31212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In 2008, the EPA revised and further 

strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard by setting 

the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 

0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘2008 

8-hour ozone standard’’). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). In 2015, the EPA further tightened the 8-hour 

ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 

26, 2015). 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 3, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11630 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711; FRL–9946–60– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone 

and Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve revisions to 

the State of California’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The revisions 

consist of an update to the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) for the SJV ozone 

nonattainment area; for NOX and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for NOX

and course particulate matter (PM10) for 

the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the 

SJV PM10 maintenance area. The EPA is 

proposing to approve the SJV ozone and 

PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally 

approve the PM10 budgets in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0711 at http://

www.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, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karina O’Connor, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (775) 434–8176, 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section is arranged as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. Background 

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s Action 

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

C. What is the EMFAC model? 

D. What versions of EMFAC are currently 

in use in California? 

E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect? 

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets 

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based 

on EMFAC2014 

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

IV. What are the criteria for approval of 

revised budgets? 

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the 

EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24- 

Hour PM10 Standard 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing action on a SIP 

revision submitted by the State of 

California (‘‘State’’) on November 13, 

2015. The SIP submittal revises budgets 

applicable to control strategy or 

maintenance plans for the SJV for three 

different NAAQS. We are proposing to 

approve revised budgets for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. We are also 

proposing to conditionally approve 

revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 standard. Should the EPA later 

finalize the revised budgets as proposed 

herein, they will replace the SJV’s 

existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, and the 1987 24-hour PM10

standard. At that time, the previouslyapproved or adequate budgets would no 

longer be applicable for transportation 

conformity purposes, and the revised 

budgets would need to be used as of the 

effective date of the final approval. 

II. Background 

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s 

Action 

In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone 

standard to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts 

per million, averaged over an 8-hour 

period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).1 On 

April 15, 2004, the EPA designated the 

SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and classified the 

area as ‘‘Serious’’ under CAA section 

181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. 

See 69 FR 23858 at 23888–89 (April 30, 

2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, 

California requested that the EPA 

reclassify the SJV from ‘‘Serious’’ to 

‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard under CAA 

section 181(b)(3). We granted 

California’s request on May 5, 2010 and 

reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31213 

2The SJV area is also designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

3 In 2013, the EPA again retained the 24-hour 

PM10 standard of 150 ug/m3. See 78 FR 3086 

(January 15, 2013). 

4California plans sometimes use the term 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms 

are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use 

the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG. 

5For further information, see the EPA’s January 

9, 2013 waiver of preemption for the Advanced 

Clean Cars regulations at 78 FR 2112. 

1997 8-hour ozone standard effective 

June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409. 

In 2006, the EPA revised the PM2.5 24- 

hour standard to provide increased 

protection of public health by lowering 

its level from 65 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3 (40 CFR 

50.13). On November 13, 2009, the EPA 

designated the SJV as nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 

58688 (November 13, 2009). This 

designation became effective on 

December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305).2

In 1987, the EPA revised the 

particulate matter standard, replacing 

standards for total suspended 

particulates with new standards 

applying only to PM10. 52 FR 24633 

(July 1, 1987). In 1990, the SJV was 

designated nonattainment for PM10. 56 

FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). In 2006, the 

24-hour PM10 standard was retained, but 

the annual standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 

61144 (October 17, 2006).3 In 2008, the 

EPA approved a PM10 maintenance plan 

and redesignated the SJV to attainment 

for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 73 FR 

66759 (November 12, 2008). 

For all three pollutants, the SJV 

nonattainment area includes all of seven 

counties, including Fresno, Kings, 

Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the 

western half of Kern County. See the 

NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR 

81.305. 

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

for a given NAAQS. These emission 

control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans include motor 

vehicle emissions budgets of on-road 

mobile source emissions for criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors to 

address pollution from cars and trucks. 

SIP budgets are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

on-road vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from other sources in the 

area, will provide for RFP, attainment or 

maintenance. The budget serves as a 

ceiling on emissions from an area’s 

planned transportation system. For 

more information about budgets, see the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs), and 

transportation projects must ‘‘conform’’ 

to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP 

before they can be adopted or approved. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or 

delay an interim milestone. The 

transportation conformity regulations 

can be found at 40 CFR part 93. 

Before budgets can be used in 

conformity determinations, the EPA 

must affirmatively find the budgets 

adequate. However, adequate budgets 

do not supersede approved budgets for 

the same CAA purpose. If the submitted 

SIP budgets are meant to replace 

budgets for the same purpose, the EPA 

must approve the budgets, and can 

affirm that they are adequate at the same 

time. Once the EPA approves the 

submitted budgets, they must be used 

by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA’s 

substantive criteria for determining the 

adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

C. What is the EMFAC model? 

The EMFAC model (short for 

EMission FACtor) is a computer model 

developed by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). CARB updates 

EMFAC on a regular basis and releases 

new versions generally every three or 

four years. The current version can 

estimate emission rates for on-road 

mobile sources (‘‘motor vehicles’’) 

operating in California for calendar 

years from 2000 to 2050. Pollutant 

emissions for VOCs,4 carbon monoxide 

(CO), NOX, PM10, PM2.5, lead, carbon 

dioxide (CO2), and sulfur oxides are 

outputs generated by the model. 

Emissions are calculated for fifty-one 

different vehicle classes composed of 

passenger cars, various types of trucks 

and buses, motorcycles, and motor 

homes. 

EMFAC is used to calculate current 

and future inventories of motor vehicle 

emissions at the state, air district, air 

basin, or county level. EMFAC contains 

default vehicle activity data, and the 

option of modifying that data, so it can 

be used to estimate a motor vehicle 

emissions inventory in tons/day for a 

specific year, month, or season, and as 

a function of ambient temperature, 

relative humidity, vehicle population, 

mileage accrual, miles of travel and 

speeds. Thus the model can be used to 

make decisions about air pollution 

policies and programs at the local or 

state level. Inventories based on EMFAC 

are also used to meet the federal CAA’s 

SIP and transportation conformity 

requirements. 

D. What versions of EMFAC are 

currently in use in California? 

Most budgets in the California SIP 

were developed using EMFAC2007 

(released by CARB in October 2007) or 

EMFAC2011 (released by CARB in 

September 2011). The EPA approved 

EMFAC2007 at 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 

2008) and EMFAC2011 at 78 FR 14533 

(March 16, 2013) for all areas in 

California. 

EMFAC2011 was considered a major 

update to previous versions of EMFAC 

and most budgets in the California SIP 

were updated with EMFAC2011 in the 

2012–2014 timeframe. EMFAC2011 

included a new model structure, new 

data and methodologies regarding 

calculation of motor vehicle emissions, 

and revisions to implementation data 

for control measures. 

E. What changes does EMFAC2014 

reflect? 

The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for 

use in SIP revisions and transportation 

conformity at 80 FR 77337 (December 

14, 2015). EMFAC2014 includes 

significant changes to its model 

interface, new data and methodologies 

regarding calculation of motor vehicle 

emissions and revisions to 

implementation data for control 

measures. EMFAC2014 includes 

updated data on car and truck activity, 

and emissions reductions associated 

with CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars 

regulations.5 Motor vehicle fleet age, 

vehicle types and vehicle population 

have also been updated based on 2000– 

2012 California Department of Motor 

Vehicle data. EMFAC2014 incorporates 

new temperature and humidity profiles. 

Each of these changes impact emission 

factors for each area in California. In 

addition to changes to truck activity, 

EMFAC incorporates updated vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) for all vehicle 

classes. The new model interface for 

EMFAC2014 allows users to update the 

default VMT data and speed profiles by 

vehicle class for different future 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31214 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and 

SJV-related portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy 

(revised 2009 and 2011). 

7The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, 

September 20, 2007, and technical corrections by 

CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 PM10

Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri 

from James N. Goldstene. 

8Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, April 1, 2016 with 

enclosures. 

9CARB Resolution No. 15–50, October 22, 2015. 

10Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015 with enclosures. 

11Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, dated April 21, 2016. 

12Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for 

State Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes, 

EPA–420–B–14–008, July 2014. See question and 

answer #6 on page 7. Available online at: http://

www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/

420b14008.pdf. MOVES is a model that states use 

to estimate on-road emissions for SIP development, 

transportation conformity determinations, and other 

purposes. Also see examples of EPA rulemakings 

involving replacement of budgets in response to a 

MOVES update, e.g., Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 

(79 FR 28435, May 16, 2014) and Beaumont/Port 

Arthur (78 FR 7672, February 4, 2013). 

scenarios. CARB’s Web site describes 

these and other model changes at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/

categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles. 

F. Existing Adequate or Approved 

Budgets 

The EPA previously approved the SJV 

budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and the 24-hour PM10

standard. The ozone budgets were 

included in the EPA’s approval of the 

SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan (‘‘2007 

Ozone Plan’’) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 

2012), which established NOX and VOC 

budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 

2023.6 The PM10 budgets were included 

in the EPA’s approval of the 2007 PM10

Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation (‘‘2007 PM10 Plan’’) at 73 

FR 66759 (November 12, 2008), which 

established direct PM10 and NOX

budgets for 2005 and 2020.7

The EPA previously proposed to 

approve the SJV budgets for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. The PM2.5

budgets were included in the EPA’s 

proposed approval of the SJV 2012 

PM2.5 Plan (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’) at 80 FR 

1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA found 

the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in the SJV 2012 

PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 

22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing 

direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017. 

As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must 

be used to determine conformity of 

transportation plans and TIPs to the 

control strategy plan for the SJV for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.8

The current EPA-approved budgets 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

PM10 standard were developed using 

EMFAC2007, and the adequate budgets 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

were developed using EMFAC2011. In 

the SJV, the eight county-level 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) are the relevant 

transportation agencies that must use 

approved or adequate budgets in 

determining the conformity of 

transportation plans and TIPs within the 

SJV region. 

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based 

on EMFAC2014 

The revised budgets for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 24- 

hour PM10 standards were adopted by 

the CARB on October 22, 2015.9 They 

were submitted to the EPA on 

November 13, 2015.10

III. CAA Procedural and 

Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submittals 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

CARB satisfied applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements for 

reasonable public notice and hearing 

prior to adoption and submittal of the 

revised budgets. In the documentation 

included as part of the November 13, 

2015 SIP revision submittal, CARB 

provided evidence of the required 

public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its October 22, 2015 

public hearing and adoption of the 

revised budgets. We find, therefore, that 

the submittal of the revised budgets 

meets the procedural requirements for 

public notice and hearing in CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan submittal that the EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will be deemed complete 

by operation of law six months after the 

date of submittal. The EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA 

determined that CARB’s November 13, 

2015 SIP revision submittal was 

complete on April 21, 2016.11

IV. What are the criteria for approval 

of revised budgets? 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, SIP 

revisions must not interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment or RFP or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. 

Generally, the EPA reviews budgets for 

adequacy or approval in the context of 

the Agency’s review of a control strategy 

implementation plan (i.e., attainment or 

RFP plan) or maintenance plan. 

However, revisions to budgets can be 

approved without comprehensive 

updates to the related control strategy 

implementation or maintenance plan if 

the plan, with the new level of motor 

vehicle emissions contained in the 

revised budgets, continues to meet 

applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, 

attainment, or maintenance). EPA policy 

guidance suggests that a state may revise 

the motor vehicle emissions inventories 

and related budgets without revising 

their entire SIP consistent with section 

110(l) if: (1) The SIP continues to meet 

applicable requirements when the 

previous motor vehicle emissions 

inventories are replaced with new 

MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES) base year and milestone, 

attainment, or maintenance year 

inventories; and (2) the state can 

document that growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle sources continue to be valid and 

any minor updates do not change the 

overall conclusions of the SIP.12 The 

EPA’s policy guidance for MOVES can 

be applied to EMFAC because EMFAC 

is a California-specific emissions model 

analogous to MOVES. 

In addition, revised budgets that are 

intended to replace adequate (but not 

approved) budgets must meet the 

adequacy criteria found in our 

transportation conformity regulations at 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). These criteria 

include endorsement by the Governor 

(or designee); prior consultation among 

relevant air and transportation agencies; 

clear identification and precise 

quantification of the budgets; 

consistency of the budgets, when 

considered with all other emissions 

sources, with applicable requirements 

for RFP, attainment or maintenance; 

consistency with and clear relation to 

the emissions inventory and control 

measures; and explanation and 

documentation of changes relative to 

previously submitted budgets. In this 

instance, the adequacy criteria do not 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31215 

13The county-specific budgets are set forth in 

attachment A to CARB Resolution 15–50. 

Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted 

by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on 

November 13, 2015. CARB provided information 

and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff 

report titled Updated Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5,

and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date 

September 21, 2015. 

apply to our review of the revised 

budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan or the 

2007 PM10 Plan because the budgets 

they would replace are approved 

budgets. The adequacy criteria do, 

however, apply to our review of the 

revised budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

because the budgets from that plan have 

been found adequate, but are not yet 

approved. 

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and 

the EPA’s Analysis of the State’s 

Submittal 

Table 1 lists the revised budgets by 

subarea included in the State’s 

submittal for the SJV budgets applicable 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5, and the 24-hour PM10 standards. 

CARB developed the revised budgets 

using EMFAC2014 and the travel 

activity projections provided by the San 

Joaquin Valley MPOs consistent with 

the 2015 Federal TIP. As such, we find 

that the revised budgets reflect the most 

recent planning forecasts and are based 

on the most recent emission factor data 

and approved calculation methods. A 

comparison of the current approved or 

adequate budgets with the revised 

budgets and a discussion of the EPA’s 

proposed action on each set of budgets 

is provided further below. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BUDGETS DEVELOPED USING EMFAC2014 13

County subarea 

1997 8-hour ozone standard 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard 

PM10 standard 

NOX

(tons per summer day) 

VOC 

(tons per summer day) 

Direct PM2.5

(tons per 

winter day) 

NOX

(tons per 

winter day) 

Direct PM10

(tons per 

annual day) 

NOX

(tons per 

annual day) 

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 

2017 2020 

Fresno ............... 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6 1.0 32.1 7.0 25.4 

Kern (SJV) ......... 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8 0.8 28.8 7.4 23.3 

Kings ................. 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.2 5.9 1.8 4.8 

Madera .............. 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.2 6.0 2.5 4.7 

Merced .............. 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 0.3 11 3.8 8.9 

San Joaquin ...... 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3 0.6 15.5 4.6 11.9 

Stanislaus .......... 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7 0.4 12.3 3.7 9.6 

Tulare ................ 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5 0.4 11.2 3.4 8.4 

Note: CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJVwide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC, PM2.5 and PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the 

ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. 

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

Tables 2 and 3 below compare the 

current EPA-approved NOX and VOC 

budgets developed using EMFAC2007 

with the revised budgets developed 

using EMFAC2014. The budgets are 

provided by subarea and apply to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE BUDGETS FOR NOX FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

[Tons per summer day] 

County subarea 

2017 2020 2023 

Current Revised Net 

change Current Revised Net change Current Revised Net change 

Fresno ..................... 22.6 29.9 7.3 17.7 24.3 6.6 13.5 14.6 1.1 

Kern (SJV) ............... 31.7 26.8 ¥4.9 25.1 22.4 ¥2.7 18.6 12.9 ¥5.7 

Kings ....................... 6.7 5.5 ¥1.2 5.3 4.7 ¥0.6 4.0 2.7 ¥1.3 

Madera .................... 5.8 5.5 ¥0.3 4.7 4.5 ¥0.2 3.6 2.7 ¥0.9 

Merced .................... 12.4 10.3 ¥2.1 9.9 8.5 ¥1.4 7.4 5.1 ¥2.3 

San Joaquin ............ 15.6 14.1 ¥1.5 12.4 11.3 ¥1.1 10.0 7.3 ¥2.7 

Stanislaus ................ 10.6 11.3 0.7 8.4 9.2 0.8 6.4 5.8 ¥0.6 

Tulare ...................... 10.1 10.3 0.2 8.1 8.1 0.0 6.2 4.9 ¥1.3 

Totals ............... 115.5 113.7 ¥1.8 91.6 93.0 1.4 69.7 56.0 ¥13.7 

Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to 

the nearest whole ton for NOX and nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the 

total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone 

were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE BUDGETS FOR VOC FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

[Tons per summer day] 

County subarea 

2017 2020 2023 

Current Revised Net 

change Current Revised Net change Current Revised Net change 

Fresno ....................................... 9.3 8.7 ¥0.6 8.3 6.8 ¥1.5 8.0 5.6 ¥2.4 

Kern (SJV) ................................. 8.7 6.9 ¥1.8 8.2 5.7 ¥2.5 7.9 4.8 ¥3.1 

Kings ......................................... 1.8 1.4 ¥0.4 1.7 1.1 ¥0.6 1.6 0.9 ¥0.7 

Madera ...................................... 2.2 2.0 ¥0.2 2.0 1.6 ¥0.4 1.9 1.3 ¥0.6 

Merced ...................................... 3.2 2.7 ¥0.5 2.9 2.1 ¥0.8 2.8 1.7 ¥1.1 

San Joaquin .............................. 7.2 6.4 ¥0.8 6.4 5.1 ¥1.3 6.3 4.3 ¥2.0 

Stanislaus .................................. 5.6 4.1 ¥1.5 5.0 3.2 ¥1.8 4.7 2.7 ¥2.0 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31216 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14 In San Joaquin Valley plans, the motor vehicle 

emissions inventories are essentially the same as 

the budgets. Historically, CARB has set the budget 

for the SJV MPOs by rounding the motor vehicle 

emissions estimate to the nearest tenth of a ton. 

With more recent plans and for the revised budgets, 

CARB rounds the regional total motor vehicle 

emissions inventories up to the nearest whole ton 

(for NOX) or the nearest tenth of a ton (for ROG, 

PM2.5 and PM10) and then re-allocates the emissions 

to the various counties based on the ratio of the 

county-specific motor vehicle emissions to the 

regional total. The re-allocated county-specific 

emissions estimate is rounded conventionally to the 

nearest tenth of a ton, which then constitutes the 

budget. See the attachment to CARB’s staff report 

included in the November 13, 2015 submittal in 

support of the SIP revision (i.e., the revised 

budgets). 

15Comparing the Emission Inventories for the 

San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plans, 

CARB, March 30, 2016. Attachment to email from 

Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA 

Region 9, March 30, 2016. 

16See table 9 on page 57858 of our proposed 

approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846 

(September 16, 2011). 

17The emissions shown for the approved ozone 

plan are from appendix A–3 and B–3 of CARB’s 

2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan titled 

‘‘Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5

State Implementation Plan Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins’’ (release date: June 20, 

2011). CARB’s updated emissions inventory is 

presented in CARB’s staff report submitted as part 

of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE BUDGETS FOR VOC FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE

STANDARD—Continued 

[Tons per summer day] 

County subarea 

2017 2020 2023 

Current Revised Net 

change Current Revised Net change Current Revised Net change 

Tulare ........................................ 5.8 4.0 ¥1.8 5.3 3.1 ¥2.2 4.9 2.5 ¥2.4 

Totals ................................. 43.8 36.2 ¥7.6 39.8 28.7 ¥11.1 38.1 23.8 ¥14.3 

Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to 

the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution 

to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for 

ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level. 

The revised NOX and VOC budgets for 

2017, 2020, and 2023 are intended to 

replace the EPA-approved NOX and 

VOC budgets in 2007 Ozone Plan 

developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. A comparison of the current 

budgets with the revised budgets is 

shown in tables 2 and 3. The tables 

show that the NOX and VOC totals for 

the revised budgets are less than the 

current budgets for all years, except 

2020 for NOX, which shows a slight 

increase of 1.4 tpd or 1.4% when 

compared to the prior budget. 

First, we note that the 2007 Ozone 

Plan relied upon motor vehicle 

emissions inventories, from which the 

budgets 14 were derived, to demonstrate 

compliance with RFP and attainment 

requirements. With respect to the RFP 

requirement, we found that the 2007 

Ozone Plan provided a significant 

surplus of NOX emissions reductions 

beyond those necessary to meet the RFP 

requirement. See table 11 of our 

proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan (76 FR 57862, September 16, 2011). 

As shown in tables 2 and 3, with one 

exception, the revised regional total 

motor vehicle emissions estimates 

submitted by CARB for VOC and NOX

for 2017, 2020 and 2023 are lower than 

the corresponding estimates from the 

plan as approved in 2012. As such, the 

replacement of the older budgets with 

the revised budgets would not change 

the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan 

meets the requirements for RFP. The 

exception, the 1.4 tpd of NOX in 2020, 

is too minor to affect the conclusion that 

the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to 

meet the RFP requirement in that year 

given the significant surplus in NOX

emissions reductions in that year. 

Second, we have reviewed the 

analysis CARB prepared in support of 

the revised budgets and contained in the 

staff report included with the November 

13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that 

analysis, CARB prepared updated NOX

and VOC emissions inventories from all 

sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road 

and non-road sources) in the SJV for 

2017, 2020, and 2023. These updated 

inventories provide a basis for 

comparison with the corresponding 

inventories from the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

We would expect that most current 

emissions estimates from all sources in 

SJV in 2017, 2020, and 2023 would be 

lower than those included in the 2007 

Ozone Plan because they reflect control 

measures adopted since the plan was 

approved, and as shown below in tables 

4 and 5, the updated regional emissions 

for 2017, 2020, and 2023, including the 

revised budgets, are approximately 20 

tpd, 15 tpd, and 34 tpd lower for NOX

and 0 tpd, 4 tpd, and 12 tpd lower for 

VOCs, respectively, than the 

corresponding figures in the EPAapproved plan. The most significant 

differences between the inventories are 

from large decreases in the actual 

reported emissions for several point 

source categories (i.e., cogeneration, oil 

and gas production, food and 

agriculture, glass manufacturing and 

composting), compared to their 

projected emissions in the EPAapproved plan.15 Other significant 

differences include updates to: (1) 

Agricultural acreage burned; (2) CARB’s 

off-road source emissions using a newer 

suite of category-specific models 

developed to support recent CARB 

regulations; and (3) animal population 

estimates and VOC emission factors for 

livestock operations. The current 

emissions estimates for 2023 (161 tpd of 

NOX, and 327 tpd of VOC) are 

consistent with the attainment target 

level 16 for the 1997 ozone standard (141 

tpd of NOX, and 342 tpd of VOC) given 

the continued implementation of the 

long-term element of the control strategy 

of the 2007 Ozone Plan to develop new 

technologies or to improve existing 

control technologies as approved by 

EPA under section 182(e)(5). 

Therefore, we find that the 2007 

Ozone Plan will continue to meet 

applicable requirements for RFP and 

attainment when the previouslyapproved EMFAC2007-based budgets 

are replaced with the revised 

EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the 

changes in the growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle sources do not change the 

overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan. As such, we find that approval of 

the revised NOX and VOC budgets for 

the 2007 Ozone Plan for 2017, 2020 and 

2023 as shown in table 1 would not 

interfere with attainment or RFP or any 

other requirement of the Act and would 

thereby comply with section 110(l), and 

we propose to approve them on that 

basis. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31217 

18The emissions shown for the approved ozone 

plan are from appendix A–3 and appendix B–3 of 

CARB’s 2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan titled 

Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan 

Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5

State Implementation Plan Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins (release date June 20, 

2011). CARB’s updated emissions inventory is 

presented in CARB’s staff report submitted as part 

of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF NOX INVENTORIES ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT AND REVISED BUDGETS FOR THE 1997 8- 

HOUR OZONE STANDARD

[Tons per summer day] 17

Inventory category 

Emissions inventory in approved ozone 

plan 

Updated emissions inventory Net change 

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 

Stationary and Area .................. 55 53 53 36 36 35 ¥19 ¥17 ¥18 

On-road ..................................... 115 91 69 113 92 55 ¥2 1 ¥14 

Non-road ................................... 89 80 73 89 82 70 0 2 ¥3 

Totals ................................. 259 225 195 239 210 161 ¥20 ¥15 ¥34 

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, 

and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF VOC INVENTORIES ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT AND REVISED BUDGETS FOR THE 1997 8- 

HOUR OZONE STANDARD

[Tons per summer day] 18

Inventory category 

Emissions inventory in approved ozone 

plan 

Updated emissions inventory Net change 

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 

Stationary and Area .................. 229 235 244 255 263 272 26 28 28 

On-road ..................................... 43 39 37 36 29 24 ¥7 ¥10 ¥13 

Non-road ................................... 57 57 57 38 35 32 ¥19 ¥22 ¥25 

Totals ................................. 329 331 339 329 327 327 0 ¥4 ¥12 

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, 

and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

Table 6 below compares the current 

direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets 

developed using EMFAC2011 that were 

recently found adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes with 

the revised budgets developed using 

EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided 

by subarea and apply to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 2017 PM2.5 BUDGETS FOR PM2.5 AND NOX FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR

PM2.5 STANDARD

[Tons per winter day] 

County subarea 

Direct PM2.5 NOX

Current Revised Net change Current Revised Net change 

Fresno .............................................................................. 0.9 1.0 0.1 25.2 32.1 6.9 

Kern (SJV) ....................................................................... 1.0 0.8 ¥0.2 34.4 28.8 ¥5.6 

Kings ................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.2 5.9 ¥1.3 

Madera ............................................................................. 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.0 6.0 ¥1.0 

Merced ............................................................................. 0.4 0.3 ¥0.1 13.7 11 ¥2.7 

San Joaquin ..................................................................... 0.6 0.6 0.0 15.9 15.5 ¥0.4 

Stanislaus ......................................................................... 0.5 0.4 ¥0.1 12.0 12.3 0.3 

Tulare ............................................................................... 0.4 0.4 0.0 10.7 11.2 0.5 

Totals ........................................................................ 4.2 3.9 ¥0.3 126.1 122.8 ¥3.3 

Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the 

SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM2.5; then re-allocating to the individual counties 

based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the 

conventional rounding method. The existing adequate PM2.5 budgets were calculated in the same manner. 

The revised 2017 direct PM2.5 and 

NOX budgets are intended to replace the 

adequate 2017 PM2.5 and NOX budgets 

in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan developed for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. A 

comparison of the prior budgets with 

the revised budgets, as shown in table 

6, indicates that the totals for the 

revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets 

are less than the current budgets. 

First, we note that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

relied upon motor vehicle emissions 

inventories, from which the budgets 

were derived, for year 2017 to 

demonstrate compliance with RFP 

requirements for that year. In our 

proposed partial approval of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan, we proposed to approve the 

RFP demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

for year 2017 based on emissions 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31218 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

19CARB’s updated emissions inventory is 

presented in CARB’s staff report submitted as part 

of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. 

projections in the plan for that year that 

reflect full implementation of a control 

strategy that satisfies the Moderate area 

control requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT 

at a minimum). See 80 FR 1816, at 

1834–1837 (January 13, 2015). We 

deemed such a showing to be sufficient 

to meet the RFP requirement in an area 

that cannot practicably attain the PM2.5

standard by the applicable Moderate 

area attainment date. The revised motor 

vehicle emissions estimates used to 

develop the revised budgets continue to 

reflect full implementation of a control 

strategy that satisfies the Moderate area 

control requirements, and as such, 

replacement of the EMFAC2011-based 

motor vehicle emissions budgets from 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan with the revised 

EMFAC2014-based motor vehicle 

emissions budgets would not change the 

proposal to approve the RFP 

demonstration for 2017 in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan. 

Second, we have reviewed the 

analysis that CARB prepared in support 

of the revised budgets and contained in 

the staff report included with the 

November 13, 2015 SIP revision 

submittal. In that analysis, CARB 

included a comparison of the estimated 

direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions 

inventories from all sources (i.e., 

stationary, area, on-road and non-road 

sources) for 2017 with those from the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. As shown below in 

table 7, the total emissions for 2017 

associated with the revised budgets are 

approximately 7 tpd lower for direct 

PM2.5 and 6 tpd lower for NOX when 

compared to the total emissions 

inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

containing the current budgets. The 

differences include updates to: 

Agricultural acreage burned; locomotive 

and recreational boat emissions; and 

farming operations. Therefore, we find that the 2012 PM2.5

Plan continues to meet applicable 

requirements for RFP in 2017 when the 

EMFAC2011-based budgets are replaced 

with the new EMFAC2014-based 

budgets, and that the changes in the 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources do not 

change the overall conclusions 

regarding the 2012 PM2.5 Plan’s 

demonstration of RFP for 2017. As such, 

we find that approval of the revised 

direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan for year 2017 as shown 

in table 1 would not interfere with 

attainment or RFP or any other 

requirement of the Act and would 

thereby comply with section 110(l), and 

we propose to approve them on that 

basis. 

In addition, we have reviewed the 

revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets 

for compliance with the adequacy 

criteria and find that, in addition to 

being consistent with the 2017 RFP 

demonstration, they are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified and 

meet all of the other criteria in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(i)–(vi). See the EPA 

memorandum documenting review of 

the budgets for compliance with the 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e) that has 

been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Lastly, approval of the revised 

budgets would not affect our January 13, 

2015 proposal, or rationale therein, to 

approve the trading mechanism as 

described on page C–32 in appendix C 

of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as enforceable 

components of the transportation 

conformity program in the SJV for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard with the condition, 

as explained in our January 13, 2015 

proposal, that trades are limited to 

substituting excess reductions in NOX

for increases in PM2.5. See 80 FR at 

1816, at 1841 (January 13, 2015). 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2017 PM2.5 AND NOX INVENTORIES ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT AND REVISED BUDGETS FOR

THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 STANDARD

[Tons per winter day] 19

Inventory category 

2017 emissions 

inventory in 2012 PM2.5 plan 

Updated 2017 emissions 

inventory 

Net change 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Stationary ................................................. 8.9 27.4 8.7 28.5 ¥0.2 1.1 

Area .......................................................... 46.8 15.6 41.2 11.7 ¥5.6 ¥3.9 

On-road .................................................... 4.2 125.6 3.7 122.3 ¥0.5 ¥3.3 

Non-road .................................................. 3.6 64.3 4.1 62.9 0.5 ¥1.4 

Totals ................................................ 63.6 232.9 57.7 225.4 ¥5.9 ¥7.5 

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24- 

Hour PM10 Standard 

Table 8 below compares the current 

EPA-approved direct PM10 and NOX

budgets developed using EMFAC2007 

with the revised budgets developed 

using EMFAC2014. The budgets are 

provided by subarea and apply to the 

24-hour PM10 standard. 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM10 2020 BUDGETS FOR DIRECT PM10 AND NOX FOR THE PM10

STANDARD

[Annual average tons per day] 

County subarea 

Direct PM10 20 NOX

Current Revised Change Current Revised Change 

Fresno ...................................................... 16.1 7.0 ¥9.1 23.2 25.4 2.2 

Kern (SJV) ............................................... 14.7 7.4 ¥7.3 39.5 23.3 ¥16.2 

Kings ........................................................ 3.6 1.8 ¥1.8 6.8 4.8 ¥2.0 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31219 

20The direct PM10 budgets include PM10

emissions from paved road dust, unpaved road 

dust, and road construction dust, as well as PM10

from vehicle exhaust and brake and tire wear. 

21The 2007 PM10 Plan estimated a reduction in 

stationary source emissions of NOX from 106 tpd to 

103 ptd from 2005 to 2020. See CARB’s staff report 

titled ‘‘Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 

PM10 Maintenance Plan,’’ appendix B. Instead, 

controls on such sources, as well as corrections and 

updates to inventory methods, are now expected to 

reduce such emissions 30 tpd. 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM10 2020 BUDGETS FOR DIRECT PM10 AND NOX FOR THE PM10

STANDARD—Continued 

[Annual average tons per day] 

County subarea 

Direct PM10 20 NOX

Current Revised Change Current Revised Change 

Madera ..................................................... 4.7 2.5 ¥2.2 6.5 4.7 ¥1.8 

Merced ..................................................... 6.4 3.8 ¥2.6 12.9 8.9 ¥4.0 

San Joaquin ............................................. 10.6 4.6 ¥6.2 17.0 11.9 ¥5.1 

Stanislaus ................................................. 6.7 3.7 ¥3.0 10.8 9.6 ¥1.2 

Tulare ....................................................... 9.4 3.4 ¥6.0 10.9 8.4 ¥2.5 

Totals ................................................ 72.2 34.2 ¥38.0 127.6 97.0 ¥30.6 

Note: CARB calculated the revised PM10 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the 

SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties 

based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the 

conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for PM10 were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level. 

The revised direct PM10 and NOX

budgets for 2020 are intended to replace 

the EPA-approved PM10 and NOX

budgets developed using EMFAC2007 

for the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

First, we note that the 2007 PM10 Plan 

relied upon motor vehicle emission 

inventories, from which the budgets 

were derived, to demonstrate 

maintenance of the PM10 standard 

through 2020. Maintenance through 

2020 was demonstrated in the 2007 

PM10 Plan using a combination of 

chemical mass balance receptor 

modeling to identify emission source 

contributions by chemical species and 

rollback techniques. See pages 6–11 of 

the 2007 PM10 Plan. Given the modeling 

methods used to demonstrate 

maintenance, it is not possible to 

precisely calculate the change in 

concentration associated with the 

substitution of the approved budgets 

with the revised budgets. However, 

given that the revised budgets, when 

summed for the SJV region, are lower 

than the regional sum for the approved 

budgets, replacement of the approved 

budgets with the revised budgets would 

not undermine the maintenance 

demonstration in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

Second, we have reviewed the 

analysis CARB prepared in support of 

the revised budgets. To further 

demonstrate that the changes to the 

direct PM10 and NOX budgets are 

consistent with the 2007 PM10 Plan for 

the 24-hour PM10 standard, CARB’s 

analysis included a comparison of the 

estimated direct PM10 and NOX

emissions inventories from all sources 

(including stationary, area, on-road and 

non-road sources) for 2020. As shown 

below in table 9, the total emissions for 

2020 associated with the revised 

budgets are approximately 10.2 tpd 

lower for direct PM10 and 121.0 tpd 

lower for NOX when compared to the 

total emissions inventory in the 2007 

PM10 Plan. The lower estimates for NOX

are primarily due to greater reductions 

in NOX from stationary sources than had 

been assumed in the 2007 PM10 Plan.21

The primary differences between the 

inventories in the 2007 PM10 Plan and 

the supporting documentation for the 

revised budgets are from: (1) New or 

revised CARB mobile source measures 

(e.g., heavy-duty truck retrofit 

requirements and new or revised 

emissions standards for transportation 

refrigeration units, portable diesel 

engines, and large spark ignition engine 

regulation, among other categories) and 

new or revised San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

‘‘District’’) stationary and area source 

measures (e.g., regulations affecting 

open burning; boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters; dryers, dehydrators 

and ovens; and internal combustion 

engines, among others); (2) corrections 

to the Manufacturing and Industrial and 

Food and Agriculture categories; (3) 

updates to agricultural and managed 

burned acreage and the reclassification 

of Wildfire Use as a natural source 

category; and (4) updates to CARB’s 

emission estimation models for 

locomotives, commercial and 

recreational boats, transportation 

refrigeration units, construction 

equipment, oil drilling and workover 

equipment, cargo handling equipment, 

and farm equipment. 

Table 9 shows that CARB’s current 

estimates of NOX emissions for 2020 

differ substantially from those projected 

in the 2007 PM10 Plan. The changes in 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources do not 

change the overall conclusions of the 

2007 PM10 Plan because they reflect, 

among other things, additional controls 

that support continued maintenance of 

the PM10 standard in the SJV beyond 

those assumed in the plan. While the 

changes in emissions estimates lend 

support to the conclusion that the 2007 

PM10 Plan, with the revised budget, 

continues to meet the underlying 

purpose of the plan, i.e., to provide for 

maintenance of the PM10 standard 

through 2020, the EPA also reviewed 

the ambient PM10 concentration data 

collected over the past several years in 

the SJV to see if they too are consistent 

with the continued maintenance of the 

standard. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31220 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22The 2020 emissions inventory in the approved 

2007 PM10 Plan is from CARB’s Staff Report titled 

‘‘Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10

Maintenance Plan,’’ appendix B, which was 

approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan. See 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)(2). The updated 2020 

emissions inventory is attached to a December 15, 

2015 email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John 

Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9. 

23Letter, Samir Sheikh, Deputy Air Pollution 

Control Officer, SJVAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, March 11, 

2016. 24Email, Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, to Theresa 

Najita, CARB, February 16, 2016. 

25Email, Theresa Najita, CARB, to Shawn 

Ferreria, SJVAPCD, March 10, 2016. 

26For additional background on the District’s 

response to the 2013–2014 PM10 exceedances and 

the State’s April 29, 2016 letter, please see the 

docket for today’s action. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2020 PM10 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT AND REVISED

BUDGETS FOR THE PM10 STANDARD

[Annual average tons per day] 22

Inventory category 

2020 Emissions inventory in 

approved PM10 plan 

Updated 2020 emissions 

inventory 

Net change 

Direct PM10 NOX Direct PM10 NOX Direct PM10 NOX

Stationary ................................................. 26.4 103.7 15.3 29.5 ¥11.1 ¥74.2 

Area .......................................................... 247.8 17.1 251.7 8.4 +3.9 ¥8.7 

On-road .................................................... 9.7 124.7 7.6 96.7 ¥2.1 ¥28.0 

Non-road .................................................. 6.1 82.4 5.6 72.2 ¥0.5 ¥10.2 

Totals ................................................ 290.0 327.8 280.2 206.8 ¥10.2 ¥121.0 

Note: For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding 

figure in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

From our review of the available, 

quality-assured, and certified PM10

ambient air monitoring data in the 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) for 

2013 and 2014, along with preliminary 

data for 2015, we determined that the 

SJV PM10 maintenance area experienced 

multiple exceedances of the PM10

standard in 2013 and 2014. In response 

to the exceedances, the EPA evaluated 

whether the District implemented the 

contingency plan in its 2007 PM10 Plan. 

In its contingency plan, the District 

established an action level of 155 mg/m3

of PM10 over a 24-hour period. Should 

the action level be reached, the District 

committed to evaluating the exceedance 

and take appropriate action within 18 

months of the event date. The following 

major steps comprise the District’s 

contingency plan: 

Step 1. The District will examine the 

event and determine if it needs to be 

classified as a natural or exceptional 

event in accordance with the EPA’s final 

rulemaking (72 FR 13560). If the data 

qualify for flagging under this rule, the 

District would proceed with preparing 

and submitting the necessary 

documentation for a natural/exceptional 

event, and would not consider the 

monitored level as a trigger for the 

maintenance plan contingency plan. 

Step 2. If the event does not qualify 

as a natural or exceptional event, the 

District would then analyze the event to 

determine its possible causes. It would 

examine emission reductions from 

adopted rules or rule commitments in 

adopted and approved plans to see if 

emission reductions not used in 

demonstrating maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS would address the violation. 

Step 3. If reductions from Step 2 

above are insufficient, the District 

would proceed with identifying control 

measures from any feasibility studies 

(e.g., from the 2007 Ozone Plan) 

completed to date that recommend 

future controls and prioritize 

development of the measures most 

relevant to reducing PM10 levels. 

In a March 11, 2016 letter to the 

EPA,23 the District summarized the 

steps they had taken in response to the 

PM10 exceedances, including 

implementation of the contingency plan 

in their 2007 PM10 Plan. Specifically, 

the District identified seventeen 

exceedances of the PM10 standard that 

occurred at five monitoring sites. Of 

these, the District characterized ten 

exceedances as high wind events that 

qualify as exceptional events per criteria 

in 40 CFR 50.1(j). CARB indicated they 

will be submitting to the EPA 

exceptional event documentation for 

some or all of these events; however, the 

EPA has not yet received the 

documentation in support of 

determining whether the ten 

exceedances qualify as exceptional 

events. The District characterized the 

remaining seven exceedances as 

exceptional events caused by 

‘‘exceptional drought conditions’’ 

coinciding with stagnant air conditions, 

and indicated they will be submitting to 

CARB exceptional event documentation 

for these events. On February 16, 2016, 

the District requested that CARB flag 

five exceedances in AQS as possible 

exceptional events caused by the 

drought conditions.24 On March 10, 

2016, CARB responded to the District’s 

February 16, 2016 request and indicated 

that the five exceedances could not be 

flagged as exceptional events because 

they did not meet the definition of an 

exceptional event in 40 CFR 50.1(j).25

In their March 11, 2016 letter to the 

EPA, the District identified multiple 

rules and regulations that reduce PM10

or PM10 precursors beyond 

commitments in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

Based on our analysis of the March 11 

letter, the EPA has determined there is 

uncertainty regarding whether the rules 

and regulations identified by the 

District, when combined with the PM10

revised budgets, are sufficient for 

maintenance of the PM10 standard. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the 

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

revision based on a commitment by the 

State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain but not later 

than one year after the EPA approval of 

the plan or plan revision. In this 

instance, the District indicated in their 

March 11, 2016 letter that adequate 

measures have been adopted to provide 

continued maintenance of the PM10

standard; however, the EPA has 

determined that the State’s revised 

budgets submittal and the District’s 

March 11, 2016 letter alone are not 

sufficient for the EPA to determine the 

area will maintain the 24-hour PM10

standard. To help remedy this situation, 

in an April 29, 2016 letter to the EPA, 

CARB committed to submit a SIP 

revision by June 1, 2017 that will 

provide additional documentation on 

the nature and causes of each of the 

recent PM10 exceedances. To the extent 

that data is available, the State 

committed to the following: 26

• Evaluation of PM10 filter-based and 

continuous data across the SJV to 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31221 

27To comply with CAA section 175A(a), a 

maintenance plan must provide for the 

maintenance of standard (for which an area is being 

redesignated) for 10 years from redesignation to 

attainment, under CAA section 175A(b), states are 

required, within eight years of redesignation to 

attainment, to submit a revision to the SIP that 

provides for the maintenance of the standard an 

additional ten years after expiration of the initial 

10-year period. For the SJV and PM10, California 

must submit a subsequent 10-year maintenance 

plan by December 12, 2016. We expect that the 

subsequent SJV PM10 maintenance plan will 

address the recent exceedances described in today’s 

action. 

understand the local or regional nature 

of each exceedance; 

• Analysis of PM2.5 data to determine 

whether fine or coarse particles are 

contributing to the exceedance; 

• Analysis of available chemical 

speciation data including additional 

filter speciation analysis as appropriate 

to assess potential source types 

contributing to each exceedance; and 

• Analysis of wind speed and 

direction, along with geographic 

visualization tools to help identify the 

types of sources impacting each 

monitor. 

Based on these analyses, CARB and 

the District will determine the 

appropriate remedy to address the 

nature of each exceedance. This may 

include submittal of documentation for 

exceptional events, or analysis and 

evaluation of the further emission 

reductions that will accrue from 

ongoing implementation of current 

control programs or development of 

new control measures as part of 

upcoming attainment plans. 

For exceedances that qualify as 

natural or exceptional events, CARB and 

the District will follow the notification 

and data flagging process that is 

contained in the EPA’s revised 

Exceptional Event Rule (‘‘EE Rule’’). 

This will include a commitment to 

notify the EPA by July 1 of each year of 

the PM10 data that has been flagged. 

Subsequent submittal of documentation 

for each event will follow requirements 

specified in the EE Rule. In addition, 

CARB and the District commit to 

ensuring ongoing network adequacy and 

data completeness through existing 

mechanisms such as data certification 

and the annual network plan review. 

Based on the 2020 revised direct PM10

and NOX budgets in table 8 above, the 

updated inventory estimates in table 9 

above, and the commitments in CARB’s 

April 29, 2016 letter, the EPA concludes 

that a conditional approval of the 2020 

revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets 

supports continued maintenance of the 

PM10 standard and is consistent with 

applicable CAA requirements; thus, we 

propose to conditionally approve the 

2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX

budgets as a revision to the 2007 PM10

Plan.27 If we finalize this proposed 

conditional approval, CARB must adopt 

and submit the SIP revisions it has 

committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If 

CARB fails to comply with this 

commitment, the conditional approval 

will convert to a disapproval. 

Lastly, approval of the revised 

budgets would not affect the trading 

mechanism first included in the SJV 

Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and approved 

by the EPA at 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 

2004) and later carried forward and 

approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

See pages 20–21 of the 2007 PM10 Plan; 

73 FR 22307, at 22317 (April 25, 2008); 

and 73 FR 66759, at 66772 (November 

12, 2008). That is, the trading 

mechanism approved as part of the 2007 

PM10 Plan will remain available 

regardless of our action on the revised 

budgets. 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

EPA is proposing to approve the revised 

ozone and PM2.5 budgets and 

conditionally approve the revised PM10

budgets in California’s November 13, 

2015 submittal for the SJV area. The 

revised budgets are shown in table 1 

and are based on estimates from 

California’s EMFAC2014 model. 

More specifically, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to 

approve the revised VOC and NOX

budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because 

replacement of the current approved 

budgets with the revised budgets would 

not interfere with the approved RFP and 

attainment demonstrations for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and 

because emissions changes in nonmotor vehicle emissions categories do 

not change the overall conclusions of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

Second, the EPA is also proposing to 

approve the revised direct PM2.5 and 

NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard because 

replacement of the current adequate 

budgets with the revised budgets would 

be consistent with our separate proposal 

finding that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

demonstrates RFP for year 2017, 

because emissions changes in nonmotor vehicle emissions categories do 

not change the overall conclusion of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, and because the 

revised budgets meet the adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)–(vi). 

Third, under CAA section 110(k)(4), 

the EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the revised direct PM10 and 

NOX budgets for 2020 for the 24-hour 

PM10 standard because, when combined 

with implementation of the contingency 

plan in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10

Plan and fulfillment of the 

commitments in the State’s April 29, 

2016 letter, they will allow the SJV to 

continue to demonstrate maintenance of 

the 24-hour PM10 standard. If we 

finalize this proposed conditional 

approval, CARB must adopt and submit 

the SIP revisions that it has committed 

to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails 

to comply with this commitment, the 

conditional approval will convert to a 

disapproval. Disapproval of the revised 

budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan would 

reinstate the existing approved budgets 

as the budgets that must be used in 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations after the effective date of 

the disapproval. See 40 CFR 

93.109(c)(1). Because the submittal of 

the revised budgets is not a required 

submittal, disapproval would not trigger 

sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) 

but would nonetheless trigger a twoyear clock for a federal implementation 

plan under CAA section 110(c), and it 

would not trigger a transportation 

conformity freeze because the 

disapproval does not affect a control 

strategy implementation plan as defined 

in the transportation conformity rule. 

See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a). 

Lastly, if the EPA takes final action to 

approve the revised budgets as 

proposed, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs 

and DOT must use the revised budgets 

for future transportation conformity 

determinations. 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document or on other relevant 

matters. We will accept comments from 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve a state plan 

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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31222 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 CAA; 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). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the San Joaquin 

Valley air quality planning area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, 

and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards: the 

Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria 

of Mono Indians of California, the North 

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Picayune Rancheria of 

Chukchansi Indians of California, the 

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi 

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain 

Rancheria of California, the Tejon 

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian 

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. 

The EPA’s proposed approval of the 

revised budgets submitted by CARB to 

address the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10

standards in the San Joaquin Valley 

would not have tribal implications 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed SIP approvals do 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that 

the proposed action will not have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, and would not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. 

We note that none of the tribes located 

in the San Joaquin Valley has requested 

eligibility to administer programs under 

the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 9, 2016. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11741 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663; FRL–9946–50– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS80 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; 

Changes of Listing Status; and 

Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 

Closed Cell Foam Products Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program; and Revision of Clean Air 

Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for 

Propane 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing that the 

period for providing public comments 

on the April 18, 2016, proposed 

‘‘Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; 

Changes of Listing Status; and 

Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 

Closed Cell Foam Products under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act 

Section 608 Venting Prohibition for 

Propane’’ is being extended by 14 days. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule, which 

published April 18, 2016, (81 FR 22810) 

is being extended by 14 days and will 

close on June 16, 2016. This extension 

provides the public additional time to 

submit comments and supporting 

information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663, to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. 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. 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS