submitted to the EPA 
by CARB on January 11, 1993, as a revision to the California SIP.\17\ 
The EPA has not yet taken action on the January 11, 1993 submittal of 
District Rule 1160 but is proposing to do so as part of today's 
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See letter from Michael H. Scheible, Executive Officer, 
CARB, to Daniel W. McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 
dated January 11, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the 2016 Ozone Plan, CARB anticipated the subsequent 
adoption of a commitment by CARB to achieve an aggregate emission 
reduction of 8 tons per day (tpd) of NOX in San Joaquin 
Valley by 2031. On March 23, 2017, CARB approved the 2016 State 
Strategy as a revision to the California SIP and submitted the 2016 
State Strategy to the EPA on April 27, 2017.\18\ The 2016 State 
Strategy, as approved and submitted by CARB, includes an 8 tpd 
NOX emission reduction commitment for San Joaquin Valley. 
The 2016 State Strategy commits to certain regulatory initiatives 
(e.g., new California low-NOX standards for on-road heavy-
duty engines and low-emission diesel requirements for off-road 
equipment) in addition to aggregate emissions reductions by certain 
years in specific areas, such as San Joaquin Valley.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 
April 27, 2017.
    \19\ See table 5 of the 2016 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of 
SIP Revisions

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet 
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that 
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations 
in 40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory 
and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing 
prior to the adoption and submittal of the 2016 Ozone Plan, the 2016 
State Strategy, and District Rule 1160. With respect to the 2016 Ozone 
Plan, the District conducted a public workshop on May 23, 2014, and 
held two additional workshops on March 22, 2016, on the Draft 2016 
Ozone Plan. On May 11, 2016, the District published notices in several 
local newspapers of a public hearing to be held on June 16, 2016, for 
the adoption of the 2016 Ozone Plan.\20\ On June 16, 2016, the District 
held the public hearing, and, through Resolution No. 16-6-20, adopted 
the 2016 Ozone Plan and directed the Executive Officer to forward the 
plan to CARB for inclusion in the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the August 24, 2016 SIP submittal package, item I.E, 
``Evidence of Public Hearing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB also provided the required public notice and opportunity for 
public comment on the 2016 Ozone Plan. On June 17, 2016, CARB released 
for public review its staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan and 
published a notice of public meeting to be held on July 21, 2016, to 
consider approval of the 2016 Ozone Plan.\21\ On July 21, 2016, CARB 
held the hearing and approved the staff report and directed its 
Executive Officer to submit the CARB staff report and the 2016 Ozone 
Plan to the EPA for approval into the California SIP.\22\ On August 24, 
2016, the Executive Officer of CARB submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan to 
the EPA and included the transcript of the hearing held on July 21, 
2016.\23\ On December 19, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal 
was complete.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/2016/sjvsip2016.pdf.
    \22\ See CARB Resolution 16-8.
    \23\ See transcript of the July 21, 2016 Meeting of the State of 
California Air Resources Board.
    \24\ See letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA Region IX to 
Richard W. Corey, CARB, dated December 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 2016 State Strategy, on May 17, 2016, CARB 
circulated for public review and comment the Proposed State SIP 
Strategy, provided a 60-day comment period, and provided notice of a 
public hearing by the CARB Board to be held on September 22, 2016. On 
March 7, 2017, in response to comments received during the public 
comment period and

[[Page 44531]]

later during public workshops, and based on Board direction provided to 
staff during the September 22, 2016 CARB Board meeting, CARB released a 
Revised Proposed State SIP Strategy. On March 23, 2017, through 
Resolution 17-7, CARB adopted the Revised Proposed State SIP Strategy 
(herein referred to as the ``2016 State Strategy'') after a duly-
noticed public hearing. On April 27, 2017, CARB submitted the 2016 
State Strategy to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
    With respect to District Rule 1160, the District conducted four 
public workshops to receive comment, and published notices in several 
local newspapers of a public hearing to be held on November 18, 1992. 
The District adopted the rule on November 18, 1992, and forwarded the 
rule to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA as a revision to the 
California SIP. CARB did so by letter dated January 11, 1993.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CARB submittal ``State of California Implementation 
Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, Exhibit A,'' January 11, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in each SIP revision and summarized 
above, the EPA has determined that all hearings were properly noticed. 
Therefore, we find that the submittals of the 2016 Ozone Plan, the 2016 
State Strategy, and District Rule 1160 meet the procedural requirements 
for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 
CFR 51.102.

III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require states to submit for 
each ozone nonattainment area a ``base year inventory'' that is a 
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all 
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. In 
addition, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires that the inventory year be 
selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP demonstration, 
which is usually the most recent calendar year for which a complete 
triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the 
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements.\26\ The EPA has issued guidance 
on the development of base year and future year emissions inventories 
for 8-hour ozone and other pollutants.\27\ Emissions inventories for 
ozone must include emissions of VOC and NOX and represent 
emissions for a typical ozone season weekday.\28\ States should include 
documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In 
estimating mobile source emissions, states should use the latest 
emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP 
is developed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 2008 Ozone SRR at 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and the Air 
Emissions Reporting Requirements at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A.
    \27\ See ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' (``EI Guidance''), EPA-454/
B-17-002, May 2017. At the time the 2016 Ozone Plan was developed, 
the following EPA emissions inventory guidance applied: ``Emissions 
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate 
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional 
Haze Regulations'' (``EI Guidance''), EPA-454-R-05-001, November 
2005.
    \28\ 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 51.1100(bb) and (cc).
    \29\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12290 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    The base year and future year baseline inventories for 
NOX and VOC for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone 
nonattainment area, together with additional documentation for the 
inventories, are found in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the 2016 Ozone 
Plan. Because ozone levels in San Joaquin Valley are typically higher 
from May through October, these inventories represent average summer 
day emissions. The 2016 Ozone Plan includes a base year inventory for 
2012 and future year inventories for the RFP milestone years. The 
inventories reflect reductions from adopted federal, state, and 
district measures. All inventories include emissions from point, area, 
on-road, and non-road sources. Both base year and projected future year 
inventories use the most current version of California's mobile source 
emissions model, EMFAC2014, for estimating on-road motor vehicle 
emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions inventories in the 2016 Ozone Plan were developed 
jointly by CARB and the District, based on data from these two 
agencies, combined with data from the California Department of 
Transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of 
Pesticide Regulation, the California Energy Commission and regional 
transportation agencies. The emissions inventories reflect actual 
emission reports for point sources, and estimates for mobile and area-
wide sources are based on the most recent models and methodologies. 
CARB and the District also reviewed the growth profiles for point and 
area-wide source categories and updated them as necessary to ensure 
that the emission projections are based on data that reflect historical 
trends, current conditions, and recent economic and demographic 
forecasts.
    CARB developed the emissions inventory for on-road and off-road 
mobile sources. On-road mobile source emissions, which include 
passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks, were estimated using CARB's 
EMFAC2014 model. The on-road emissions were calculated by applying 
EMFAC2014 emission factors to the transportation activity data provided 
by the local San Joaquin Valley transportation agencies from their 2014 
adopted Regional Transportation Plan. The EPA has approved this model 
for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analyses.\31\ Non-road 
mobile source emissions were estimated using either newer category-
specific models or, where a new model was not available, the 
OFFROAD2007 model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 inventory was projected to 2015 and future years using 
CARB's California Emission Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM). The 
District identified several measures that achieve emissions reductions 
from stationary sources in and after 2012, including rules for open 
burning, boilers, flares, solid fuel boilers, and glass melting 
furnaces, among others.\32\ Table 1 provides a summary of the emission 
estimates prepared for the 2016 Ozone Plan for the base year (2012) and 
the attainment year (2031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See table 5-1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. All the rules listed 
in table 5-1 have been approved as revision to the SIP.

              Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Base Year and Attainment Year Emissions Inventory Summary
                                          [Summer average tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                        NOX (2012)      NOX (2031)      VOC (2012)      VOC (2031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources..............................            42.4            29.5            85.3           100.0
Area Sources....................................             4.7             4.9           147.0           152.7

[[Page 44532]]

 
On-road Mobile..................................           187.7            45.1            60.5            18.3
Off-road Mobile.................................           104.7            52.4            44.5            25.7
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           339.6           131.9           337.3           296.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix B (note that because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total
  of all categories).

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As described elsewhere, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires the base year 
inventory to be consistent with the RFP baseline year inventory; 
accordingly, the 2016 Ozone Plan uses the year 2012 for the base year 
inventory and the RFP baseline year inventory. The EPA has evaluated 
the 2012 base year inventory and the methodologies used by the District 
and CARB, and we find them to be comprehensive, accurate, and current. 
However, as discussed elsewhere, we are not taking action at this time 
to approve the base year emissions inventory or the emissions 
inventories for any of the RFP milestone years in the 2016 Ozone Plan. 
We intend to take action on the base year emissions inventory at a 
later time, together with the RFP demonstration, and other elements 
affected by the South Coast decision.
    However, we note that the attainment demonstration and VMT offset 
demonstration rely on the 2012 base year inventory. As discussed in 
section III.D of this proposed action, the EPA's draft modeling 
guidance states that the EPA does not require a particular year to be 
used for the base year for modeling purposes. The most appropriate base 
year may be the most recent year of the National Emissions Inventory, 
or it may be selected in view of unusual meteorology, transport 
patterns, or other factors that may vary from year to year.\33\ Based 
on our review of the emissions inventories provided in the 2016 Ozone 
Plan, we find that the 2012 base year emissions inventory and future 
year emissions inventories that are derived therefrom provide an 
acceptable basis for the attainment demonstration and VMT offset 
demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See section 2.7.1 of Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 
December 2014 Draft, EPA OAQPS; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Emission Statement

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP 
revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or 
NOX to provide the state with statements of actual emissions 
from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and 
must contain a certification that the information contained in the 
statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual 
certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows 
states to waive the emission statement requirement for any class or 
category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year 
(tpy) of VOC or NOX, if the state provides an inventory of 
emissions from such class or category of sources as part of the base 
year or periodic inventories required under CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 
182(a)(3)(A), based on the use of emission factors established by the 
EPA or other methods acceptable to the EPA.
    The preamble of the 2008 Ozone SRR states that if an area has a 
previously approved emission statement rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment 
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for 
purposes of the emission statement requirement for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.\34\ The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is 
adequate and, if so, may rely on it to meet the emission statement 
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Where an existing emission 
statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of 
this rule, states can provide the rationale for that determination to 
the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement. 
States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by 
the existing emission statement program. Where an emission statement 
requirement is modified for any reason, states must provide the 
revisions to the emission statement as part of their SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The District adopted Rule 1160, ``Emission Statements,'' on 
November 18, 1992, to address the SIP submittal requirements for 
emission statements for areas such as San Joaquin Valley that were 
designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under the CAA 
Amendments of 1990. CARB submitted District Rule 1160 to the EPA on 
January 11, 1993.
    District Rule 1160 applies to all owners and operators of any 
stationary source category that emits or may emit VOC or 
NOX, but allows the District to waive the requirements for 
any class or category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy 
of VOC or NOX under certain circumstances. Under District 
Rule 1160, owners or operators must provide the District, on an annual 
basis, with a written statement in such form as the District 
prescribes, showing actual emissions of VOC and NOX from the 
source. Owners or operators may comply with the requirement by 
completing and returning either an Emission Statement or an Emission 
Data Survey Form. Both the emission statement and the data survey form 
are intended to provide an estimate of actual emissions from the given 
stationary source. Lastly, District Rule 1160 requires certification by 
the responsible official that the information is accurate to the best 
knowledge of the individual certifying the information.
    The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that District Rule 1160 continues to 
meet the emission statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) 
and relies on that rule to meet the emission statement requirements for 
the 2008 ozone standards.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See section 3.11.2 (``Emission Reporting Programs'') in the 
2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As noted previously, the EPA has not taken action on CARB's January 
11, 1993 submittal of District Rule 1160 but is proposing to do so 
herein. First, we

[[Page 44533]]

have evaluated District Rule 1160 for compliance with the specific 
requirements for emission statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i). 
We find that District Rule 1160 applies within the entire ozone 
nonattainment area; applies to all permitted sources of VOC and 
NOX; requires the submittal, on an annual basis, of the 
types of information necessary to estimate actual emissions from the 
subject stationary sources; and requires certification by the 
responsible officials representing the owners and operators of 
stationary sources. As such, we find that District Rule 1160 meets the 
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).
    We also note that, while District Rule 1160 provides authority to 
the District to waive the requirement for any class or category of 
stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy, such a waiver is allowed 
under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) so long as the state includes 
estimates of such class or category of stationary sources in base year 
emissions inventories and periodic inventories submitted under CAA 
sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), based on EPA emissions factors or 
other methods acceptable to the EPA. We recognize that emissions 
inventories developed by CARB for San Joaquin Valley routinely include 
actual emissions estimates for all stationary sources or classes or 
categories of such sources, including those less than 25 tpy, and that 
such inventories provide the basis for inventories submitted to meet 
the requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). By 
approval of emissions inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), the EPA is implicitly accepting 
the methods and factors used by CARB to develop those emissions 
estimates. Our most recent approval of a base year emissions inventory 
for San Joaquin Valley is found at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) 
(approval of base year emissions inventory for the 1997 ozone NAAQS).
    Thus, for the reasons stated above, we propose to approve District 
Rule 1160, which CARB submitted on January 11, 1993, as meeting the 
emission statement requirements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). For 
more detailed information concerning our evaluation of District Rule 
1160, please see the related technical support document.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA's 
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 1160 Emission 
Statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and Control 
Technology

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide 
for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable 
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the 
area as may be obtained through implementation of reasonably available 
control technology), and also provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The 
2008 Ozone SRR requires that, for each nonattainment area required to 
submit an attainment demonstration, the state concurrently submit a SIP 
revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to 
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any 
RFP requirements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM 
requirement in the General Preamble for the Implementation of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and in a memorandum entitled ``Guidance on 
the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment 
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' \38\ In 
summary, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states should 
consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source 
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are 
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they 
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's 
attainment date by one year or more.\39\ Any measures that are 
necessary to meet these requirements that are not already either 
federally promulgated, or part of the state's SIP, or otherwise 
creditable in the SIP, must be submitted in enforceable form as part of 
the state's attainment plan for the area.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 1992) 
and Memorandum dated November 30, 1999, from John Seitz, Director, 
OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, titled ``Guidance on the 
Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment 
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
    \39\ Ibid. See also 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), and memorandum 
dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to 
Regional Air Directors, titled ``Additional Submission on RACM From 
States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
    \40\ For ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or 
above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of RACT 
for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for 
which the EPA has issued a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA 
section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply 
to major stationary sources of NOX. In Extreme areas, a 
major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential 
to emit at least 10 tpy of VOC or NOX (see CAA section 
182(e) and (f)). Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, states were required to 
submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT requirements of CAA sections 
182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 24 months after the effective 
date of designation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and to implement the 
required RACT measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of 
designation (see 40 CFR 51.1112(a)). California submitted the CAA 
section 182 RACT SIP for San Joaquin Valley on July 18, 2014, and 
the EPA fully approved this submission on July 12, 2018. See 83 FR 
41006 (August 17, 2018). We are not addressing the section 182 RACT 
requirements in today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(6) requires that nonattainment area plans 
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control 
measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as 
fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as 
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 
appropriate to provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS.\41\ Under 
the 2008 Ozone SRR, all control measures needed for attainment must be 
implemented no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone 
season.\42\ The attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone 
season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's maximum attainment 
date.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    \42\ See 40 CFR 51.1108(d).
    \43\ See 40 CFR 51.1100(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    For the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District, CARB, and the local 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) each undertook a process to 
identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to 
expeditious attainment of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley. We describe each agency's efforts below.
a. District's RACM Analysis
    The District's RACM demonstration and control strategy for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS focuses on stationary and area source controls and is 
described in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone 
Plan. To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed 59 control 
measures for a number of source categories and compared its measures 
against federal requirements and regulations implemented by the State 
and other air districts. In the years prior to the adoption of the 2016 
Ozone Plan, the District developed and implemented comprehensive plans 
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS

[[Page 44534]]

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) and ozone 
(e.g., the 2004 Ozone Plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2007 Ozone 
Plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 2013 Ozone Plan for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS).\44\ These plans have resulted in the District's adoption 
of many new rules and amendments to existing rules for stationary and 
area sources. In addition, although the District does not have 
authority to directly regulate emissions from mobile sources, the 
District has implemented control strategies to indirectly reduce 
emissions from mobile sources.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See the EPA's approval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan at 
81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016), the EPA's approval of the 2004 Ozone 
Plan and 2013 Ozone Plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) and 81 FR 
2140 (January 15, 2016), and the EPA's approval of the 2007 Ozone 
Plan at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
    \45\ See, e.g., Rule 9410 (Employer-Based Trip Reduction), 
approved into the California SIP at 81 FR 6761 (February 9, 2016); 
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review), approved into the California SIP 
at 89 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011); and Rule 9310 (School Bus Fleets), 
approved into the California SIP at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 identifies the District control measures listed in table 5-
1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan, which contribute toward attainment of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS by 2031. The EPA has approved all of these measures 
into the California SIP.

                     Table 2--District Rules Achieving Emissions Reductions in or After 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Date adopted
        Rule No.                 Rule title              or last          Citation for EPA approval into SIP
                                                       amended \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4103...................  Open Burning..............         4/15/10  77 FR 214 (1/4/12)
4307...................  Boilers, Steam Generators,         4/21/16  82 FR 37817 (8/14/17)
                          and Process Heaters 2 to
                          5 MMBtu per hour \b\.
4308...................  Boilers, Steam Generators,        11/14/13  80 FR 7803 (2/12/15)
                          and Process Heaters 0.075
                          to less than 2 MMBtu per
                          hour.
4311...................  Flares....................         6/18/09  76 FR 68106 (11/3/11)
4306/4320..............  Boilers, Steam Generators,        10/16/08  75 FR 1715 (1/13/2010)/ 76 FR 16696 (3/25/
                          and Process Heaters                         11)
                          greater than 5 MMBtu per
                          hour.
4352...................  Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam         12/15/11  77 FR 66548 (11/6/12)
                          Generators, and Process
                          Heaters.
4354...................  Glass Melting Furnaces....         5/19/11  78 FR 6740 (1/31/13)
4565...................  Biosolids, Animal Manure,          3/15/07  77 FR 2228 (1/17/12)
                          Poultry Litter Operations.
4566...................  Organic Material                   8/18/11  77 FR 71129 (11/29/12)
                          Composting Operations.
4601...................  Architectural Coatings....        12/17/09  76 FR 69135 (11/8/11)
4605...................  Aerospace Assembly and             6/16/11  76 FR 70886 (11/16/11)
                          Component Coating
                          Operations.
4653...................  Adhesives and Sealants....         9/16/10  77 FR 7536 (2/13/12)
4682...................  Polystyrene, Polyethylene,         9/20/07  77 FR 58312 (9/20/12)
                          and Polypropylene
                          Products Manufacturing.
4684...................  Polyester Resin Operations       8/18/2011  77 FR 5709 (2/6/12)
4702...................  Internal Combustion               11/14/13  81 FR 24029 (4/25/16)
                          Engines.
4905...................  Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-            1/22/15  81 FR 17390 (3/29/16)
                          Type Residential Central
                          Furnaces.
9610...................  State Implementation Plan          6/20/13  80 FR 19020 (4/9/15)
                          Credit for Emission
                          Reductions Generated
                          Through Incentive
                          Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Reflects more recent submittals for rules 4307, 4605, 4684 and 4702 than reflected in table 5-1 of the 2016
  Ozone Plan.
\b\ Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu).
Source: Table 5-1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.

    The District provides a more comprehensive evaluation of its RACM 
control strategy in Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan, which provides 
the following:
     Description of the sources within the category or sources 
subject to the rule;
     Base year and projected baseline year emissions for the 
source category affected by the rule;
     Discussion of the current requirements of the rule; and
     Discussion of potential additional control measures, 
including, in many cases, a discussion of the technological and 
economic feasibility of the additional control measures. This includes 
comparison of each District rule to analogous control measures adopted 
by other agencies (including the EPA, the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District).
    We provide more detailed information about these control measures 
in our technical support document.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document: Proposed 
Approval of Portions of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan: 
District Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its evaluation of all of these measures, the District 
concludes that it is implementing all RACM for sources under the 
District's jurisdiction.
b. CARB's RACM Analysis
    Chapters 5 and 6 of the 2016 Ozone Plan contain CARB's evaluation 
of mobile source and other statewide control measures that reduce 
emissions of NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin Valley. Source 
categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for reducing 
emissions in California include most new and existing on- and off-road 
engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer products. The 
California Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for 
regulating the application of pesticides, which is a significant source 
of VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.
    Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and 
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the 
State of California has been a leader in the development of stringent 
control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels 
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209 
(subject to a waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emission 
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new 
and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
    Historically, the EPA has allowed California to take into account 
emissions reductions from CARB regulations for which the EPA has issued 
waiver or authorizations under CAA section 209, notwithstanding the 
fact that these regulations have not been approved as part of the 
California SIP. However, in response to the decision by

[[Page 44535]]

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Ninth 
Circuit'') in Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, the EPA has since 
approved mobile source regulations for which waiver authorizations have 
been issued as revisions to the California SIP.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14447 (March 
21, 2017), and 83 FR 8404 (February 27, 2018). See also Committee 
for a Better Arvin, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's mobile source program extends beyond regulations that are 
subject to the waiver or authorization process set forth in CAA section 
209 to include standards and other requirements to control emissions 
from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel 
specifications, and many other types of mobile sources. Generally, 
these regulations have been submitted and approved as revisions to the 
California SIP.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See, e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other 
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-
powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), revisions to the 
California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations 
at 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the California motor 
vehicle I/M program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While all of the identified State control measures contribute to 
some degree to attainment of the 2008 ozone standards in the San 
Joaquin Valley, some measures are identified in particular in the 2016 
Ozone Plan as providing significant emissions reductions relied upon 
for attainment of the 2008 ozone standards. These measures include the 
On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Regulation, the Low Emission Vehicle 
III and Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation, and the Heavy-Duty Truck 
Idling Requirements.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See action approving into the SIP the On-Road Heavy-Duty 
Diesel Regulation, the Low Emission Vehicle and Zero Emission 
Vehicle Regulation, and the Heavy-Duty Truck Idling Requirements at 
81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that, in light of the 
comprehensiveness and stringency of CARB's mobile source program, all 
RACM for mobile sources under CARB's jurisdiction are being 
implemented, and that no additional measure would advance attainment of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by at least a year.
c. Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis and Transportation Control 
Measures (TCMs)
    The local jurisdictions' RACM analysis was conducted by the eight 
MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley and is provided in Appendix D of the 
2016 Ozone Plan.\50\ This analysis focuses on the MPOs' efforts to 
implement Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) as part of the adopted 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality cost-effectiveness policy and in 
the development of each Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTPs 
include improvements to each component of the transportation system 
including: Transit, passenger rail, goods movement, aviation and 
airport ground access, and highways; and include TCM projects that 
reduce vehicle use, or change traffic flow or congestion conditions. 
The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that no additional local RACM measures, 
beyond those measures already adopted, would advance attainment of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS by at least a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council of 
Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced 
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation 
Commission, The Council of Fresno County Governments, The Kings 
County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of 
Governments, and the Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    The process followed by the District in the 2016 Ozone Plan to 
identify RACM is generally consistent with the EPA's recommendations in 
the General Preamble. The process included compiling a comprehensive 
list of potential control measures for sources of NOX and 
VOC in the San Joaquin Valley.\51\ As part of this process, the 
District evaluated potential controls for all relevant source 
categories for economic and technological feasibility and provided 
justifications for the rejection of certain identified measures. The 
District concluded in its RACM evaluation that no additional measures, 
individually or in combination, could advance attainment by one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the District's determination in the 2016 Ozone 
Plan that its stationary and area source control measures represent 
RACM for NOX and VOC. In our review, we also considered our 
previous evaluations of the District's rules in connection with our 
approval of the San Joaquin Valley Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) SIP demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\52\ Based 
on this review, we believe the District's rules provide for the 
implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of 
NOX and VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 83 FR 41006 (August 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to mobile sources, we recognize CARB as a leader in 
the development and implementation of stringent control measures for 
on-road and off-road mobile sources, and its current program addresses 
the full range of mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley through 
regulatory programs for both new and in-use vehicles. With respect to 
transportation controls, we note that the MPOs have a program to fund 
cost-effective TCMs. Overall, we believe that the programs developed 
and administered by CARB and the MPOs provide for the implementation of 
RACM for NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin Valley.
    In the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District estimated that it would take a 
reduction of 2.7 tpd of NOX to advance attainment by one 
year from 2031 to 2030.\53\ Based on our review of the results of these 
RACM analyses, we agree with the State's and District's conclusion that 
there are no additional reasonably available measures that would 
advance attainment of the 2008 ozone standards in the San Joaquin 
Valley by at least one year. For the foregoing reasons, we propose to 
find that the 2016 Ozone Plan provides for the implementation of all 
RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act requires that a plan for 
an ozone nonattainment area classified Serious or above include a 
``demonstration that the plan . . . will provide for attainment of the 
ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date. This attainment 
demonstration must be based on photochemical grid modeling or any other 
analytical method determined . . . to be at least as effective.'' The 
attainment demonstration predicts future ambient concentrations for 
comparison to the NAAQS, making use of available information on 
measured concentrations, meteorology, and current and projected 
emissions inventories of ozone precursors, including the effect of 
control measures in the plan.
    Areas classified Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS must demonstrate 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 20 years 
after the effective date of designation as nonattainment. The San 
Joaquin Valley was designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, 
and the area must demonstrate attainment of the standards by July 20, 
2032.\54\ An attainment demonstration must show attainment of the 
standards for a full calendar year

[[Page 44536]]

before the attainment date, so in practice, Extreme nonattainment areas 
must demonstrate attainment in 2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 80 FR 12264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's recommended procedures for modeling ozone as part of an 
attainment demonstration are contained in Modeling Guidance for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze (``Modeling Guidance'').\55\ The 
Modeling Guidance includes recommendations for a modeling protocol, 
model input preparation, model performance evaluation, use of model 
output for the numerical NAAQS attainment test, and modeling 
documentation. Air quality modeling is performed using meteorology and 
emissions from a base year, and the predicted concentrations from this 
base case modeling are compared to air quality monitoring data from 
that year to evaluate model performance. At a minimum, a model 
performance evaluation should include an operational evaluation, with 
statistics and graphical plots assessing the ability of the model to 
replicate observed ozone concentrations. Where possible, performance of 
other chemical species participating in ozone formation chemistry, such 
as NO2 and peroxyacetyl nitrate, should also be examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 
December 2014 Draft, EPA OAQPS; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. This updates, but is largely consistent with, the earlier 
Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 
and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007. Additional EPA 
modeling guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, Guideline on 
Air Quality Models, 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017; available at 
https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the model achieves accurate results based on 
relevant atmospheric phenomena, without errors that compensate each 
other to give just the appearance of accuracy, and to guide refinement 
of model inputs, it is also recommended to assess, at least to some 
extent, if the model correctly represents the underlying physical and 
chemical processes. This can be done via diagnostic evaluation, such as 
assessing model sensitivity to changes in inputs and process analysis. 
It can also be done via dynamic evaluation, such as assessing the 
modeled concentration change between different historical periods. Once 
the model performance is determined to be acceptable, future year 
emissions are simulated with the model. The relative (or percent) 
change in modeled concentration due to future emissions reductions 
provides a Relative Response Factor (RRF). Each monitoring site's RRF 
is applied to its monitored base year design value to provide the 
future design value for comparison to the NAAQS. The Modeling Guidance 
also recommends supplemental air quality analyses, which may be used as 
part of a Weight of Evidence (WOE) analysis. A WOE analysis 
corroborates the attainment demonstration by considering evidence other 
than the main air quality modeling attainment test, such as trends and 
additional monitoring and modeling analyses.
    Unlike the RFP demonstration and the emissions inventory 
requirements, the 2008 SRR does not specify that a specific year must 
be used for the modeled base year for the attainment demonstration. The 
Modeling Guidance also does not require a particular year to be used as 
the base year for 8-hour ozone plans.\56\ The Modeling Guidance 
explains that the most recent year of the National Emissions Inventory 
may be appropriate for use as the base year for modeling, but that 
other years may be more appropriate when considering meteorology, 
transport patterns, exceptional events, or other factors that may vary 
from year to year.\57\ Therefore, the base year used for the attainment 
demonstration need not be the same year used to meet the requirements 
for emissions inventories and RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Modeling Guidance at section 2.7.1.
    \57\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    CARB performed the air quality modeling for the 2016 Ozone Plan 
with assistance from the District. The modeling relies on a 2012 base 
year and demonstrates attainment in 2031. The Plan's modeling protocol 
is in Appendix I of the 2016 Ozone Plan and contains all the elements 
recommended in the Modeling Guidance. Those include: Selection of 
model, time period to model, modeling domain, and model boundary 
conditions and initialization procedures; a discussion of emissions 
inventory development and other model input preparation procedures; 
model performance evaluation procedures; selection of days and other 
details for calculating RRFs; and provisions for archival and access to 
raw model inputs and outputs.
    The modeling and modeled attainment demonstration are described in 
Chapter 4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan and in more detail in Appendix H, 
which provides a description of model input preparation procedures and 
various model configuration options. Appendix J of the 2016 Ozone Plan 
provides the coordinates of the modeling domain and thoroughly 
describes the development of the modeling emissions inventory, 
including its chemical speciation, its spatial and temporal allocation, 
its temperature dependence, and quality assurance procedures. The 
modeling analysis used version 5 of the Community Multiscale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) photochemical model, developed by the EPA. The 2007 
version of the State-wide Air Pollution Research Center chemical 
mechanism (SAPRC07) was used within CMAQ. SAPRC07 is an update to a 
mechanism that has been used for the San Joaquin Valley and other areas 
of the US, and it has been peer-reviewed as discussed in the protocol. 
To prepare meteorological input for CMAQ, the Weather and Research 
Forecasting model version 3.6 (WRF) from the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research was used. The overall WRF meteorological modeling 
domain covers California's neighboring states, and major portions of 
the next outer ring of states, with 36-kilometer (km) resolution (i.e., 
grid cell size); it has nested domains with 12 km and 4 km resolution, 
with the latter, innermost covering the entire State of California; and 
it has 30 vertical layers extending up to 16 km. The overall CMAQ air 
quality modeling domain includes the entire State of California with 12 
km resolution and a nested domain with finer 4 km resolution covering 
California's Central Valley, including the San Joaquin Valley; and it 
has 18 vertical layers that overlap the WRF layers. The WRF modeling 
uses routinely available meteorological and air quality data collected 
during 2012. Those data cover May through September, a period that 
spans the period of highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin 
Valley. Two analyses in the WOE analysis in Appendix K section 4 
provide the justification for the choice of 2012 as model base year, 
based on ozone concentrations and various meteorological measures of 
the ozone forming potential of candidate years 2010-2013. CMAQ and WRF 
are both recognized in the Modeling Guidance as technically sound, 
state-of-the-art models. The areal extent and the horizontal and 
vertical resolution used in these models were adequate for modeling San 
Joaquin Valley ozone.
    The WRF meteorological model results and performance statistics are 
described in Appendix H, section 3.2. Supplemental figures S.1-S.20 
provide hourly time series graphs of wind speed, direction, and 
temperature for the Northern, Central, and Southern sub-

[[Page 44537]]

regions of the San Joaquin Valley for each month that was modeled. The 
modeling shows a positive bias in wind speed, and various biases in 
temperature (negative in Southern & Central, positive in Northern) and 
in humidity (opposite direction to temperature).\58\ These biases are 
also seen in the hourly supplemental figures. For example, peak wind 
speeds are often higher than observed (positive bias) but the 
overprediction decreases at moderate and low wind speeds and in the 
later months of the simulation, while the overall diurnal pattern 
matches consistently. At first glance the biases in wind speed and in 
relative humidity seem large relative to their base values.\59\ 
However, the 2016 Ozone Plan states that the bias and error are 
relatively small and are comparable to those seen in previous 
meteorological modeling of central California and cited in the 2016 
Ozone Plan. The 2016 Ozone Plan compared statistics for wind speed, 
relative humidity, and temperature to benchmarks from a study cited in 
the Modeling Guidance. The comparison shows that the mean bias in the 
2016 Ozone Plan's meteorological modeling is on the high side but 
within the benchmarks, the mean error is lower, and the Index of 
Agreement \60\ is quite good, especially for temperature. The Modeling 
Guidance cautions against using comparisons to performance benchmarks 
as pass/fail tests, and stresses their use in assessing general 
confidence and in guiding refinement of model inputs when statistics 
fall outside benchmark ranges.\61\ In summary, the 2016 Ozone Plan's 
meteorological modeling performance statistics appear satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Appendix H, table H-7, Figures H-3 and H-5.
    \59\ See, e.g., table H-7 Southern San Joaquin Valley wind speed 
bias of 0.5 relative to base speed 2.4 meters per second, and 
relative humidity bias of 18 percent relative to 55 percent.
    \60\ The Index of Agreement is a statistical metric. See page 47 
of the Modeling Protocol to the 2016 Ozone Plan.
    \61\ See page 30 of the Modeling Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As recommended in the Modeling Guidance, the 2016 Ozone Plan also 
provided a phenomenological evaluation of the meteorological modeling, 
assessing its ability to replicate qualitative features of the area's 
meteorological phenomena that could be important for ozone 
concentrations. The 2016 Ozone Plan's evaluation confirmed that the 
model was able to capture important phenomena such as up-slope and 
down-slope flows in the mountain ranges surrounding the Central Valley, 
and the split in flow toward north and south as winds enter the Central 
Valley through the Sacramento River delta area.
    Ozone model performance statistics are described in the 2016 Ozone 
Plan at Appendix H, section 5.2. That section includes tables of 
statistics recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 8-hour and 1-hour 
daily maximum ozone for the three San Joaquin Valley sub-regions. 
Supplemental figures S.21-S.102 provide frequency distributions, 
scatterplots, and hourly time series graphs of ozone concentrations for 
each of the 25 monitors located in the San Joaquin Valley. The 
supplemental hourly time series show generally good performance, though 
many individual daily ozone peaks are underpredicted. This is confirmed 
by the ozone frequency distributions (e.g., figure S.1), scatter plots 
(e.g., figure S.22), and plots of bias against concentration (e.g., 
figure S.25). The highest concentrations also have the largest negative 
bias. The 2016 Ozone Plan states that the performance statistics are 
comparable to those seen in previous modeling of ozone in central 
California and cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan. It also found the 
statistics to be within the ranges for other modeling applications 
discussed in a study cited by the Modeling Guidance. The 2016 Ozone 
Plan's corresponding graphic (figure 11) shows that for negative bias 
(underprediction), the 2016 Ozone Plan's modeling is among the poorer 
performing in the range, but for overall error it is among the best 
performing. Note that, because only relative changes are used from the 
modeling, the underprediction of absolute ozone concentrations does not 
mean that future concentrations will be underestimated.
    As noted in the 2016 Ozone Plan's modeling protocol, the Modeling 
Guidance recognizes that limited time and resources can constrain the 
extent of the diagnostic and dynamic evaluation of model performance 
undertaken.\62\ No diagnostic evaluation, as that term is used in the 
Modeling Guidance, was described in the 2016 Ozone Plan. Appendix H to 
the 2016 Ozone Plan includes section 5.2.1 entitled ``Diagnostic 
Evaluation,'' though it actually describes a dynamic evaluation in 
which model predictions of ozone concentrations for weekdays and 
weekends were compared to each other and to observed concentrations. 
Since NOX emissions are substantially less on weekends, 
these comparisons provide useful information on how the model responds 
to emission changes. The 2016 Ozone Plan notes that for the modeled 
year 2012, the model-predicted relationship of weekday and weekend 
concentrations tends to match the observed (i.e., the predicted amount 
of ``weekend effect,'' or increase in weekend ozone despite decrease in 
NOX emissions, matches the observed concentrations). The 
modeled weekend response is also consistent with an independent 
analysis cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan of the historical response of 
ozone to reductions in NOX.\63\ The dynamic evaluation 
provides strong evidence that the model is working well at simulating 
ozone and how it responds to emission changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See page 51 of the Modeling Protocol to the 2016 Ozone 
Plan, and page 63 of the Modeling Guidance.
    \63\ See 2016 Ozone Plan Appendix K, Weight of Evidence, section 
7 ``Weekend Effect in the San Joaquin Valley'' provides additional 
information on the observed concentrations and how the weekday-
weekend difference has changed over the years. Section 9 
``Corroborating Studies'' provides additional information on the 
trend in ozone formation regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for meteorological performance, the Modeling Guidance cautions 
against pass/fail tests, in favor of an overall confidence assessment 
and identification of causes of poor performance to help guide 
refinement of model input.\64\ Confidence in the model's ability to 
correctly simulate emission changes would have been enhanced if the 
2016 Ozone Plan had discussed any input refinement and performance 
improvement process that was undertaken, and if it had provided some 
performance assessment of non-ozone chemical species participating in 
ozone formation chemistry. The 2016 Ozone Plan contains a good 
operational evaluation showing good model performance, and also a 
useful dynamic evaluation. Some diagnostic evaluations as described in 
the Modeling Guidance would have provided additional confidence in the 
model. The information provided in the 2016 Ozone Plan supports the 
adequacy of the modeling for the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Modeling Guidance, pages 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After model performance for the 2012 base case was accepted, the 
model was applied to develop RRFs for the attainment demonstration.\65\ 
This entailed running the model with the same meteorological inputs as 
before, but with adjusted emissions inventories to reflect the expected 
changes between 2012 and the 2031 attainment year. These modeling 
inventories excluded ``emissions events which are either random and/or 
cannot be projected to the future . . . wildfires, . . . and the

[[Page 44538]]

[San Francisco Bay Area] Chevron refinery fire.'' \66\ The base year or 
``reference year'' modeling inventory was the same as the inventory for 
the modeling base case except for these exclusions. The 2031 inventory 
projects the base year with these exclusions into the future by 
including the effect of economic growth and emissions control 
measures.\67\ To include the fires in the base year but not the future 
year would effectively credit the 2016 Ozone Plan's control measures 
with eliminating emissions from the fire; therefore, it makes more 
sense to treat the base year and future year consistently with respect 
to fire or other unpredictable emissions events. The Modeling Guidance 
recommends that day-specific wildfire emissions be used in modeling of 
both base and future years, possibly with spatial and temporal 
averaging to create ``average'' fire emissions that avoid acute effects 
from large fires, but it also notes that other approaches may be 
appropriate.\68\ The 2016 Ozone Plan's approach of excluding wildfires 
altogether avoids uncertainties in fire emissions and meteorology. It 
has the drawback that the model response to 2012-2031 emission changes 
does not reflect the effect of wildfires, which occur in most years and 
could affect the atmospheric chemistry and its response to those 
emission changes. The approach used in the 2016 Ozone Plan is 
reasonable, but would be stronger with a more complete rationale in the 
modeling protocol or the Plan documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, section 4.4, and Appendix H, section 
4.2.
    \66\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, page H-11.
    \67\ In general, the ``reference year'' could be a different 
calendar year than the modeling base case. The base case modeling 
replicates a particular year's measured concentrations using that 
same year's meteorology and emissions. Modeling of e.g., a 
regulatorily required year used as the reference year would still 
use the same meteorology, but emissions from the required year.
    \68\ See Modeling Guidance, page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan carried out the attainment test procedure 
consistent with the Modeling Guidance. The RRFs were calculated as the 
ratio of future to base year concentrations. This was done for each 
monitor using the top 10 ozone days over 0.060 ppm,\69\ using the base 
year concentration in the highest of the three by three modeling grid 
cells centered on the monitor, and the future concentration from the 
same day and grid cell, with some exclusions, e.g., if there were too 
few days above 0.060 ppm. The resulting RRFs were then applied to 2012 
weighted base year design values \70\ for each monitor to arrive at 
2031 future year design values.\71\ The highest 2031 ozone design value 
is 0.074 ppm, which occurs at the Clovis-N Villa Avenue site; this is 
below the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, thus demonstrating 
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The Modeling Guidance and the 2016 Ozone Plan state 
concentrations in terms of parts per billion.
    \70\ The Modeling Guidance recommends that RRFs be applied to 
the average of three three-year design values centered on the base 
year, in this case the design values for 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 
2012-2015. This amounts to a 5-year weighted average of individual 
year 4th high concentrations, centered on the base year of 2012, and 
so is referred to as a weighted design value.
    \71\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, tables 4-4 and H-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan includes an additional attainment demonstration 
using ``banded'' RRFs.\72\ The banded approach is described more fully 
in a study cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan. The underlying idea is to 
divide ozone concentrations into ranges or bands and compute RRFs for 
each band separately. This allows different ozone concentrations to 
respond differently to emission changes. The Modeling Guidance 
procedure instead assumes that the relative response is the same for 
all ozone concentrations. The banded RRF approach is a reasonable 
refinement, since higher concentrations generally are more responsive 
to emissions changes.\73\ This approach was used in the 2013 1-hour 
Ozone San Joaquin Valley Plan approved by the EPA, and it is cited by 
the Modeling Guidance as an alternative approach.\74\ In this case, the 
banded approach increased design values for some monitors and decreased 
them for others; for Clovis, the site with the highest 2031 design 
value, the design value decreased from 0.074 ppm to 0.072 ppm. This 
provides corroboration for the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id. Appendix H, section 5.5 and Appendix K, section 8.2
    \73\ See Modeling Guidance, page 100.
    \74\ 81 FR 19492, April 5, 2016; see also proposal 81 FR 2140, 
January 15, 2016 at 2151. See also Modeling Guidance section 4.1.2, 
page 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the 2016 Ozone Plan modeling includes an ``Unmonitored 
Area Analysis'' to assess the attainment status of locations other than 
monitoring sites.\75\ The Modeling Guidance describes a ``gradient 
adjusted spatial fields'' procedure along with the EPA software 
(``Modeled Attainment Test Software'' or MATS) used to carry it 
out.\76\ This procedure uses a form of interpolation, combining 
monitored concentrations and modeled gradients (modeled changes in 
concentration with distance from a monitor) to estimate future 
concentrations at locations without a monitor. The 2016 Ozone Plan 
states that an Unmonitored Area Analysis was carried out using software 
developed by CARB. The procedure was described to be the same as that 
outlined in the Modeling Guidance, with the exception that it was 
restricted to locations spanned by monitors (i.e., within a convex 
shape enclosing the monitors) rather than extrapolating beyond to the 
full rectangular modeling domain as in the EPA procedure. The stated 
reason for this restriction is that it avoids the inherent uncertainty 
associated with extrapolation outside the monitoring network. Most of 
the nonattainment area is nevertheless covered in the analysis, since 
there are monitors outside the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. 
However, a strip along the eastern edge, from the foothills to the 
crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains, is not included in the 
analysis.\77\ The method used is an improvement over the simpler 
interpolation used in some previous plans. The 2016 Ozone Plan states 
that the results showed concentrations below the NAAQS for all 
locations, with concentrations under 70 ppb except for small regions 
near Tracy and Fresno. This Unmonitored Area Analysis supports the 
demonstration that all locations in the San Joaquin Valley will attain 
the NAAQS by 2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, section 5.4.
    \76\ See section 4.7 of the Modeling Guidance.
    \77\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, figure J-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the formal attainment demonstration, the Plan also 
contains a WOE analysis in Appendix K. Some of the contents of Appendix 
K have already been discussed above, e.g., section 4 ``Suitability of 
2012 as a Base Year for Modeling'', section 7 ``Weekend Effect in the 
San Joaquin Valley,'' section 8 ``Modeled Attainment Projections'' with 
a comparison of the standard attainment demonstration RRFs and the band 
RRFs emissions reductions. These all add support and corroboration for 
the modeling used in the attainment demonstration and the credibility 
of attainment in 2031. Other sections also add support to the 
attainment demonstration, mainly by showing long term downward trends 
that continue through 2014, the latest year available prior to 2016 
Ozone Plan development. Downward trends are demonstrated for measured 
ozone concentrations, number of days above the ozone NAAQS, measured 
concentrations of the ozone precursors NOX and VOC, and 
emissions of NOX and VOC. The downward measured ozone trends 
are seen even when they are adjusted for meteorology (using 
Classification and Regression Trees to identify the meteorological 
variables that affect ozone, followed by multiple

[[Page 44539]]

regression of ozone on those variables). These all show the substantial 
air quality progress made in the San Joaquin Valley and add support to 
the attainment demonstration for 2031.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    The modeling shows that existing CARB and District control measures 
are sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS by 2031 at all 
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Given the extensive 
discussion of modeling procedures, tests, and performance analyses 
called for in the Modeling Protocol and the good model performance, the 
EPA finds that the modeling is adequate for purposes of supporting the 
attainment demonstration. The EPA finds that the State has demonstrated 
attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and we 
propose to approve the attainment demonstration provided in the 2016 
Ozone Plan.

E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Requirements for RFP are specified in CAA sections 172(c)(2), 
182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B). CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans 
for nonattainment areas provide for RFP, which is defined as such 
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutant as are required under part D (``Plan Requirements for 
Nonattainment Areas'') or may reasonably be required by the EPA for the 
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the 
applicable date. CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone 
nonattainment areas that are classified as Moderate or above 
demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC between the years of 1990 and 
1996. The EPA has typically referred to section 182(b)(1) as the Rate 
of Progress (ROP) requirement. For ozone nonattainment areas classified 
as Serious or higher, section 182(c)(2)(B) requires reductions averaged 
over each consecutive 3-year period beginning 6 years after the 
baseline year until the attainment date of at least 3 percent of 
baseline emissions per year. The provisions in CAA section 
182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allow an amount less than 3 percent of such baseline 
emissions each year if the state demonstrates to the EPA that the plan 
includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the area in 
light of technological achievability.
    The 2008 Ozone SRR considers areas classified Moderate or higher to 
have met the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) if the area has 
a fully approved 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour or 1997 8-hour 
ozone standards, provided the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment 
areas are the same.\78\ For such areas, the RFP requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(2) require areas classified as Moderate to provide a 15 
percent emission reduction of ozone precursors within 6 years of the 
baseline year. Areas classified as Serious or higher must meet the RFP 
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) by providing an 18 percent 
reduction of ozone precursors in the first 6-year period, and an 
average ozone precursor emission reduction of 3 percent per year for 
all remaining 3-year periods thereafter.\79\ Under the CAA 172(c)(2) 
and CAA 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, NOX emissions 
reductions may be substituted for VOC reductions.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
    \79\ Ibid.
    \80\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(C) and 40 CFR 
51.1110(a)(2)(ii)(B); and 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), 
emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally promulgated, or 
otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the baseline are 
creditable for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are met. 
Because the EPA has determined that the passage of time has caused the 
effect of certain exclusions to be de minimis, the RFP demonstration is 
no longer required to calculate and specifically exclude reductions 
from measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions 
promulgated by January 1, 1990; regulations concerning Reid vapor 
pressure promulgated by November 15, 1990; measures to correct previous 
RACT requirements; and, measures required to correct previous 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 Ozone SRR requires the RFP baseline year to be the most 
recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is 
required to be submitted to the EPA (i.e., 2011), but it also allows 
states to use an alternative baseline year between 2008 and 2012 if the 
state demonstrates why the alternative baseline year is 
appropriate.\82\ As discussed previously, in the South Coast decision 
issued on February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's RFP 
baseline year based on the year of the most recent triennial emissions 
inventory (i.e., 2011), but it vacated the provisions of the 2008 Ozone 
SRR that allowed states to justify and use an alternative baseline year 
between 2008 and 2012 for demonstrating RFP because the EPA had not 
provided a statutory basis for allowing use of alternative baseline 
years. On April 20, 2018, the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District submitted a petition for rehearing on the RFP baseline year 
issue, arguing that 2012 has a valid statutory basis because it was the 
year of designation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(b).
    \83\ See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, docket item #1727571, 
filed April 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the 15 percent ROP requirement by 
noting that the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley in 1997, and that the 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area covers the entire nonattainment area for the 2008 
ozone standards.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Chapter 6 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. See also 62 FR 1150 
(January 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the RFP requirements, the 2016 Ozone Plan selected 2012 
as the RFP baseline year and provided emissions inventories for the RFP 
baseline, milestone and attainment years.\85\ The RFP demonstration in 
the 2016 Ozone Plan uses NOX substitution beginning in 
milestone year 2018 to meet VOC emission targets and concluded that the 
RFP demonstration meets the applicable requirements for each milestone 
year and the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See the discussion beginning on page 6-10 and table 6-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have reviewed the 2016 Ozone Plan and agree that the EPA has 
approved a 15 percent ROP demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 
fulfilling the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See 62 FR 1150, at 1183 (January 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the RFP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 
182(c)(2)(B), the Ozone SRR established 2011 as the RFP baseline year. 
As discussed previously, the D.C. Circuit vacated provisions of the 
2008 Ozone SRR allowing states to use an alternative RPF baseline year 
between 2008 and 2012 in lieu of 2011. Because the 2016 Ozone Plan used 
2012 as the RFP baseline year, we are not taking action at this time on 
the RFP demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan.

[[Page 44540]]

F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures To Offset Emissions 
Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires the state, if subject to 
its requirements for a given area, to submit a revision that identifies 
and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and 
transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from 
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or number of vehicle trips in 
such area.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements. 
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt 
transportation control strategies and measures (1) to offset growth 
in emissions from growth in VMT, and, (2) in combination with other 
emission reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP, and (3) to 
demonstrate attainment. For more information on the EPA's 
interpretation of the three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), please 
see 77 FR 58067, at 58068 (September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal 
of approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit 
ruled that additional transportation control measures are required 
whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would 
have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions 
are actually decreasing.\88\ In response to the Ninth Circuit's 
decision, the EPA issued a memorandum titled ``Guidance on Implementing 
Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and 
Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to 
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled'' (herein referred to as the ``August 
2012 guidance'').\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d. 
584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 
2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (``Association 
of Irritated Residents'').
    \89\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and 
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl 
Edlund, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA 
Region VI, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 
IX, August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 guidance discusses the meaning of Transportation 
Control Strategies (TCSs) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) 
and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations 
made for the purpose of determining the degree to which any 
hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. 
Generally, TCSs encompass many types of controls including, for 
example, motor vehicle emissions limitations, I/M programs, alternative 
fuel programs, other technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would 
fit within the regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' \90\ Such 
measures include, but are not limited to, those listed in CAA section 
108(f). TCMs generally refer to programs intended to reduce VMT, the 
number of vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, including, e.g., 
programs for improved public transit, designation of certain lanes for 
passenger buses and high-occupancy vehicles, and trip reduction 
ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 
51.100(r) as meaning any measure that is directed toward reducing 
emissions of air pollutants from transportation sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that 
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with 
the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The August 2012 guidance recommends that 
states estimate emissions for the nonattainment area's base year and 
attainment year. One emissions inventory is developed for the base 
year, and three different emissions inventory scenarios are developed 
for the attainment year. For the attainment year, the state would 
present three emissions estimates, two of which would represent 
hypothetical emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to 
identify the growth in emissions due solely to the growth in VMT, and 
one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after 
fully accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions 
reductions obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 
2012 guidance for specific details on how states might conduct the 
calculations.
    The base year on-road VOC emissions should be calculated using VMT 
in that year, and should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place 
in the base year. This would include vehicle emissions standards, state 
and local control programs, such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any 
additional implemented TCSs and TCMs that were already required by or 
credited in the SIP as of that base year.
    The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year 
would be based on the projected VMT and trips for that year and assume 
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year 
inventory have been put in place since the base year. This calculation 
demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs 
or TCMs were implemented, and VMT and trips were allowed to grow at the 
projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the 
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT and 
trips. This represents a ``no action'' scenario. Emissions in the 
attainment year in this scenario may be lower than those in the base 
year due to fleet turnover; however, if VMT and/or numbers of vehicle 
trips are projected to increase in the attainment year, emissions would 
still likely be higher than if VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations would 
assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been 
put in place since the base year, but it would also assume that there 
was no growth in VMT and trips between the base year and attainment 
year. This estimate reflects the hypothetical emissions level that 
would have occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs had been put in place 
and if VMT and trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like 
the ``no action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions 
in the attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to 
fleet turnover, but in this case emissions would not be influenced by 
any growth in VMT or trips. This emissions estimate would reflect a 
ceiling on the attainment emissions that should be allowed to occur 
under the statute as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit because it shows 
what would happen under a scenario in which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs 
have yet been put in place and VMT and trips are held constant during 
the period from the area's base year to its attainment year. This 
represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. These two hypothetical 
status quo estimates are necessary steps in identifying the target 
level of emissions from which states determine whether further TCMs or 
TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and implemented in reality, 
would need to be adopted and implemented in order to fully offset any 
increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips identified in the 
``no action'' scenario.
    Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually 
expected to occur in the area's attainment year after taking into 
account reductions from all enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in reality 
were put in place after the baseline year. This estimate would be based 
on the VMT and trip levels expected to occur in the attainment year 
(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the first estimate) and all of the 
TCSs and TCMs expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take 
credit in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs put 
in place since the base year. This represents the ``projected

[[Page 44541]]

actual'' attainment year scenario. If this emissions estimate is less 
than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the 
second of the attainment year calculations, the TCSs or TCMs for the 
attainment year would be sufficient to fully offset the identified 
hypothetical growth in emissions.
    If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year 
emissions are still greater than the ceiling that was established in 
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after 
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need 
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 
growth in emissions. The additional TCSs or TCMs would need to bring 
the actual emissions down to at least the ``had VMT and trips held 
constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of the attainment year 
calculations, in order to meet the VMT offset requirement of section 
182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit.
2. Summary of the State's Submission
    CARB prepared the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstration, which is included as section D.3 (``VMT Offsets'') of 
Appendix D (``Mobile Source Control Strategy'') of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 
For the demonstration, CARB used EMFAC2014, the latest EPA-approved 
motor vehicle emissions model for California. The EMFAC2014 model 
estimates the on-road emissions from two combustion processes (i.e., 
running exhaust and start exhaust) and four evaporative processes 
(i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal losses, and resting losses). 
The EMFAC2014 model combines trip-based VMT data from the eight San 
Joaquin Valley MPOs (e.g., Council of Fresno County Governments), 
starts data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle population 
data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These sets of 
data are combined with corresponding emission rates to calculate 
emissions.
    Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and 
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is driven. As such, 
emissions from these processes are directly related to VMT and vehicle 
trips, and CARB included emissions from them in the calculations that 
provide the basis for the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstration. CARB did not include emissions from resting loss and 
diurnal loss processes in the analysis because such emissions are 
related to vehicle population, not to VMT or vehicle trips, and thus 
are not part of ``any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles 
traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area'' (emphasis added) 
under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
    The San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstration uses 2012 
as the base year and also includes the previously described three 
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset 
ceiling, and projected actual). The San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan 
provides a demonstration of attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standards in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2031, based on 
emissions projections for year 2031 reflecting adopted controls. As 
described in section III.D of this notice, the EPA is proposing to 
approve this attainment demonstration. Accordingly, we find CARB's 
selection of year 2031 as the attainment year for the VMT emissions 
offset demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to be appropriate.
    Table 3 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each 
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions 
estimates for the demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

            Table 3--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the 2008 Ozone Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          VMT                       Starts              Controls         VOC
                             ----------------------------------------------------------------------   emissions
          Scenario                                                                                 -------------
                                  Year        1000/day        Year        1000/day        Year           tpd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year...................          2012        96,934          2012        16,624          2012            50
No Action...................          2031       131,835          2031        20,572          2012            22
VMT Offset Ceiling..........          2031        96,934          2012        16,624          2012            17
Projected Actual............          2031       131,835          2031        20,572          2031            14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Appendix D, pages D-22 and D-24. Year 2031 VMT is based
  on 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs.

    For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014 model for the 
applicable base year (i.e., 2012 for the 2008 8-hour ozone standards) 
using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As shown in table 
3, CARB estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 50 tpd in 
2012.
    For the ``no action'' scenario, CARB first identified the on-road 
motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in place since 
the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2014 and then ran EMFAC2014 
with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the applicable attainment 
year (i.e., 2031 for the 2008 8-hour ozone standards) without the 
emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control programs 
put in place after the base year. Thus, the no action scenario reflects 
the hypothetical VOC emissions that would occur in the attainment year 
in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB had not put in place any additional 
TCSs or TCMs after 2012. As shown in table 3, CARB estimates the no 
action San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 22 tpd in 2031.
    For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014 
model for the attainment years but with VMT and starts data 
corresponding to base year values. Like the no action scenarios, the 
EMFAC2014 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the 
attainment years without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road 
motor vehicle control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario 
reflects hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB 
had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there 
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and 
the attainment year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips 
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions 
estimates under the no action scenario and the corresponding estimates 
under the VMT offset ceiling scenario. Based on the values in table 3, 
the hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips in 
the San Joaquin Valley would have been 5 tpd (i.e., 22 tpd minus 17 
tpd) for purposes of the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for 
the 8-hour ozone

[[Page 44542]]

standards. This hypothetical difference establishes the level of VMT 
growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the combination of 
post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs and any necessary additional TCMs and 
TCSs.
    For the ``projected actual'' scenario calculation, CARB ran the 
EMFAC2014 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at 
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB 
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in place since 
the base year. The most significant measures reducing VOC emissions 
during the 2012 to 2031 timeframe include the Advanced Clean Cars 
program, Low Emission Vehicles II and III standards, Zero Emissions 
Vehicle standards, On-Board Diagnostics, Smog Check Improvements, and 
California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See attachment A of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan 
includes a list of transportation control strategies. See also EPA 
final action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 
(June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 
18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in table 3, the calculation of the projected actual 
attainment-year VOC emissions resulted in 14 tpd for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS demonstration. CARB then compared this value against the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional 
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because 
the projected actual emissions are less than the corresponding VMT 
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that there are 
sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from 
the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the 
2008 8-hour standards. In fact, taking into account the creditable 
post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs, CARB showed that they offset the 
hypothetical difference by 8 tpd for the 2008 8-hour standards, rather 
than the required 5 tpd, respectively.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and 
TCMs put in place after the respective base year can be determined 
by subtracting the projected actual emissions estimates from the no 
action emissions estimates in table 3. For the purposes of the 2008 
8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions 
(i.e., 8 tpd based on 22 tpd minus 14 tpd) exceed the growth in 
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (i.e., 5 tpd based on 
22 tpd minus 17 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    Based on our review of the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 
demonstration in Appendix D of the 2016 Ozone Plan, we find CARB's 
analysis to be acceptable and agree that CARB has adopted sufficient 
TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and 
vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 2008 8-
hour ozone standards. As such, we find that the San Joaquin Valley VMT 
emissions offset demonstration complies with the VMT emissions offset 
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we propose approval 
of the San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstration portion of 
the 2016 Ozone Plan.

G. Contingency Measures To Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under 
subpart 2 as Moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency 
measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency 
measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the 
event the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain 
the NAAQS by the attainment date. The SIP should contain trigger 
mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for 
implementation, and indicate that the measure will be implemented 
without significant further action by the state or the EPA.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 2008 Ozone 
SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a 
specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of 
contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR 
reiterates the EPA's policy that contingency measures should provide 
for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth 
progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline 
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 
172(c)(9) that states may rely on federal measures (e.g., federal 
mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the motor 
vehicle fleet each year) and local measures already scheduled for 
implementation that provide emissions reductions in excess of those 
needed to provide for RFP or expeditious attainment. The key is that 
the statute requires that contingency measures provide for additional 
emissions reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and 
that are not included in the RFP or attainment demonstrations as 
meeting part or all of the contingency measure requirements. The 
purpose of contingency measures is to provide continued emissions 
reductions while the plan is being revised to meet the missed 
milestone.
    The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation--i.e., 
SIPs that use as contingency measures one or more federal or local 
measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess of 
the reductions required by the attainment demonstration or RFP 
plan,\95\ and there is case law supporting the EPA's interpretation in 
this regard.\96\ However, in Bahr v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit rejected 
the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early 
implementation of contingency measures.\97\ The Ninth Circuit concluded 
that contingency measures must take effect at the time the area fails 
to make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not 
before.\98\ Thus, within the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth 
Circuit, states cannot rely on early-implemented measures to comply 
with the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule 
approving an Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 
1997) (final rule approving an Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 
30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a Rhode Island 
ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule 
approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP 
revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving a 
Connecticut ozone SIP revision).
    \96\ See, e.g., LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) 
(upholding contingency measures that were previously required and 
implemented where they were in excess of the attainment 
demonstration and RFP SIP).
    \97\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \98\ Id. at 1235-1237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2016 Ozone Plan, the District set aside NOX 
emissions reductions from the attainment demonstration and reserves 
those reductions to meet the contingency measure requirement for a 
failure to attain the 2008 ozone standards.\99\ Similarly, to satisfy 
the requirement for RFP contingency measures, the 2016 Ozone Plan sets 
aside 3 percent excess emissions reductions in the first RFP milestone 
year and reserves those reductions for

[[Page 44543]]

contingency measures for failure to make RFP.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.4.
    \100\ Id. at section 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    The magnitude of contingency measure reductions in the 2016 Ozone 
Plan is affected by the South Coast decision (regarding the appropriate 
baseline year for RFP) because, for ozone purposes, the required 
emission reductions are generally calculated as a portion of the 
baseline emissions inventory. For this reason, we are not taking action 
at this time on the contingency measures in the 2016 Ozone Plan.

H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control Technology for Boilers

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs for Extreme nonattainment 
areas require each new, modified, and existing electric utility and 
industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of 
NOX to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas, 
methanol, or ethanol (or a comparably low-polluting fuel), or use 
advanced control technology, such as catalytic control technologies or 
other comparably effective control methods.
    Additional guidance on this requirement is provided in the General 
Preamble at 13523. According to the General Preamble, a boiler should 
generally be considered as any combustion equipment used to produce 
steam and generally does not include a process heater that transfers 
heat from combustion gases to process streams.\101\ In addition, 
boilers with rated heat inputs less than 15 million British Thermal 
Units (MMBtu) per hour that are oil- or gas-fired may generally be 
considered de minimus and exempt from these requirements because it is 
unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX emission 
limit.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13523 (April 16, 
1992).
    \102\ Id at 13524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the requirements of CAA section 
182(e)(3) in section 3.17 (``Clean Fuels'') of Chapter 3, and states 
that District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOX 
emission limits for boilers and that these rules meet the requirements 
of the CAA. Additional information on these rules is also provided in 
Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan. Specifically, the 2016 Ozone Plan 
indicates that most of the boilers under District Rules 4305 and 4306 
are fired on natural gas and, as such, meet the requirements of CAA 
section 182(e)(3) for those boilers subject to those rules. Liquid 
fuel-fired boilers are also addressed by Rule 4305 and 4306, and the 
2016 Ozone Plan concludes that the applicable NOX emissions 
in the rules necessitate use of advanced technology. The 2016 Ozone 
Plan concludes likewise for solid fuel-fired boilers addressed by Rule 
4352.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    Rule 4305 (now titled ``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 
Heaters--Phase 2'') was adopted by the District in 1993 and was 
superseded by Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 
Heaters--Phase 3''). Both Rules 4305 and 4306 apply to any gaseous 
fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater 
with a rated heat input greater than 5 MMBtu per hour. Rule 4305, as 
amended on August 21, 2003, was approved by the EPA in 2004, and Rule 
4306, as revised on October 16, 2008, was approved by the EPA in 
2010.\103\ The emission limits in Rule 4306 (5 ppm to 30 ppm for 
gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without 
the use of advanced control technologies.\104\ All units subject to 
Rule 4306 were required to comply with the limits in the rule no later 
than December 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See 69 FR 28061 (May 18, 2004) (approval of Rule 4305) and 
75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) (approval of Rule 4306).
    \104\ See ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--
NOX Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 
Boilers,'' EPA, March 1994. See also 76 FR 57846 at 57864-57865 
(September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652 at 12670 (March 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4352, titled ``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and 
Process Heaters'' was last approved by the EPA on November 6, 
2012.\105\ Rule 4352 applies to any boiler, steam generator, or process 
heater fired on solid fuel at a source that has the potential to emit 
more than 10 tpy of NOX or VOC. All units subject to Rule 
4352 were required to comply with the rule's most stringent limits no 
later than January 1, 2013. In an EPA action on an earlier version of 
Rule 4352, we determined that all of the NOX emission limits 
in Rule 4352 effectively require operation of selective noncatalytic 
reduction control technology, which, for the affected sources, is 
comparably effective to selective catalytic reduction, and comparable 
to the combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers. Therefore, 
we concluded that Rule 4352 satisfied the requirements of section 
182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in the San Joaquin Valley.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
    \106\ See 74 FR 65042 (December 9, 2009) (proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4352) and 75 FR 60623 
(October 1, 2010) (final limited approval and limited disapproval of 
Rule 4352).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, new and modified boilers that will emit or have the 
potential to emit 25 tpy or more of NOX are subject to the 
District's new source permitting rule, Rule 2201, titled ``New and 
Modified Stationary Source Review.'' This rule requires new and 
modified sources to install and operate lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER) technology. The EPA last approved Rule 2201 in 2014.\107\ In 
previous actions on the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS, the EPA reviewed Rules 4306, 4352, and 2201, and concluded that 
the rules satisfy the requirements for clean fuel or advanced control 
technology for boilers in CAA section 182(e)(3). We find that the 
emission limitations in the District's rules continue to meet the clean 
fuel or advanced control technology for boilers requirement in CAA 
section 182(e)(3), and thus, we propose to approve the Clean Fuels for 
Boilers portion of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or 
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the 
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing 
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim 
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A. 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

[[Page 44544]]

existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal 
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'') contained 
in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally established for 
specific years and specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone plans 
should identify budgets for on-road emissions of ozone precursors 
(NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP milestone year and 
the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates attainment.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See 40 CFR 93.12(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must 
meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 
and (5)) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. To 
meet these requirements, the MVEBs must be consistent with the 
approvable attainment and RFP demonstrations and reflect all of the 
motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP 
demonstrations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 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: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of 
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP 
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the 
MVEB during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of 
adequacy or inadequacy.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ozone Plan includes budgets for the 2018, 2021, 2024, 
2027, and 2030 RFP milestone years, and the 2031 attainment year. The 
budgets were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB's latest approved version 
of the EMFAC model for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles 
operating in California, and reflect average summer weekday emissions 
consistent with the RFP milestone years and the 2031 attainment year 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\111\ The conformity budgets for 
NOX and VOC for each county in the nonattainment area are 
provided in table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014 model 
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 of the notice in the Federal 
Register.

                                                         Table 4--Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018             2021             2024             2027             2030             2031
                      County                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX      VOC     NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................     8.0     27.7     6.4     22.2     5.4     14.1     4.9     13.2     4.5     12.6     4.3     12.5
Kern (SJV)........................................     6.6     25.4     5.5     20.4     4.8     12.6     4.5     11.7     4.2     10.9     4.1     10.8
Kings.............................................     1.3      5.1     1.1      4.2     0.9      2.6     0.9      2.5     0.8      2.3     0.8      2.3
Madera............................................     1.9      5.1     1.5      4.1     1.2      2.6     1.1      2.3     0.9      2.0     0.9      2.0
Merced............................................     2.5      9.4     2.0      7.8     1.6      4.8     1.5      4.4     1.3      4.2     1.3      4.1
San Joaquin.......................................     5.9     13.0     4.9     10.3     4.2      6.9     3.8      6.2     3.5      5.7     3.3      5.5
Stanislaus........................................     3.8     10.5     3.0      8.3     2.6      5.6     2.3      5.1     2.1      4.7     2.0      4.7
Tulare............................................     3.7      9.5     2.9      7.2     2.4      4.7     2.2      4.1     1.9      3.8     1.9      3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tables D-4 through D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As discussed above, the MVEBs for 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027 and 2030 
derive from the RFP baseline year and the associated RFP milestone 
years. As such, the budgets are affected by the South Coast decision, 
and therefore, the EPA is not taking action at this time on the budgets 
for these years. We plan to propose action for these MVEBs in a future 
rulemaking. However, in today's notice we are proposing to approve the 
budgets for the 2031 attainment year for transportation conformity 
purposes.
    The EPA has previously determined that the 2031 budgets in 2016 
Ozone Plan are adequate for use for transportation conformity purposes. 
On February 23, 2017, the EPA announced the availability of the 2016 
Ozone Plan and budgets, which were available for a 30-day public 
comment period that ended on March 27, 2017.\112\ The EPA received no 
comments from the public. On June 13, 2017, the EPA determined the 
2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2030 and 2031 MVEBs were adequate.\113\ On June 
29, 2017, the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal 
Register.\114\ The new budgets became effective on July 14, 2017. After 
the effective date of the adequacy finding, the new budgets must be 
used in future transportation conformity determinations in the San 
Joaquin Valley area. The EPA is not required under its transportation 
conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of 
them, but in this instance, we have completed the adequacy review of 
these budgets prior to our final action on the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
    \113\ See June 13, 2017 letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting 
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB.
    \114\ See 82 FR 29547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's notice, the EPA is proposing to approve only the 2031 
budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for transportation conformity purposes. 
The EPA has determined through its review of the submitted 2016 Ozone 
Plan that the 2031 budgets are consistent with emission control 
measures in the SIP and attainment in 2031 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. For the reasons discussed in section III.D of this proposed 
rule, we are proposing to approve the attainment demonstration in the 
2016 Ozone Plan. The 2031 budgets, as given in table 5, are consistent 
with the attainment demonstration, are clearly identified and precisely 
quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements, including the adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4) and (5). 
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the budgets in table 5.

[[Page 44545]]



Table 5--2031 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for
                                  2031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Motor vehicle emissions budgets (average summer weekday, tons per day)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         County                            VOC     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.................................................     4.3     12.5
Kern (SJV).............................................     4.1     10.8
Kings..................................................     0.8      2.3
Madera.................................................     0.9      2.0
Merced.................................................     1.3      4.1
San Joaquin............................................     3.3      5.5
Stanislaus.............................................     2.0      4.7
Tulare.................................................     1.9      3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table D-9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan.

    CARB has requested that we limit the duration of our approval of 
the budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding 
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\115\ The transportation 
conformity rule allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\116\ 
However, we will consider a state's request to limit an approval of its 
MVEB only if the request includes the following elements: \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California 
Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, August 24, 2016.
    \116\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
    \117\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior 
approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets 
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a 
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval 
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    Because CARB's request does not include a commitment to update the 
budgets or an explanation of why the budgets have become outdated or 
deficient, we cannot at this time propose to limit the duration of our 
approval of the submitted budgets until new budgets have been found 
adequate. In order to limit the approval, we would need the information 
described above to determine whether such limitation is reasonable and 
appropriate in this case. Once CARB has adequately addressed that 
information, we intend to review it and take appropriate action. If we 
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the 2016 
Ozone Plan, we will provide the public an opportunity to comment. The 
duration of the approval of the budgets, however, would not be limited 
until we complete such a rulemaking.

J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas

    In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D 
of the CAA includes other provisions applicable to Extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We describe these 
provisions and their current status below for informational purposes 
only.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone 
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to 
implement an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in those areas. The 
requirements for those programs are provided in CAA section 182(c)(3) 
and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
    Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, the 2016 Ozone Plan states that 
no new I/M programs are currently required for nonattainment areas for 
the 2008 ozone standards.\118\ The EPA has previously approved 
California's I/M program in the San Joaquin Valley as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA regulations for enhanced I/M 
programs.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12283 (March 6, 2015), 
and section 3.6 of Chapter 3 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
    \119\ See 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program
    In accordance with CAA section 211, the federal reformulated 
gasoline (RFG) program requires certain areas to use gasoline that has 
been reformulated to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. As an 
Extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the San 
Joaquin Valley was included in the federal RFG program.\120\ As a 
nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, the San 
Joaquin Valley continues to be included in the program.\121\ California 
also has its own RFG program (i.e., California Phase III RFG, or 
CaRFG3), which applies within the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA approved 
CaRFG3 into the SIP on May 12, 2010.\122\ In our action proposing 
approval of CaRFG3, we noted that the EPA had previously determined 
that emissions reductions from CaRFG3 would be equal to or greater than 
the emissions reductions from the corresponding federal RFG 
program.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).
    \121\ See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685 (November 29, 
2005).
    \122\ See 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
    \123\ See 74 FR 33196, at 33198 (July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New Source Review Rules
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop SIP 
revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone 
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for 
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the 
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary 
source for VOC and NOX anywhere in the nonattainment 
area.\124\ The 2008 Ozone SRR includes provisions and guidance for 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs.\125\ The EPA has 
previously approved the District's NSR rules into the SIP based in part 
on a conclusion that the rules adequately addressed the NSR 
requirements specific to extreme areas.\126\ On June 19, 2018, CARB 
submitted on behalf of the District a certification that the NSR 
program previously approved into the SIP is adequate to meet the 
requirements for the 2008 ozone standards.\127\ The EPA is proposing to 
approve the District's NSR certification in a separate rulemaking.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See also CAA sections 182(e).
    \125\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \126\ See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).
    \127\ See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 
June 19, 2018.
    \128\ See EPA, ``Revisions to California State Implementation 
Plan; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin 
Valley Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality 
Management; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' pre-publication final rule signed 
August 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
    Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to 
submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP measures to implement a 
Clean Fuels Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows 
states to opt-out of the federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by 
submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will 
result in at least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors 
and toxic air emissions.
    In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt-out of the 
federal clean-fuel fleet program, and included a demonstration that 
California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved emissions 
reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the federal 
program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt-out of the federal

[[Page 44546]]

program on August 27, 1999.\129\ There have been no changes to the 
federal Clean Fuels Fleet program since the EPA approved the California 
SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, and thus, no 
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Thus, we find that the 
California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program, as approved 
in 1999, meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 
for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP 
revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of 
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle 
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone 
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the 
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13514 (April 16, 
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202(a)(6) requires the EPA to promulgate standards 
requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard refueling vapor 
recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first set of ORVR 
system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on vehicle 
manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new gasoline-
powered light and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.\131\ Section 
202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the SIP requirement under 
CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage II vapor recovery 
systems after such time as the EPA determines that ORVR systems are in 
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Effective May 16, 
2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section 182(b)(3) for Stage 
II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of 
classification. See 40 CFR 51.126(b). Thus, a SIP submittal meeting CAA 
section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required 
for the 2008 ozone standards, under California State law (i.e., Health 
and Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures 
and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from 
gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and storage 
operations. State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local 
air districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective 
equipment and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous 
revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations and continues to 
rely on its vapor recovery program to achieve emissions reductions in 
ozone nonattainment areas in California.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See e.g., Chapter 5, table 5-4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-
certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by District 
Rules 4621 (``Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, 
Delivery Vessels and Bulk Plants'') and 4622 (``Gasoline Transfer into 
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks''). The most recent versions of Rules 4621 and 
4622, amended on December 19, 2013, have been approved into the 
California SIP.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 80 FR 7345 (February 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
    Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and 
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX, 
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and 
VOC. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the 
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network. The EPA 
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision 
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in 
California, including the San Joaquin Valley, to meet the enhanced 
monitoring requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The EPA determined 
that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements for enhanced 
monitoring and the EPA PAMS regulations and approved the PAMS submittal 
into the California SIP.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses compliance with the EPA's enhanced 
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58, and concludes that, based on 
the EPA's approval of the District's air monitoring network plan, the 
San Joaquin Valley meets all federal ambient monitoring 
requirements.\136\ Chapter 4 (section 4.2.2) of the 2016 Ozone Plan 
describes the San Joaquin Valley's PAMS network. The District's PAMS 
network is composed of two smaller networks located in the Fresno and 
Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Each network in the 
MSA consists of three PAMS sites. The District's July 2017 Annual Air 
Quality Monitoring Network Plan (ANP) also provides more detail about 
the PAMS network.\137\ The EPA has approved the District's PAMS network 
as part of our annual approval of the District's ANP.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See section 3.12 (Ambient Monitoring Requirements) of the 
2016 Ozone Plan.
    \137\ See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2017 
Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 28, 2017).
    \138\ See letter from Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX to Sheraz 
Gill, SJVAPCD, dated October 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Ozone Plan reports that the Arvin-Bear Mountain PAMS 
monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA was closed in 2010, and would 
resume once a permanent air monitoring site in the area was 
established. The closed monitoring site at Arvin-Bear Mountain was 
relocated to a new site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school. 
CARB's staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan includes, for approval by 
the EPA, provisions to address ambient ozone monitoring in the 
Bakersfield MSA.\139\ The EPA approved the relocation of the monitoring 
site and approved into the SIP these provisions of the 2016 Ozone Plan 
for ozone monitoring in Bakersfield.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See section V-H of the ARB Review of the San Joaquin 
Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, July 21, 2016.
    \140\ See 82 FR 47145 (October 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40 
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific 
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA 
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\141\ Under 
revised 40 CFR part 58 SIP revisions are no longer required; rather, 
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through 
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\142\ The 2008 Ozone 
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\143\ As such, based on our 
review and approval of the most recent ANP for San Joaquin Valley, we 
find that the 2016 Ozone Plan adequately addresses the enhanced 
monitoring requirements under CAA section 182(c)(1), and we propose to 
approve that portion of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
    \142\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides: The requirements pertaining 
to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in the SIP are 
contained in this part.
    \143\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at 
80 FR 12264, at 12291, (March 6, 2015).

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

[[Page 44547]]

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
    Section 185 of the CAA requires that the SIP for each Severe and 
Extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area fails to 
attain by its applicable attainment date, each major stationary source 
of VOC and NOX located in the area shall pay a fee to the 
state as a penalty for such failure for each calendar year beginning 
after the attainment date, until the area is redesignated as an 
attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to submit a SIP 
revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 185 for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See 40 CFR 51.1117. For San Joaquin Valley, a section 185 
SIP revision for the 2008 ozone standards will be due on July 20, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Commitments To Reduce Emissions

    The 2016 Ozone Plan relies on control measures, such as state and 
district rules and regulations, that have been adopted and are being 
implemented to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2031. 
However, in the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District also notes that newer 
NAAQS, e.g., the ozone NAAQS established in 2015, would require the 
development and submission of new plans with additional emissions 
reductions. In anticipation of these future requirements, the District 
included in the 2016 Ozone Plan commitments to amend two existing 
measures for flares and wine fermentation and storage tanks.\145\ As 
summarized in table 6, the District committed to implement emission 
reduction technologies to the extent those controls are technologically 
achievable and economically feasible; therefore, any emissions 
reductions resulting from these evaluations, to the extent those 
evaluations have not yet been completed, are uncertain. Because of this 
uncertainty, and because these amended measures are not required to 
meet RACM or other plan requirements, the District did not project 
emissions reductions or implementation dates for these amended 
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See Chapter 5, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone 
Plan.

                             Table 6--District Committal Measures in 2016 Ozone Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule                Rule title            District commitment                     Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4311................  Flares................  1. Amend Rule 4311 to        By December 31, 2017.
                                               include additional ultra-
                                               low NOX flare emissions
                                               limitations for existing
                                               and new flaring activities
                                               to the extent that such
                                               controls are
                                               technologically achievable
                                               and economically feasible.
                                              2. Amend Rule 4311 to
                                               include additional flare
                                               minimization requirements
                                               to the extent such
                                               controls are
                                               technologically achievable
                                               and economically feasible.
4694................  Wine Fermentation and   1. Evaluate the              By December 31, 2018.
                       Storage Tanks.          technological
                                               achievability and economic
                                               feasibility of
                                               implementing emissions
                                               control technologies to
                                               reduce VOC emissions and
                                               potential benefits to help
                                               reduce ozone
                                               concentrations.
                                              2. Upon completion of (1),
                                               amend Rule 4694 to include
                                               additional requirements to
                                               further reduce emissions
                                               from wine fermentation as
                                               appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-3 and sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.

    The District has committed to amend Rule 4311 for flares and Rule 
4694 for wine fermentation and storage tanks to include additional 
requirements to reduce emissions to the extent those controls are 
technologically achievable or economically feasible; however, these 
commitments were made in the context of attainment of future ozone and 
PM2.5 standards. Although these commitments are not needed 
to meet any requirements for the 2008 ozone standards, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the commitments described in table 6 above, to 
further strengthen the San Joaquin Valley's portion of the California 
SIP.
    The 2016 Ozone Plan references additional reductions anticipated 
from CARB's mobile source state strategy, a draft of which was released 
in October 2015.\146\ The State Strategy was adopted by CARB in 2017, 
and in its resolution adopting the 2016 State Strategy, CARB adopted a 
commitment to bring to the Board for consideration a list of regulatory 
measures included as Attachment A to the resolution of adoption (i.e., 
Resolution 17-7), according to the schedule set forth in Attachment A, 
and a commitment to achieve an aggregate emission reduction of 8 tpd of 
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley by 2031 to accelerate progress 
toward the 2008 ozone standards.\147\ The 2016 State Strategy 
anticipates reducing emissions to meet the aggregate commitment through 
such measures as new California low-NOX standards for on-
road heavy-duty engines and more stringent diesel fuel requirements for 
off-road equipment.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.
    \147\ See page 7, CARB Resolution 17-7, March 23, 2017.
    \148\ See table 5 (on page 34) of the 2016 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the attainment demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan 
relies on adopted measures, rather than committal measures. Thus, 
CARB's regulatory initiative commitment and aggregate emission 
reduction commitment for San Joaquin Valley are not needed as part of 
the control strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley. 
However, the commitments by CARB for San Joaquin Valley in the 2016 
State Strategy will strengthen the SIP by providing emissions 
reductions that supplement the reductions from the adopted controls; 
therefore, we are proposing to approve the San Joaquin Valley portions 
of the 2016 State Strategy into the SIP.

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the 
EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the California SIP the 
following portions of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan \149\ 
submitted by CARB on August 24, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ As noted previously, the EPA has already approved the 
portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan (section 3.4 (``Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration'') and Appendix C 
(``Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations'')) that 
relate to the RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40 
CFR 51.1112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);
     ROP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 182(b)(1);
     Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of 
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     Enhanced monitoring as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
     Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs as 
meeting the

[[Page 44548]]

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102;
     Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology 
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 
CFR 51.1102;
     VMT emissions offset demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102; and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of 
2031 (see table 5, above) because they are consistent with the 
attainment demonstration proposed for approval herein and meet the 
other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    In addition, we are proposing to approve District Rule 1160 titled 
``Emission Statements'' submitted by CARB on January 11, 1993, as a 
revision to the California SIP because it meets all the applicable 
requirements for emission statements and to approve the Emission 
Statement section of the 2016 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of 
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102.
    Finally, we are proposing to approve, as additional measures that 
strengthen the SIP, the San Joaquin Valley portions of the 2016 State 
Strategy and CARB's aggregate emission reduction commitment of 8 tpd of 
NOX by 2031 submitted on April 27, 2017, as a revision to 
the California SIP and the two commitments by the District in the 2016 
Ozone Plan to amend Rules 4311 (Flares) and 4694 (Wine Fermentation and 
Storage).
    We are not taking action at this time on the base year emissions 
inventory, the RFP demonstration, the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
for RFP milestone years, and contingency measures portions of the 2016 
Ozone Plan. We intend to propose action on these elements at a later 
time.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final 
action.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference District Rule 1160 as described in section III.B of this 
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state 
plans and an air district rule as meeting federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 20, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-19017 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


