[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61346-61358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25885]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9987-11-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 two 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 portion of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 
8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 Ozone Plan'') that addresses the 
requirement for a base year emissions inventory. Second, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the portions of the ``2018

[[Page 61347]]

Updates to the California State Implementation Plan'' (``2018 SIP 
Update'') that address the requirements for a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) demonstration and motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(MVEBs) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards. 
Lastly, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve portions of the 
2018 SIP Update that address the requirement for contingency measures 
for failure to meet RFP milestones or to attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. The proposed approval is conditional 
because it relies on commitments by the State air agency and regional 
air district to supplement the contingency measure portion of the 2018 
SIP Update with submission of an additional contingency measure within 
one year of the EPA's final conditional approval.

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before December 31, 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].

SUPPLEMENTAL 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 8-Hour 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 and 2018 SIP Update
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress 
Demonstration
    C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
    D. Contingency Measures for Failure To Meet RFP Milestones or To 
Attain the NAAQS by the Applicable Attainment Date
V. Proposed Action
VI. 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 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 elevated levels of 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\ The State of 
California and the EPA will address the 2015 ozone NAAQS in later 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 EPA classifies 
ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181 according to the 
severity of the ozone pollution problem, with classifications ranging 
from Marginal to Extreme. State planning and emissions control 
requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by the nonattainment 
area's classification. The EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as 
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards on May 21, 2012, and 
classified the area 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. For areas classified Moderate and above, these revisions 
must 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 state-wide sources of emissions. Under California law, local and 
regional air pollution control districts in California are responsible 
for the regulation of regional/local sources such as 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

[[Page 61348]]

management plans to address CAA planning requirements applicable to 
that region. The District then submits such plans to CARB for adoption 
and submission to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP. Such 
revisions do not become part of the applicable SIP for federal purposes 
until approved by the EPA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 40 CFR 51.105. For the purposes of the CAA, the 
``applicable plan'' is composed of any portions of the SIP that are 
approved by the EPA together with any provisions promulgated by the 
EPA as substitutes for portions of the SIP disapproved by the EPA. 
40 CFR 52.02(b). Provisions promulgated by the EPA as SIP 
substitutes are referred to as federal implementation plans, or 
FIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.\10\ Ambient 8-hour ozone 
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley are above the level of the 
2008 ozone standards. The maximum design value for the area based on 
certified data is 0.092 ppm for the 2015-2017 period, which was 
measured at the Parlier monitor (Air Quality System ID: 06-019-
4001).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ 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 sections 171-179B of subpart 1 
(``Nonattainment Areas 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 addressed implementation 
of the 2008 standards, including attainment dates, requirements for 
emissions inventories, attainment and RFP demonstrations, as well as 
the transition from the 1997 ozone standards to the 2008 ozone 
standards and associated anti-backsliding requirements.\12\ The 2008 
Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. We discuss the CAA 
and regulatory requirements for the elements of 2008 ozone plans 
relevant to this proposal in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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 \13\ (``South Coast II'') \14\ vacating portions of the 2008 
Ozone SRR. The only aspect of the South Coast II decision that affects 
this proposed action is the vacatur of the alternative baseline year 
for RFP plans. More specifically, the 2008 Ozone SRR required states to 
develop the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans using the 
emissions for the most recent calendar year for which states submit a 
triennial inventory to the EPA under subpart A (``Air Emissions 
Reporting Requirements'') of 40 CFR part 51, which was 2011. However, 
the 2008 Ozone SRR allowed states to use an alternative year, between 
2008 and 2012, for the baseline emissions inventory provided that the 
state demonstrated why the alternative baseline year was appropriate. 
The baseline emissions inventory for the RFP demonstration for the 2016 
Ozone Plan was based on an alternative year of 2012 rather than 2011. 
In the South Coast II decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the provisions 
of the 2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to use an alternative 
baseline year for demonstrating RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882 
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South Coast II'').
    \14\ The term ``South Coast II'' is used in reference to the 
2018 court decision to distinguish it from a decision published in 
2006 also referred to as ``South Coast.'' The earlier decision 
involved a challenge to the EPA's Phase 1 implementation rule for 
the 1997 ozone standard. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 EPA's designation of the 
area as nonattainment and classification of the area as 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 submission to the EPA, 
CARB approved the 2016 Ozone Plan, which had previously been adopted by 
the District and forwarded to CARB for approval and submission 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 submission 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, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency 
measures for failure to make RFP or attain, among other requirements. 
On August 31, 2018, the EPA proposed approval of the attainment 
demonstration portion of the 2016 Ozone Plan and associated attainment 
year motor vehicle emission budgets, the RACM demonstration, provisions 
for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, and provisions for 
transportation control strategies and measures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See four enclosures to the August 24, 2016 letter from CARB 
to EPA Region 9: (I) District Submission, 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.
    \17\ 83 FR 44528 (August 31, 2018).

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

[[Page 61349]]

    In response to the court's decision in South Coast II vacating the 
2008 Ozone SRR with respect to the use of an alternate baseline year 
for demonstrating RFP, California developed the 2018 SIP Update, which 
includes an RFP demonstration for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS using the required 2011 baseline year. The 2018 SIP Update 
also includes updated motor vehicle emission budgets and a contingency 
measure for failure to meet an RFP milestone or attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. CARB released a draft of the 2018 SIP 
Update for public review on September 21, 2018. On October 3, 2018, 
CARB requested that the EPA accept the draft 2018 SIP Update for 
parallel processing with respect to the portions of the 2018 SIP Update 
that apply to the San Joaquin Valley area.\18\ Under the EPA's parallel 
processing procedure, the EPA may propose action on a public draft 
version of a SIP revision but will take final action only after the 
state adopts and submits the final version to the EPA for approval.\19\ 
If there are no significant changes from the draft version of the SIP 
revision to the final version, the EPA may elect to take final action 
on the proposal. In this case, on October 25, 2018, CARB has adopted 
the 2018 SIP Update previously released for public review, without 
significant modifications, as a revision to the California SIP. The 
only change of note between the draft and final versions is a menu of 
specific contingency measure actions that the CARB Board included in 
the resolution (Resolution 18-50) adopting the 2018 SIP Update. CARB 
has not yet submitted the final version of the SIP revision to the EPA, 
and thus we are proposing action based on the draft version of the 2018 
SIP Update submitted to us on October 3, 2018, and the contents of CARB 
Resolution 18-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter from Richard Corey, CARB Executive Officer, to 
Michael Stoker, EPA Region IX Regional Administrator, dated October 
3, 2018.
    \19\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these submissions, CARB sent additional technical 
information in two technical supplements on October 17, 2018,\20\ and 
October 19, 2018.\21\ Further, on October 30, 2018, CARB forwarded a 
letter of commitment to the EPA from the District dated October 18, 
2018, in which the District commits to revise its architectural 
coatings rule to create an additional contingency measure that will be 
triggered if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable 
attainment date.\22 23\ In the October 30, 2018 letter, CARB commits to 
submit the revised District rule to the EPA as a SIP revision within 12 
months of the final action on the 2016 Ozone Plan and relevant portions 
of the 2018 SIP Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Email from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, CARB Air Quality 
Planning Branch, to Anita Lee, Chief, EPA Region IX Air Planning 
Office, dated October 17, 2018.
    \21\ Email from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, CARB Air Quality 
Planning Branch, to Anita Lee, Chief, EPA Region IX Air Planning 
Office, dated October 19, 2018.
    \22\ Letter from Dr. Michael Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality 
Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Mike Stoker, EPA Region IX 
Regional Administrator, dated October 30, 2018.
    \23\ Letter from Sheraz Gill, SJVAPCD Deputy Air Pollution 
Control Officer, to Richard Corey, CARB Executive Officer, and to 
Michael Stoker, EPA Region IX Regional Administrator, dated October 
18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
these procedural requirements, every SIP submission should include 
evidence that the state provided adequate public notice and an 
opportunity for a public hearing consistent with the EPA's implementing 
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
    The San Joaquin Valley District Board adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan 
on June 16, 2016, following a public hearing. CARB adopted the 2016 
Ozone Plan as a revision to the California SIP on July 21, 2016, 
following a public hearing. Both the District and CARB have satisfied 
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable 
public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submission of the 
2016 Ozone Plan. Therefore, we find that the submission of the 2016 
Ozone Plan meets the procedural requirements for public notice and 
hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
    CARB published the 2018 SIP Update for public review on September 
21, 2018, and adopted the document as a revision to the California SIP 
following a public hearing on October 25, 2018. As noted above, CARB 
has not yet submitted the final version of the 2018 SIP Update to the 
EPA, but we expect to find that CARB has satisfied the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and 
hearing prior to the adoption of the 2018 SIP Update. Therefore, once 
we receive the final version, we expect to conclude that the submission 
of the 2018 SIP Update also meets 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 and 2018 SIP Update

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each nonattainment plan SIP 
submission include a ``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or 
pollutants in [the] area.'' The accounting required by this section 
provides a ``base year'' inventory that serves as the starting point 
for attainment demonstration air quality modeling, for assessing RFP, 
and for determining the need for additional SIP control measures. EPA 
regulations require that the inventory year be consistent with the 
baseline year for the RFP demonstration, which is 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 2008 Ozone SRR at 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and the Air 
Emissions Reporting Requirements at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Future baseline emissions inventories must reflect the most recent 
population, employment, travel and congestion estimates for the 
area.\25\ Future baseline emissions inventories are necessary to show 
the projected effectiveness of SIP control measures. Both the base year 
and future year inventories are necessary for photochemical modeling to 
demonstrate attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/B-17-003, July 2017, 
chapter 5, Developing Projected Emissions Inventories, pages 113-
129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has issued guidance on the development of base year and 
future year emissions inventories for ozone and other pollutants.\26\ 
Emissions inventories for ozone must include emissions of VOC and 
NOX and represent emissions for a typical ozone

[[Page 61350]]

season weekday.\27\ States should include documentation explaining how 
it calculated emissions data. In estimating mobile source emissions, 
states should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions 
available at the time it develops the SIP submission.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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.
    \27\ 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 51.1100(bb) and (cc).
    \28\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12290 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submissions
    The 2016 Ozone Plan includes a 2012 base year emissions inventory 
based on actual emissions, to meet the requirements of CAA sections 
172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1). The 2018 SIP Update does not include a new 
base year emissions inventory with actual emissions; rather, for 
purposes of updating the RFP demonstration, the transportation 
conformity motor vehicle emission budgets, and the contingency measure 
calculations, CARB used the 2012 base year inventory from the 2016 
Ozone Plan to create new emissions inventory projections for the 2011 
RFP baseline year and for RFP milestone years. These new projections 
are included in the 2018 SIP Update. CARB also submitted a ``San 
Joaquin Valley Emission Projection Technical Clarification'' to clarify 
how it calculated the projected inventories in this submission.\29\ The 
EPA has evaluated the 2012 base year inventory from the 2016 Ozone Plan 
to determine whether it meets the requirements for a base year 
inventory in CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), and the projected 
inventories included in the 2018 SIP Update to determine whether they 
are appropriate for use in the updated RFP demonstration and other 
purposes (e.g., establishing revised motor vehicle emissions budgets). 
A summary of these submissions, and the results of our evaluation, are 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Email from Stephanie Huber, Manager, CARB Emission 
Inventory Development Section to Larry Biland, EPA Region IX Air 
Quality Analysis Office, dated October 17, 2018, transmitting ``San 
Joaquin Valley Emission Projections Technical Clarification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. 2016 Ozone Plan
    The 2016 Ozone Plan includes a 2012 base year emissions inventory 
for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, based on actual 
emissions, to fulfill the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 
182(a)(1). The inventory includes VOC and NOX emissions, 
because these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation, across all 
source categories during an ozone season day as defined in 40 CFR 
51.1100(cc). The 2016 Ozone Plan has identified the summer, defined as 
May through October, as the time when the highest concentration of 
ozone is formed.
    A description of base year emissions inventory development can be 
found in the 2016 Ozone Plan, chapter 3.11 through 3.11.2. The complete 
emissions inventory and documentation are found in Appendix B 
(``Emissions Inventory'').
    VOC and NOX emissions are grouped into two general 
categories: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary sources 
are further divided into ``point'' and ``area'' sources. Point sources 
typically refer to permitted facilities that have one or more 
identified and fixed pieces of equipment and emissions points. 
Permitted facilities were required to report their actual emissions to 
the District by the facility operators through the calendar year 2012. 
Stationary area sources are many smaller point sources, and include 
sources that have internal combustion engines, and gasoline dispensing 
facilities (gas stations). These sources are not inventoried 
individually; their emissions are estimated as a group and reported as 
a single source category.
    Area sources consist of widespread and numerous smaller emission 
sources, such as small permitted facilities and households.
    The mobile sources category can be divided into two major 
subcategories: ``on-road'' and ``off-road'' mobile sources. On-road 
mobile sources include light-duty automobiles, light-, medium-, and 
heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. Off-road mobile sources include 
aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, mobile equipment, and 
recreational vehicles.
    The emissions inventories for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone 
nonattainment area in the 2016 Ozone Plan were developed jointly by 
CARB and the District. Data were provided by CARB, the California 
Department of Transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the 
Department of Pesticide regulation, the California Energy Commission 
and regional transportation agencies to develop mobile and area-wide 
source emission estimates. The emission estimates reflect reported 
emissions for point sources, whereas estimates for mobile and area 
sources are based on projections obtained through use of emissions 
models and methodologies along with actual activity data for 2012 
(e.g., vehicle miles traveled). The District utilizes different 
methodologies to estimate over sixty different types of individual 
stationary area sources. CARB and the District also reviewed the growth 
profiles for point and areawide source categories and updated them as 
necessary to ensure that the emission projections were based on data 
that reflect historical trends, current conditions, and recent economic 
and demographic forecasts.
    CARB provided emission estimates for stationary nonagricultural 
diesel engines, agricultural irrigation pumps, laundering (dry 
cleaning), degreasing (solvents), oil and gas production, and gasoline 
dispensing facilities.
    Area sources are categories such as consumer products, pesticides/
fertilizers, fireplaces, farming operations, and other emissions which 
occur over a wide geographic area. Emissions for these categories were 
estimated by both CARB and the District using various models and 
methodologies.
    CARB developed the emissions inventory for mobile sources, both on-
road and off-road. CARB estimated on-road mobile sources emissions, 
which include passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks, using CARB's 
EMFAC2014 model.\30\ CARB calculated the on-road emissions 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. CARB estimated off-road mobile 
sources emissions using either newer category-specific models or, where 
a new model was not available, the OFFROAD2007 model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP development and 
transportation conformity in California at 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 
2015). EMFAC2014 is the most recently-approved model for California 
for these uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides a summary, by major source categories, for the 
2012 base year VOC and NOX emissions inventories in tons per 
day (tpd) for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, as 
presented in the 2016 Ozone Plan. In the 2012 inventory presented in 
the 2016 Ozone Plan, mobile sources account for approximately 85 
percent of NOX emissions and 32 percent of VOC emissions in 
the San Joaquin Valley, and total area sources account for 
approximately 1.3 percent of NOX emissions and 50 percent of 
VOC emissions.

[[Page 61351]]



   Table 1--Base Year Summer Average VOC and NOX Emissions in the 2016
                               Ozone Plan
                            [In tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2012
             Source category             -------------------------------
                                             VOC (tpd)       NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources......................            85.3            42.4
Area Sources............................           147.0             4.7
Mobile Sources..........................           105.0           292.4
San Joaquin Valley Total................           337.3           339.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tables B-1 and B-2 of the 2016 Ozone Plan.

b. 2018 SIP Update
    In response to the South Coast II decision, CARB developed the 2018 
SIP Update, which updates the RFP demonstration and related SIP 
elements to rely on a 2011 baseline year. The 2018 SIP Update does not 
include a new base year emissions inventory with actual emissions for 
the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area to meet the 
requirements of 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1). Rather, for purposes of the 
RFP demonstration, CARB used the 2012 base year inventory from the 2016 
Ozone Plan to develop new emissions inventory projections for the 2011 
RFP baseline year and for all RFP milestone years. These inventories 
form the basis of the RFP demonstration calculations, the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets, and the contingency measure calculations for the San 
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, which will be discussed 
in sections III.B, III.C, and III.D below. In this section, we describe 
and evaluate these updated inventory projections to determine whether 
they are appropriate for use in these SIP elements.
    As in the 2016 Ozone Plan, the projected inventories in the 2018 
SIP Update include NOX and VOC emissions and are for the 
summer season defined as May through October. Details on the emissions 
inventory, documentation, and a complete listing of emissions can be 
found on pages 51 through 54 and Appendix A, pages A-27 through A-30 of 
the 2018 SIP Update. Additional emissions inventory information can be 
found in the ``San Joaquin Valley Emission Projections Technical 
Clarification'' document which explains the changes made in the 
methodologies used in emissions inventory development. This document is 
contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The State and District developed point and stationary source VOC 
and NOX emissions for the 2011 inventory from actual 
emissions, generally using the same methodologies used in the 2016 
Ozone Plan. Stationary aggregate emissions and area source emissions 
for 2011 were backcast, and for future years were forecast, from the 
2012 base year inventory. Mobile sources used the same model, 
EMFAC2014, as in the 2016 Ozone Plan. While the 2016 Ozone Plan used 
California Emissions Projections and Analysis Model (CEPAM) version 
1.03 to project future year emissions, the 2018 SIP Update used CEPAM 
version 1.05. CEPAM 1.05 includes updates to methodologies for 
stationary and area sources in the following source categories: 
pesticides, cleaning and surface coatings, waste disposal, composting 
facilities, glass manufacturing, services and commercial/residential 
fuel combustion-space heating, and petroleum marketing. CARB used 
current information to update emissions from locomotives. For the rest 
of the source categories in the emissions inventory, CARB used the same 
methodologies as in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
    Tables 2 and 3 provide summaries, by major source categories, for 
VOC and NOX emissions inventories for RFP baseline and 
milestone years. These emissions are for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 
ozone nonattainment area as presented in the Appendix A, pages A-27 
through A-30 of the 2018 SIP Update.

                                              Table 2--Summer Average VOC Emissions in the 2018 SIP Update
                                                                    [In tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                         2011        2017        2020        2023        2026        2029        2031        2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VOC (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources......................................       83.36       89.55       91.70       94.54       97.86      101.58      104.22      105.62
Area Sources............................................      180.76      148.50      149.80      151.14      152.56      154.00      154.98      155.49
Mobile Sources..........................................      114.56       72.52       62.27       54.55       49.88       46.31       43.72       42.87
    San Joaquin Valley Total............................      378.68      310.58      303.77      300.22      300.30      301.89      302.93      303.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pages A-27 and A-28 of the 2018 SIP Update.


                                              Table 3--Summer Average NOX Emissions in the 2018 SIP Update
                                                                    [In tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source Category                         2011        2017        2020        2023        2026        2029        2031        2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        NO (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources......................................       43.05       30.72       29.95       29.29       28.59       28.10       27.85       27.86
Area Sources............................................        6.84        4.68        4.59        4.43        4.29        4.21        4.15        4.11
Mobile Sources..........................................      325.70      208.01      173.40      124.73      110.12       98.81       93.04       90.92

[[Page 61352]]

 
San Joaquin Valley Total................................      375.58      238.41      207.94      158.44      143.01      131.12      125.03      122.89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source--Pages A-29 and A-30 of the 2018 SIP Update.

    With respect to future year projections, the EPA will approve a 
state plan that takes emissions reduction credit for a control measure 
only where the EPA has approved the measure as part of the SIP. Thus, 
to take credit for the emissions reductions from newly-adopted or 
amended District rules for stationary sources, the related rules must 
be approved by the EPA into the SIP. Table 1 in the technical support 
document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking shows District rules that 
were incorporated in the future year inventories, along with 
information on EPA approval of these rules. In recent years, the EPA 
has taken action to approve CARB mobile source regulations into the 
California SIP.\31\ Inventories in the 2018 SIP Update include these 
controls in their projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 
2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have reviewed the base year emissions inventory in the 2016 
Ozone Plan and the RFP baseline and milestone year inventories in the 
2018 SIP Update for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment 
area for consistency with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. First, as 
required by EPA regulation, we note that the inventories include 
estimates for VOC and NOX for a typical ozone season 
weekday, and that CARB has provided adequate documentation explaining 
how the emissions are calculated. Second, we find that the 2012 base 
year emissions inventory in the 2016 Ozone Plan reflects appropriate 
emissions models and methodologies, and, therefore, represents a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions 
during that year in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. Further, 
we find that CARB and the District have used the most recent planning 
and activity assumptions, emissions models, and methodologies in 
developing the RFP baseline and milestone year emissions inventories in 
the 2018 SIP Update.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2012 emissions 
inventory as meeting the requirements for a base year inventory set 
forth in CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115. Regarding the 
requirement in the 2008 Ozone SRR that the base year inventory be 
consistent with the baseline year for the RFP demonstration, we note 
that 2012 is the year of the base year inventory, while the RFP 
demonstration is based on a 2011 baseline year. However, as noted 
above, the 2011 emissions inventory is backcast from the 2012 base year 
inventory, and therefore is based on the same data. Therefore, we find 
that selection of 2012 as the base year for the emissions inventory is 
consistent with the 2011 baseline year for the RFP demonstration for 
this nonattainment area as required by 40 CFR 51.1115(a).
    The 2018 SIP Update starts with 2011 as the baseline year and shows 
future baseline emissions inventories out to 2032. The EPA is proposing 
to find these inventories appropriate for use in developing the RFP 
demonstration (section III.B below), motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(section III.C below), and the contingency measure element for the San 
Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standards (section III.D below).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We previously determined that the 2012 base year emission 
inventory and future year emissions inventories that are derived 
therefrom in the 2016 Ozone Plan provide an acceptable basis for the 
attainment demonstration and VMT offset demonstration in the 2016 
Ozone Plan. See 83 FR 44528, at 44532/column 1. (August 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Requirements for RFP for ozone nonattainment areas 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.
    In the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA provided that areas classified 
Moderate or higher will 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.\33\ For such areas, the EPA 
interprets the RFP requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) to 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.\34\ Under the CAA 172(c)(2) and CAA 182(c)(2)(B) 
RFP requirements, the state may substitute NOX emissions 
reductions for VOC reductions.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015). In our August 31, 
2018 proposed action on certain portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan, we 
proposed to approve the ROP demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) based on the previous approval 
by the EPA of the 15 percent ROP demonstration for the San Joaquin 
Valley for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 44528, at 44539 (August 
31, 2018). Therefore, we do not further address the ROP 
demonstration requirement in this document.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ 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).

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

[[Page 61353]]

    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 year 
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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 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 was 
required to be submitted to the EPA. For the purposes of developing RFP 
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone standards, the applicable triennial 
inventory year is 2011. As discussed previously, the 2008 Ozone SRR 
provided states with the opportunity to use an alternative baseline 
year for RFP but that particular aspect of the 2008 Ozone SRR was 
vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the South Coast II decision.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 40 CFR 51.1110(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2018 SIP Update replaces the RFP portion of the 2016 Ozone Plan 
and includes updated emissions estimates for the baseline, milestone 
and attainment years, and an updated RFP demonstration relying on a 
2011 baseline year.\38\ The updated RFP demonstration is shown in table 
4 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See the Reasonable Further Progress demonstration, section 
VIII-B, beginning on page 52.

                                        Table 4--Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             VOC (tpd)
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2011            2017            2020            2023            2026            2029            2031
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline VOC............................           378.7           310.6           303.8           300.2           300.3           301.9           302.9
Transportation Conformity Safety Margin.               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
Baseline VOC + Safety Margin............           378.7           310.6           303.8           300.2           300.3           301.9           302.9
Required % change since 2011 (VOC or      ..............             18%             27%             36%             45%             54%             60%
 NOX)...................................
Required tpd reductions since 2011......  ..............            68.2           102.2           136.3           170.4           204.5           227.2
Target VOC Level........................  ..............           310.5           276.4           242.4           208.3           174.2           151.5
Apparent Shortfall (-)/Surplus (+) in     ..............            -0.1           -27.3           -57.9           -92.0          -127.7          -151.5
 VOC....................................
Apparent Shortfall (-)/Surplus (+) in     ..............              0%           -7.2%          -15.3%          -24.3%          -33.7%          -40.0%
 VOC, %.................................
VOC Shortfall previously provided by NOX  ..............              0%              0%            7.2%           15.3%           24.3%           33.7%
 Substitution, %........................
Actual VOC shortfall (-)/surplus (+), %.  ..............              0%           -7.2%           -8.1%           -9.0%           -9.4%           -6.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                             NOX (tpd)
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2011            2017            2020            2023            2026            2029            2031
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NOX............................           375.6           238.4           207.9           158.4           143.0           131.1           125.0
Transportation Conformity Safety Margin.             0.0             0.0             0.0             2.5             5.3             7.1             8.0
Baseline NOX + Safety Margin............           375.6           238.4           207.9           160.9           148.3           138.2           133.1
Change in NOX since 2011, tpd...........  ..............           137.2           167.7           214.7           227.3           237.4           242.5
Change in NOX since 2011, %.............  ..............           36.5%           44.6%           57.2%           60.5%           63.2%           64.6%
NOX reductions used for VOC substitution  ..............              0%              0%            7.2%           15.3%           24.3%           33.7%
 through last milestone year, %.........
NOX reductions since 2011 available for   ..............           36.5%           44.6%           49.9%           45.2%           38.9%           30.8%
 VOC substitution in this milestone
 year, %................................
NOX reductions since 2011 used for VOC    ..............              0%            7.2%            8.1%            9.0%            9.4%            6.3%
 substitution in this milestone year, %.
NOX reductions since 2011 surplus after   ..............           36.5%           37.4%           41.9%           36.2%           29.5%           24.6%
 meeting VOC substitution needs in this
 milestone year, %......................
    Total shortfall for RFP.............  ..............              0%              0%              0%              0%              0%              0%
RFP Met?................................  ..............             YES             YES             YES             YES             YES             YES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table VIII-2 of the 2018 SIP Update.

    The updated RFP demonstration calculates future year VOC targets 
from the 2011 baseline, consistent with CAA 182(c)(2)(B)(i), which 
requires reductions of ``at least 3 percent of baseline emissions each 
year.'' The updated RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update 
substitutes NOX reductions for VOC reductions \39\ beginning 
in milestone year 2020 to meet VOC emission targets. For the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, CARB concludes that the RFP 
demonstration meets the applicable requirements for each milestone year 
as well as the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NOX substitution is permitted under EPA 
regulations. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    As discussed in section III.A above, we are proposing to find that 
the baseline and RFP milestone year emissions inventories are 
acceptable for use in the RFP demonstration. We have reviewed the 
calculations in table VIII-2 of the 2018 SIP Update and presented in 
table 4 above, and find that the State has used an appropriate 
calculation method to demonstrate RFP. For these reasons, we have 
determined that the State has demonstrated RFP in each milestone year 
and the attainment year, consistent with applicable CAA requirements 
and EPA guidance. We therefore propose to approve the RFP 
demonstrations under sections

[[Page 61354]]

172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA and 40 CFR 
51.1110(a)(2)(ii).

C. 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 timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's 
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to 
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing 
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim 
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation 
agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's 
regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs 
conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by 
showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and 
transit systems are less than or equal to the 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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the 
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these 
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and 
RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures 
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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 budget consists of 
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP 
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the 
budget during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of 
adequacy or inadequacy.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2016 Ozone Plan included sub-regional (i.e., county-based) 
budgets for the 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, and 2030 RFP milestone years, 
and the 2031 attainment year. In June 2017, the EPA found the budgets 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes,\43\ and more recently, 
proposed approval of the 2031 budgets in our August 31, 2018 action on 
portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan. The budgets for 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027 
and 2030 were derived from the 2012 RFP baseline year and the 
associated RFP milestone years. As such, the budgets are affected by 
the South Coast II decision vacating the alternative baseline year 
provision, and therefore, the EPA did not propose action on RFP budgets 
in our August 31, 2018 proposed rule. On October 3, 2018, CARB 
requested parallel processing of the 2018 SIP Update before its board's 
anticipated adoption of the plan on October 25, 2018. The 2018 SIP 
Update revises the RFP determination and identifies new sub-regional 
budgets for each county in the nonattainment area for VOC and 
NOX for each updated RFP milestone year through 2030 and for 
the attainment year, 2031. The budgets in this 2018 SIP Update replace 
all of the budgets contained in the 2016 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 82 FR 29547 (June 29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The budgets in the 2018 SIP Update were calculated using updated 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates from the 2018 Regional 
Transportation Plans from the San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning agencies and 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 ozone NAAQS. The budgets also include a 
safety margin for some years and some counties. The conformity budgets 
for NOX and VOC for each county in the nonattainment area 
are provided in table 5 below.

                                                         Table 5--Budgets in the 2018 SIP Update
                                                                    [In tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2020                  2023                  2026                  2029                  2031
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                               NOX (tpd)                NOX                NOX (tpd)             NOX (tpd)                NOX
                                            VOC (tpd)             VOC (tpd)    (tpd)    VOC (tpd)             VOC (tpd)             VOC (tpd)    (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno....................................        6.7        3.9        5.5       14.1        4.9       13.2        4.5       12.4        4.2       12.1
Kern (SJV)................................        5.4       23.9        4.5       14.5        4.2       14.4        4.0       14.3        3.9       14.3
Kings.....................................        1.2        4.5        1.0        2.7        0.9        2.5        0.8        2.6        0.8        2.6
Madera....................................        1.5        4.3        1.1        2.7        1.0        2.5        0.9        2.4        0.8        2.3
Merced....................................        2.2        8.8        1.7        6.0        1.5        5.9        1.3        5.6        1.2        5.4
San Joaquin...............................        4.7       11.2        3.9        7.4        3.5        7.0        3.1        6.6        2.8        6.3
Stanislaus................................        3.1        8.8        2.6        5.6        2.2        4.9        2.0        4.5        1.8        4.3
Tulare....................................        3.0        7.6        2.4        4.6        2.1        4.0        1.8        3.7        1.7        3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tables VIII-4 through VIII-10 of the 2018 SIP Update.

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have evaluated the submitted budgets in the 2018 SIP Update 
against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our 
review of the budgets' approvability (see section III in the EPA's TSD 
for this proposal) and will complete the adequacy review concurrent 
with our final action on the ozone plan. The EPA is not required under 
its transportation conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to 
proposing approval of them.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Under the Transportation Conformity regulations, the EPA 
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets 
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the 
submitted implementation plan 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).

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

[[Page 61355]]

    The EPA has previously determined that the 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.\45\ The EPA received no comments 
from the public. On June 13, 2017, as noted above, the EPA determined 
the 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2030 and 2031 MVEBs were adequate.\46\ On 
June 29, 2017, the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal 
Register.\47\ These budgets became effective on July 14, 2017, and have 
been used in transportation conformity determinations in the San 
Joaquin Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
    \46\ See June 13, 2017 letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting 
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB.
    \47\ See 82 FR 29547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's notice, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2020, 2023, 
2026, 2029 and 2031 budgets in the 2018 SIP Update for transportation 
conformity purposes. The EPA has determined through its review of the 
submitted 2018 SIP Update that these budgets are consistent with 
emission control measures in the SIP, reasonable further progress and 
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For the reasons discussed in 
section III.B of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the 
RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update. To supplement the information 
in the 2018 SIP Update, CARB provided an additional technical 
supplement \48\ demonstrating that the budgets, including safety 
margins, which are clearly identified in the tables VIII-4 through 
VIII-10 of the 2018 SIP Update, are consistent with RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See email from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, California Air 
Resources Board Air Planning Branch, to Anita Lee, Chief, EPA Region 
IX Air Planning Office, October 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has previously proposed to approve the attainment 
demonstration in 2016 Ozone Plan and associated 2031 budgets.\49\ The 
2018 SIP Update does not update the attainment demonstration, therefore 
CARB provided an additional technical supplement \50\ to assess the 
effect of the emissions updates in the 2018 SIP Update using modeling 
from the 2016 Ozone Plan. The supplement showed that the updated on-
road emission and safety margins, when considered together with all 
other emission sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for 
attainment. A detailed discussion of the EPA's analysis of CARB's 
technical supplement is provided in section III of the TSD accompanying 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 83 FR 44528 (August 31, 2018).
    \50\ See email from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, California Air 
Resources Board Air Planning Branch, to Anita Lee, Chief, EPA Region 
IX Air Planning Office, October 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 SIP Update budgets as shown in table 5, are consistent 
with the RFP demonstration and attainment demonstration, are clearly 
identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements, including the adequacy criteria 
in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, the EPA proposes to 
approve the budgets in table 5. We provide a more detailed discussion 
in section III of the EPA's TSD, which can be found in the docket for 
today's action. If we finalize approval of the budgets in the 2018 SIP 
Update, as proposed, then they will replace the budgets from the 2016 
Ozone Plan that we previously found adequate for use in conformity 
determinations by transportation agencies in the San Joaquin Valley.

D. Contingency Measures for Failure To Meet RFP Milestones or To Attain 
the NAAQS by the Applicable Attainment Date

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 
as Serious 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 RFP 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.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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 amount of emissions reductions that implementation of 
contingency measures must achieve, but the 2008 Ozone SRR reiterates 
the EPA's guidance recommendation that contingency measures should 
provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's 
worth of RFP, thus amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline 
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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 existing federal measures (e.g., 
federal mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the 
motor vehicle fleet each year) and state or local measures in the SIP 
already scheduled for implementation that provide emissions reductions 
in excess of those needed to meet any other nonattainment plan 
requirements, such as meeting RACM/RACT, RFP or expeditious attainment 
requirements. 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 state revises the SIP to meet 
the missed milestone or attainment date.
    The EPA has approved numerous nonattainment area plan SIP 
submissions under this interpretation, i.e., SIPs that use as 
contingency measures one or more federal or state control measures that 
are already in place and provide reductions that are in excess of the 
reductions required to meet other requirements or relied upon in the 
modeled attainment demonstration,\53\ and there is case law supporting 
the EPA's interpretation in this regard.\54\ However, in Bahr v. EPA, 
the Ninth Circuit rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 
172(c)(9) as allowing for approval of already implemented control 
measures as contingency measures.\55\ The Ninth Circuit concluded that 
contingency measures must be measures that would take effect at the 
time the area fails to make RFP or to attain by the applicable 
attainment date, not before.\56\ Thus, within the geographic 
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on already 
implemented control measures to comply with the contingency

[[Page 61356]]

measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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).
    \54\ 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).
    \55\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \56\ Id. at 1235-1237.
    \57\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA 
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment 
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section 
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language 
in section 172(c)(9) and the ozone-specific contingency measure 
provision in section 182(c)(9), we find that the decision affects 
how both sections of the Act must be interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The District and CARB adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan prior to the Bahr 
v. EPA decision, and it relies upon surplus emissions reductions from 
already implemented control measures in the RFP milestone years to 
demonstrate compliance with the RFP milestone contingency measure 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\58\ With respect 
to the attainment contingency measure requirements, the 2016 Ozone Plan 
relies upon the incremental reduction in emissions in the year 
following the attainment year relative to the emissions in the 
attainment year due to continuing benefits from already implemented 
control measures, and on the aggregate emission reduction commitment 
made by CARB in the 2016 State Strategy for San Joaquin Valley.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See the 2016 Ozone Plan, chapter 6, section 6.3.
    \59\ See the 2016 Ozone Plan, chapter 6, section 6.4 and CARB's 
Staff Report, ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, release date June 17, 2016, pages 21 and 
22. CARB's aggregate commitment is to achieve emission reductions in 
the San Joaquin Valley of 8 tpd of NOX by 2031. In our 
August 31, 2018 proposed action on portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan 
(83 FR 44528, at 44547), we proposed to approve the aggregate 8-tpd 
NOX commitment by CARB from the 2016 State Strategy as a 
SIP strengthening measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2018 SIP Update, CARB revises the RFP demonstration for the 
2008 ozone standards for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area and 
recalculates the extent of surplus emission reductions (i.e., surplus 
to meeting the RFP milestone requirement for a given milestone year) in 
the milestone years, and updates the estimate of the incremental 
reduction in emissions in the year following the attainment year 
(relative to the attainment year). In light of the Bahr v. EPA 
decision, however, the 2018 SIP Update does not identify such surplus 
or incremental emissions reductions as contingency measures. Instead, 
the 2018 SIP Update includes a contingency measure that would take 
effect upon a failure to meet an RFP milestone or upon a failure to 
attain the 2008 ozone standards by the applicable attainment date.
    The new contingency measure, referred to as the ``Enhanced 
Enforcement Activities Program,'' is described in chapter X 
(``Contingency Measures''), section C of the 2018 SIP Update. In short, 
under the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program, within 60 days of a 
determination by the EPA that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 
failed to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date, the CARB Executive Officer would direct 
enhanced enforcement activities in San Joaquin Valley consistent with 
the findings and recommendations in a report (referred to as the 
Enhanced Enforcement Report) that is to be prepared and published 
within 60 days of the triggering event. In the 2018 SIP Update, CARB 
indicates that the Enhanced Enforcement Report will, among other 
things, describe the compliance status of stationary and mobile sources 
in the area, determine the probable cause of the failure of RFP or 
attainment, and specify the type and quantity of additional enforcement 
resources that will be directed to the area. Lastly, through its 
resolution of adoption of the 2018 SIP Update, CARB added a menu of 
specific enforcement activity measures, one or more of which must be 
identified in the Enhanced Enforcement Report and implemented within 60 
days of a triggering event.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ CARB Resolution 18-50, dated October 25, 2018, attachment 
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In chapter X (``Contingency Measures'') of the 2018 SIP Update, 
CARB indicates that compliance with the contingency measure 
requirements of the CAA necessitates that individual air districts 
adopt a local contingency measure or measures to complement CARB's 
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure. To address the 
contingency measure requirement for the 2008 ozone standards in the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, the District has committed to adopt 
and submit a contingency measure to CARB within 11 months of the EPA's 
final conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the 
2016 Ozone Plan, as supplemented by the relevant portions of the 2018 
SIP Update.\61\ The District's specific commitment is to revise the 
district's current architectural coatings rule to remove the exemption 
for architectural coatings sold in containers with a volume of one 
liter or less if the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area has missed an RFP milestone or failed to attain the 
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The District 
further commits to submit the revised architectural coatings rule to 
CARB within 11 months of final EPA action. CARB has attached the 
District's commitment to revise the architectural coatings rule to a 
letter committing to adopt and submit the revised rule to the EPA 
within one year of the EPA's final action on the contingency measure 
element of the 2016 Ozone Plan (and related portions of the 2018 SIP 
Update).\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Sheraz Gill, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, letter 
to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB and Michael Stoker, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated October 18, 2018.
    \62\ Letter from Dr. Michael Benjamin, Chief, CARB Air Quality 
Planning and Science Division, to Michael Stoker, Regional EPA 
Region IX Administrator, dated October 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have evaluated the contingency measure provisions in the 2016 
Ozone Plan, the 2018 SIP Update, and the commitments by the District 
and CARB to adopt and submit a district contingency measure within one 
year of the EPA's final action and have concluded that, collectively, 
these materials provide the basis for us to propose conditional 
approval of the 2016 Ozone Plan and the relevant portions of 2018 
Update.
    First, we find that CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program 
measure and the revision to the architectural coatings rule (once 
adopted) represent additional controls or measures to be implemented in 
the event San Joaquin Valley fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS 
by the applicable attainment date. We also find that CARB's Enhanced 
Enforcement Activities Program contains, and the revised architectural 
coatings rule will contain, triggering mechanisms and schedules for 
implementation for the additional measures. Furthermore, the 
contingency measures are designed to be implemented without significant 
further action by the State or the EPA.\63\ As such, CARB's Enhanced 
Enforcement Activities Program measure is structured, and the 
District's intended measure, as described in the commitment, will be 
structured, to meet the requirements of CAA sections

[[Page 61357]]

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) consistent with the Bahr v. EPA decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ We recognize that CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities 
Program calls for the preparation of a report before specific 
actions are taken; however, we view the preparation of the report as 
a ministerial act that does not require significant action on the 
part of CARB or the EPA, e.g., does not depend upon rulemaking or 
any action by the CARB Board. Furthermore, in adopting the 2018 SIP 
Update, the CARB Board strengthened the Enhanced Enforcement 
Activities Program contingency measure by adopting a menu of 
specific actions, one or more of which must be included in the 
report for implementation beginning 60 days after the triggering 
event. See CARB Resolution 18-50, October 25, 2018, attachment B 
(``Menu of Enhanced Enforcement Actions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing 
regulations for the ozone NAAQS establish a specific amount of 
emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures must 
achieve, but we generally expect that contingency measures should 
provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's 
worth of RFP, which, for ozone, amounts to reductions of 3 percent of 
the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. For the 
2008 ozone standards in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, one 
year's worth of RFP is approximately 11.4 tpd of VOC or NOX 
reductions.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The 2011 baseline for VOC and NOX is 378.7 tpd 
and 375.6 tpd, respectively, as shown in table VIII-1 of the 2018 
SIP Update. Three percent of the baselines is 11.4 tpd of VOC and 
11.3 tpd of NOX, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 SIP Update does not include a specific estimate of the 
emissions reductions that would be achieved by the Enhanced Enforcement 
Activities program. We recognize the difficulty in calculating such an 
estimate given the nature of the measure and the range of enforcement 
actions that could be taken, but we believe that the enhanced 
enforcement program would achieve emissions reductions above and beyond 
those that would otherwise be achieved. The District's intended 
contingency measure, i.e., the removal of the small-container exemption 
from the current local architectural coatings rule in the SIP upon a 
triggering event, lends itself more easily to quantification of 
potential additional emission reductions. Based on emissions estimates 
developed in connection with the removal of the same small-container 
exemption from the comparable South Coast Air Quality Management 
District's architectural coatings rule, we estimate that the removal of 
the exemption would achieve roughly 1 tpd reduction of VOC in San 
Joaquin Valley.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The basis for this estimate is detailed in section II of 
the TSD accompanying this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considered together, as described above, the two contingency 
measures can be quantified to achieve approximately 1 tpd of VOC 
emissions reductions. Thus the contingency measures, considered in 
isolation, can be quantified to achieve far less than one year's worth 
of RFP (11.4 tpd of VOC or NOX). However, the 2018 SIP 
Update presents the contingency measures within the larger SIP planning 
context and concludes that the emissions reductions from the two 
contingency measures are sufficient to meet CAA contingency measure 
requirements when considered in conjunction with the surplus emissions 
reductions estimated to be achieved in the RFP milestone years and the 
incremental emissions reductions projected to occur in the year 
following the attainment year. Although these surplus emission 
reductions and incremental emissions reductions result from existing 
(i.e., already implemented) measures that are not appropriate as 
contingency measures under the Bahr v. EPA court's interpretation of 
CAA section 172(c)(9), they nonetheless provide additional emission 
reductions that will improve the ambient ozone levels in the San 
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area in the event that RFP or 
attainment are not met.
    In this case, ``surplus'' refers to emissions reductions over and 
above the reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP in San Joaquin Valley 
for the 2008 ozone standards. More specifically, table VIII-2 in the 
2018 SIP Update identifies surplus NOX reductions in the 
various RFP milestone years. For San Joaquin Valley, the estimates of 
surplus NOX reductions vary for each RFP milestone year but 
range from 92.4 tpd (24.6 percent of 2011 baseline NOX) in 
milestone year 2031 to 157.4 tpd (41.9 percent of 2011 baseline 
NOX) in milestone year 2023. These represent values that far 
eclipse one year's worth of RFP (11.4 tpd). The surplus reflects 
already implemented regulations and is primarily the result of vehicle 
turnover, which refers to the ongoing replacement by individuals, 
companies, and government agencies of older, more polluting vehicles 
and engines with newer vehicles and engines designed to meet more 
stringent CARB mobile source emission standards. In light of the extent 
of surplus NOX emissions reductions in the RFP milestone 
years, we agree with CARB that the emissions reductions from the two 
contingency measures would be sufficient to meet the contingency 
measure requirements of the CAA with respect to RFP milestones, even 
though the measures would achieve emissions reductions lower than the 
EPA normally recommends for reductions from such measures.
    For attainment contingency measure purposes, we view the emissions 
reductions from the two contingency measures in the context of the 
expected reduction in emissions within the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the year following the 
attainment year (relative to those occurring in the attainment year). 
Based on the emission inventories in the Appendix A to the 2018 SIP 
Update, we note that overall regional emissions are expected to be 
approximately 1 tpd of NOX lower in 2032 than in 2031.\66\ 
Considered together with the quantified 1 tpd reduction from the 
contingency measures, the adopted regulations would not provide 
sufficient emissions reductions to constitute one year's worth of RFP. 
However, as part of the 2016 State Strategy, CARB has made an aggregate 
emission reduction commitment of 8 tpd of NOX for San 
Joaquin Valley by 2031 over and above the reductions that are needed 
for any other CAA purpose with respect to the 2008 ozone standards. 
Fulfillment of the 8-tpd commitment would reduce the potential for the 
area to fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 2031 applicable 
attainment date. Under these circumstances, given the reduced potential 
for failure to attain and the expected year-over-year net reduction in 
regional emissions, we find that the emissions reductions from the two 
contingency measures are sufficient to meet the contingency measure 
requirements of the CAA with respect to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ A comparison of regional emissions totals in 2032 with 
those in 2031 shows that VOC emissions are expected to be 1.05 tpd 
higher, and NOX emissions are expected to be 2.14 lower, 
for a net reduction of approximately 1 tpd of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, we propose to conditionally approve the 
contingency measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 
2018 SIP Update, and supplemented by the commitments by the District 
and CARB to adopt and submit an additional contingency measure, as 
meeting the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) 
and 182(c)(9). Our proposed approval is conditional because it relies 
upon a commitment to adopt a specific enforceable contingency measure. 
Conditional approvals are authorized under CAA section 110(k)(4) of the 
CAA.

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 \67\ 
submitted by CARB on August 24, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements 
of CAA

[[Page 61358]]

sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve as a revision to the 
California SIP the following portions of the 2018 SIP Update to the 
California State Implementation Plan, adopted by CARB on October 25, 
2018:
     RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 
51.1110(a)(2)(ii); and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone 
years of 2020, 2023, 2026, 2029, and the attainment year of 2031 (see 
table 5, above) because they are consistent with the RFP demonstration 
proposed for approval herein and the attainment demonstration 
previously proposed for approval and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 
93.118(e).
    Lastly, we are proposing to conditionally approve the contingency 
measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP 
Update, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) based on commitments by CARB and the District to supplement 
the element through submission of a SIP revision within 1 year of final 
conditional approval action that will include a revised District 
architectural coatings rule.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed actions 
listed above, our rationales for the proposed actions, and any other 
pertinent matters related to 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. 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: November 19, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-25885 Filed 11-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


