44528 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The State of California typically refers to 

reactive organic gases (ROG) in its ozone-related 

submissions since VOC in general can include both 

PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND 

TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS 

UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY 

ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED 

AUTHORITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 284 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717z, 3301–3432; 

42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356. 

■ 2. Section 284.12 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) the 

phrase ‘‘http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html’’ and 

adding ‘‘www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html’’ in its 

place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 284.12 Standards for pipeline business 

operations and communications. 

(a) * * * 

(1) An interstate pipeline that 

transports gas under subparts B or G of 

this part must comply with the business 

practices and electronic 

communications standards as 

promulgated by the North American 

Energy Standards Board, as 

incorporated herein by reference in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) thru (vii) of this 

section. 

(i) Additional Standards (Version 3.1, 

September 29, 2017); 

(ii) Nominations Related Standards 

(Version 3.1, September 29, 2017); 

(iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards 

(Version 3.1, September 29, 2017); 

(iv) Invoicing Related Standards 

(Version 3.1, September 29, 2017); 

(v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery 

Mechanism Related Standards (Version 

3.1, September 29, 2017); 

(vi) Capacity Release Related 

Standards (Version 3.1, September 29, 

2017); and 

(vii) internet Electronic Transport 

Related Standards (Version 3.1, 

September 29, 2017). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–18473 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0535; FRL–9983– 

00—Region 9] 

Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area Requirements; 

San Joaquin Valley, California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of three state implementation 

plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of California to meet Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) requirements for the 

2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’) in the San Joaquin Valley, 

California ozone nonattainment area. 

First, the EPA is proposing to approve 

the portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan for 

the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard (‘‘2016 

Ozone Plan’’) that address the 

requirements to demonstrate attainment 

by the applicable attainment date and 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures, among other 

requirements. Second, the EPA is 

proposing to approve the portions of the 

Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy 

for the State Implementation Plan 

(‘‘2016 State Strategy’’) related to the 

ozone control strategy for San Joaquin 

Valley for the 2008 ozone standards, 

including a specific aggregate emissions 

reduction commitment. Lastly, the EPA 

is proposing to approve an air district 

rule addressing the emission statement 

requirement for ozone nonattainment 

areas. The EPA is not taking action at 

this time on the portions of the San 

Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone Plan that 

address the requirements for a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration, motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs), a base year emissions 

inventory, and contingency measures 

for failure to attain or to meet reasonable 

further progress milestones. We intend 

to address these remaining elements in 

a forthcoming proposal. 

DATES: Written comments must arrive 

on or before October 1, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0535 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3407, lawrence.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Regulatory Context 

A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations 

and SIPs 

B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs 

II. Submissions From the State of California 

To Address 2008 Ozone Requirements in 

the San Joaquin Valley 

A. Summary of Submissions 

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements 

for Adoption and Submission of SIP 

Revisions 

III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan 

A. Emissions Inventories 

B. Emission Statement 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Demonstration 

F. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Measures To Offset Emissions Increases 

From Vehicle Miles Traveled 

G. Contingency Measures To Provide for 

RFP and Attainment 

H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control 

Technology for Boilers 

I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements 

Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

IV. Other Commitments To Reduce 

Emissions 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Regulatory Context 

A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations 

and SIPs 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

formed from the reaction of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight.1 These two pollutants, referred 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44529 

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. 

2See ‘‘Fact Sheet—2008 Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ 

dated March 2008. 

3The 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). 

4See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

5 Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 

available at 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

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

7See CAA section 181(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.1102 and 

51.1103(a). 

8For a precise definition of the boundaries of the 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, 

see 40 CFR 81.305. 

9The population estimates and projections 

include all of Kern County, not just the portion of 

Kern County within the jurisdiction of the 

SJVAPCD. See Chapter 1 and table 1–1 of the 

District’s 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard. 

10See 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. 

11See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015. 

12South Coast Air Quality Management District v. 

EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (‘‘South 

Coast’’). 

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. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases.2

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

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

under CAA section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the country as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

The San Joaquin Valley was designated 

as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standards on May 21, 2012, and 

classified as Extreme.6

Under the CAA, after the EPA 

designates areas as nonattainment for a 

NAAQS, states with nonattainment 

areas are required to submit SIP 

revisions that provide for, among other 

things, attainment of the NAAQS within 

certain prescribed periods that vary 

depending on the severity of 

nonattainment. Areas classified as 

Extreme must attain the NAAQS within 

20 years of the effective date of the 

nonattainment designation.7

In California, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘State’’) is 

the state agency responsible for the 

adoption and submission to the EPA of 

California SIPs and SIP revisions, and it 

has broad authority to establish 

emissions standards and other 

requirements for mobile sources. Local 

and regional air pollution control 

districts in California are responsible for 

the regulation of stationary sources and 

are generally responsible for the 

development of regional air quality 

plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD or ‘‘District’’) 

develops and adopts air quality 

management plans to address CAA 

planning requirements applicable to 

that region. Such plans are then 

submitted to CARB for adoption and 

submittal to the EPA as revisions to the 

California SIP. 

B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

The San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standards consists of San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

Tulare, and Kings counties, and the 

western portion of Kern County. The 

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

stretches over 250 miles from north to 

south, averages a width of 80 miles, and 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles. 

It is partially enclosed by the Coast 

Mountain range to the west, the 

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and 

the Sierra Nevada range to the east.8

The population of the San Joaquin 

Valley in 2015 was estimated to be 

nearly 4.2 million people, and is 

projected to increase by 25.3 percent in 

2030 to over 5.2 million people.9

Ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in 

the San Joaquin Valley are above the 

level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The maximum design value for the area, 

based on certified data at the Parlier 

monitor (Air Quality System ID: 06– 

019–4001), is 0.092 ppm for the 2015– 

2017 period.10

C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area SIPs 

States must implement the 2008 

ozone standards under Title 1, part D of 

the CAA, which includes section 172 

(‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions in 

general’’) and sections 181–185 of 

subpart 2 (‘‘Additional Provisions for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’). To assist 

states in developing effective plans to 

address ozone nonattainment problems, 

in 2015 the EPA issued a SIP 

Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 

ozone standards (‘‘2008 Ozone SRR’’) 

that addresses e.g., attainment dates, 

requirements for emissions inventories, 

attainment and RFP demonstrations, 

and the transition from the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standards and associated antibacksliding requirements.11 The 2008 

Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR part 

51, subpart AA. We discuss each of the 

CAA and regulatory requirements for 

2008 8-hour ozone plans in more detail 

below. 

The EPA’s 2008 Ozone SRR was 

challenged, and on February 16, 2018, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit (‘‘D.C. Circuit’’) published its 

decision in South Coast Air Quality 

Management. District v. EPA 12 vacating 

portions of the 2008 Ozone SRR. The 

2008 Ozone SRR required the baseline 

emissions inventory for RFP plans to be 

the emissions inventory for the most 

recent calendar year for which a 

triennial inventory is required to be 

submitted to the EPA under subpart A 

(‘‘Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements’’) of 40 CFR part 51, and 

it allowed states to use an alternative 

year, between 2008 and 2012, for the 

baseline emissions inventory provided 

the state demonstrates why the 

alternative baseline year is appropriate. 

In the South Coast decision, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated the provisions of the 

2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to 

justify and use an alternative baseline 

year for demonstrating RFP. The RFP 

demonstrations in several California 

ozone plans developed to address 

nonattainment area requirements for the 

2008 ozone standards, including the 

ozone plan for the South Coast Air 

Basin and San Joaquin Valley, are based 

on the alternative baseline year of 2012. 

In response to the South Coast decision 

regarding alternative baseline years, the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District filed a petition in the D.C. 

Circuit requesting rehearing on the RFP 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44530 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15– 

1115, docket item #1727571, filed April 20, 2018. 

14The EPA also filed a petition for rehearing in 

the D.C. Circuit but did not request rehearing of the 

RFP baseline year issue. 

15See letter from Richard Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated August 24, 

2016. 

16See four enclosures to the August 24, 2016 

letter from CARB to EPA Region 9: (I) District 

Submittal, including letter from Sheraz Gill, 

Director of Strategies and Incentives for the District, 

to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, and five 

appendices titled: (1) ARB SIP Completeness 

Checklist, (2) 2016 Ozone Plan with Appendices, 

(3) Governing Board Resolution Adopting the 2016 

Ozone Plan, (4) Governing Board Memo, and (5) 

Evidence of Public Hearing; (II) CARB Evidence of 

Public Notice and Transcript; (III) CARB Staff 

Report; (IV) CARB Resolution 16–8 adopting the 

2016 Ozone Plan and CARB Staff Report. 

17See letter from Michael H. Scheible, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Daniel W. McGovern, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated January 11, 

1993. 

18See letter from Richard Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated April 27, 

2017. 

19See table 5 of the 2016 State Strategy. 

20See the August 24, 2016 SIP submittal package, 

item I.E, ‘‘Evidence of Public Hearing.’’ 

21See https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/ 

2016/sjvsip2016.pdf. 

22See CARB Resolution 16–8. 

23See transcript of the July 21, 2016 Meeting of 

the State of California Air Resources Board. 

24See letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, EPA Region 

IX to Richard W. Corey, CARB, dated December 19, 

2016. 

baseline year issue to clarify that 

nonattainment areas may use the year of 

the nonattainment designation (i.e., 

2012 for the 2008 ozone standards) as 

the baseline year for calculating RFP.13

Because the D.C. Circuit has not yet 

issued a response to the petitions filed 

for rehearing, the EPA is not proposing 

action at this time on the San Joaquin 

Valley’s RFP demonstration for the 2008 

ozone standards.14 Several required 

attainment plan elements are related to 

the RFP demonstration, namely the 

MVEBs, the base year emissions 

inventory, and contingency measures. 

Therefore, the EPA is also not proposing 

action at this time on these three 

elements. For completeness, however, 

in this proposed action, we provide a 

summary of all the required elements, 

including those for which we will be 

proposing action at a later time. 

II. Submissions From the State of 

California To Address 2008 Ozone 

Requirements in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. Summary of Submissions 

On August 24, 2016, in response to 

the area’s designation as nonattainment 

and classification of Extreme for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, CARB submitted 

the 2016 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP.15 Prior to 

submittal to the EPA, CARB approved 

the 2016 Ozone Plan, which had 

previously been adopted by the District 

and forwarded to CARB for approval 

and submittal to the EPA. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan submittal 

consists of documents originating from 

the District (e.g., the 2016 Ozone Plan 

with Appendices and the District 

Governing Board Resolution) and CARB 

(e.g., the CARB Staff Report and 

Appendices, and the CARB Resolution 

adopting the 2016 Ozone Plan and 

CARB Staff Report as a SIP revision).16

The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the 

requirements for base year and projected 

future year emissions inventories, air 

quality modeling demonstrating 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment year, 

provisions demonstrating 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), provisions 

for advanced technology/clean fuels for 

boilers, provisions for transportation 

control strategies and measures, a 

demonstration of RFP, and contingency 

measures for failure to make RFP or 

attain, among other requirements. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses 

compliance with the emission statement 

requirement under CAA section 

182(a)(3)(B) in terms of District Rule 

1160, ‘‘Emission Statements.’’ District 

Rule 1160 was adopted by the District 

on November 18, 1992, and submitted to 

the EPA by CARB on January 11, 1993, 

as a revision to the California SIP.17 The 

EPA has not yet taken action on the 

January 11, 1993 submittal of District 

Rule 1160 but is proposing to do so as 

part of today’s proposed action. 

In approving the 2016 Ozone Plan, 

CARB anticipated the subsequent 

adoption of a commitment by CARB to 

achieve an aggregate emission reduction 

of 8 tons per day (tpd) of NOX in San 

Joaquin Valley by 2031. On March 23, 

2017, CARB approved the 2016 State 

Strategy as a revision to the California 

SIP and submitted the 2016 State 

Strategy to the EPA on April 27, 2017.18

The 2016 State Strategy, as approved 

and submitted by CARB, includes an 8 

tpd NOX emission reduction 

commitment for San Joaquin Valley. 

The 2016 State Strategy commits to 

certain regulatory initiatives (e.g., new 

California low-NOX standards for onroad heavy-duty engines and lowemission diesel requirements for offroad equipment) in addition to aggregate 

emissions reductions by certain years in 

specific areas, such as San Joaquin 

Valley.19

B. Clean Air Act Procedural 

Requirements for Adoption and 

Submission of SIP Revisions 

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

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submission of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB have 

satisfied the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to the 

adoption and submittal of the 2016 

Ozone Plan, the 2016 State Strategy, and 

District Rule 1160. With respect to the 

2016 Ozone Plan, the District conducted 

a public workshop on May 23, 2014, 

and held two additional workshops on 

March 22, 2016, on the Draft 2016 

Ozone Plan. On May 11, 2016, the 

District published notices in several 

local newspapers of a public hearing to 

be held on June 16, 2016, for the 

adoption of the 2016 Ozone Plan.20 On 

June 16, 2016, the District held the 

public hearing, and, through Resolution 

No. 16–6–20, adopted the 2016 Ozone 

Plan and directed the Executive Officer 

to forward the plan to CARB for 

inclusion in the California SIP. 

CARB also provided the required 

public notice and opportunity for public 

comment on the 2016 Ozone Plan. On 

June 17, 2016, CARB released for public 

review its staff report for the 2016 

Ozone Plan and published a notice of 

public meeting to be held on July 21, 

2016, to consider approval of the 2016 

Ozone Plan.21 On July 21, 2016, CARB 

held the hearing and approved the staff 

report and directed its Executive Officer 

to submit the CARB staff report and the 

2016 Ozone Plan to the EPA for 

approval into the California SIP.22 On 

August 24, 2016, the Executive Officer 

of CARB submitted the 2016 Ozone Plan 

to the EPA and included the transcript 

of the hearing held on July 21, 2016.23

On December 19, 2016, the EPA 

determined that the submittal was 

complete.24

With respect to the 2016 State 

Strategy, on May 17, 2016, CARB 

circulated for public review and 

comment the Proposed State SIP 

Strategy, provided a 60-day comment 

period, and provided notice of a public 

hearing by the CARB Board to be held 

on September 22, 2016. On March 7, 

2017, in response to comments received 

during the public comment period and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44531 

25See CARB submittal ‘‘State of California 

Implementation Plan for Achieving and 

Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, Exhibit A,’’ January 11, 1993. 

26See 2008 Ozone SRR at 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and 

the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements at 40 

CFR part 51 subpart A. 

27See ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ (‘‘EI Guidance’’), 

EPA–454/B–17–002, May 2017. At the time the 

2016 Ozone Plan was developed, the following EPA 

emissions inventory guidance applied: ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations’’ (‘‘EI Guidance’’), EPA–454–R–05–001, 

November 2005. 

28 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 

51.1100(bb) and (cc). 

29See 80 FR 12264, at 12290 (March 6, 2015). 

30EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. 

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

32See table 5–1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. All the 

rules listed in table 5–1 have been approved as 

revision to the SIP. 

later during public workshops, and 

based on Board direction provided to 

staff during the September 22, 2016 

CARB Board meeting, CARB released a 

Revised Proposed State SIP Strategy. On 

March 23, 2017, through Resolution 17– 

7, CARB adopted the Revised Proposed 

State SIP Strategy (herein referred to as 

the ‘‘2016 State Strategy’’) after a dulynoticed public hearing. On April 27, 

2017, CARB submitted the 2016 State 

Strategy to the EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

With respect to District Rule 1160, the 

District conducted four public 

workshops to receive comment, and 

published notices in several local 

newspapers of a public hearing to be 

held on November 18, 1992. The District 

adopted the rule on November 18, 1992, 

and forwarded the rule to CARB for 

approval and submittal to the EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP. CARB did 

so by letter dated January 11, 1993.25

Based on information provided in 

each SIP revision and summarized 

above, the EPA has determined that all 

hearings were properly noticed. 

Therefore, we find that the submittals of 

the 2016 Ozone Plan, the 2016 State 

Strategy, and District Rule 1160 meet 

the procedural requirements for public 

notice and hearing in CAA sections 

110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. 

III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ozone Plan 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) 

require states to submit for each ozone 

nonattainment area a ‘‘base year 

inventory’’ that is a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of the 

relevant pollutant or pollutants in the 

area. In addition, the 2008 Ozone SRR 

requires that the inventory year be 

selected consistent with the baseline 

year for the RFP demonstration, which 

is usually the most recent calendar year 

for which a complete triennial inventory 

is required to be submitted to the EPA 

under the Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements.26 The EPA has issued 

guidance on the development of base 

year and future year emissions 

inventories for 8-hour ozone and other 

pollutants.27 Emissions inventories for 

ozone must include emissions of VOC 

and NOX and represent emissions for a 

typical ozone season weekday.28 States 

should include documentation 

explaining how the emissions data were 

calculated. In estimating mobile source 

emissions, states should use the latest 

emissions models and planning 

assumptions available at the time the 

SIP is developed.29

2. Summary of State’s Submission 

The base year and future year baseline 

inventories for NOX and VOC for the 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone 

nonattainment area, together with 

additional documentation for the 

inventories, are found in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix B of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

Because ozone levels in San Joaquin 

Valley are typically higher from May 

through October, these inventories 

represent average summer day 

emissions. The 2016 Ozone Plan 

includes a base year inventory for 2012 

and future year inventories for the RFP 

milestone years. The inventories reflect 

reductions from adopted federal, state, 

and district measures. All inventories 

include emissions from point, area, onroad, and non-road sources. Both base 

year and projected future year 

inventories use the most current version 

of California’s mobile source emissions 

model, EMFAC2014, for estimating onroad motor vehicle emissions.30

The emissions inventories in the 2016 

Ozone Plan were developed jointly by 

CARB and the District, based on data 

from these two agencies, combined with 

data from the California Department of 

Transportation, the Department of 

Motor Vehicles, the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation, the California 

Energy Commission and regional 

transportation agencies. The emissions 

inventories reflect actual emission 

reports for point sources, and estimates 

for mobile and area-wide sources are 

based on the most recent models and 

methodologies. CARB and the District 

also reviewed the growth profiles for 

point and area-wide source categories 

and updated them as necessary to 

ensure that the emission projections are 

based on data that reflect historical 

trends, current conditions, and recent 

economic and demographic forecasts. 

CARB developed the emissions 

inventory for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources. On-road mobile source 

emissions, which include passenger 

vehicles, buses, and trucks, were 

estimated using CARB’s EMFAC2014 

model. The on-road emissions were 

calculated by applying EMFAC2014 

emission factors to the transportation 

activity data provided by the local San 

Joaquin Valley transportation agencies 

from their 2014 adopted Regional 

Transportation Plan. The EPA has 

approved this model for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity analyses.31

Non-road mobile source emissions were 

estimated using either newer categoryspecific models or, where a new model 

was not available, the OFFROAD2007 

model. 

The 2012 inventory was projected to 

2015 and future years using CARB’s 

California Emission Projection Analysis 

Model (CEPAM). The District identified 

several measures that achieve emissions 

reductions from stationary sources in 

and after 2012, including rules for open 

burning, boilers, flares, solid fuel 

boilers, and glass melting furnaces, 

among others.32 Table 1 provides a 

summary of the emission estimates 

prepared for the 2016 Ozone Plan for 

the base year (2012) and the attainment 

year (2031). 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY

[Summer average tons per day] 

Category NOX

(2012) 

NOX

(2031) 

VOC 

(2012) 

VOC 

(2031) 

Stationary Sources .......................................................................................... 42.4 29.5 85.3 100.0 

Area Sources ................................................................................................... 4.7 4.9 147.0 152.7 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44532 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

33See section 2.7.1 of Modeling Guidance for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, December 2014 

Draft, EPA OAQPS; available at https://

www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sipattainment-demonstration-guidance. 34See 80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015). 

35See section 3.11.2 (‘‘Emission Reporting 

Programs’’) in the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY—Continued 

[Summer average tons per day] 

Category NOX

(2012) 

NOX

(2031) 

VOC 

(2012) 

VOC 

(2031) 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 187.7 45.1 60.5 18.3 

Off-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 104.7 52.4 44.5 25.7 

Total .......................................................................................................... 339.6 131.9 337.3 296.7 

Source: 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix B (note that because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total of all categories). 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

As described elsewhere, the 2008 

Ozone SRR requires the base year 

inventory to be consistent with the RFP 

baseline year inventory; accordingly, the 

2016 Ozone Plan uses the year 2012 for 

the base year inventory and the RFP 

baseline year inventory. The EPA has 

evaluated the 2012 base year inventory 

and the methodologies used by the 

District and CARB, and we find them to 

be comprehensive, accurate, and 

current. However, as discussed 

elsewhere, we are not taking action at 

this time to approve the base year 

emissions inventory or the emissions 

inventories for any of the RFP milestone 

years in the 2016 Ozone Plan. We 

intend to take action on the base year 

emissions inventory at a later time, 

together with the RFP demonstration, 

and other elements affected by the 

South Coast decision. 

However, we note that the attainment 

demonstration and VMT offset 

demonstration rely on the 2012 base 

year inventory. As discussed in section 

III.D of this proposed action, the EPA’s 

draft modeling guidance states that the 

EPA does not require a particular year 

to be used for the base year for modeling 

purposes. The most appropriate base 

year may be the most recent year of the 

National Emissions Inventory, or it may 

be selected in view of unusual 

meteorology, transport patterns, or other 

factors that may vary from year to 

year.33 Based on our review of the 

emissions inventories provided in the 

2016 Ozone Plan, we find that the 2012 

base year emissions inventory and 

future year emissions inventories that 

are derived therefrom provide an 

acceptable basis for the attainment 

demonstration and VMT offset 

demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

B. Emission Statement 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act 

requires states to submit a SIP revision 

requiring owners or operators of 

stationary sources of VOC or NOX to 

provide the state with statements of 

actual emissions from such sources. 

Statements must be submitted at least 

every year and must contain a 

certification that the information 

contained in the statement is accurate to 

the best knowledge of the individual 

certifying the statement. Section 

182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows states 

to waive the emission statement 

requirement for any class or category of 

stationary sources that emit less than 25 

tons per year (tpy) of VOC or NOX, if the 

state provides an inventory of emissions 

from such class or category of sources as 

part of the base year or periodic 

inventories required under CAA 

sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), 

based on the use of emission factors 

established by the EPA or other methods 

acceptable to the EPA. 

The preamble of the 2008 Ozone SRR 

states that if an area has a previously 

approved emission statement rule for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS that covers all portions 

of the nonattainment area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, such rule should be 

sufficient for purposes of the emission 

statement requirement for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.34 The state should 

review the existing rule to ensure it is 

adequate and, if so, may rely on it to 

meet the emission statement 

requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Where an existing emission statement 

requirement is still adequate to meet the 

requirements of this rule, states can 

provide the rationale for that 

determination to the EPA in a written 

statement in the SIP to meet this 

requirement. States should identify the 

various requirements and how each is 

met by the existing emission statement 

program. Where an emission statement 

requirement is modified for any reason, 

states must provide the revisions to the 

emission statement as part of their SIP. 

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

The District adopted Rule 1160, 

‘‘Emission Statements,’’ on November 

18, 1992, to address the SIP submittal 

requirements for emission statements 

for areas such as San Joaquin Valley that 

were designated as nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under the 

CAA Amendments of 1990. CARB 

submitted District Rule 1160 to the EPA 

on January 11, 1993. 

District Rule 1160 applies to all 

owners and operators of any stationary 

source category that emits or may emit 

VOC or NOX, but allows the District to 

waive the requirements for any class or 

category of stationary sources that emit 

less than 25 tpy of VOC or NOX under 

certain circumstances. Under District 

Rule 1160, owners or operators must 

provide the District, on an annual basis, 

with a written statement in such form as 

the District prescribes, showing actual 

emissions of VOC and NOX from the 

source. Owners or operators may 

comply with the requirement by 

completing and returning either an 

Emission Statement or an Emission Data 

Survey Form. Both the emission 

statement and the data survey form are 

intended to provide an estimate of 

actual emissions from the given 

stationary source. Lastly, District Rule 

1160 requires certification by the 

responsible official that the information 

is accurate to the best knowledge of the 

individual certifying the information. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that 

District Rule 1160 continues to meet the 

emission statement requirements of 

CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and relies on 

that rule to meet the emission statement 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standards.35

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

As noted previously, the EPA has not 

taken action on CARB’s January 11, 

1993 submittal of District Rule 1160 but 

is proposing to do so herein. First, we 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44533 

36EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document 

for EPA’s Rulemaking for the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District Rule 1160 Emission 

Statements. 

37See 40 CFR 51.1112(c). 

38See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13560 

(April 16, 1992) and Memorandum dated November 

30, 1999, from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to 

Regional Air Directors, titled ‘‘Guidance on the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement 

and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas.’’ 

39 Ibid. See also 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), and 

memorandum dated December 14, 2000, from John 

S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Regional Air 

Directors, titled ‘‘Additional Submission on RACM 

From States with Severe One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area SIPs.’’ 

40For ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also 

requires implementation of RACT for all major 

sources of VOC and for each VOC source category 

for which the EPA has issued a Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that 

RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major 

stationary sources of NOX. In Extreme areas, a major 

source is a stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 10 tpy of VOC or NOX (see 

CAA section 182(e) and (f)). Under the 2008 Ozone 

SRR, states were required to submit SIP revisions 

meeting the RACT requirements of CAA sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 24 months after 

the effective date of designation for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS and to implement the required RACT 

measures as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than January 1 of the 5th year after the 

effective date of designation (see 40 CFR 

51.1112(a)). California submitted the CAA section 

182 RACT SIP for San Joaquin Valley on July 18, 

2014, and the EPA fully approved this submission 

on July 12, 2018. See 83 FR 41006 (August 17, 

2018). We are not addressing the section 182 RACT 

requirements in today’s proposed rule. 

41See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

42See 40 CFR 51.1108(d). 

43See 40 CFR 51.1100(h). 

have evaluated District Rule 1160 for 

compliance with the specific 

requirements for emission statements 

under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i). We 

find that District Rule 1160 applies 

within the entire ozone nonattainment 

area; applies to all permitted sources of 

VOC and NOX; requires the submittal, 

on an annual basis, of the types of 

information necessary to estimate actual 

emissions from the subject stationary 

sources; and requires certification by the 

responsible officials representing the 

owners and operators of stationary 

sources. As such, we find that District 

Rule 1160 meets the requirements of 

CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i). 

We also note that, while District Rule 

1160 provides authority to the District 

to waive the requirement for any class 

or category of stationary sources that 

emit less than 25 tpy, such a waiver is 

allowed under CAA section 

182(a)(3)(B)(ii) so long as the state 

includes estimates of such class or 

category of stationary sources in base 

year emissions inventories and periodic 

inventories submitted under CAA 

sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), 

based on EPA emissions factors or other 

methods acceptable to the EPA. We 

recognize that emissions inventories 

developed by CARB for San Joaquin 

Valley routinely include actual 

emissions estimates for all stationary 

sources or classes or categories of such 

sources, including those less than 25 

tpy, and that such inventories provide 

the basis for inventories submitted to 

meet the requirements of CAA sections 

182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). By approval 

of emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) 

and 182(a)(3)(A), the EPA is implicitly 

accepting the methods and factors used 

by CARB to develop those emissions 

estimates. Our most recent approval of 

a base year emissions inventory for San 

Joaquin Valley is found at 77 FR 12652 

(March 1, 2012) (approval of base year 

emissions inventory for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS). 

Thus, for the reasons stated above, we 

propose to approve District Rule 1160, 

which CARB submitted on January 11, 

1993, as meeting the emission statement 

requirements under CAA section 

182(a)(3)(B). For more detailed 

information concerning our evaluation 

of District Rule 1160, please see the 

related technical support document.36

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures Demonstration and Control 

Technology 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through implementation of 

reasonably available control 

technology), and also provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. The 2008 

Ozone SRR requires that, for each 

nonattainment area required to submit 

an attainment demonstration, the state 

concurrently submit a SIP revision 

demonstrating that it has adopted all 

RACM necessary to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable and to meet any RFP 

requirements.37

The EPA has previously provided 

guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 and in a 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure 

Requirement and Attainment 

Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas.’’ 38 In summary, 

to address the requirement to adopt all 

RACM, states should consider all 

potentially reasonable control measures 

for source categories in the 

nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available 

for implementation in that area and 

whether they would, if implemented 

individually or collectively, advance the 

area’s attainment date by one year or 

more.39 Any measures that are 

necessary to meet these requirements 

that are not already either federally 

promulgated, or part of the state’s SIP, 

or otherwise creditable in the SIP, must 

be submitted in enforceable form as part 

of the state’s attainment plan for the 

area.40

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires that 

nonattainment area plans include 

enforceable emission limitations, and 

such other control measures, means or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emission 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to provide for 

timely attainment of the NAAQS.41

Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, all control 

measures needed for attainment must be 

implemented no later than the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season.42 The attainment year ozone 

season is defined as the ozone season 

immediately preceding a nonattainment 

area’s maximum attainment date.43

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

For the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District, 

CARB, and the local metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs) each 

undertook a process to identify and 

evaluate potential RACM that could 

contribute to expeditious attainment of 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley. We describe each 

agency’s efforts below. 

a. District’s RACM Analysis 

The District’s RACM demonstration 

and control strategy for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS focuses on stationary and area 

source controls and is described in 

Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Appendix C of 

the 2016 Ozone Plan. To identify 

potential RACM, the District reviewed 

59 control measures for a number of 

source categories and compared its 

measures against federal requirements 

and regulations implemented by the 

State and other air districts. In the years 

prior to the adoption of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan, the District developed and 

implemented comprehensive plans to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44534 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

44See the EPA’s approval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

at 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016), the EPA’s 

approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan and 2013 Ozone 

Plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) and 81 FR 

2140 (January 15, 2016), and the EPA’s approval of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 

2012). 

45See, e.g., Rule 9410 (Employer-Based Trip 

Reduction), approved into the California SIP at 81 

FR 6761 (February 9, 2016); Rule 9510 (Indirect 

Source Review), approved into the California SIP at 

89 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011); and Rule 9310 (School 

Bus Fleets), approved into the California SIP at 75 

FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). 

46EPA, Region IX, Technical Support Document: 

Proposed Approval of Portions of the San Joaquin 

Valley 2016 Ozone Plan: District Stationary and 

Area Source Control Strategy. 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS) and ozone (e.g., the 2004 

Ozone Plan for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the 2007 Ozone Plan for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 2013 

Ozone Plan for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS).44 These plans have resulted in 

the District’s adoption of many new 

rules and amendments to existing rules 

for stationary and area sources. In 

addition, although the District does not 

have authority to directly regulate 

emissions from mobile sources, the 

District has implemented control 

strategies to indirectly reduce emissions 

from mobile sources.45

Table 2 identifies the District control 

measures listed in table 5–1 of the 2016 

Ozone Plan, which contribute toward 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by 2031. The EPA has approved all of 

these measures into the California SIP. 

TABLE 2—DISTRICT RULES ACHIEVING EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN OR AFTER 2012 

Rule No. Rule title 

Date adopted 

or last 

amended a

Citation for EPA approval into 

SIP 

4103 .............. Open Burning ..................................................................................................... 4/15/10 77 FR 214 (1/4/12) 

4307 .............. Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 2 to 5 MMBtu per hour b .... 4/21/16 82 FR 37817 (8/14/17) 

4308 .............. Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to less than 2 MMBtu 

per hour.

11/14/13 80 FR 7803 (2/12/15) 

4311 .............. Flares .................................................................................................................. 6/18/09 76 FR 68106 (11/3/11) 

4306/4320 ..... Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters greater than 5 MMBtu per 

hour.

10/16/08 75 FR 1715 (1/13/2010)/ 76 

FR 16696 (3/25/11) 

4352 .............. Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters ........................... 12/15/11 77 FR 66548 (11/6/12) 

4354 .............. Glass Melting Furnaces ..................................................................................... 5/19/11 78 FR 6740 (1/31/13) 

4565 .............. Biosolids, Animal Manure, Poultry Litter Operations ......................................... 3/15/07 77 FR 2228 (1/17/12) 

4566 .............. Organic Material Composting Operations .......................................................... 8/18/11 77 FR 71129 (11/29/12) 

4601 .............. Architectural Coatings ........................................................................................ 12/17/09 76 FR 69135 (11/8/11) 

4605 .............. Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations .............................. 6/16/11 76 FR 70886 (11/16/11) 

4653 .............. Adhesives and Sealants ..................................................................................... 9/16/10 77 FR 7536 (2/13/12) 

4682 .............. Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing .......... 9/20/07 77 FR 58312 (9/20/12) 

4684 .............. Polyester Resin Operations ............................................................................... 8/18/2011 77 FR 5709 (2/6/12) 

4702 .............. Internal Combustion Engines ............................................................................. 11/14/13 81 FR 24029 (4/25/16) 

4905 .............. Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces ............................. 1/22/15 81 FR 17390 (3/29/16) 

9610 .............. State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated 

Through Incentive Programs.

6/20/13 80 FR 19020 (4/9/15) 

a Reflects more recent submittals for rules 4307, 4605, 4684 and 4702 than reflected in table 5–1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

b Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu). 

Source: Table 5–1 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

The District provides a more 

comprehensive evaluation of its RACM 

control strategy in Appendix C of the 

2016 Ozone Plan, which provides the 

following: 

• Description of the sources within 

the category or sources subject to the 

rule; 

• Base year and projected baseline 

year emissions for the source category 

affected by the rule; 

• Discussion of the current 

requirements of the rule; and 

• Discussion of potential additional 

control measures, including, in many 

cases, a discussion of the technological 

and economic feasibility of the 

additional control measures. This 

includes comparison of each District 

rule to analogous control measures 

adopted by other agencies (including 

the EPA, the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, and the Bay Area 

Air Quality Management District). 

We provide more detailed information 

about these control measures in our 

technical support document.46

Based on its evaluation of all of these 

measures, the District concludes that it 

is implementing all RACM for sources 

under the District’s jurisdiction. 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis 

Chapters 5 and 6 of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan contain CARB’s evaluation of 

mobile source and other statewide 

control measures that reduce emissions 

of NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Source categories for which 

CARB has primary responsibility for 

reducing emissions in California 

include most new and existing on- and 

off-road engines and vehicles, motor 

vehicle fuels, and consumer products. 

The California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation is responsible for regulating 

the application of pesticides, which is a 

significant source of VOC emissions in 

the San Joaquin Valley. 

Given the need for substantial 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of stringent control 

measures for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources and the fuels that power 

them. California has unique authority 

under CAA section 209 (subject to a 

waiver by the EPA) to adopt and 

implement new emission standards for 

many categories of on-road vehicles and 

engines, and new and in-use off-road 

vehicles and engines. 

Historically, the EPA has allowed 

California to take into account 

emissions reductions from CARB 

regulations for which the EPA has 

issued waiver or authorizations under 

CAA section 209, notwithstanding the 

fact that these regulations have not been 

approved as part of the California SIP. 

However, in response to the decision by 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44535 

47See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 

14447 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 8404 (February 

27, 2018). See also Committee for a Better Arvin, 

786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). 

48See, e.g., the EPA’s approval of standards and 

other requirements to control emissions from in-use 

heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 

(April 4, 2012), revisions to the California on-road 

reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations at 

75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the 

California motor vehicle I/M program at 75 FR 

38023 (July 1, 2010). 

49See action approving into the SIP the On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Regulation, the Low Emission 

Vehicle and Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation, and 

the Heavy-Duty Truck Idling Requirements at 81 FR 

39424 (June 16, 2016). 

50These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The 

San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus 

Council of Governments, the Merced County 

Association of Governments, the Madera County 

Transportation Commission, The Council of Fresno 

County Governments, The Kings County 

Association of Governments, the Tulare County 

Association of Governments, and the Kern Council 

of Governments. 

51See Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

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

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

54See 80 FR 12264. 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit (‘‘Ninth Circuit’’) in 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, the 

EPA has since approved mobile source 

regulations for which waiver 

authorizations have been issued as 

revisions to the California SIP.47

CARB’s mobile source program 

extends beyond regulations that are 

subject to the waiver or authorization 

process set forth in CAA section 209 to 

include standards and other 

requirements to control emissions from 

in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, 

gasoline and diesel fuel specifications, 

and many other types of mobile sources. 

Generally, these regulations have been 

submitted and approved as revisions to 

the California SIP.48

While all of the identified State 

control measures contribute to some 

degree to attainment of the 2008 ozone 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley, 

some measures are identified in 

particular in the 2016 Ozone Plan as 

providing significant emissions 

reductions relied upon for attainment of 

the 2008 ozone standards. These 

measures include the On-Road HeavyDuty Diesel In-Use Regulation, the Low 

Emission Vehicle III and Zero Emission 

Vehicle Regulation, and the Heavy-Duty 

Truck Idling Requirements.49

The 2016 Ozone Plan concludes that, 

in light of the comprehensiveness and 

stringency of CARB’s mobile source 

program, all RACM for mobile sources 

under CARB’s jurisdiction are being 

implemented, and that no additional 

measure would advance attainment of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS by at least a 

year. 

c. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 

and Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM 

analysis was conducted by the eight 

MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley and is 

provided in Appendix D of the 2016 

Ozone Plan.50 This analysis focuses on 

the MPOs’ efforts to implement 

Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) as part of the adopted 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

cost-effectiveness policy and in the 

development of each Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTPs 

include improvements to each 

component of the transportation system 

including: Transit, passenger rail, goods 

movement, aviation and airport ground 

access, and highways; and include TCM 

projects that reduce vehicle use, or 

change traffic flow or congestion 

conditions. The 2016 Ozone Plan 

concludes that no additional local 

RACM measures, beyond those 

measures already adopted, would 

advance attainment of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by at least a year. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

The process followed by the District 

in the 2016 Ozone Plan to identify 

RACM is generally consistent with the 

EPA’s recommendations in the General 

Preamble. The process included 

compiling a comprehensive list of 

potential control measures for sources of 

NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin 

Valley.51 As part of this process, the 

District evaluated potential controls for 

all relevant source categories for 

economic and technological feasibility 

and provided justifications for the 

rejection of certain identified measures. 

The District concluded in its RACM 

evaluation that no additional measures, 

individually or in combination, could 

advance attainment by one year. 

We have reviewed the District’s 

determination in the 2016 Ozone Plan 

that its stationary and area source 

control measures represent RACM for 

NOX and VOC. In our review, we also 

considered our previous evaluations of 

the District’s rules in connection with 

our approval of the San Joaquin Valley 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) SIP demonstration 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.52 Based on 

this review, we believe the District’s 

rules provide for the implementation of 

RACM for stationary and area sources of 

NOX and VOC. 

With respect to mobile sources, we 

recognize CARB as a leader in the 

development and implementation of 

stringent control measures for on-road 

and off-road mobile sources, and its 

current program addresses the full range 

of mobile sources in the San Joaquin 

Valley through regulatory programs for 

both new and in-use vehicles. With 

respect to transportation controls, we 

note that the MPOs have a program to 

fund cost-effective TCMs. Overall, we 

believe that the programs developed and 

administered by CARB and the MPOs 

provide for the implementation of 

RACM for NOX and VOC in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

In the 2016 Ozone Plan, the District 

estimated that it would take a reduction 

of 2.7 tpd of NOX to advance attainment 

by one year from 2031 to 2030.53 Based 

on our review of the results of these 

RACM analyses, we agree with the 

State’s and District’s conclusion that 

there are no additional reasonably 

available measures that would advance 

attainment of the 2008 ozone standards 

in the San Joaquin Valley by at least one 

year. For the foregoing reasons, we 

propose to find that the 2016 Ozone 

Plan provides for the implementation of 

all RACM as required by CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c). 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act requires that a plan for an ozone 

nonattainment area classified Serious or 

above include a ‘‘demonstration that the 

plan . . . will provide for attainment of 

the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable 

attainment date. This attainment 

demonstration must be based on 

photochemical grid modeling or any 

other analytical method determined 

. . . to be at least as effective.’’ The 

attainment demonstration predicts 

future ambient concentrations for 

comparison to the NAAQS, making use 

of available information on measured 

concentrations, meteorology, and 

current and projected emissions 

inventories of ozone precursors, 

including the effect of control measures 

in the plan. 

Areas classified Extreme for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS must demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 20 years 

after the effective date of designation as 

nonattainment. The San Joaquin Valley 

was designated nonattainment effective 

July 20, 2012, and the area must 

demonstrate attainment of the standards 

by July 20, 2032.54 An attainment 

demonstration must show attainment of 

the standards for a full calendar year 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44536 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

55 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, 

and Regional Haze, December 2014 Draft, EPA 

OAQPS; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/ 

state-implementation-plan-sip-attainmentdemonstration-guidance. This updates, but is 

largely consistent with, the earlier Guidance on the 

Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional 

Haze, EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007. Additional 

EPA modeling guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 

Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models, 82 

FR 5182, January 17, 2017; available at https://

www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modelingguidance. 

56See Modeling Guidance at section 2.7.1. 

57 Ibid. 

before the attainment date, so in 

practice, Extreme nonattainment areas 

must demonstrate attainment in 2031. 

The EPA’s recommended procedures 

for modeling ozone as part of an 

attainment demonstration are contained 

in Modeling Guidance for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze (‘‘Modeling 

Guidance’’).55 The Modeling Guidance 

includes recommendations for a 

modeling protocol, model input 

preparation, model performance 

evaluation, use of model output for the 

numerical NAAQS attainment test, and 

modeling documentation. Air quality 

modeling is performed using 

meteorology and emissions from a base 

year, and the predicted concentrations 

from this base case modeling are 

compared to air quality monitoring data 

from that year to evaluate model 

performance. At a minimum, a model 

performance evaluation should include 

an operational evaluation, with 

statistics and graphical plots assessing 

the ability of the model to replicate 

observed ozone concentrations. Where 

possible, performance of other chemical 

species participating in ozone formation 

chemistry, such as NO2 and 

peroxyacetyl nitrate, should also be 

examined. 

To ensure that the model achieves 

accurate results based on relevant 

atmospheric phenomena, without errors 

that compensate each other to give just 

the appearance of accuracy, and to 

guide refinement of model inputs, it is 

also recommended to assess, at least to 

some extent, if the model correctly 

represents the underlying physical and 

chemical processes. This can be done 

via diagnostic evaluation, such as 

assessing model sensitivity to changes 

in inputs and process analysis. It can 

also be done via dynamic evaluation, 

such as assessing the modeled 

concentration change between different 

historical periods. Once the model 

performance is determined to be 

acceptable, future year emissions are 

simulated with the model. The relative 

(or percent) change in modeled 

concentration due to future emissions 

reductions provides a Relative Response 

Factor (RRF). Each monitoring site’s 

RRF is applied to its monitored base 

year design value to provide the future 

design value for comparison to the 

NAAQS. The Modeling Guidance also 

recommends supplemental air quality 

analyses, which may be used as part of 

a Weight of Evidence (WOE) analysis. A 

WOE analysis corroborates the 

attainment demonstration by 

considering evidence other than the 

main air quality modeling attainment 

test, such as trends and additional 

monitoring and modeling analyses. 

Unlike the RFP demonstration and the 

emissions inventory requirements, the 

2008 SRR does not specify that a 

specific year must be used for the 

modeled base year for the attainment 

demonstration. The Modeling Guidance 

also does not require a particular year to 

be used as the base year for 8-hour 

ozone plans.56 The Modeling Guidance 

explains that the most recent year of the 

National Emissions Inventory may be 

appropriate for use as the base year for 

modeling, but that other years may be 

more appropriate when considering 

meteorology, transport patterns, 

exceptional events, or other factors that 

may vary from year to year.57 Therefore, 

the base year used for the attainment 

demonstration need not be the same 

year used to meet the requirements for 

emissions inventories and RFP. 

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

CARB performed the air quality 

modeling for the 2016 Ozone Plan with 

assistance from the District. The 

modeling relies on a 2012 base year and 

demonstrates attainment in 2031. The 

Plan’s modeling protocol is in Appendix 

I of the 2016 Ozone Plan and contains 

all the elements recommended in the 

Modeling Guidance. Those include: 

Selection of model, time period to 

model, modeling domain, and model 

boundary conditions and initialization 

procedures; a discussion of emissions 

inventory development and other model 

input preparation procedures; model 

performance evaluation procedures; 

selection of days and other details for 

calculating RRFs; and provisions for 

archival and access to raw model inputs 

and outputs. 

The modeling and modeled 

attainment demonstration are described 

in Chapter 4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan and 

in more detail in Appendix H, which 

provides a description of model input 

preparation procedures and various 

model configuration options. Appendix 

J of the 2016 Ozone Plan provides the 

coordinates of the modeling domain and 

thoroughly describes the development 

of the modeling emissions inventory, 

including its chemical speciation, its 

spatial and temporal allocation, its 

temperature dependence, and quality 

assurance procedures. The modeling 

analysis used version 5 of the 

Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) photochemical model, 

developed by the EPA. The 2007 version 

of the State-wide Air Pollution Research 

Center chemical mechanism (SAPRC07) 

was used within CMAQ. SAPRC07 is an 

update to a mechanism that has been 

used for the San Joaquin Valley and 

other areas of the US, and it has been 

peer-reviewed as discussed in the 

protocol. To prepare meteorological 

input for CMAQ, the Weather and 

Research Forecasting model version 3.6 

(WRF) from the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research was used. The 

overall WRF meteorological modeling 

domain covers California’s neighboring 

states, and major portions of the next 

outer ring of states, with 36-kilometer 

(km) resolution (i.e., grid cell size); it 

has nested domains with 12 km and 4 

km resolution, with the latter, innermost 

covering the entire State of California; 

and it has 30 vertical layers extending 

up to 16 km. The overall CMAQ air 

quality modeling domain includes the 

entire State of California with 12 km 

resolution and a nested domain with 

finer 4 km resolution covering 

California’s Central Valley, including 

the San Joaquin Valley; and it has 18 

vertical layers that overlap the WRF 

layers. The WRF modeling uses 

routinely available meteorological and 

air quality data collected during 2012. 

Those data cover May through 

September, a period that spans the 

period of highest ozone concentrations 

in the San Joaquin Valley. Two analyses 

in the WOE analysis in Appendix K 

section 4 provide the justification for 

the choice of 2012 as model base year, 

based on ozone concentrations and 

various meteorological measures of the 

ozone forming potential of candidate 

years 2010–2013. CMAQ and WRF are 

both recognized in the Modeling 

Guidance as technically sound, state-ofthe-art models. The areal extent and the 

horizontal and vertical resolution used 

in these models were adequate for 

modeling San Joaquin Valley ozone. 

The WRF meteorological model 

results and performance statistics are 

described in Appendix H, section 3.2. 

Supplemental figures S.1–S.20 provide 

hourly time series graphs of wind speed, 

direction, and temperature for the 

Northern, Central, and Southern subVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44537 

58See Appendix H, table H–7, Figures H–3 and 

H–5. 

59See, e.g., table H–7 Southern San Joaquin 

Valley wind speed bias of 0.5 relative to base speed 

2.4 meters per second, and relative humidity bias 

of 18 percent relative to 55 percent. 

60The Index of Agreement is a statistical metric. 

See page 47 of the Modeling Protocol to the 2016 

Ozone Plan. 

61See page 30 of the Modeling Guidance. 

62See page 51 of the Modeling Protocol to the 

2016 Ozone Plan, and page 63 of the Modeling 

Guidance. 

63See 2016 Ozone Plan Appendix K, Weight of 

Evidence, section 7 ‘‘Weekend Effect in the San 

Joaquin Valley’’ provides additional information on 

the observed concentrations and how the weekdayweekend difference has changed over the years. 

Section 9 ‘‘Corroborating Studies’’ provides 

additional information on the trend in ozone 

formation regime. 64See Modeling Guidance, pages 62–63. 65See 2016 Ozone Plan, section 4.4, and 

Appendix H, section 4.2. 

regions of the San Joaquin Valley for 

each month that was modeled. The 

modeling shows a positive bias in wind 

speed, and various biases in 

temperature (negative in Southern & 

Central, positive in Northern) and in 

humidity (opposite direction to 

temperature).58 These biases are also 

seen in the hourly supplemental figures. 

For example, peak wind speeds are 

often higher than observed (positive 

bias) but the overprediction decreases at 

moderate and low wind speeds and in 

the later months of the simulation, 

while the overall diurnal pattern 

matches consistently. At first glance the 

biases in wind speed and in relative 

humidity seem large relative to their 

base values.59 However, the 2016 Ozone 

Plan states that the bias and error are 

relatively small and are comparable to 

those seen in previous meteorological 

modeling of central California and cited 

in the 2016 Ozone Plan. The 2016 

Ozone Plan compared statistics for wind 

speed, relative humidity, and 

temperature to benchmarks from a study 

cited in the Modeling Guidance. The 

comparison shows that the mean bias in 

the 2016 Ozone Plan’s meteorological 

modeling is on the high side but within 

the benchmarks, the mean error is 

lower, and the Index of Agreement 60 is 

quite good, especially for temperature. 

The Modeling Guidance cautions 

against using comparisons to 

performance benchmarks as pass/fail 

tests, and stresses their use in assessing 

general confidence and in guiding 

refinement of model inputs when 

statistics fall outside benchmark 

ranges.61 In summary, the 2016 Ozone 

Plan’s meteorological modeling 

performance statistics appear 

satisfactory. 

As recommended in the Modeling 

Guidance, the 2016 Ozone Plan also 

provided a phenomenological 

evaluation of the meteorological 

modeling, assessing its ability to 

replicate qualitative features of the 

area’s meteorological phenomena that 

could be important for ozone 

concentrations. The 2016 Ozone Plan’s 

evaluation confirmed that the model 

was able to capture important 

phenomena such as up-slope and downslope flows in the mountain ranges 

surrounding the Central Valley, and the 

split in flow toward north and south as 

winds enter the Central Valley through 

the Sacramento River delta area. 

Ozone model performance statistics 

are described in the 2016 Ozone Plan at 

Appendix H, section 5.2. That section 

includes tables of statistics 

recommended in the Modeling 

Guidance for 8-hour and 1-hour daily 

maximum ozone for the three San 

Joaquin Valley sub-regions. 

Supplemental figures S.21–S.102 

provide frequency distributions, 

scatterplots, and hourly time series 

graphs of ozone concentrations for each 

of the 25 monitors located in the San 

Joaquin Valley. The supplemental 

hourly time series show generally good 

performance, though many individual 

daily ozone peaks are underpredicted. 

This is confirmed by the ozone 

frequency distributions (e.g., figure S.1), 

scatter plots (e.g., figure S.22), and plots 

of bias against concentration (e.g., figure 

S.25). The highest concentrations also 

have the largest negative bias. The 2016 

Ozone Plan states that the performance 

statistics are comparable to those seen 

in previous modeling of ozone in central 

California and cited in the 2016 Ozone 

Plan. It also found the statistics to be 

within the ranges for other modeling 

applications discussed in a study cited 

by the Modeling Guidance. The 2016 

Ozone Plan’s corresponding graphic 

(figure 11) shows that for negative bias 

(underprediction), the 2016 Ozone 

Plan’s modeling is among the poorer 

performing in the range, but for overall 

error it is among the best performing. 

Note that, because only relative changes 

are used from the modeling, the 

underprediction of absolute ozone 

concentrations does not mean that 

future concentrations will be 

underestimated. 

As noted in the 2016 Ozone Plan’s 

modeling protocol, the Modeling 

Guidance recognizes that limited time 

and resources can constrain the extent 

of the diagnostic and dynamic 

evaluation of model performance 

undertaken.62 No diagnostic evaluation, 

as that term is used in the Modeling 

Guidance, was described in the 2016 

Ozone Plan. Appendix H to the 2016 

Ozone Plan includes section 5.2.1 

entitled ‘‘Diagnostic Evaluation,’’ 

though it actually describes a dynamic 

evaluation in which model predictions 

of ozone concentrations for weekdays 

and weekends were compared to each 

other and to observed concentrations. 

Since NOX emissions are substantially 

less on weekends, these comparisons 

provide useful information on how the 

model responds to emission changes. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan notes that for the 

modeled year 2012, the model-predicted 

relationship of weekday and weekend 

concentrations tends to match the 

observed (i.e., the predicted amount of 

‘‘weekend effect,’’ or increase in 

weekend ozone despite decrease in NOX

emissions, matches the observed 

concentrations). The modeled weekend 

response is also consistent with an 

independent analysis cited in the 2016 

Ozone Plan of the historical response of 

ozone to reductions in NOX.63 The 

dynamic evaluation provides strong 

evidence that the model is working well 

at simulating ozone and how it responds 

to emission changes. 

As for meteorological performance, 

the Modeling Guidance cautions against 

pass/fail tests, in favor of an overall 

confidence assessment and 

identification of causes of poor 

performance to help guide refinement of 

model input.64 Confidence in the 

model’s ability to correctly simulate 

emission changes would have been 

enhanced if the 2016 Ozone Plan had 

discussed any input refinement and 

performance improvement process that 

was undertaken, and if it had provided 

some performance assessment of nonozone chemical species participating in 

ozone formation chemistry. The 2016 

Ozone Plan contains a good operational 

evaluation showing good model 

performance, and also a useful dynamic 

evaluation. Some diagnostic evaluations 

as described in the Modeling Guidance 

would have provided additional 

confidence in the model. The 

information provided in the 2016 Ozone 

Plan supports the adequacy of the 

modeling for the attainment 

demonstration. 

After model performance for the 2012 

base case was accepted, the model was 

applied to develop RRFs for the 

attainment demonstration.65 This 

entailed running the model with the 

same meteorological inputs as before, 

but with adjusted emissions inventories 

to reflect the expected changes between 

2012 and the 2031 attainment year. 

These modeling inventories excluded 

‘‘emissions events which are either 

random and/or cannot be projected to 

the future . . . wildfires, . . . and the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44538 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

66See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, page H–11. 

67 In general, the ‘‘reference year’’ could be a 

different calendar year than the modeling base case. 

The base case modeling replicates a particular 

year’s measured concentrations using that same 

year’s meteorology and emissions. Modeling of e.g., 

a regulatorily required year used as the reference 

year would still use the same meteorology, but 

emissions from the required year. 

68See Modeling Guidance, page 53. 

69The Modeling Guidance and the 2016 Ozone 

Plan state concentrations in terms of parts per 

billion. 

70The Modeling Guidance recommends that 

RRFs be applied to the average of three three-year 

design values centered on the base year, in this case 

the design values for 2010–2012, 2011–2013, and 

2012–2015. This amounts to a 5-year weighted 

average of individual year 4th high concentrations, 

centered on the base year of 2012, and so is referred 

to as a weighted design value. 

71See 2016 Ozone Plan, tables 4–4 and H–13. 

72 Id. Appendix H, section 5.5 and Appendix K, 

section 8.2 

73See Modeling Guidance, page 100. 

74 81 FR 19492, April 5, 2016; see also proposal 

81 FR 2140, January 15, 2016 at 2151. See also 

Modeling Guidance section 4.1.2, page 99. 

75See 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix H, section 5.4. 

76See section 4.7 of the Modeling Guidance. 77See 2016 Ozone Plan, figure J–14. 

[San Francisco Bay Area] Chevron 

refinery fire.’’ 66 The base year or 

‘‘reference year’’ modeling inventory 

was the same as the inventory for the 

modeling base case except for these 

exclusions. The 2031 inventory projects 

the base year with these exclusions into 

the future by including the effect of 

economic growth and emissions control 

measures.67 To include the fires in the 

base year but not the future year would 

effectively credit the 2016 Ozone Plan’s 

control measures with eliminating 

emissions from the fire; therefore, it 

makes more sense to treat the base year 

and future year consistently with 

respect to fire or other unpredictable 

emissions events. The Modeling 

Guidance recommends that day-specific 

wildfire emissions be used in modeling 

of both base and future years, possibly 

with spatial and temporal averaging to 

create ‘‘average’’ fire emissions that 

avoid acute effects from large fires, but 

it also notes that other approaches may 

be appropriate.68 The 2016 Ozone Plan’s 

approach of excluding wildfires 

altogether avoids uncertainties in fire 

emissions and meteorology. It has the 

drawback that the model response to 

2012–2031 emission changes does not 

reflect the effect of wildfires, which 

occur in most years and could affect the 

atmospheric chemistry and its response 

to those emission changes. The 

approach used in the 2016 Ozone Plan 

is reasonable, but would be stronger 

with a more complete rationale in the 

modeling protocol or the Plan 

documentation. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan carried out the 

attainment test procedure consistent 

with the Modeling Guidance. The RRFs 

were calculated as the ratio of future to 

base year concentrations. This was done 

for each monitor using the top 10 ozone 

days over 0.060 ppm,69 using the base 

year concentration in the highest of the 

three by three modeling grid cells 

centered on the monitor, and the future 

concentration from the same day and 

grid cell, with some exclusions, e.g., if 

there were too few days above 0.060 

ppm. The resulting RRFs were then 

applied to 2012 weighted base year 

design values 70 for each monitor to 

arrive at 2031 future year design 

values.71 The highest 2031 ozone design 

value is 0.074 ppm, which occurs at the 

Clovis-N Villa Avenue site; this is below 

the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

ppm, thus demonstrating attainment. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan includes an 

additional attainment demonstration 

using ‘‘banded’’ RRFs.72 The banded 

approach is described more fully in a 

study cited in the 2016 Ozone Plan. The 

underlying idea is to divide ozone 

concentrations into ranges or bands and 

compute RRFs for each band separately. 

This allows different ozone 

concentrations to respond differently to 

emission changes. The Modeling 

Guidance procedure instead assumes 

that the relative response is the same for 

all ozone concentrations. The banded 

RRF approach is a reasonable 

refinement, since higher concentrations 

generally are more responsive to 

emissions changes.73 This approach was 

used in the 2013 1-hour Ozone San 

Joaquin Valley Plan approved by the 

EPA, and it is cited by the Modeling 

Guidance as an alternative approach.74

In this case, the banded approach 

increased design values for some 

monitors and decreased them for others; 

for Clovis, the site with the highest 2031 

design value, the design value decreased 

from 0.074 ppm to 0.072 ppm. This 

provides corroboration for the 

attainment demonstration. 

Finally, the 2016 Ozone Plan 

modeling includes an ‘‘Unmonitored 

Area Analysis’’ to assess the attainment 

status of locations other than monitoring 

sites.75 The Modeling Guidance 

describes a ‘‘gradient adjusted spatial 

fields’’ procedure along with the EPA 

software (‘‘Modeled Attainment Test 

Software’’ or MATS) used to carry it 

out.76 This procedure uses a form of 

interpolation, combining monitored 

concentrations and modeled gradients 

(modeled changes in concentration with 

distance from a monitor) to estimate 

future concentrations at locations 

without a monitor. The 2016 Ozone 

Plan states that an Unmonitored Area 

Analysis was carried out using software 

developed by CARB. The procedure was 

described to be the same as that 

outlined in the Modeling Guidance, 

with the exception that it was restricted 

to locations spanned by monitors (i.e., 

within a convex shape enclosing the 

monitors) rather than extrapolating 

beyond to the full rectangular modeling 

domain as in the EPA procedure. The 

stated reason for this restriction is that 

it avoids the inherent uncertainty 

associated with extrapolation outside 

the monitoring network. Most of the 

nonattainment area is nevertheless 

covered in the analysis, since there are 

monitors outside the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area. However, a strip 

along the eastern edge, from the 

foothills to the crest of the Sierra 

Nevada mountains, is not included in 

the analysis.77 The method used is an 

improvement over the simpler 

interpolation used in some previous 

plans. The 2016 Ozone Plan states that 

the results showed concentrations 

below the NAAQS for all locations, with 

concentrations under 70 ppb except for 

small regions near Tracy and Fresno. 

This Unmonitored Area Analysis 

supports the demonstration that all 

locations in the San Joaquin Valley will 

attain the NAAQS by 2031. 

In addition to the formal attainment 

demonstration, the Plan also contains a 

WOE analysis in Appendix K. Some of 

the contents of Appendix K have 

already been discussed above, e.g., 

section 4 ‘‘Suitability of 2012 as a Base 

Year for Modeling’’, section 7 ‘‘Weekend 

Effect in the San Joaquin Valley,’’ 

section 8 ‘‘Modeled Attainment 

Projections’’ with a comparison of the 

standard attainment demonstration 

RRFs and the band RRFs emissions 

reductions. These all add support and 

corroboration for the modeling used in 

the attainment demonstration and the 

credibility of attainment in 2031. Other 

sections also add support to the 

attainment demonstration, mainly by 

showing long term downward trends 

that continue through 2014, the latest 

year available prior to 2016 Ozone Plan 

development. Downward trends are 

demonstrated for measured ozone 

concentrations, number of days above 

the ozone NAAQS, measured 

concentrations of the ozone precursors 

NOX and VOC, and emissions of NOX

and VOC. The downward measured 

ozone trends are seen even when they 

are adjusted for meteorology (using 

Classification and Regression Trees to 

identify the meteorological variables 

that affect ozone, followed by multiple 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44539 

78See 70 FR 12264 at 12271 (March 6, 2015). 79 Ibid. 80See 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). 81See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(7). 82See 40 CFR 51.1110(b). 

83See Petition for Panel Rehearing of South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, D.C. Cir., No. 15– 

1115, docket item #1727571, filed April 20, 2018. 

84See Chapter 6 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. See also 

62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997). 

85See the discussion beginning on page 6–10 and 

table 6–3. 

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

regression of ozone on those variables). 

These all show the substantial air 

quality progress made in the San 

Joaquin Valley and add support to the 

attainment demonstration for 2031. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

The modeling shows that existing 

CARB and District control measures are 

sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS by 2031 at all 

monitoring sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Given the extensive discussion 

of modeling procedures, tests, and 

performance analyses called for in the 

Modeling Protocol and the good model 

performance, the EPA finds that the 

modeling is adequate for purposes of 

supporting the attainment 

demonstration. The EPA finds that the 

State has demonstrated attainment of 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, and we propose to 

approve the attainment demonstration 

provided in the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Demonstration 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Requirements for RFP are specified in 

CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 

182(c)(2)(B). CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires that plans for nonattainment 

areas provide for RFP, which is defined 

as such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required under part D (‘‘Plan 

Requirements for Nonattainment 

Areas’’) or may reasonably be required 

by the EPA for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS by 

the applicable date. CAA section 

182(b)(1) specifically requires that 

ozone nonattainment areas that are 

classified as Moderate or above 

demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in 

VOC between the years of 1990 and 

1996. The EPA has typically referred to 

section 182(b)(1) as the Rate of Progress 

(ROP) requirement. For ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious or higher, section 182(c)(2)(B) 

requires reductions averaged over each 

consecutive 3-year period beginning 6 

years after the baseline year until the 

attainment date of at least 3 percent of 

baseline emissions per year. The 

provisions in CAA section 

182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allow an amount less 

than 3 percent of such baseline 

emissions each year if the state 

demonstrates to the EPA that the plan 

includes all measures that can feasibly 

be implemented in the area in light of 

technological achievability. 

The 2008 Ozone SRR considers areas 

classified Moderate or higher to have 

met the ROP requirements of CAA 

section 182(b)(1) if the area has a fully 

approved 15 percent ROP plan for the 

1-hour or 1997 8-hour ozone standards, 

provided the boundaries of the ozone 

nonattainment areas are the same.78 For 

such areas, the RFP requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(2) require areas 

classified as Moderate to provide a 15 

percent emission reduction of ozone 

precursors within 6 years of the baseline 

year. Areas classified as Serious or 

higher must meet the RFP requirements 

of CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) by 

providing an 18 percent reduction of 

ozone precursors in the first 6-year 

period, and an average ozone precursor 

emission reduction of 3 percent per year 

for all remaining 3-year periods 

thereafter.79 Under the CAA 172(c)(2) 

and CAA 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, 

NOX emissions reductions may be 

substituted for VOC reductions.80

Except as specifically provided in 

CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions 

reductions from all SIP-approved, 

federally promulgated, or otherwise SIPcreditable measures that occur after the 

baseline are creditable for purposes of 

demonstrating that the RFP targets are 

met. Because the EPA has determined 

that the passage of time has caused the 

effect of certain exclusions to be de 

minimis, the RFP demonstration is no 

longer required to calculate and 

specifically exclude reductions from 

measures related to motor vehicle 

exhaust or evaporative emissions 

promulgated by January 1, 1990; 

regulations concerning Reid vapor 

pressure promulgated by November 15, 

1990; measures to correct previous 

RACT requirements; and, measures 

required to correct previous inspection 

and maintenance (I/M) programs.81

The 2008 Ozone SRR requires the RFP 

baseline year to be the most recent 

calendar year for which a complete 

triennial inventory is required to be 

submitted to the EPA (i.e., 2011), but it 

also allows states to use an alternative 

baseline year between 2008 and 2012 if 

the state demonstrates why the 

alternative baseline year is 

appropriate.82 As discussed previously, 

in the South Coast decision issued on 

February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit 

upheld the EPA’s RFP baseline year 

based on the year of the most recent 

triennial emissions inventory (i.e., 

2011), but it vacated the provisions of 

the 2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states 

to justify and use an alternative baseline 

year between 2008 and 2012 for 

demonstrating RFP because the EPA had 

not provided a statutory basis for 

allowing use of alternative baseline 

years. On April 20, 2018, the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

submitted a petition for rehearing on the 

RFP baseline year issue, arguing that 

2012 has a valid statutory basis because 

it was the year of designation for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.83

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the 15 

percent ROP requirement by noting that 

the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP 

plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 

the San Joaquin Valley in 1997, and that 

the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

covers the entire nonattainment area for 

the 2008 ozone standards.84

To address the RFP requirements, the 

2016 Ozone Plan selected 2012 as the 

RFP baseline year and provided 

emissions inventories for the RFP 

baseline, milestone and attainment 

years.85 The RFP demonstration in the 

2016 Ozone Plan uses NOX substitution 

beginning in milestone year 2018 to 

meet VOC emission targets and 

concluded that the RFP demonstration 

meets the applicable requirements for 

each milestone year and the attainment 

year. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

We have reviewed the 2016 Ozone 

Plan and agree that the EPA has 

approved a 15 percent ROP 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, fulfilling the requirements of 

CAA section 182(b)(1).86

For the RFP requirements under CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), the 

Ozone SRR established 2011 as the RFP 

baseline year. As discussed previously, 

the D.C. Circuit vacated provisions of 

the 2008 Ozone SRR allowing states to 

use an alternative RPF baseline year 

between 2008 and 2012 in lieu of 2011. 

Because the 2016 Ozone Plan used 2012 

as the RFP baseline year, we are not 

taking action at this time on the RFP 

demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44540 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

87CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three 

separate elements. In short, under section 

182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt 

transportation control strategies and measures (1) to 

offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT, 

and, (2) in combination with other emission 

reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP, and 

(3) to demonstrate attainment. For more information 

on the EPA’s interpretation of the three elements of 

section 182(d)(1)(A), please see 77 FR 58067, at 

58068 (September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal 

of approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations). 

88See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 

632 F.3d. 584, at 596–597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted 

as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, 

further amended February 13, 2012 (‘‘Association of 

Irritated Residents’’). 

89Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, 

Transportation and Climate Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edlund, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region VI, and Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, August 30, 

2012. 

90See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n). TCMs are defined 

at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as meaning any measure that 

is directed toward reducing emissions of air 

pollutants from transportation sources. 

F. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Measures To Offset Emissions Increases 

From Vehicle Miles Traveled 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act 

requires the state, if subject to its 

requirements for a given area, to submit 

a revision that identifies and adopts 

specific enforceable transportation 

control strategies and transportation 

control measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) or number of vehicle 

trips in such area.87

In Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, the Ninth Circuit ruled that 

additional transportation control 

measures are required whenever vehicle 

emissions are projected to be higher 

than they would have been had VMT 

not increased, even when aggregate 

vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing.88 In response to the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision, the EPA issued a 

memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance on 

Implementing Clean Air Act Section 

182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control 

Measures and Transportation Control 

Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions 

Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles 

Travelled’’ (herein referred to as the 

‘‘August 2012 guidance’’).89

The August 2012 guidance discusses 

the meaning of Transportation Control 

Strategies (TCSs) and Transportation 

Control Measures (TCMs) and 

recommends that both TCSs and TCMs 

be included in the calculations made for 

the purpose of determining the degree to 

which any hypothetical growth in 

emissions due to growth in VMT should 

be offset. Generally, TCSs encompass 

many types of controls including, for 

example, motor vehicle emissions 

limitations, I/M programs, alternative 

fuel programs, other technology-based 

measures, and TCMs, that would fit 

within the regulatory definition of 

‘‘control strategy.’’ 90 Such measures 

include, but are not limited to, those 

listed in CAA section 108(f). TCMs 

generally refer to programs intended to 

reduce VMT, the number of vehicle 

trips, or traffic congestion, including, 

e.g., programs for improved public 

transit, designation of certain lanes for 

passenger buses and high-occupancy 

vehicles, and trip reduction ordinances. 

The August 2012 guidance explains 

how states may demonstrate that the 

VMT emissions offset requirement is 

satisfied in conformance with the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling. The August 2012 

guidance recommends that states 

estimate emissions for the 

nonattainment area’s base year and 

attainment year. One emissions 

inventory is developed for the base year, 

and three different emissions inventory 

scenarios are developed for the 

attainment year. For the attainment 

year, the state would present three 

emissions estimates, two of which 

would represent hypothetical emissions 

scenarios that would provide the basis 

to identify the growth in emissions due 

solely to the growth in VMT, and one 

that would represent projected actual 

motor vehicle emissions after fully 

accounting for projected VMT growth 

and offsetting emissions reductions 

obtained by all creditable TCSs and 

TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance for 

specific details on how states might 

conduct the calculations. 

The base year on-road VOC emissions 

should be calculated using VMT in that 

year, and should reflect all enforceable 

TCSs and TCMs in place in the base 

year. This would include vehicle 

emissions standards, state and local 

control programs, such as I/M programs 

or fuel rules, and any additional 

implemented TCSs and TCMs that were 

already required by or credited in the 

SIP as of that base year. 

The first of the emissions calculations 

for the attainment year would be based 

on the projected VMT and trips for that 

year and assume that no new TCSs or 

TCMs beyond those already credited in 

the base year inventory have been put 

in place since the base year. This 

calculation demonstrates how emissions 

would hypothetically change if no new 

TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and 

VMT and trips were allowed to grow at 

the projected rate from the base year. 

This estimate would show the potential 

for an increase in emissions due solely 

to growth in VMT and trips. This 

represents a ‘‘no action’’ scenario. 

Emissions in the attainment year in this 

scenario may be lower than those in the 

base year due to fleet turnover; however, 

if VMT and/or numbers of vehicle trips 

are projected to increase in the 

attainment year, emissions would still 

likely be higher than if VMT had held 

constant. 

The second of the attainment year’s 

emissions calculations would assume 

that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond 

those already credited have been put in 

place since the base year, but it would 

also assume that there was no growth in 

VMT and trips between the base year 

and attainment year. This estimate 

reflects the hypothetical emissions level 

that would have occurred if no further 

TCMs or TCSs had been put in place 

and if VMT and trip levels had held 

constant since the base year. Like the 

‘‘no action’’ attainment year estimate 

described above, emissions in the 

attainment year may be lower than those 

in the base year due to fleet turnover, 

but in this case emissions would not be 

influenced by any growth in VMT or 

trips. This emissions estimate would 

reflect a ceiling on the attainment 

emissions that should be allowed to 

occur under the statute as interpreted by 

the Ninth Circuit because it shows what 

would happen under a scenario in 

which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs have 

yet been put in place and VMT and trips 

are held constant during the period from 

the area’s base year to its attainment 

year. This represents a ‘‘VMT offset 

ceiling’’ scenario. These two 

hypothetical status quo estimates are 

necessary steps in identifying the target 

level of emissions from which states 

determine whether further TCMs or 

TCSs, beyond those that have been 

adopted and implemented in reality, 

would need to be adopted and 

implemented in order to fully offset any 

increase in emissions due solely to VMT 

and trips identified in the ‘‘no action’’ 

scenario. 

Finally, the state would present the 

emissions that are actually expected to 

occur in the area’s attainment year after 

taking into account reductions from all 

enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in 

reality were put in place after the 

baseline year. This estimate would be 

based on the VMT and trip levels 

expected to occur in the attainment year 

(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the 

first estimate) and all of the TCSs and 

TCMs expected to be in place and for 

which the SIP will take credit in the 

area’s attainment year, including any 

TCMs and TCSs put in place since the 

base year. This represents the ‘‘projected 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44541 

actual’’ attainment year scenario. If this 

emissions estimate is less than or equal 

to the emissions ceiling that was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, the TCSs 

or TCMs for the attainment year would 

be sufficient to fully offset the identified 

hypothetical growth in emissions. 

If, instead, the estimated projected 

actual attainment year emissions are 

still greater than the ceiling that was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year emissions calculations, 

even after accounting for post-baseline 

year TCSs and TCMs, the state would 

need to adopt and implement additional 

TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 

growth in emissions. The additional 

TCSs or TCMs would need to bring the 

actual emissions down to at least the 

‘‘had VMT and trips held constant’’ 

ceiling estimated in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, in order to 

meet the VMT offset requirement of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by 

the Ninth Circuit. 

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

CARB prepared the San Joaquin 

Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstration, which is included as 

section D.3 (‘‘VMT Offsets’’) of 

Appendix D (‘‘Mobile Source Control 

Strategy’’) of the 2016 Ozone Plan. For 

the demonstration, CARB used 

EMFAC2014, the latest EPA-approved 

motor vehicle emissions model for 

California. The EMFAC2014 model 

estimates the on-road emissions from 

two combustion processes (i.e., running 

exhaust and start exhaust) and four 

evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, 

running losses, diurnal losses, and 

resting losses). The EMFAC2014 model 

combines trip-based VMT data from the 

eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs (e.g., 

Council of Fresno County 

Governments), starts data based on 

household travel surveys, and vehicle 

population data from the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles. These 

sets of data are combined with 

corresponding emission rates to 

calculate emissions. 

Emissions from running exhaust, start 

exhaust, hot soak, and running losses 

are a function of how much a vehicle is 

driven. As such, emissions from these 

processes are directly related to VMT 

and vehicle trips, and CARB included 

emissions from them in the calculations 

that provide the basis for the San 

Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstration. CARB did not include 

emissions from resting loss and diurnal 

loss processes in the analysis because 

such emissions are related to vehicle 

population, not to VMT or vehicle trips, 

and thus are not part of ‘‘any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in 

such area’’ (emphasis added) under 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). 

The San Joaquin Valley VMT 

emissions offset demonstration uses 

2012 as the base year and also includes 

the previously described three different 

attainment year scenarios (i.e., no 

action, VMT offset ceiling, and 

projected actual). The San Joaquin 

Valley 2016 Ozone Plan provides a 

demonstration of attainment of the 2008 

8-hour ozone standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2031, 

based on emissions projections for year 

2031 reflecting adopted controls. As 

described in section III.D of this notice, 

the EPA is proposing to approve this 

attainment demonstration. Accordingly, 

we find CARB’s selection of year 2031 

as the attainment year for the VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS to be appropriate. 

Table 3 summarizes the relevant 

distinguishing parameters for each of 

the emissions scenarios and shows 

CARB’s corresponding VOC emissions 

estimates for the demonstration for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 3—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR THE 2008 OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ............................................................ 2012 96,934 2012 16,624 2012 50 

No Action ............................................................. 2031 131,835 2031 20,572 2012 22 

VMT Offset Ceiling ............................................... 2031 96,934 2012 16,624 2012 17 

Projected Actual ................................................... 2031 131,835 2031 20,572 2031 14 

Source: 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Appendix D, pages D–22 and D–24. Year 2031 VMT is based on 2015 Federal

Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs. 

For the base year scenario, CARB ran 

the EMFAC2014 model for the 

applicable base year (i.e., 2012 for the 

2008 8-hour ozone standards) using 

VMT and starts data corresponding to 

that year. As shown in table 3, CARB 

estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC 

emissions at 50 tpd in 2012. 

For the ‘‘no action’’ scenario, CARB 

first identified the on-road motor 

vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or 

TCMs) put in place since the base year 

and incorporated into EMFAC2014 and 

then ran EMFAC2014 with the VMT and 

starts data corresponding to the 

applicable attainment year (i.e., 2031 for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standards) 

without the emissions reductions from 

the on-road motor vehicle control 

programs put in place after the base 

year. Thus, the no action scenario 

reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions 

that would occur in the attainment year 

in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB had 

not put in place any additional TCSs or 

TCMs after 2012. As shown in table 3, 

CARB estimates the no action San 

Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 22 tpd 

in 2031. 

For the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenario, 

CARB ran the EMFAC2014 model for 

the attainment years but with VMT and 

starts data corresponding to base year 

values. Like the no action scenarios, the 

EMFAC2014 model was adjusted to 

reflect the VOC emissions levels in the 

attainment years without the benefits of 

the post-base-year on-road motor 

vehicle control programs. Thus, the 

VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects 

hypothetical VOC emissions in the San 

Joaquin Valley if CARB had not put in 

place any TCSs or TCMs after the base 

year and if there had been no growth in 

VMT or vehicle trips between the base 

year and the attainment year. 

The hypothetical growth in emissions 

due to growth in VMT and trips can be 

determined from the difference between 

the VOC emissions estimates under the 

no action scenario and the 

corresponding estimates under the VMT 

offset ceiling scenario. Based on the 

values in table 3, the hypothetical 

growth in emissions due to growth in 

VMT and trips in the San Joaquin Valley 

would have been 5 tpd (i.e., 22 tpd 

minus 17 tpd) for purposes of the 

revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 8-hour ozone 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44542 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

91See attachment A of Appendix D to the 2016 

Ozone Plan includes a list of transportation control 

strategies. See also EPA final action on CARB 

mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 

16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 

FR 23232 (May 18, 2018). 

92The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from 

the TCSs and TCMs put in place after the respective 

base year can be determined by subtracting the 

projected actual emissions estimates from the no 

action emissions estimates in table 3. For the 

purposes of the 2008 8-hour ozone demonstration, 

the offsetting emissions reductions (i.e., 8 tpd based 

on 22 tpd minus 14 tpd) exceed the growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips 

(i.e., 5 tpd based on 22 tpd minus 17 tpd). 

93See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 

2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 

2015). 

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

95See, 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). 

96See, 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). 

97Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235–1237 (9th 

Cir. 2016). 

98 Id. at 1235–1237. 

99See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.4. 

standards. This hypothetical difference 

establishes the level of VMT growthcaused emissions that need to be offset 

by the combination of post-baseline year 

TCMs and TCSs and any necessary 

additional TCMs and TCSs. 

For the ‘‘projected actual’’ scenario 

calculation, CARB ran the EMFAC2014 

model for the attainment year with VMT 

and starts data at attainment year values 

and with the full benefits of the relevant 

post-baseline year motor vehicle control 

programs. For this scenario, CARB 

included the emissions benefits from 

TCSs and TCMs put in place since the 

base year. The most significant 

measures reducing VOC emissions 

during the 2012 to 2031 timeframe 

include the Advanced Clean Cars 

program, Low Emission Vehicles II and 

III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle 

standards, On-Board Diagnostics, Smog 

Check Improvements, and California 

Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3.91

As shown in table 3, the calculation 

of the projected actual attainment-year 

VOC emissions resulted in 14 tpd for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

demonstration. CARB then compared 

this value against the corresponding 

VMT offset ceiling value to determine 

whether additional TCMs or TCSs 

would need to be adopted and 

implemented in order to offset any 

increase in emissions due solely to VMT 

and trips. Because the projected actual 

emissions are less than the 

corresponding VMT offset ceiling 

emissions, CARB concluded that the 

demonstration shows compliance with 

the VMT emissions offset requirement 

and that there are sufficient adopted 

TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in 

emissions from the growth in VMT and 

vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley 

for the 2008 8-hour standards. In fact, 

taking into account the creditable postbaseline year TCMs and TCSs, CARB 

showed that they offset the hypothetical 

difference by 8 tpd for the 2008 8-hour 

standards, rather than the required 5 

tpd, respectively.92

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

Based on our review of the San 

Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstration in Appendix D of the 

2016 Ozone Plan, we find CARB’s 

analysis to be acceptable and agree that 

CARB has adopted sufficient TCSs and 

TCMs to offset the growth in emissions 

from growth in VMT and vehicle trips 

in the San Joaquin Valley for the 

purposes of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standards. As such, we find that the San 

Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstration complies with the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we 

propose approval of the San Joaquin 

Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstration portion of the 2016 

Ozone Plan. 

G. Contingency Measures To Provide for 

RFP and Attainment 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 as Moderate or above must 

include in their SIPs contingency 

measures consistent with sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency 

measures are additional controls or 

measures to be implemented in the 

event the area fails to make reasonable 

further progress or to attain the NAAQS 

by the attainment date. The SIP should 

contain trigger mechanisms for the 

contingency measures, specify a 

schedule for implementation, and 

indicate that the measure will be 

implemented without significant further 

action by the state or the EPA.93

Neither the CAA nor the EPA’s 

implementing regulations establish a 

specific level of emissions reductions 

that implementation of contingency 

measures must achieve, but the EPA’s 

2008 Ozone SRR reiterates the EPA’s 

policy that contingency measures 

should provide for emissions reductions 

approximately equivalent to one year’s 

worth progress, amounting to reductions 

of 3 percent of the baseline emissions 

inventory for the nonattainment area.94

It has been the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of section 172(c)(9) that 

states may rely on federal measures 

(e.g., federal mobile source measures 

based on the incremental turnover of the 

motor vehicle fleet each year) and local 

measures already scheduled for 

implementation that provide emissions 

reductions in excess of those needed to 

provide for RFP or expeditious 

attainment. The key is that the statute 

requires that contingency measures 

provide for additional emissions 

reductions that are not relied on for RFP 

or attainment and that are not included 

in the RFP or attainment demonstrations 

as meeting part or all of the contingency 

measure requirements. The purpose of 

contingency measures is to provide 

continued emissions reductions while 

the plan is being revised to meet the 

missed milestone. 

The EPA has approved numerous SIPs 

under this interpretation—i.e., SIPs that 

use as contingency measures one or 

more federal or local measures that are 

in place and provide reductions that are 

in excess of the reductions required by 

the attainment demonstration or RFP 

plan,95 and there is case law supporting 

the EPA’s interpretation in this regard.96

However, in Bahr v. EPA, the Ninth 

Circuit rejected the EPA’s interpretation 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for 

early implementation of contingency 

measures.97 The Ninth Circuit 

concluded that contingency measures 

must take effect at the time the area fails 

to make RFP or attain by the applicable 

attainment date, not before.98 Thus, 

within the geographic jurisdiction of the 

Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on 

early-implemented measures to comply 

with the contingency measure 

requirements under CAA section 

172(c)(9). 

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

In its 2016 Ozone Plan, the District set 

aside NOX emissions reductions from 

the attainment demonstration and 

reserves those reductions to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for a 

failure to attain the 2008 ozone 

standards.99 Similarly, to satisfy the 

requirement for RFP contingency 

measures, the 2016 Ozone Plan sets 

aside 3 percent excess emissions 

reductions in the first RFP milestone 

year and reserves those reductions for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44543 

100 Id. at section 6.3. 

101See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13523 

(April 16, 1992). 

102 Id at 13524. 

103See 69 FR 28061 (May 18, 2004) (approval of 

Rule 4305) and 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

(approval of Rule 4306). 

104See ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Industrial/ 

Commercial/Institutional Boilers,’’ EPA, March 

1994. See also 76 FR 57846 at 57864–57865 

(September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652 at 12670 

(March 1, 2012). 

105 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012). 

106See 74 FR 65042 (December 9, 2009) 

(proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 

of Rule 4352) and 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010) 

(final limited approval and limited disapproval of 

Rule 4352). 

107 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014). 

contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP.100

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

The magnitude of contingency 

measure reductions in the 2016 Ozone 

Plan is affected by the South Coast 

decision (regarding the appropriate 

baseline year for RFP) because, for 

ozone purposes, the required emission 

reductions are generally calculated as a 

portion of the baseline emissions 

inventory. For this reason, we are not 

taking action at this time on the 

contingency measures in the 2016 

Ozone Plan. 

H. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control 

Technology for Boilers 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that 

SIPs for Extreme nonattainment areas 

require each new, modified, and 

existing electric utility and industrial 

and commercial boiler that emits more 

than 25 tpy of NOX to either burn as its 

primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or 

ethanol (or a comparably low-polluting 

fuel), or use advanced control 

technology, such as catalytic control 

technologies or other comparably 

effective control methods. 

Additional guidance on this 

requirement is provided in the General 

Preamble at 13523. According to the 

General Preamble, a boiler should 

generally be considered as any 

combustion equipment used to produce 

steam and generally does not include a 

process heater that transfers heat from 

combustion gases to process streams.101

In addition, boilers with rated heat 

inputs less than 15 million British 

Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour that 

are oil- or gas-fired may generally be 

considered de minimus and exempt 

from these requirements because it is 

unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy 

NOX emission limit.102

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

The 2016 Ozone Plan addresses the 

requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) 

in section 3.17 (‘‘Clean Fuels’’) of 

Chapter 3, and states that District Rules 

4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOX

emission limits for boilers and that 

these rules meet the requirements of the 

CAA. Additional information on these 

rules is also provided in Appendix C of 

the 2016 Ozone Plan. Specifically, the 

2016 Ozone Plan indicates that most of 

the boilers under District Rules 4305 

and 4306 are fired on natural gas and, 

as such, meet the requirements of CAA 

section 182(e)(3) for those boilers 

subject to those rules. Liquid fuel-fired 

boilers are also addressed by Rule 4305 

and 4306, and the 2016 Ozone Plan 

concludes that the applicable NOX

emissions in the rules necessitate use of 

advanced technology. The 2016 Ozone 

Plan concludes likewise for solid fuelfired boilers addressed by Rule 4352. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

Rule 4305 (now titled ‘‘Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters—Phase 

2’’) was adopted by the District in 1993 

and was superseded by Rule 4306 

(‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters—Phase 3’’). Both Rules 

4305 and 4306 apply to any gaseous 

fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam 

generator, or process heater with a rated 

heat input greater than 5 MMBtu per 

hour. Rule 4305, as amended on August 

21, 2003, was approved by the EPA in 

2004, and Rule 4306, as revised on 

October 16, 2008, was approved by the 

EPA in 2010.103 The emission limits in 

Rule 4306 (5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous 

fuels and 40 ppm for liquid fuels) 

cannot be achieved without the use of 

advanced control technologies.104 All 

units subject to Rule 4306 were required 

to comply with the limits in the rule no 

later than December 1, 2008. 

Rule 4352, titled ‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 

Heaters’’ was last approved by the EPA 

on November 6, 2012.105 Rule 4352 

applies to any boiler, steam generator, or 

process heater fired on solid fuel at a 

source that has the potential to emit 

more than 10 tpy of NOX or VOC. All 

units subject to Rule 4352 were required 

to comply with the rule’s most stringent 

limits no later than January 1, 2013. In 

an EPA action on an earlier version of 

Rule 4352, we determined that all of the 

NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 

effectively require operation of selective 

noncatalytic reduction control 

technology, which, for the affected 

sources, is comparably effective to 

selective catalytic reduction, and 

comparable to the combustion of clean 

fuels at these types of boilers. Therefore, 

we concluded that Rule 4352 satisfied 

the requirements of section 182(e)(3) for 

solid fuel-fired boilers in the San 

Joaquin Valley.106

In addition, new and modified boilers 

that will emit or have the potential to 

emit 25 tpy or more of NOX are subject 

to the District’s new source permitting 

rule, Rule 2201, titled ‘‘New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review.’’ 

This rule requires new and modified 

sources to install and operate lowest 

achievable emission rate (LAER) 

technology. The EPA last approved Rule 

2201 in 2014.107 In previous actions on 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA 

reviewed Rules 4306, 4352, and 2201, 

and concluded that the rules satisfy the 

requirements for clean fuel or advanced 

control technology for boilers in CAA 

section 182(e)(3). We find that the 

emission limitations in the District’s 

rules continue to meet the clean fuel or 

advanced control technology for boilers 

requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3), 

and thus, we propose to approve the 

Clean Fuels for Boilers portion of the 

2016 Ozone Plan. 

I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, MPOs in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

and local air quality and transportation 

agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the 

FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs 

conform to the applicable SIP. This 

demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44544 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

108See 40 CFR 93.12(b)(2)(i). 109See 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. 

110See 40 CFR 93.118. 

111The EPA announced the availability of the 

EMFAC2014 model for use in SIP development and 

transportation conformity in California on 

December 14, 2015 (80 FR 77337). The EPA’s 

approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model for 

SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the 

date of publication of the notice in the Federal 

Register. 

112See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. 

113See June 13, 2017 letter from Elizabeth J. 

Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. 

114See 82 FR 29547. 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs or ‘‘budgets’’) contained in all 

control strategy SIPs. Budgets are 

generally established for specific years 

and specific pollutants or precursors. 

Ozone plans should identify budgets for 

on-road emissions of ozone precursors 

(NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP 

milestone year and the attainment year, 

if the plan demonstrates attainment.108

For motor vehicle emissions budgets 

to be approvable, they must meet, at a 

minimum, the EPA’s adequacy criteria 

(40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5)) and be 

approvable under all pertinent SIP 

requirements. To meet these 

requirements, the MVEBs must be 

consistent with the approvable 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

reflect all of the motor vehicle control 

measures contained in the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations.109

The EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) making a 

finding of adequacy or inadequacy.110

2. Summary of the State’s Submission 

The 2016 Ozone Plan includes 

budgets for the 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 

and 2030 RFP milestone years, and the 

2031 attainment year. The budgets were 

calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB’s 

latest approved version of the EMFAC 

model for estimating emissions from onroad vehicles operating in California, 

and reflect average summer weekday 

emissions consistent with the RFP 

milestone years and the 2031 attainment 

year for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.111 The conformity budgets for 

NOX and VOC for each county in the 

nonattainment area are provided in 

table 4 below. 

TABLE 4—BUDGETS IN THE 2016 OZONE PLAN

Motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(average summer weekday, tons per day) 

County 

2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2031 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Fresno ...................................................... 8.0 27.7 6.4 22.2 5.4 14.1 4.9 13.2 4.5 12.6 4.3 12.5 

Kern (SJV) ................................................ 6.6 25.4 5.5 20.4 4.8 12.6 4.5 11.7 4.2 10.9 4.1 10.8 

Kings ........................................................ 1.3 5.1 1.1 4.2 0.9 2.6 0.9 2.5 0.8 2.3 0.8 2.3 

Madera ..................................................... 1.9 5.1 1.5 4.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 2.3 0.9 2.0 0.9 2.0 

Merced ..................................................... 2.5 9.4 2.0 7.8 1.6 4.8 1.5 4.4 1.3 4.2 1.3 4.1 

San Joaquin ............................................. 5.9 13.0 4.9 10.3 4.2 6.9 3.8 6.2 3.5 5.7 3.3 5.5 

Stanislaus ................................................. 3.8 10.5 3.0 8.3 2.6 5.6 2.3 5.1 2.1 4.7 2.0 4.7 

Tulare ....................................................... 3.7 9.5 2.9 7.2 2.4 4.7 2.2 4.1 1.9 3.8 1.9 3.7 

Source: Tables D–4 through D–9 of Appendix D to the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

3. The EPA’s Review of the State’s 

Submission 

As discussed above, the MVEBs for 

2018, 2021, 2024, 2027 and 2030 derive 

from the RFP baseline year and the 

associated RFP milestone years. As 

such, the budgets are affected by the 

South Coast decision, and therefore, the 

EPA is not taking action at this time on 

the budgets for these years. We plan to 

propose action for these MVEBs in a 

future rulemaking. However, in today’s 

notice we are proposing to approve the 

budgets for the 2031 attainment year for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

The EPA has previously determined 

that the 2031 budgets in 2016 Ozone 

Plan are adequate for use for 

transportation conformity purposes. On 

February 23, 2017, the EPA announced 

the availability of the 2016 Ozone Plan 

and budgets, which were available for a 

30-day public comment period that 

ended on March 27, 2017.112 The EPA 

received no comments from the public. 

On June 13, 2017, the EPA determined 

the 2018, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2030 and 

2031 MVEBs were adequate.113 On June 

29, 2017, the notice of adequacy was 

published in the Federal Register.114

The new budgets became effective on 

July 14, 2017. After the effective date of 

the adequacy finding, the new budgets 

must be used in future transportation 

conformity determinations in the San 

Joaquin Valley area. The EPA is not 

required under its transportation 

conformity rule to find budgets 

adequate prior to proposing approval of 

them, but in this instance, we have 

completed the adequacy review of these 

budgets prior to our final action on the 

2016 Ozone Plan. 

In today’s notice, the EPA is 

proposing to approve only the 2031 

budgets in the 2016 Ozone Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

EPA has determined through its review 

of the submitted 2016 Ozone Plan that 

the 2031 budgets are consistent with 

emission control measures in the SIP 

and attainment in 2031 for the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the reasons 

discussed in section III.D of this 

proposed rule, we are proposing to 

approve the attainment demonstration 

in the 2016 Ozone Plan. The 2031 

budgets, as given in table 5, are 

consistent with the attainment 

demonstration, are clearly identified 

and precisely quantified, and meet all 

other applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements, including the 

adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4) and (5). 

For these reasons, the EPA proposes to 

approve the budgets in table 5. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44545 

115Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 

California Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

August 24, 2016. 

116 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 

117 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting 

our prior approval of MVEB in certain California 

SIPs. 

118See 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12283 

(March 6, 2015), and section 3.6 of Chapter 3 of the 

2016 Ozone Plan. 

119See 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010). 

120See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D). 

121See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685 

(November 29, 2005). 

122See 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

123See 74 FR 33196, at 33198 (July 10, 2009). 

124See also CAA sections 182(e). 

125See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). 

126See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 

127See letter from Richard Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 19, 2018. 

128See EPA, ‘‘Revisions to California State 

Implementation Plan; South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management; Nonattainment New Source 

Review Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard,’’ pre-publication final rule signed August 

8, 2018. 

TABLE 5—2031 MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN THE 2016 

OZONE PLAN FOR 2031 

Motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(average summer weekday, tons per day) 

County VOC NOX

Fresno ................................... 4.3 12.5 

Kern (SJV) ............................ 4.1 10.8 

Kings ..................................... 0.8 2.3 

Madera .................................. 0.9 2.0 

Merced .................................. 1.3 4.1 

San Joaquin .......................... 3.3 5.5 

Stanislaus ............................. 2.0 4.7 

Tulare .................................... 1.9 3.7 

Source: Table D–9 of Appendix D to the 

2016 Ozone Plan. 

CARB has requested that we limit the 

duration of our approval of the budgets 

only until the effective date of the EPA’s 

adequacy finding for any subsequently 

submitted budgets.115 The 

transportation conformity rule allows us 

to limit the approval of budgets.116

However, we will consider a state’s 

request to limit an approval of its MVEB 

only if the request includes the 

following elements: 117

• An acknowledgement and 

explanation as to why the budgets under 

consideration have become outdated or 

deficient; 

• A commitment to update the 

budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP 

update; and 

• A request that the EPA limit the 

duration of its approval to the time 

when new budgets have been found to 

be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

Because CARB’s request does not 

include a commitment to update the 

budgets or an explanation of why the 

budgets have become outdated or 

deficient, we cannot at this time 

propose to limit the duration of our 

approval of the submitted budgets until 

new budgets have been found adequate. 

In order to limit the approval, we would 

need the information described above to 

determine whether such limitation is 

reasonable and appropriate in this case. 

Once CARB has adequately addressed 

that information, we intend to review it 

and take appropriate action. If we 

propose to limit the duration of our 

approval of the MVEB in the 2016 

Ozone Plan, we will provide the public 

an opportunity to comment. The 

duration of the approval of the budgets, 

however, would not be limited until we 

complete such a rulemaking. 

J. Other Clean Air Act Requirements 

Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

In addition to the requirements 

discussed above, title 1, subpart D of the 

CAA includes other provisions 

applicable to Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas, such as the San 

Joaquin Valley. We describe these 

provisions and their current status 

below for informational purposes only. 

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Programs 

Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

states with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified under subpart 2 as Serious or 

above to implement an enhanced motor 

vehicle I/M program in those areas. The 

requirements for those programs are 

provided in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 

40 CFR part 51, subpart S. 

Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, 

the 2016 Ozone Plan states that no new 

I/M programs are currently required for 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 

standards.118 The EPA has previously 

approved California’s I/M program in 

the San Joaquin Valley as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA and applicable 

EPA regulations for enhanced I/M 

programs.119

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program 

In accordance with CAA section 211, 

the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) 

program requires certain areas to use 

gasoline that has been reformulated to 

reduce emissions of ozone precursors. 

As an Extreme ozone nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

San Joaquin Valley was included in the 

federal RFG program.120 As a 

nonattainment area for the 1997 and 

2008 ozone standards, the San Joaquin 

Valley continues to be included in the 

program.121 California also has its own 

RFG program (i.e., California Phase III 

RFG, or CaRFG3), which applies within 

the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA 

approved CaRFG3 into the SIP on May 

12, 2010.122 In our action proposing 

approval of CaRFG3, we noted that the 

EPA had previously determined that 

emissions reductions from CaRFG3 

would be equal to or greater than the 

emissions reductions from the 

corresponding federal RFG program.123

3. New Source Review Rules 

Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires states to develop SIP revisions 

containing permit programs for each of 

its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP 

revisions are to include requirements for 

permits in accordance with CAA 

sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the 

construction and operation of each new 

or modified major stationary source for 

VOC and NOX anywhere in the 

nonattainment area.124 The 2008 Ozone 

SRR includes provisions and guidance 

for nonattainment new source review 

(NSR) programs.125 The EPA has 

previously approved the District’s NSR 

rules into the SIP based in part on a 

conclusion that the rules adequately 

addressed the NSR requirements 

specific to extreme areas.126 On June 19, 

2018, CARB submitted on behalf of the 

District a certification that the NSR 

program previously approved into the 

SIP is adequate to meet the 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standards.127 The EPA is proposing to 

approve the District’s NSR certification 

in a separate rulemaking.128

4. Clean Fuels Fleet Program 

Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the 

CAA require California to submit to the 

EPA for approval into the SIP measures 

to implement a Clean Fuels Fleet 

Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the 

CAA allows states to opt-out of the 

federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program 

by submitting a SIP revision consisting 

of a program or programs that will result 

in at least equivalent long-term 

reductions in ozone precursors and 

toxic air emissions. 

In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP 

revision to the EPA to opt-out of the 

federal clean-fuel fleet program, and 

included a demonstration that 

California’s low-emissions vehicle 

program achieved emissions reductions 

at least as large as would be achieved by 

the federal program. The EPA approved 

the SIP revision to opt-out of the federal 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44546 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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

130See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13514 

(April 16, 1992). 

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

132See e.g., Chapter 5, table 5–4 of the 2016 

Ozone Plan. 

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

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

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

136See section 3.12 (Ambient Monitoring 

Requirements) of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

137See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District 2017 Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 28, 

2017). 

138See letter from Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region 

IX to Sheraz Gill, SJVAPCD, dated October 30, 

2017. 

139See section V–H of the ARB Review of the San 

Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard, July 21, 2016. 

140See 82 FR 47145 (October 11, 2017). 

141See 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006). 

142 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides: The 

requirements pertaining to provisions for an air 

quality surveillance system in the SIP are contained 

in this part. 

143The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related 

requirements at 80 FR 12264, at 12291, (March 6, 

2015). 

program on August 27, 1999.129 There 

have been no changes to the federal 

Clean Fuels Fleet program since the 

EPA approved the California SIP 

revision to opt-out of the federal 

program, and thus, no corresponding 

changes to the SIP are required. Thus, 

we find that the California SIP revision 

to opt-out of the federal program, as 

approved in 1999, meets the 

requirements of CAA sections 

182(c)(4)(A) and 246 for San Joaquin 

Valley for the 2008 ozone standards. 

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 

Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a SIP revision by 

November 15, 1992, that requires 

owners or operators of gasoline 

dispensing systems to install and 

operate gasoline vehicle refueling vapor 

recovery (‘‘Stage II’’) systems in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate and above. California’s ozone 

nonattainment areas implemented Stage 

II vapor recovery well before the passage 

of the CAA Amendments of 1990.130

Section 202(a)(6) requires the EPA to 

promulgate standards requiring motor 

vehicles to be equipped with onboard 

refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 

systems. The EPA promulgated the first 

set of ORVR system regulations in 1994 

for phased implementation on vehicle 

manufacturers, and since the end of 

2006, essentially all new gasolinepowered light and medium-duty 

vehicles are ORVR-equipped.131 Section 

202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to 

waive the SIP requirement under CAA 

section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage 

II vapor recovery systems after such 

time as the EPA determines that ORVR 

systems are in widespread use 

throughout the motor vehicle fleet. 

Effective May 16, 2012, the EPA waived 

the requirement of CAA section 

182(b)(3) for Stage II vapor recovery 

systems in ozone nonattainment areas 

regardless of classification. See 40 CFR 

51.126(b). Thus, a SIP submittal meeting 

CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required 

for the 2008 ozone standards. 

While a SIP submittal meeting CAA 

section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 

2008 ozone standards, under California 

State law (i.e., Health and Safety Code 

section 41954), CARB is required to 

adopt procedures and performance 

standards for controlling gasoline 

emissions from gasoline marketing 

operations, including transfer and 

storage operations. State law also 

authorizes CARB, in cooperation with 

local air districts, to certify vapor 

recovery systems, to identify defective 

equipment and to develop test methods. 

CARB has adopted numerous revisions 

to its vapor recovery program 

regulations and continues to rely on its 

vapor recovery program to achieve 

emissions reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas in California.132

In the San Joaquin Valley, the 

installation and operation of CARBcertified vapor recovery equipment is 

required and enforced by District Rules 

4621 (‘‘Gasoline Transfer into Stationary 

Storage Containers, Delivery Vessels 

and Bulk Plants’’) and 4622 (‘‘Gasoline 

Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel 

Tanks’’). The most recent versions of 

Rules 4621 and 4622, amended on 

December 19, 2013, have been approved 

into the California SIP.133

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring 

Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires 

that all ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as Serious or above 

implement measures to enhance and 

improve monitoring for ambient 

concentrations of ozone, NOX, and VOC, 

and to improve monitoring of emissions 

of NOX and VOC. The enhanced 

monitoring network for ozone is referred 

to as the Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring Station (PAMS) network. 

The EPA promulgated final PAMS 

regulations on February 12, 1993.134

On November 10, 1993, CARB 

submitted to the EPA a SIP revision 

addressing the PAMS network for six 

ozone nonattainment areas in California, 

including the San Joaquin Valley, to 

meet the enhanced monitoring 

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). 

The EPA determined that the PAMS SIP 

revision met all applicable requirements 

for enhanced monitoring and the EPA 

PAMS regulations and approved the 

PAMS submittal into the California 

SIP.135

The 2016 Ozone Plan discusses 

compliance with the EPA’s enhanced 

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 

58, and concludes that, based on the 

EPA’s approval of the District’s air 

monitoring network plan, the San 

Joaquin Valley meets all federal ambient 

monitoring requirements.136 Chapter 4 

(section 4.2.2) of the 2016 Ozone Plan 

describes the San Joaquin Valley’s 

PAMS network. The District’s PAMS 

network is composed of two smaller 

networks located in the Fresno and 

Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas (MSAs). Each network in the 

MSA consists of three PAMS sites. The 

District’s July 2017 Annual Air Quality 

Monitoring Network Plan (ANP) also 

provides more detail about the PAMS 

network.137 The EPA has approved the 

District’s PAMS network as part of our 

annual approval of the District’s 

ANP.138

The 2016 Ozone Plan reports that the 

Arvin-Bear Mountain PAMS monitoring 

site in the Bakersfield MSA was closed 

in 2010, and would resume once a 

permanent air monitoring site in the 

area was established. The closed 

monitoring site at Arvin-Bear Mountain 

was relocated to a new site at the ArvinDi Giorgio elementary school. CARB’s 

staff report for the 2016 Ozone Plan 

includes, for approval by the EPA, 

provisions to address ambient ozone 

monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA.139

The EPA approved the relocation of the 

monitoring site and approved into the 

SIP these provisions of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan for ozone monitoring in 

Bakersfield.140

Prior to 2006, the EPA’s ambient air 

monitoring regulations in 40 CFR part 

58 (‘‘Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance’’) set forth specific SIP 

requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). 

In 2006, the EPA significantly revised 

and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.141

Under revised 40 CFR part 58 SIP 

revisions are no longer required; rather, 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

regulations is established through 

review of required annual monitoring 

network plans.142 The 2008 Ozone SRR 

made no changes to these 

requirements.143 As such, based on our 

review and approval of the most recent 

ANP for San Joaquin Valley, we find 

that the 2016 Ozone Plan adequately 

addresses the enhanced monitoring 

requirements under CAA section 

182(c)(1), and we propose to approve 

that portion of the Plan. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44547 

144See 40 CFR 51.1117. For San Joaquin Valley, 

a section 185 SIP revision for the 2008 ozone 

standards will be due on July 20, 2022. 145See Chapter 5, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 

2016 Ozone Plan. 

146See 2016 Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4.2. 

147See page 7, CARB Resolution 17–7, March 23, 

2017. 148See table 5 (on page 34) of the 2016 State 

Strategy. 149As 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. 

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program 

Section 185 of the CAA requires that 

the SIP for each Severe and Extreme 

ozone nonattainment area provide that, 

if the area fails to attain by its applicable 

attainment date, each major stationary 

source of VOC and NOX located in the 

area shall pay a fee to the state as a 

penalty for such failure for each 

calendar year beginning after the 

attainment date, until the area is 

redesignated as an attainment area for 

ozone. States are not yet required to 

submit a SIP revision that meets the 

requirements of CAA section 185 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS.144

IV. Other Commitments To Reduce 

Emissions 

The 2016 Ozone Plan relies on control 

measures, such as state and district 

rules and regulations, that have been 

adopted and are being implemented to 

demonstrate attainment of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS by 2031. However, in the 

2016 Ozone Plan, the District also notes 

that newer NAAQS, e.g., the ozone 

NAAQS established in 2015, would 

require the development and 

submission of new plans with 

additional emissions reductions. In 

anticipation of these future 

requirements, the District included in 

the 2016 Ozone Plan commitments to 

amend two existing measures for flares 

and wine fermentation and storage 

tanks.145 As summarized in table 6, the 

District committed to implement 

emission reduction technologies to the 

extent those controls are technologically 

achievable and economically feasible; 

therefore, any emissions reductions 

resulting from these evaluations, to the 

extent those evaluations have not yet 

been completed, are uncertain. Because 

of this uncertainty, and because these 

amended measures are not required to 

meet RACM or other plan requirements, 

the District did not project emissions 

reductions or implementation dates for 

these amended measures. 

TABLE 6—DISTRICT COMMITTAL MEASURES IN 2016 OZONE PLAN

Rule Rule title District commitment Schedule 

4311 ....... Flares ...................... 1. Amend Rule 4311 to include additional ultra-low NOX flare emissions limitations for existing and new flaring activities to the extent that such controls are 

technologically achievable and economically feasible.

By December 31, 2017. 

2. Amend Rule 4311 to include additional flare minimization requirements to the 

extent such controls are technologically achievable and economically feasible.

4694 ....... Wine Fermentation 

and Storage 

Tanks.

1. Evaluate the technological achievability and economic feasibility of implementing emissions control technologies to reduce VOC emissions and potential 

benefits to help reduce ozone concentrations.

By December 31, 2018. 

2. Upon completion of (1), amend Rule 4694 to include additional requirements to 

further reduce emissions from wine fermentation as appropriate.

Source: Table 5–3 and sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the 2016 Ozone Plan. 

The District has committed to amend 

Rule 4311 for flares and Rule 4694 for 

wine fermentation and storage tanks to 

include additional requirements to 

reduce emissions to the extent those 

controls are technologically achievable 

or economically feasible; however, these 

commitments were made in the context 

of attainment of future ozone and PM2.5

standards. Although these commitments 

are not needed to meet any 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standards, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the commitments described in 

table 6 above, to further strengthen the 

San Joaquin Valley’s portion of the 

California SIP. 

The 2016 Ozone Plan references 

additional reductions anticipated from 

CARB’s mobile source state strategy, a 

draft of which was released in October 

2015.146 The State Strategy was adopted 

by CARB in 2017, and in its resolution 

adopting the 2016 State Strategy, CARB 

adopted a commitment to bring to the 

Board for consideration a list of 

regulatory measures included as 

Attachment A to the resolution of 

adoption (i.e., Resolution 17–7), 

according to the schedule set forth in 

Attachment A, and a commitment to 

achieve an aggregate emission reduction 

of 8 tpd of NOX in the San Joaquin 

Valley by 2031 to accelerate progress 

toward the 2008 ozone standards.147

The 2016 State Strategy anticipates 

reducing emissions to meet the 

aggregate commitment through such 

measures as new California low-NOX

standards for on-road heavy-duty 

engines and more stringent diesel fuel 

requirements for off-road equipment.148

As noted above, the attainment 

demonstration in the 2016 Ozone Plan 

relies on adopted measures, rather than 

committal measures. Thus, CARB’s 

regulatory initiative commitment and 

aggregate emission reduction 

commitment for San Joaquin Valley are 

not needed as part of the control 

strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

San Joaquin Valley. However, the 

commitments by CARB for San Joaquin 

Valley in the 2016 State Strategy will 

strengthen the SIP by providing 

emissions reductions that supplement 

the reductions from the adopted 

controls; therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the San Joaquin Valley portions 

of the 2016 State Strategy into the SIP. 

V. Proposed Action 

For the reasons discussed above, 

under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is 

proposing to approve as a revision to the 

California SIP the following portions of 

the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Ozone 

Plan 149 submitted by CARB on August 

24, 2016: 

• RACM demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c); 

• ROP demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1); 

• Attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.1108; 

• Enhanced monitoring as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102; 

• Enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance programs as meeting the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44548 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.1102; 

• Provisions for clean fuels or 

advanced control technology for boilers 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102; 

• VMT emissions offset 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102; and 

• Motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

the attainment year of 2031 (see table 5, 

above) because they are consistent with 

the attainment demonstration proposed 

for approval herein and meet the other 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve District Rule 1160 titled 

‘‘Emission Statements’’ submitted by 

CARB on January 11, 1993, as a revision 

to the California SIP because it meets all 

the applicable requirements for 

emission statements and to approve the 

Emission Statement section of the 2016 

Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 

51.1102. 

Finally, we are proposing to approve, 

as additional measures that strengthen 

the SIP, the San Joaquin Valley portions 

of the 2016 State Strategy and CARB’s 

aggregate emission reduction 

commitment of 8 tpd of NOX by 2031 

submitted on April 27, 2017, as a 

revision to the California SIP and the 

two commitments by the District in the 

2016 Ozone Plan to amend Rules 4311 

(Flares) and 4694 (Wine Fermentation 

and Storage). 

We are not taking action at this time 

on the base year emissions inventory, 

the RFP demonstration, the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for RFP 

milestone years, and contingency 

measures portions of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan. We intend to propose action on 

these elements at a later time. 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days and will 

consider comments before taking final 

action. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

District Rule 1160 as described in 

section III.B of this preamble. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state plans 

and an air district rule as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 20, 2018. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19017 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 170828816–8714–01] 

RIN 0648–BH16 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish; Amendment 20 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement measures in Amendment 20 

to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan 

and corrections to existing regulations. 

This action is necessary to prevent the 

reactivation of latent effort in the 

longfin squid fishery, preserve 

economic opportunities for more 

recently active participants in the 

longfin squid fishery, avoid overharvest 

during Trimester II (May–August) of the 

longfin squid fishery, and reduce 

potential negative impacts on inshore 

spawning longfin squid aggregations 

and squid egg masses. The Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council intends 

that these proposed measures would 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS