2140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

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: December 11, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00571 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0048; FRL–9940–95– 

Region 9] 

Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 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 a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California to 

provide for attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard in the San Joaquin Valley, 

California ozone nonattainment area 

and to meet other Clean Air Act 

requirements. Specifically, with respect 

to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA 

is proposing to find the emissions 

inventories to be acceptable and to 

approve the reasonably available control 

measures demonstration, the rate of 

progress demonstrations, the attainment 

demonstration, contingency measures 

for failure to meet rate of progress 

milestones, the provisions for advanced 

technology/clean fuels for boilers, and 

the demonstration that the plan 

provides sufficient transportation 

control strategies and measures to offset 

emissions increases due to increases in 

motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, the EPA is 

proposing to approve the demonstration 

that the plan provides sufficient 

transportation control strategies and 

measures to offset emissions increases 

due to increases in motor vehicle 

activity. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 16, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2015–0048, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky 

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

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and the EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email directly to the EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2141 

1California plans sometimes use the term 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms 

are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use 

the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG. 

2An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances is a 

statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. 

An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances may be 

equivalent to the number of observed exceedances 

plus an increment that accounts for incomplete 

sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. 

Because, in this context, the term ‘‘exceedances’’ 

refers to days (during which the daily maximum 

hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), 

the maximum possible number of exceedances in a 

given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year). 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Regulatory Context 

A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area 

Designations 

B. The San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment 

Area 

II. CARB’s SIP Revision Submittal To 

Address Remaining 1-Hour and 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Requirements in the San 

Joaquin Valley 

A. CARB’s SIP Submittal 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan 

A. Emissions Inventories 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

C. Rate of Progress Demonstration 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

E. Contingency Measures 

F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control 

Technology for Boilers 

G. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures to 

Offset Growth in Emissions from Growth 

in Vehicle Miles Traveled or Number of 

Vehicle Trips 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Regulatory Context 

A. Ozone Standards, SIPs, and Area 

Designations 

Ground-level ozone is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight.1 These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, including on- and offroad 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. 

See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone,’’ January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 

2938 (January 19, 2010). 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the EPA promulgates 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or standards) for pervasive air 

pollutants, such as ozone. In 1979, the 

EPA established the NAAQS for ozone 

at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged 

over a 1-hour period (‘‘1-hour ozone 

standard’’). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 

1979). An area is considered to have 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard if 

there are no violations of the standard, 

as determined in accordance with the 

regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, 

based on three consecutive calendar 

years of complete, quality assured and 

certified monitoring data. A violation 

occurs when the ambient ozone air 

quality monitoring data show greater 

than one (1.0) ‘‘expected number’’ of 

exceedances per year at any site in the 

area, when averaged over three 

consecutive calendar years.2 An 

exceedance occurs when the maximum 

hourly ozone concentration during any 

day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more 

information, see ‘‘National 1-hour 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 

50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, appendix H). 

In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS 

for ozone to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘1997 

8-hour ozone standard’’). 62 FR 38856 

(July 18, 1997). The EPA determined 

that the 1997 8-hour standard would be 

more protective of human health, 

especially children and adults who are 

active outdoors, and individuals with a 

pre-existing respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. In 2008, the EPA revised and 

further strengthened the NAAQS for 

ozone by setting the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘2008 

8-hour ozone standard’’). 73 FR 16436 

(March 27, 2008). In 2015, the EPA 

further tightened the 8-hour ozone 

standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 

(October 26, 2015). While both the 1979 

1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard have been revoked, 

certain requirements that had applied 

under the revoked standards continue to 

apply under the anti-backsliding 

provisions of CAA section 172(e). 

Once the EPA has promulgated a 

NAAQS, states are required to develop 

and submit plans that provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS under CAA 

section 110(a)(1). The content 

requirements for such plans, which are 

referred to as state implementation 

plans (SIPs) are found in CAA section 

110(a)(2). Under the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1977, the EPA designated 

all areas of the country as ‘‘attainment,’’ 

‘‘nonattainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for 

the various NAAQS depending upon the 

availability of ambient concentration 

data and depending upon whether 

violations of the NAAQS were occurring 

in a given area. The CAA further 

requires states with ‘‘nonattainment’’ 

areas to submit revisions to their SIPs 

that provide for, among other things, 

attainment of the relevant standard 

within certain prescribed periods. 

In California, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) is responsible 

for adoption and submittal to the EPA 

of California SIPs and California SIP 

revisions and is the primary State 

agency responsible for regulation of 

mobile sources. Local and regional air 

pollution control districts are 

responsible for developing regional air 

quality plans and for regulation of 

stationary sources. For the San Joaquin 

Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) develops and 

adopts air quality management plans to 

address CAA SIP 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 

Nonattainment Area 

Under the 1977 CAA Amendments, 

the EPA designated the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin (‘‘San Joaquin Valley’’ 

or ‘‘Valley’’) as a ‘‘nonattainment’’ area 

for the photochemical oxidant (later, the 

1-hour ozone) NAAQS. 43 FR 8962, at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3We addressed the SIP requirements related to 

implementation of reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) for the 1-hour ozone standard in 

separately rulemakings. See, e.g., 77 FR 1417 

(January 10, 2012)(final partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley RACT SIP). 

4For further background on this court decision, 

see our proposed rule at 77 FR 58078 (September 

19, 2012). 

5The EPA’s March 8, 2010 final rule taking action 

on the 2004 Ozone Plan also took final approval 

action on SJVUAPCD Rule 9310 (‘‘School Bus 

Fleets’’). Approval of District Rule 9310 was not 

affected by the decision in Sierra Club, and thus the 

EPA did not withdraw its approval of that rule 

when it withdrew its approval of the rest of the 

action taken on March 8, 2010. However, the EPA 

did intend to withdraw approval of all of the 

elements of the 2004 Ozone Plan but inadvertently 

failed to withdraw its approval of the 2008 

Clarification submitted by CARB in support of the 

2004 Ozone Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371), and 

the EPA intends to fix this error by withdrawing 

that paragraph from 40 CFR 52.220(c) when it takes 

final action on the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

8972 (March 3, 1978). Initially, eight 

entire counties comprised the San 

Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and Kern counties. In 2001, however, 

the EPA approved a request to revise the 

boundary of the San Joaquin Valley to 

exclude eastern Kern County. 66 FR 

56476 (November 8, 2001). As such, the 

San Joaquin Valley ozone 

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. The San Joaquin Valley is 

one of the nation’s leading agricultural 

areas, and in recent decades, has 

experienced a high rate of growth in 

population. From 1990 to 2010, the 

population in the Valley increased from 

approximately 2.7 million to 4 million 

people. For a precise description of the 

geographic boundaries of the San 

Joaquin Valley, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

The CAA, as amended in 1977, 

required states to submit SIP revisions 

for nonattainment areas that, among 

other requirements, provided for 

attainment no later than 1987; however, 

like many areas of the country, the San 

Joaquin Valley failed to attain the ozone 

NAAQS by 1987. In the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, Congress established a 

classification system for ozone 

nonattainment areas under which areas 

with more severe ozone problems were 

given a higher classification and more 

time to attain the standard but were 

subject to a greater number of, and more 

stringent, SIP requirements. The 

classifications include ‘‘Marginal,’’ 

‘‘Moderate,’’ ‘‘Serious,’’ ‘‘Severe,’’ and 

‘‘Extreme.’’ See CAA section 181(a)(1). 

Under this classification system, the 

San Joaquin Valley was classified as a 

‘‘Serious’’ ozone nonattainment area for 

the 1-hour ozone standard with an 

attainment date of no later than 

November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694 

(November 6, 1991). In response, in 

1994, CARB submitted The California 

Ozone State Implementation Plan 

(‘‘1994 California Ozone Plan’’), a 

comprehensive ozone plan for the State 

of California that included a state 

strategy as well as certain regional 

ozone plans, such as the regional plan 

for the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA 

approved the 1994 California Ozone 

Plan in 1997. 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 

1997). 

In 2001, the EPA found that the San 

Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 

1-hour ozone standard by the ‘‘Serious’’ 

area deadline and reclassified the area 

to ‘‘Severe.’’ 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 

2001). In 2004, the EPA granted the 

State’s request to voluntarily reclassify 

the San Joaquin Valley from ‘‘Severe’’ to 

‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and required the state to 

submit a SIP revision providing for the 

‘‘Extreme’’ area SIP elements in CAA 

section 182(e), which include a 

demonstration of attainment of the 

standard as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than November 15, 2010. 69 

FR 20550 (April 16, 2004). 

In response, CARB and the District 

developed and adopted the Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan 

(‘‘2004 Ozone Plan’’) for the San Joaquin 

Valley, and, in 2004, CARB submitted 

the 2004 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP. The 2004 

Ozone Plan was supported by certain 

measures and commitments contained 

in the state’s ‘‘2003 State Strategy.’’ The 

2004 Ozone Plan was later amended and 

clarified, and the EPA approved the 

plan, as amended and clarified, in 2010. 

75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). 

Specifically, we approved the 

following elements of the 2004 Ozone 

Plan: (1) Rate-of-progress (ROP) 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) 

and 51.900(f)(4); (2) ROP contingency 

measures as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) 

the attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of 182(c)(2)(A) 

and 181(a) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii); 

(4) the attainment contingency measures 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9); and (5), along with 

certain measures contained in the 2003 

State Strategy, the demonstration of 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM)(exclusive of 

RACT) 3 as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). Id., at 10436–10437. In 

connection with the control strategy of 

the attainment demonstration, we 

approved certain committal measures 

and aggregate emission reduction 

commitments made by CARB and the 

District. Id. We also found that the 2004 

Ozone Plan met the following 

requirements: (1) CAA section 182(e)(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 

51.900(f)(7) for clean fuel/clean 

technology boilers; and (2) CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) 

and 51.900(f)(11) for transportation 

control measures (TCMs) sufficient to 

offset growth in emissions from growth 

in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) or the 

number of vehicle trips. Lastly, in our 

approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan, we 

approved a specific rule, District Rule 

9310, related to school buses. 

Our approval of the 2004 Ozone Plan 

was challenged, and the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded 

the approval of the plan back to the EPA 

based on its conclusion that the EPA 

had not adequately considered and 

addressed the implications of more 

recent emissions data in determining 

that the 2004 Ozone Plan had met all 

applicable CAA requirements. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 

2012) (‘‘Sierra Club’’).4 In response to 

the Sierra Club decision, the EPA 

withdrew its approval of the 2004 

Ozone Plan. 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 

2012).5 CARB indicated that it intended 

to withdraw the plan upon EPA’s 

approval withdrawal action, and thus, 

in the same Federal Register document 

as the withdrawal of approval, the EPA 

issued a finding of failure to submit 

required SIP revisions to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Meanwhile, as noted above, in 1997, 

the EPA established an 8-hour ozone 

standard to replace the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and in 2004, the EPA 

designated the San Joaquin Valley as a 

‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 

23858, at 23888–23899 (April 30, 2004). 

In 2010, the EPA approved a request by 

CARB to reclassify the San Joaquin 

Valley as ‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 

2010). In 2004, the EPA also established 

regulations governing the transition 

from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and under 

these regulations, the 1-hour ozone 

standard was revoked in most areas of 

the country, including the San Joaquin 

Valley, effective June 15, 2005, but the 

SIP revision requirements that applied 

at the time of revocation of the standard 

continue to apply after revocation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2143 

6CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), which, in relevant 

part, requires the state, if subject to its 

requirements, 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 or numbers of 

vehicle trips in such area.’’ Herein, we use ‘‘VMT’’ 

to refer to vehicle miles traveled, and refer to the 

related SIP requirement as the ‘‘VMT emissions 

offset requirement.’’ In addition, we refer to the SIP 

revision intended to demonstrate compliance with 

the VMT emissions offset requirement as the ‘‘VMT 

emissions offset demonstration.’’ 

consistent with the anti-backsliding 

provisions in section 172(e). This means 

that, notwithstanding revocation of the 

1-hour ozone standard, the San Joaquin 

Valley remained subject to ‘‘Extreme’’ 

area requirements for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and is also subject to the 

‘‘Extreme’’ area requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

In 2007, in response to SIP revision 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, CARB and the District 

developed and adopted the 2007 Ozone 

Plan (‘‘2007 Ozone Plan’’) and related 

portions of the 2007 State Strategy and 

submitted them to the EPA as revisions 

to the SIP. The 2007 Ozone Plan was 

revised in 2008 and 2011, and in 2012, 

the EPA approved the plan, as revised, 

together with the related portions of the 

2007 State Strategy. 77 FR 12652 (March 

1, 2012). Our approval of the 2007 

Ozone Plan and related portions of the 

2007 State Strategy were challenged in 

the Ninth Circuit. In 2015, the Ninth 

Circuit upheld the EPA’s approval of 

CARB’s and the District’s committal 

measures but rejected the EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA 

as allowing California to take emissions 

reduction credit for mobile source 

regulations that the EPA has waived or 

authorized under CAA section 209 

notwithstanding their absence from the 

federally enforceable California SIP. See 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 

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

(‘‘Committee for a Better Arvin’’). In 

light of the decision in Committee for a 

Better Arvin, the EPA has proposed 

approval as a revision to the California 

SIP of a number of CARB’s mobile 

source regulations for which 

preemption has been waived or 

authorized under CAA section 209. 80 

FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). 

As part of the approval of the 2007 

Ozone Plan, the EPA approved the 

demonstration that the plan provides for 

transportation control strategies (TCS) 

and TCMs sufficient to offset any 

growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT or the number of vehicle trips as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A). Id., at 12670.6 In 

approving the VMT emissions offset 

demonstration in 2012, the EPA applied 

its then-longstanding interpretation of 

the VMT emissions offset requirement 

in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), first 

explained in guidance in the General 

Preamble to Title I of the CAA (see 57 

FR 13498, at 13521–13523, April 16, 

1992) (herein referred to as the ‘‘General 

Preamble’’), that no transportation 

control measures are necessary if 

aggregate motor vehicle emissions are 

projected to decline each year from the 

base year of the plan to the attainment 

year. See 76 FR 57872, at 57889 

(September 16, 2011). The EPA 

approved the plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) because the emissions 

inventories in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

showed decreases in aggregate yearover-year motor vehicle emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley from a base year 

through the applicable attainment year. 

However, between the time when the 

EPA’s approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan 

was signed and when it was published 

in the Federal Register, the EPA’s 

petition for rehearing in a case 

challenging the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) was denied. See 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, 632 F.3d. 584, at 596–597 (9th Cir. 

2011), reprinted as amended on January 

27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended 

February 13, 2012 (‘‘Association of 

Irritated Residents’’). In the Association 

of Irritated Residents case, the Court 

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. In light of the Association of 

Irritated Residents decision, the EPA 

withdrew its determination that the 

2007 Ozone Plan provided sufficient 

TCMs to offset the growth in emissions 

from the growth in VMT in the same 

Federal Register document as the 

Agency’s withdrawal of the approval of 

the 2004 Ozone Plan and finding of 

failure to submit required SIP revisions. 

77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012). 

In 2013, in response to the EPA’s 

withdrawal of approval of the 2004 

Ozone Plan and the VMT emission 

offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and the related finding 

of failure to submit, CARB and the 

District prepared, adopted, and 

submitted the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 

1-Hour Ozone Standard (‘‘2013 Ozone 

Plan’’). The 2013 Ozone Plan addresses 

the various 1-hour ozone SIP elements 

for which the EPA had withdrawn 

approval (i.e., RACM, ROP and 

attainment demonstrations, ROP and 

attainment contingency measures, clean 

fuels/clean technology boilers, and VMT 

emissions offset demonstration) and 

also addresses the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The 2013 Ozone Plan builds 

upon the regulatory foundation built by 

previous San Joaquin Valley attainment 

plans for ozone as well as for other 

nonattainment pollutants, including 

PM10 and PM2.5, including, but not 

limited to, dozens of District rules 

establishing VOC or NOX emissions 

limits and other requirements for 

various types of stationary sources, and 

dozens of state regulations establishing 

such limits and requirements for various 

types of mobile sources, for vehicle 

inspection and maintenance, for 

gasoline and diesel fuels, for consumer 

products and pesticides. These various 

regulatory programs have resulted in 

significant emissions reductions of 

ozone precursors and corresponding 

ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin 

Valley despite high rates of growth in 

population and regional VMT. For 

instance, 1-hour ozone exceedance days 

within the Valley (i.e., number of days 

in a year during which the 0.12 ppm 

standard was violated at a (i.e., at least 

one) monitoring site) have decreased 

from 45 in 1990 to 3 in 2012. See table 

A–1 of 2013 Ozone Plan. However, as of 

2012, the Valley continued to 

experience violations of the 1-hour 

ozone standard, and the 2013 Ozone 

Plan was developed to demonstrate 

attainment of that standard, and to meet 

the other remaining 1-hour ozone SIP 

obligations (and the VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard). 

Lastly, as noted above, the EPA 

tightened the 8-hour ozone standard in 

2008 and tightened the standard further 

in 2015. The EPA has designated the 

San Joaquin Valley as an ‘‘Extreme’’ area 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 77 

FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The 

‘‘Extreme’’ area plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley for the 2008 ozone standard is 

due in 2016. In establishing final 

implementation rules for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard, the EPA revoked 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 

includes anti-backsliding requirements 

that apply upon revocation of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards. 80 FR 12264 

(March 6, 2015). Consistent with the 

application of anti-backsliding 

provisions upon revocation of the 1- 

hour ozone standards, areas that remain 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard at the time 

of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard continue to be subject to 

certain SIP requirements that had 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

2013–09–13: In the Matter of Adopting the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 2013 Plan For The Revoked 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard, September 19, 2013; CARB Resolution 

No. 13–45, November 21, 2013. 

8Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, December 20, 2013 with enclosures. 

9See June 19, 2014 letter and enclosures from 

Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

9. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent the EPA a revised 

technical supplement that corrected a minor 

typographical error. See record of July 25, 2014 

email and attachment from Jon Taylor, CARB, to 

Matt Lakin, EPA Region 9, included in the docket. 

10The principal difference between the two sets 

of calculations is that CARB’s technical supplement 

includes running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, 

and running loss emissions of VOCs in all of the 

emissions scenarios. These processes are directly 

related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised 

calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss 

emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions 

scenarios because such evaporative emissions are 

related to vehicle population rather than to VMT or 

vehicle trips. 

11 January 30, 2015 email from Elizabeth Melgoza, 

CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9; May 13, 

2015 and May 19, 2015 emails from SJVUAPCD 

staff to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9. 

12See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, 

Executive Officer, CARB, dated May 19, 2014. 

13These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin 

Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of 

Governments, the Merced County Association of 

applied by virtue of the area’s 

classifications for the now-revoked 1997 

8-hour ozone standard as well as the 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard. Id. at 

12296; 40 CFR 51.1105 and 51.1100(o). 

For the purposes of this proposed 

action, this means that outstanding SIP 

requirements linked to the San Joaquin 

Valley’s ‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment area 

classifications for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard continue to apply 

notwithstanding the revocation of these 

two ozone NAAQS. The EPA has not yet 

established area designations for the 

2015 8-hour ozone standard. 

II. CARB’s SIP Revision Submittal To 

Address Remaining 1-Hour and 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Requirements in the San 

Joaquin Valley 

A. CARB’s SIP Submittal 

The District adopted the 2013 Ozone 

Plan on September 19, 2013, and CARB 

approved the plan as a revision to the 

California SIP on November 21, 2013.7

CARB submitted the 2013 Ozone Plan to 

the EPA on December 20, 2013.8 The 

2013 Ozone Plan includes base year and 

projected future year emissions 

inventories, air quality modeling, 

provisions demonstrating 

implementation of RACM, provisions 

for advanced technology/clean fuels for 

boilers, provisions for transportation 

control strategies and measures, an ROP 

demonstration, an attainment 

demonstration, and contingency 

measures for failure to make ROP or 

attain. 

Appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan 

contains the VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 

June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a 

technical supplement to the VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations 

submitted as part of the 2013 Ozone 

Plan.9 CARB’s technical supplement 

includes a revised set of motor vehicle 

emissions estimates reflecting technical 

changes to the inputs used to develop 

the original set of calculations.10 While 

the vehicle emissions estimates in 

CARB’s technical supplement differ 

from those contained in the 

demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan, 

the conclusions of the analyses remain 

the same. 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submittal 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 submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB have 

satisfied applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal of the 2013 

Ozone Plan. The District conducted a 

public workshop on April 16, 2013. On 

August 20, 2013, the District posted on 

its Web site an announcement and 

supporting documents for a September 

19, 2013 public hearing and also sent 

out an email to ozone_plans@

lists.valley.org informing interested 

individuals and parties about the public 

hearing and links to key documents and 

participation via webcast.11 The District 

thereby provided the required public 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its public hearing on 

the 2013 Ozone Plan. On September 19, 

2013, the District held a public hearing 

to adopt the 2013 Ozone Plan and 

adopted the plan on that date. See 2013 

Ozone Plan, appendix J (‘‘Summary of 

Significant Comments and Responses’’) 

and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution 2013–9–13. 

CARB also provided the required 

public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its November 21, 2013 

public hearing and approval of the 2013 

Ozone Plan as a revision to the 

California SIP. See CARB ‘‘Notice of 

Public Meeting’’ dated October 21, 2013, 

and CARB Resolution No. 13–45. As 

noted previously, on December 20, 

2013, CARB submitted the 2013 Ozone 

Plan and related public process 

documentation to the EPA. The EPA 

determined that CARB’s December 20, 

2013 SIP revision submittal was 

complete on May 19, 2014.12

Based on information in the December 

20, 2013 SIP submittal and subsequent 

email communication with District staff, 

the EPA has determined that all 

hearings were properly noticed. We 

find, therefore, that the submittal of the 

2013 Ozone Plan meets the procedural 

requirements for public notice and 

hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 

110(l). 

III. Evaluation of the 2013 Ozone Plan 

A. Emissions Inventories 

We have evaluated the emissions 

inventories in the 2013 Ozone Plan to 

determine if they are consistent with 

EPA guidance (General Preamble at 

13502) and adequate to support that 

plan’s RACM, ROP and attainment 

demonstrations. Appendix B of the 2013 

Ozone Plan presents the base year and 

projected emission inventories relied on 

for the ROP and attainment 

demonstrations. Appendix B also 

discusses the methodology used to 

determine base year (2007) emissions 

and identifies the growth and control 

factors used to project emissions for the 

2013 and 2016 (ROP milestone years) 

and 2017 (ROP increment and 

attainment) projected year inventories. 

The plan includes summer (May 

through October) average daily 

inventories for the base year of 2007 and 

projected inventories for years 2013 

through 2022 for all major source 

categories (stationary sources, area 

sources, and on-road and nonroad 

mobile sources). Emissions are 

calculated for the two major ozone 

precursors—NOX and VOC. See tables 

B–1 and B–2 of appendix B of the 2013 

Ozone Plan. Additional documentation 

for the inventories prepared for the 2013 

Ozone Plan are found in appendix E, 

section 6 of the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

The emissions inventories in the 2013 

Ozone Plan were developed using data 

provided by CARB, the California 

Department of Transportation, and the 

San Joaquin Valley’s eight metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPO).13 These 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2145 

Governments, the Madera County Transportation 

Commission, the Council of Fresno County 

Governments, Kings County Association of 

Governments, the Tulare County Association of 

Governments, and the Kern Council of 

Governments. 

14See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding the 

EPA approval of the 2011 version of the California 

EMFAC model and announcement of its 

availability. The software and detailed information 

on the EMFAC vehicle emission model can be 

found on the following CARB Web site: http://

www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. EMFAC2011 was 

the approved version of EMFAC at the time of 

adoption and submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

Recently, the EPA approved an updated version of 

the model, EMFAC2014. 80 FR 77337 (December 

14, 2015). 

agencies collect data (e.g., industry 

growth factors, socioeconomic 

projections, travel activity levels, 

emission factors, emission speciation 

profiles, and emissions) and develop 

methodologies (e.g., model and 

demographic forecast improvements) 

used to generate comprehensive 

emissions inventories. CARB maintains 

statewide inventories in its California 

Emissions Inventory Development and 

Reporting System (CEIDARS) and uses 

the California Emission Forecasting and 

Planning Inventory System (CEFS) to 

forecast or backcast emissions. CEFS is 

designed to generate year-specific 

emissions estimates for each county/air 

basin/district combination taking into 

account two factors: the effects of 

growth, and the effects of adopted 

emission control rules. It does this by 

linking these growth and control factors 

directly to CEIDARS emission categories 

for a particular base year. The 2007 

inventory was used to project future 

years using CARB’s CEFS v 1.06. 

CARB also conducts periodic 

evaluations and updates of the growth 

profiles to ensure that emission 

forecasts are based on data that reflect 

historical trends, current conditions, 

and recent forecasts. CARB staff 

conducted a category-by-category 

review and update of the growth profile 

data for source categories that, in 

aggregate, comprise more than 95 

percent of the NOX or VOC emissions in 

the San Joaquin Valley. To capture the 

effects of the economic recession, CARB 

staff ensured that the growth profiles 

included historical data through at least 

2008 (data through 2009 or 2010 were 

included when available). Growth 

forecasts for the years 2009 and beyond 

were obtained primarily from 

government entities with expertise in 

developing forecasts for specific sectors, 

or in some cases, from econometric 

models. 

Motor vehicle emissions were based 

on estimates of VMT provided by the 

regional transportation planning 

agencies and the California Department 

of Transportation. The plan uses 

CARB’s Emission FACtor (EMFAC) 

model, version EMFAC2011, to 

calculate the emission factors for cars, 

trucks and buses. At the time that the 

2013 Ozone Plan was developed, 

EMFAC2011 was the mobile source 

model approved for use in California 

SIPs.14 Nonroad emissions estimates 

were based on CARB’s OFFROAD 

model. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

emissions estimates prepared for the 

2013 Ozone Plan for the base year 

(2007) and ROP and attainment years 

2013, 2016, and 2017. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OZONE PRECURSOR BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED FUTURE YEAR EMISSIONS

[Summer average, tpd] 

Category 

NOX VOC 

2007 2013 2016 2017 2007 2013 2016 2017 

Stationary ......................................................... 57 40 30 30 100 96 97 97 

Area .................................................................. 11 11 11 11 221 186 191 193 

On-road Mobile ................................................ 273 158 119 110 71 49 35 33 

Off-road Mobile ................................................ 144 108 99 97 65 49 45 43 

Total .......................................................... 485 316 259 247 457 381 368 366 

Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, appendix B. 

NOTE: Because of rounding conventions, the totals may not reflect total of categories. 

We have determined that the 2007 

base year emission inventory in the 

2013 Ozone Plan is comprehensive, 

accurate, and current and that this 

inventory as well as the 2013, 2016, and 

2017 projected inventories have been 

prepared consistent with EPA guidance. 

Accordingly, we propose to find that 

these inventories provide an appropriate 

basis for the various other elements of 

the 2013 Ozone Plan, including RACM, 

and the ROP and attainment 

demonstrations. 

B. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures Demonstration and Control 

Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM and Control 

Strategies 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

the implementation of all RACM. The 

RACM demonstration requirement is a 

continuing applicable requirement for 

the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area under 

EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that apply 

once a standard has been revoked. See 

40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(17). 

The EPA has previously provided 

guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble at 

13560 and a memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure Requirement and 

Attainment Demonstration Submissions 

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John 

Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air 

Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz 

memo). In summary, EPA guidance 

provides that states, in addressing the 

RACM requirement, should consider all 

potential measures for source categories 

in the nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available 

for implementation in that area and 

whether they would advance the area’s 

attainment date by one or more years. 

2. RACM and Control Strategy in the 

2013 Ozone Plan 

The District’s RACM demonstration 

and control strategy for the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the 2013 Ozone Plan 

relies on control measures that have 

been adopted by CARB and the District 

under previous attainment plans. In the 

more recent years prior to the adoption 

of the 2013 Ozone Plan, CARB and the 

District have developed and 

implemented comprehensive plans for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, 1997 

PM2.5 standards, and 2006 PM2.5

standards that resulted in the adoption 

of many new rules and revisions to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2146 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15The EPA approved the San Joaquin Valley 2007 

Ozone Plan and related portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012); the San 

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and related portions 

of the 2007 State Strategy at 76 FR 69896 

(November 9, 2011). The EPA proposed to approve 

portions of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on January 13, 2015 

(80 FR 1816). 

existing rules for stationary, area, and 

mobile sources. These previously 

adopted measures generated significant 

reductions in NOX and VOC emissions. 

The measures are listed in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for today’s 

action. The control measures were 

developed and adopted under previous 

San Joaquin Valley attainment plans, 

including the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan (adopted April 30, 

2008) (‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’), and the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan (adopted December 20, 2012) 

(‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’), which were 

developed to provide, among other 

things, for attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5

standards, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard, 

respectively, and which relied on 

adoption and implementation by CARB 

of new or tightened mobile source 

regulations under CARB’s 2007 State 

Strategy.15

a. The District’s RACM Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

The District’s RACM analysis builds 

on previously adopted measures. Table 

3–1 (p. 3–3) in the 2013 Ozone Plan lists 

currently adopted District rules that are 

contributing towards attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard. The 2013 Ozone 

Plan’s RACM evaluation for NOX and 

VOC sources is summarized in section 

4.2 (p. 4–2) and detailed in appendix C 

(‘‘Stationary and Area Source Control 

Strategy Evaluation’’) of the 2013 Ozone 

Plan. The evaluation of potential 

controls in the 2013 Ozone Plan is 

presented by source category. For 

stationary and area source categories, 

the evaluation is broken down by the 

current District rule or rules that fall 

within a given source category. 

The following information is provided 

in appendix C of the 2013 Ozone Plan 

for each stationary or area source 

category or District rule: 

• A description of the sources within 

the category or sources subject to the 

rule; 

• Base year (2007) and projected 

baseline year emissions (for every year 

from 2013 to 2022) in the source 

category or affected by the rule; 

• A discussion of the current rule 

requirements and/or listing and 

discussion of existing rules, regulations, 

or other control efforts that address the 

source category; and 

• Identification and discussion of 

potential new controls, including in 

many cases, a discussion of the 

technological and economic feasibility 

of the new controls. Rules adopted by 

other agencies (including the EPA, 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD), and Bay Area AQMD) 

are discussed and compared to existing 

SJVUAPCD rules. Measures proposed by 

the public for the source category/rule 

are also identified and discussed. In 

addition, non-regulatory approaches to 

reducing emissions in each stationary 

and area source category are discussed, 

including the use of incentives, 

opportunities for technology 

advancement programs, policy 

initiatives, and education/outreach 

programs. 

Through its RACM evaluation 

process, the District identified two new 

control measures for adoption, and 

through adoption of the 2013 Ozone 

Plan, the District committed to adopt 

and submit these measures as a revision 

to the California SIP (see District 

Resolution 2013–9–13, page 5), although 

the District and State do not rely on 

reductions from these commitments in 

their attainment demonstration. See 

2013 Ozone Plan, section 3.1.3 (p. 3–8). 

The District’s commitments have been 

fulfilled in that the anticipated rule 

amendments have been adopted and the 

rules have been submitted to the EPA as 

a revision to the California SIP. The 

current status of the rules is shown in 

table 2, and as shown there, the EPA has 

approved one of the two rules and has 

proposed approval of the other. We 

expect to take final action on the second 

rule prior to final action on the 2013 

Ozone Plan. 

TABLE 2—STATUS OF RULE ADOPTION COMMITMENTS IN THE 2013 OZONE PLAN

Rule Measure description Adoption date Submittal date Emission reductions Status 

4308 .......... Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 

MMBtu/hr.

11/14/13 5/13/14 Minimal in 2017 .......... Approved 2/12/15 (80 FR 7803). 

4905 .......... Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces.1/22/15 4/7/15 To Be Determined ...... Proposed Approval 11/5/15 (80 

FR 68484). 

Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3–9, table 3–3. 

In light of the comprehensiveness of 

the District’s stationary and area source 

program, and the stringency of the 

District’s regulations, the 2013 Ozone 

Plan concludes that RACM is being 

implemented for sources under the 

District’s jurisdiction. See section 4.2.1 

of the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

The District also identified a number 

of source categories for which existing 

information is inadequate to determine 

the feasibility of additional controls. 

These categories and the additional 

controls to be studied are discussed in 

section 3.1.4. (p. 3–9). The schedule for 

these studies is given in table 3–4 (see 

2013 Ozone Plan, p. 3–10). 

The TSD for today’s action includes 

additional information on each District 

rule, including its status in terms of 

federal approval and the net inventory 

changes between 2007 and 2017. 

b. CARB and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations’ RACM Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions in California 

nonattainment areas, CARB has been a 

leader in the development and adoption 

of stringent mobile source control 

measures nationwide and has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver or authorization by 

the EPA) to adopt and implement new 

emissions standards for many categories 

of on-road vehicles and engines and 

new and in-use off-road engines. CARB 

has adopted standards and other 

requirements related to the control of 

emissions from numerous types of onroad motor vehicles and new and in-use 

off-road vehicles, such as passenger 

cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, off-road 

engines (gasoline and diesel-powered), 

in-use off-road diesel fueled fleets, 

portable equipment, marine engines, 

and many others. 

Historically, the EPA has allowed 

California to take into account 

emissions reductions from CARB 

regulations for which the EPA has 

issued waivers or authorizations under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2147 

16See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); EPA Region 

9, Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California 

State Implementation Plan—EPA’s Evaluation of 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District’s Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), Adopted April 16, 2009 

(dated August 29, 2011); letter dated October 19, 

2012, from Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air 

Division EPA—Region 9 to Samir Sheikh, 

SJVUAPCD; and letter dated June 4, 2014, from 

Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office, EPA Region 9 

to Errol Villegas, Planning Manager, SJVUAPCD. 

17A full list of the District’s rules, including cites 

to our most recent final or proposed rulemaking on 

each can be found in the TSD. 

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 

the Ninth Circuit in Committee for a 

Better Arvin v. EPA, discussed 

previously, the EPA has now proposed 

to approve the current set of mobile 

source regulations for which waivers or 

authorizations have been issued as a 

revision to the California SIP. 80 FR 

69915 (November 12, 2015). We expect 

to take final action on California’s 

mobile source regulations prior to final 

action on the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

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. See, e.g., 77 FR 20308 

(April 4, 2012) (EPA approval of 

standards and other requirements to 

control emissions from in-use heavyduty diesel-powered trucks). 

Section 3.1.1.2 of the 2013 Ozone 

Plan discusses the emissions reductions 

from CARB’s mobile source program 

and includes a table (table 3–2) that lists 

all of the regulations adopted or 

amended by CARB from 2000 through 

early 2012. While all of the listed 

measures contribute to some degree to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in the San Joaquin Valley, some are 

called out in particular as providing 

significant emissions reductions relied 

upon for attainment of the ozone 

standard under the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

These measures include the in-use 

heavy-duty diesel-powered truck 

regulation, the in-use off-road 

equipment regulation, and the advanced 

clean car program, among others. The 

2013 Ozone Plan concludes that, in light 

of the comprehensiveness and 

stringency of CARB’s mobile source 

program, all reasonable control 

measures under CARB’s jurisdiction are 

being implemented. 

With respect to TCMs, the 2013 

Ozone Plan relies on the documentation 

found in appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan to conclude that all reasonably 

available control measures under the 

jurisdiction of the Valley’s MPOs are 

being implemented. Appendix C of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan describes the efforts by 

the San Joaquin Valley’s eight MPOs to 

implement cost-effective transportation 

control measures (TCMs). See section 

C.11.4 (p. C–33) of appendix C of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. While no additional 

TCMs were identified by the MPOs, the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan includes a discussion of 

the on-going implementation of a broad 

range of TCMs in the Valley. There is 

also a discussion of the MPOs’ 

Congestion Management and Air 

Quality funding policy, which is a 

standardized process across the Valley 

for distributing 20 percent of the 

Congestion Management and Air 

Quality funds to projects that meet a 

minimum cost-effectiveness. During the 

comment period for the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, a number of TCMs were suggested 

by the public for consideration. See 

appendix I, pp. I–10 to I–13 of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan. The feasibility of these 

measures is discussed in the District’s 

responses to comments. Id. 

c. RACM Demonstration 

The 2013 Ozone Plan concludes that 

the RACM requirement is met through 

implementation of the measures 

described above under the District’s 

jurisdiction, CARB’s jurisdiction, and 

the MPOs’ jurisdiction for stationary 

and area sources, mobile sources, and 

TCMs, respectively. The plan also 

concludes that to advance the 

attainment date by one year (i.e., from 

2017 to 2016) would require an 

additional reduction of 12.1 tpd of NOX, 

and that there are no reasonable 

measures that collectively would reduce 

emissions in the Valley by that amount 

by 2016. In support for that conclusion, 

the plan notes that about 90 percent of 

NOX emission reductions occurring 

between the 2007 base year and the 

2017 attainment year come from mobile 

sources and that such reductions cannot 

be expedited through additional District 

action because, generally, the District 

does not have jurisdiction over mobile 

sources. 

3. Proposed Action on RACM 

Demonstration 

The process followed by the District 

in the 2013 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 controls measures for sources 

of NOX and VOC in the San Joaquin 

Valley. This list included measures 

suggested in public comments on the 

2013 Ozone Plan. See 2013 Ozone Plan, 

appendix J. 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. 

Id. After completing this evaluation, the 

District committed to adopt and submit 

two measures (i.e., Rules 4308 and 

4905), which it has now done. See 2013 

Ozone Plan, table 3–3, p. 3–10 and table 

2 above. 

We have reviewed the District’s 

determination in the 2013 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 

RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, our comments on 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and our comments 

on the District’s RACT SIP 

demonstration for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard.16 We also reviewed 

measures suggested by the public in 

comments on the 2013 Ozone Plan. 

Based on this review, we believe that 

the District’s rules provide for the 

implementation of RACM for stationary 

and area sources of NOX and VOC.17

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. 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. See 2013 

Ozone Plan, table 3–2 and appendix A 

of the TSD. With respect to 

transportation controls, we note that the 

MPOs have a program to fund costeffective TCMs. See appendix C, p. C– 

33 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. Overall, we 

believe that CARB’s and the MPOs’ 

programs provide for the 

implementation of RACM for NOX and 

VOC from mobile sources in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

Based on our review of the results of 

these RACM analyses, the District’s and 

CARB’s adopted rules, we propose to 

find that there are, at this time, no 

additional reasonably available 

measures that would advance 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in the San Joaquin Valley. In the 2013 

Ozone Plan, the District estimates that it 

would take a reduction between of 12.1 

tpd of NOX to advance attainment from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

18 In later 2014, i.e., after adoption and submittal 

of the 2013 Ozone Plan, CARB revised the state’s 

Truck and Bus regulation (see http://

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/

truckbus14.htm). The 2014 revisions resulted in a 

temporary emission reduction disbenefit of 

approximately 5 tpd of NOX in the 2016 and 2017 

milestone years in the San Joaquin Valley. See letter 

from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, CARB, to Matthew Lakin, 

Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, dated 

April 23, 2015. The EPA has determined that 

because the 2013 Ozone Plan demonstrates that 

ROP milestones are met by a significant margin in 

2016 and 2017, even if the 5 tpd NOX disbenefit 

was added back into the 2016 and 2017 baselines, 

the 2013 Ozone Plan would still exceed the 2016 

and 2017 ROP milestones by approximately 33% 

for both years. 

2017 to 2016 in the San Joaquin Valley. 

See section 4.2 (p. 4–3). We find that no 

reasonably available and unadopted 

measures identified in the 2013 Ozone 

Plan, either individually or collectively, 

could deliver this additional increment 

of reductions in 2016 because of the 

extent to which the emissions inventory 

reflects mobile sources (see table 1 

above) and the extent to which the 

mobile source inventory already reflects 

CARB’s emissions standards and other 

requirements for new and in-use onroad and off-road vehicles and engines. 

For the foregoing reasons, we propose 

to find that the 2013 Ozone Plan 

provides for the implementation of all 

RACM as required by CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(17). 

C. Rate of Progress Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Rate of Progress 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 172(c) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP) which 

is defined in section 171(1) as such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions as are required in part D or 

may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator in order to ensure 

attainment of the relevant ambient 

standard by the applicable date. CAA 

sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require that 

‘‘Serious’’ and above area SIPs include 

ROP quantitative milestones that are to 

be achieved every 3 years after 1996 

until attainment. For ozone areas 

classified as Serious and above, section 

182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must 

provide for reductions in ozone-season, 

weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 

percent per year net of growth averaged 

over each consecutive 3-year period. 

This is in addition to the 15 percent 

reduction over the first 6-year period 

required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for 

areas classified as moderate and above. 

The CAA requires that these milestones 

be calculated from the 1990 inventory 

after excluding, among other things, 

emission reductions from ‘‘[a]ny 

measure related to motor vehicle 

exhaust or evaporative emissions 

promulgated by the Administrator by 

January 1, 1990’’ and emission 

reductions from certain federal gasoline 

volatility requirements. CAA section 

182(b)(1)(B)–(D). The EPA has issued 

guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP 

requirements. See General Preamble at 

13516 and ‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 

Rate-of-Progress Plan and the 

Attainment Demonstration,’’ EPA–452/

R–93–015, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, February 18, 

1994 (corrected). 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for 

NOX reductions that occur after 1990 to 

be used to meet the post-1996 ROP 

emission reduction requirements, 

provided that such NOX reductions 

meet the criteria outlined in the CAA 

and the EPA guidance. The criteria 

require that: (1) The sum of all 

creditable VOC and NOX reductions 

must meet the 3 percent per year ROP 

requirement; (2) the substitution is on a 

percent-for-percent of adjusted base year 

emissions for the relevant pollutant; and 

(3) the sum of all substituted NOX

reductions cannot be greater than the 

cumulative NOX reductions required by 

the modeled attainment demonstration. 

See General Preamble at 13517 and 

‘‘NOX Substitution Guidance,’’ EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, December 1993. Our 

guidance in the General Preamble states 

that by meeting the specific ROP 

milestones discussed above, the general 

RFP requirements in CAA section 

172(c)(2) will also be satisfied. General 

Preamble at 13518. 

The ROP demonstration requirement 

is a continuing applicable requirement 

for the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area under 

the EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that 

apply once a standard has been revoked. 

See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(4). 

2. ROP Demonstration in the 2013 

Ozone Plan 

Section 4.3.2 (beginning on page 4–5) 

of the 2013 Ozone Plan provides a 

demonstration that the San Joaquin 

Valley meets the 2010, 2013, and 2016 

ROP milestones and 2017 increment.18

We have summarized the ROP 

demonstrations in table 3. 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN ROP DEMONSTRATIONS

[Tpd or percent] 

2007 2010 2013 2016 2017 

VOC Emission Calculations 

Baseline VOC inventory ....................................................... 457.2 440.5 380.5 368 366.3 

Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments ........................... ........................ 5.6 3.7 2.7 0.7 

Adjusted baseline VOC inventory in baseline year (Line 1– 

Line 2) .............................................................................. ........................ 451.6 447.9 445.2 444.5 

Basis for required VOC reductions ...................................... ........................ 451.6 407.3 367.9 334.1 

RFP Percent Reduction Required from prior milestone ...... ........................ 9% 9% 9% 3% 

Target level .......................................................................... ........................ 411.0 370.6 334.8 324.1 

Apparent Shortfall ................................................................ ........................ 29.5 9.9 33.2 42.2 

Forecasted Percent VOC shortfall ....................................... ........................ 6.5% 2.2% 7.5% 9.5% 

VOC percent shortfall previously addressed provided by 

NOX substitution ............................................................... ........................ 0% 6.5% 2.2% 7.5% 

Actual VOC percent shortfall ............................................... ........................ 6.5% ¥4.3% 5.2% 2.0% 

NOX Emission Calculations 

Baseline NOX inventory ....................................................... 484.9 368.2 316.0 259.2 247.1 

Non-creditable FMVCP adjustments ................................... ........................ 4.9 ¥1.9 6.3 0.4 

Adjusted baseline NOX inventory for milestones ................ ........................ 480.0 481.9 475.6 475.2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2149 

19These measures are typically rules that may 

have compliance dates that occur after the adoption 

date of a plan and mobile source measures that 

achieve reductions as older engines are replaced 

through attrition (e.g., through fleet turnover). On 

December 31, 2014 and subsequent to the submittal 

of the 2013 Ozone Plan, the State of California’s 

Office of Administrative Law approved revisions to 

CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation (see http://

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/truckbus14/

truckbus14.htm). The revisions resulted in a 

temporary emission reduction disbenefit of 

approximately 5 tpd of NOX in 2017. In an April 

23, 2015 letter from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air 

Quality Branch, CARB to Matt Lakin, Manager, Air 

Planning Office, EPA Region IX, the State provides 

an adequate technical justification showing that the 

demonstration of attainment in 2017 is not affected. 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN ROP DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued 

[Tpd or percent] 

2007 2010 2013 2016 2017 

Change since 2007 .............................................................. ........................ 111.8 165.9 216.4 228.1 

Forecasted Percent NOX creditable reductions since 2007 ........................ 23.3% 34.4% 45.5% 48.0% 

NOX percent previously used for VOC shortfall by NOX

substitution ....................................................................... ........................ 0% 6.5% 6.5% 11.7% 

NOX percent available for VOC shortfall by NOX substitution and contingency ..................................................... ........................ 23.3% 27.9% 39.0% 36.3% 

NOX percent substitution needed for VOC shortfall ............ ........................ 6.5% 0.0% 5.2% 2.0% 

Forecasted NOX percent reduction surplus ......................... ........................ 16.7% 27.9% 33.8% 34.2% 

Contingency measure reserve achieved? ........................... ........................ Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ROP achieved? .................................................................... ........................ Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Source: 2013 Ozone Plan, table 4–2 (page 4–6). 

3. Proposed Action on the ROP 

Demonstration 

Based on our review of the ROP 

calculations in the 2013 Ozone Plan, 

summarized in table 3 above, we 

conclude the 2013 Ozone Plan 

demonstrates that sufficient emission 

reductions have or will be achieved to 

meet the 2010, 2013, and 2016 ROP 

milestones and the 2017 increment. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

ROP demonstration in the 2013 Ozone 

Plan as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), 

and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(4). 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

states with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as ‘‘Serious’’ or above to 

submit plans that demonstrate 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

by the applicable attainment date. 

Under the CAA, as amended in 1990, 

the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 

nonattainment area was to have attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard by November 

15, 2010. In 2011, we determined that 

the San Joaquin Valley had failed to 

attain the standard by the 2010 

attainment date. 76 FR 82133 (December 

30, 2011). Given that the original 

statutory attainment date had passed 

and the 1-hour ozone standard had been 

revoked, in our 2012 final action 

withdrawing our approval of the 2004 

Ozone Plan and issuing findings of 

failure to submit, we set a new 

attainment date by reference to CAA 

section 172(a)(2). 77 FR 70376, at 70377 

(November 26, 2012), effective 

November 26, 2012. Application of the 

attainment date formulation in section 

172(a)(2) means that the state was 

required to submit a revised San Joaquin 

Valley plan demonstrating attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the effective date of 

the findings of failure to submit, or, in 

this case, no later than November 26, 

2017. 

An attainment demonstration should 

include a control strategy that identifies 

specific measures to reduce emissions 

and photochemical modelling results 

showing that the emissions reductions 

from implementation of the control 

strategy is sufficient to attain the 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date. The attainment demonstration 

requirement is a continuing applicable 

requirement for the San Joaquin Valley 

‘‘Extreme’’ 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area under the EPA’s anti-backsliding 

rules that apply once a standard has 

been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) 

and 51.1100(o)(12). 

2. One-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration in the 2013 Ozone Plan 

a. Control Strategy for Attainment of the 

1-Hour Ozone Standard 

The 2013 Ozone Plan relies entirely 

on reductions from previously adopted 

measures. Tables 3–1 and 3–2 in the 

2013 Ozone Plan documents District 

and State measures that contribute to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in 2017. Although the 2013 Ozone Plan 

includes two commitment measures (see 

table 3–3 in 2013 Ozone Plan), 

reductions from those measures were 

not relied on for attainment. Moreover, 

the two measures have been adopted 

and submitted to the EPA. 

The future year inventories, which 

include reductions from adopted and 

creditable measures, were used in the 

2013 Ozone Plan’s modeling analysis 

described in appendix E of the 2013 

Ozone Plan. Based on the modeling 

analysis, the District determined that 

the 1-hour ozone standard could be 

attained in 2017. A summary of the base 

year (2007) and 2017 attainment-year 

emissions inventories is shown in table 

1 above. It reflects reductions of 238 tpd 

of NOX and 91 tpd of VOCs from the 

2007 base year emissions inventory. For 

a more detailed comparison of the 2007 

base year and 2017 attainment year 

inventories, see appendix B of the 2013 

Ozone Plan and the TSD for today’s 

action. 

For purposes of evaluating the 2013 

Ozone Plan, all of the measures relied 

on to satisfy the applicable control 

requirements are baseline measures. As 

the term is used here, baseline measures 

are federal, State, and District rules and 

regulations adopted prior by the end of 

January 2012 (i.e., prior to the 

development of 2013 Ozone Plan) that 

continue to achieve emissions 

reductions through the projected 2017 

attainment year and beyond.19

The District has adopted more than 50 

prohibitory rules that limit emissions of 

either VOC or NOX. These rules include 

controls for a variety of sources 

including boilers, oil field and refinery 

equipment, surface coatings operations, 

and open burning. The 2013 Ozone Plan 

lists many of these measures in table 3– 

1. Reductions from these measures are 

incorporated into the future year 

baseline inventories. Appendix C of the 

2013 Ozone Plan includes inventory 

information that allows for a 

comparison of 2007 rule-specific 

emissions inventory data for stationary 

and area sources against future year 

rule-specific inventories. The net 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2150 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

20 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001). CARB estimates 

that interstate trucks registered outside of California 

represent over 50 percent of the heavy duty trucks 

in California. See Table III–1 in ‘‘Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reason for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Proposed Regulation for In-Use, On-road Diesel 

Vehicles,’’ California Air Resources Board (October 

2008). 

21Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 

56968 (October, 23 1998); Tier 4 diesel non-road 

engine standard, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). 

22 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 

(June 30, 2008). 

23 ‘‘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 the ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ 

in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. 

24 ‘‘Guideline for Regulatory Application of the 

Urban Airshed Model,’’ EPA–450/4–91–013, July 

1991. 

inventory impact of the rule reductions 

and growth is included in the TSD for 

today’s proposal. We have also provided 

in the TSD a list of the District’s 

prohibitory NOX and VOC rules and SIP 

approval status. 

The state’s baseline measures fall 

within two categories: Measures for 

which the State has obtained a waiver 

or authorization of federal pre-emption 

under CAA section 209 (‘‘waiver’’ 

measures) and those for which the state 

is not required to obtain a waiver (‘‘nonwaiver’’ measures). Non-waiver 

measures include: Improvements to 

California’s inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program, SmogCheck; cleaner 

burning gasoline and diesel regulations; 

and limits on the VOC content and 

reactivity of consumer products. Table 

3–2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan lists many 

of the state’s measures adopted since 

2006 that are contributing to attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard. 

Over the years, the EPA has approved 

the non-waiver measures and 

amendments to those measures as part 

of the California SIP. Historically, the 

EPA has allowed California to take 

credit for waiver measures (to meet CAA 

SIP requirements including ROP and 

attainment demonstrations) 

notwithstanding the fact that the 

regulations themselves have not been 

submitted or approved into the 

California SIP. However, in light of the 

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Committee 

for a Better Arvin v. EPA, as discussed 

above, CARB has submitted the most 

recent set of waiver measures that 

contribute emissions reductions to the 

state’s attainment plans as part of the 

SIP, and the EPA has proposed approval 

of the measures. 80 FR 69915 

(November 12, 2015). We anticipate 

final action on the CARB mobile source 

SIP submittal prior to final action on the 

2013 Ozone Plan. 

The 2013 Ozone Plan also includes 

reductions from federal measures. These 

measures include, for example, the 

EPA’s national emission standards for 

heavy duty diesel trucks,20 certain new 

construction and farm equipment,21 and 

locomotives.22 States are allowed to rely 

on reductions from federal measures in 

attainment and ROP demonstrations. 

b. Air Quality Modeling in the 2013 

Ozone Plan 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to 

include a ‘‘demonstration that the plan, 

as revised, 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 by 

the Administrator, in the 

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least 

as effective.’’ Air quality modeling is 

used to establish emissions attainment 

targets, that is, the combination of 

emissions of ozone precursors that the 

area can accommodate without 

exceeding the relevant standard, and to 

assess whether the proposed control 

strategy will result in attainment of that 

standard. The procedures for modeling 

ozone as part of an attainment 

demonstration are contained in the 

EPA’s 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 (‘‘Modeling 

Guidance’’).23 The Modeling Guidance 

recommends for a modeling protocol to 

be reviewed by the EPA prior to 

performance of the modeling. The 

Guidance includes recommendations for 

model input preparation, model 

performance evaluation, use of the 

model output for the attainment 

demonstration, and modeling 

documentation. Air quality modeling is 

performed using meteorology and 

emissions from a base year, and the 

modeled concentrations are compared 

to air quality monitoring data from that 

year to evaluate model performance. 

Once the 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). For each monitoring site, 

the 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 assesses attainment by 

considering evidence other than the 

main air quality modeling attainment 

test, such as trends and additional 

monitoring and modeling analyses. 

Older guidance for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS was provided in Guideline for 

Regulatory Application of the Urban 

Airshed Model; 24 however, much of its 

content is outdated. Most importantly, 

formerly photochemical models were 

used in an absolute sense for the 

modeled attainment test, whereas 

currently the EPA recommends that 

models be used in a relative sense. That 

is, formerly the modeled concentration 

due to future emissions (absolute model 

prediction) was used directly to 

compare to the NAAQS. Currently, the 

EPA recommends that the relative 

change in modeled concentration (RRF) 

due to future emission reductions be 

used; this is applied to the monitored 

design value and the result compared to 

the NAAQS. Given that the current 

guidance is aimed at the 8-hour 

standard, whereas the older guidance is 

aimed at the 1-hour standard but is 

outdated, the State has flexibility in the 

approach to be used. Discussions 

between the EPA, CARB, and the 

District resulted in the approach 

described in the Plan’s Modeling 

Protocol, which mainly followed the 

more recent Modeling Guidance, but 

accommodated the form and level of the 

1-hour standard and incorporated model 

performance goals from the older 1-hour 

guidance. 

CARB performed the air quality 

modeling for the 2013 Ozone Plan, with 

assistance from the District. The 2013 

Ozone Plan’s modeling protocol is 

contained in appendix E (‘‘Modeling 

Protocol’’). This protocol was reviewed 

by the EPA, and contains all of the 

elements recommended in the 

Guidance, including selection of model, 

and modeling period, modeling domain, 

and model boundary conditions and 

initialization procedures; a thorough 

discussion of emission inventory 

development and their spatial and 

temporal allocation; and other model 

input preparation procedures, model 

performance evaluation procedures; 

selection of days and other details for 

calculating RRFs; and provisions for the 

archiving of and access to raw model 

inputs and outputs. While some 

additional detail on the input 

meteorological data could have been 

useful, overall the protocol adequately 

addresses all of the expected elements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2151 

25Sarika Kulkarni, Ajith P. Kaduwela, Jeremy C. 

Avise, John A. DaMassa & Daniel Chau (2014), ‘‘An 

extended approach to calculate the ozone relative 

response factors used in the attainment 

demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’, Journal of the Air & Waste Management 

Association, 64:10, 1204–1213, DOI: 10.1080/

10962247.2014.936984. 

26The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is actually 0.08 

ppm; concentrations of 84.999 ppb or below round 

to 80 and comply with the NAAQS, and 

concentrations of 85.0 or higher exceed the 

NAAQS. 

27Specifically, a linear regression between 

observed and modeled concentrations was used to 

choose a modeled concentration for each observed 

day; that modeled concentration predicted from the 

linear fit was then used to select a ppb band and 

the corresponding RRF. This indirect procedure 

avoids quirks of individual days, providing a 

typical model response appropriate for future 

projections. It also avoids introducing any 

inconsistency and model bias into the RRF 

calculation. If the observed value were used directly 

to choose a band, and the model happened to 

underpredict on that day, then the RRF, chosen on 

the basis of the higher observed value, would be the 

model response appropriate for a higher ozone 

concentration, rather than for the modeled base year 

concentration. In short, it keeps both the RRF 

numerator and denominator both as modeled 

values, consistent with the definition of an RRF. 

The modeling analysis uses the 

Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) photochemical model, 

developed by the EPA. The SAPRC99 

(State-wide Air Pollution Research 

Center, 1999 version) chemical 

mechanism was used in CMAQ, based 

on CARB’s historical experience with it, 

its favorable scientific review and good 

performance over the years. The 

modeling incorporates routinely 

available meteorological and air quality 

data collected during 2007, the base 

year for the 2013 Ozone Plan. The WRF 

model (Weather and Research 

Forecasting model, from the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research) was 

used to prepare meteorological input for 

CMAQ. CMAQ and WRF are both 

recognized in the Modeling Guidance as 

technically sound, state-of-the-art 

models. Air quality modeling was 

performed for May through September, 

2007, a period that spans the ozone 

season in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

overall air quality modeling domain 

includes the entire State of California 

with 12 km resolution, and a nested 

domain of finer 4 km resolution that 

covers the San Joaquin Valley. The 

overall meteorological modeling covers 

California’s neighboring states, and 

major portions of the next outer ring of 

states, with 35 km resolution; it has 

nested domains at 12 km and 4 km, with 

the latter, innermost covering the entire 

State of California. The areal extent, and 

the horizontal and vertical resolution 

used in these models were more than 

adequate for modeling San Joaquin 

Valley ozone. 

Model performance information is 

provided in appendix F of the 2013 

Ozone Plan in the form of time series 

and scatter plots of modeled ozone 

compared to monitored ozone, for the 

May–September, 2007 period. The time 

series show a good match between 

predicted and observed concentrations. 

While there is some underprediction 

during the second half of the period 

(mid-July through September), 

performance is generally good, and the 

overall peaks were captured by the 

model. Scatter plots also show good 

performance, with very few outliers. 

Modeled values are generally within 

20% of observations, and root-meansquare error (RMSE) values are typically 

near 0.7, showing good correlation 

between modeled and monitored 

concentrations. While current Modeling 

Guidance does not prescribe specific 

performance goals, the Modeling 

Protocol adopted goals from the older, 

1991 EPA 1-hour ozone modeling 

guidance, section 5.2: Unpaired highest 

prediction accuracy: Within 20 percent; 

Normalized bias within 15 percent; and 

Gross error of all pairs above 60 parts 

per billion (ppb) (i.e., 0.060 ppm) within 

35 percent (appendix F, section 1.4.1). 

The Modeling Protocol mentions 

evaluation of model performance within 

multiple geographic subregions, as well 

as additional performance statistics and 

spatial plots for ozone and precursor 

species, but these were not provided in 

the SIP submittal. The CARB Staff 

Report stated that all the performance 

goals were met. See CARB’s ‘‘Staff 

Report, San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan 

for the Federal 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard,’’ dated November 8, 2013, 

page 8. The EPA agrees that the model 

performance is adequate for the San 

Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

The 2013 Ozone Plan used a ‘‘bandRRF’’ approach for the use of modeling 

results in the modeled attainment test. 

This a refinement of the approach in the 

Modeling Guidance, and is described in 

appendix F (‘‘Modeling Approach and 

Results,’’ section 1.4.1) of the 2013 

Ozone Plan, as well as in the Modeling 

Protocol and in a journal paper.25 The 

Modeling Guidance approach is briefly 

reviewed here before the band-RRF 

approach is described. As mentioned 

above, in simplest terms, an RRF is the 

relative model response to emissions 

changes, that is, the ratio of future 

modeled concentration to base year 

modeled concentration. Since the model 

provides concentrations for every grid 

square, for every hour of the simulated 

period, in actually implementing an 

RRF, a choice must be made of which 

particular model concentrations should 

be included in the calculation. The 

Modeling Guidance recommends that 

high concentration days selected from 

grid cells near the monitor be used; 

these will be most relevant for 

estimating the future design value at the 

monitor. Specifically, for the 1997 0.08 

ppm (80 ppb) 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

effect at the time, the Modeling 

Guidance recommends that the highest 

concentration among grid cells within 

15 km of the monitor be used to 

represent the monitor, and that all 

modeled maximum daily 8-hour 

concentrations at or above 085 ppb 26

(0.085 ppm) be averaged. The RRF is the 

average for future days divided by the 

average for base year days; this ratio 

reflects the average response of high 

ozone concentrations near the monitor 

to future emission changes. 

The 2013 Ozone Plan band-RRF 

approach parallels the Modeling 

Guidance, but differs in several 

specifics, especially in the choice of 

concentration levels to include in 

calculating the RRF. The 2013 Ozone 

Plan applied an initial performance 

screen: Only days that meet the model 

performance criteria cited above were 

retained for the calculation. For the 

choice of grid cell to represent the 

monitor, the 2013 Ozone Plan used the 

grid cell containing the monitor itself, 

rather than the maximum cell within 15 

km; this puts a somewhat greater 

reliance on the spatial accuracy of the 

model, but is not necessarily less 

conservative. The 2013 Ozone Plan’s 

choice of concentration days to include 

is more complex than in the Guidance. 

Instead of using an average over all high 

concentration days, in the band-RRF 

approach there is a different RRF for 

each 10 ppb-wide (0.010 ppm) band of 

ozone concentrations; the RRF used for 

a particular monitored day is computed 

from future and base year averages only 

within the concentration band relevant 

for that day, rather than from all high 

days.27 This refinement has the 

advantage of allowing the model 

response to vary depending on the 

concentration, instead of assuming the 

relative response is always the same, as 

the Modeling Guidance procedure does. 

The Modeling Guidance acknowledges 

that there tends to be a greater model 

response to emission changes at higher 

ozone concentrations (Modeling 

Guidance, page 37), so the use of RRF 

bands is a reasonable refinement. The 

use of band-RRFs requires that each day 

be scaled by its corresponding RRF, and 

that the future design value be estimated 

from those scaled values concentrations. 

This is different than the Modeling 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2152 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

28The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the 

‘‘expected number of days per calendar year with 

maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 

parts per million . . . is equal to or less than 1’’ 

(40 CFR 50.9); 40 CFR part 50, appendix H 

describes the procedure for calculating this, based 

on three calendar years. This is approximately the 

same as allowing one exceedance per year over 

three years, that is, the three highest values are 

allowed to exceed 0.12 ppm. Thus, the fourth 

highest concentration is a unbiased single-year 

value to use for comparison to the NAAQS level in 

a modeling context. 

29 ‘‘Update to the 24 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Modeled 

Attainment Test,’’ EPA memorandum dated June 

28, 2011, from Tyler Fox, Air Quality Modeling 

Group, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. The updated guidance allowed for the 

shifting of PM2.5 day ranks. A shift is possible since 

emission controls affect PM2.5 species components 

differently, and species composition may be 

different for different seasons: Control could affect 

mainly winter days, with summer days little 

affected and so becoming higher ranked. The 2013 

Ozone Plan’s RRF procedure was carried out for the 

top 10 observed days. This accommodates 

differences in ranking between the observed days 

and their corresponding modeled days and bands, 

ensuring that days that were not the highest before 

controls, but are so after control, are available for 

the design value calculation. It also accommodates 

the fact that applying controls may result in shifting 

in the ranks of the days; the particular day that is 

4th highest before controls may not be the 4th 

highest post-control day. The 2013 Ozone Plan does 

explicitly state whether such rank shifts actually 

occurred in applying the band-RRF approach, but 

table 4 in appendix G of the 2013 Ozone Plan does 

not appear to show such shifts: The 2017 design 

values remain sorted from high to low as are the 

2007 design values. Shifts might be expected to 

occur if a concentration near the bottom of a band 

with a relatively small RRF was reduced more than 

a concentration at the top of the next lower band. 

Guidance approach, in which a single 

RRF is applied to the monitored design 

value itself. The ‘‘design value’’ for the 

1-hour ozone standard is nearly 

equivalent to the 4th highest 

concentration.28 In the 2013 Ozone 

Plan’s approach, the 10 days with the 

highest observed concentration were 

multiplied by their respective RRFs, and 

the 4th highest resulting concentration 

was used as the predicted future design 

value for the monitor. The inclusion of 

10 candidate days accommodates any 

shifts in the concentration rank of the 

days as the result of controls; it ensures 

the inclusion of days that could 

contribute to the post-control design 

value. Applying different RRFs to 

different days and estimating the design 

value afterward is very similar to the 

EPA’s updated guidance procedure for 

PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.29 The 

band-RRF approach is a refinement to 

the 8-hour ozone approach 

recommended in the Modeling 

Guidance for the modeled attainment 

test, and is adequate for the San Joaquin 

Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

An additional difference between the 

2013 Ozone Plan modeled attainment 

test and the Modeling Guidance is that 

it uses only the single 2005–2007 design 

value as the starting point, whereas for 

a 2007 base year the Modeling Guidance 

would recommend the average of the 

three design values for 2005–2007, 

2006–2008, and 2007–2009. It is not 

clear how to use band-RRF approach in 

conjunction with this Guidance 

recommendation, but presumably it 

would involve using ozone observations 

from a longer period than 2005 through 

2007. Using a longer period might make 

for more stable design value estimates, 

less subject to year-to-year 

meteorological variability; conversely it 

also introduces some inconsistency 

given that emissions changes during a 

longer period would generally be larger. 

The EPA estimated the effect of using an 

alternative starting point by applying 

modeled percent change in design value 

from the 2013 Ozone Plan to the 2006– 

2008 design value, and to the threedesign value average mentioned above. 

The results were 120.2 and 119.6 ppb 

(0.1202 and 0.1196 ppm), respectively, 

both slightly higher than the 2013 

Ozone Plan’s 119.3 ppb (0.1193 ppm), 

but both less than the NAAQScompliant value of 124 ppb (or 0.124 

ppm, which rounds to 0.12 ppm). 

Documentation on the rationale for the 

2013 Ozone Plan choice of the 2005– 

2007 design value starting point would 

have strengthened the support for the 

attainment demonstration, but even in 

its absence, the EPA finds the procedure 

followed to be adequate for the San 

Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

The final model results appear in 

chapter 2 of the 2013 Ozone Plan (and 

are repeated in appendix F, section 1.4.2 

‘‘Attainment Demonstration’’). These are 

tables of three-year design values for 

base year 2007 and for the projected 

year 2017. The highest monitored 2007 

design value was 135 ppb (0.135 ppm) 

at the Edison monitor. The highest 

projected 2017 design value, accounting 

for emission reductions occurring 

during 2007–2017 was 119.3 ppb 

(0.1193 ppm) at Edison monitor. This is 

comfortably below the maximum 124 

ppb (0.124 ppm) consistent with 

NAAQS attainment. The next highest 

2017 design value was substantially 

less, 107.4 ppb (0.1074 ppm) at the 

Arvin monitor. 

The 2013 Ozone Plan contains a 

‘‘Weight of Evidence’’ (WOE) section in 

its appendix G. This section includes 

analyses of ambient concentration and 

emission trends, and additional 

analyses that strengthen the 2013 Ozone 

Plan’s attainment demonstration 

conclusion that NAAQS attainment will 

be achieved in 2017. The overall San 

Joaquin Valley design value trend from 

1994 through 2012 is downward, 

despite some individual multi-year 

periods of little progress, and 

corroborates the projection of 

attainment in 2017 (appendix G, figure 

1, page G–2). This pattern is also seen 

for individual monitoring site design 

values trends (appendix G, figures 4–6 

and 8–10, pages G–6—G–10). An 

exception to this is the FresnoDrummond site, for which the 2007– 

2011 trend is upward, though the 

number of NAAQS exceedance days 

remains small (appendix G, figure 6, 

page G–7). Since VOC and especially 

NOX emission trends have been steadily 

downward (appendix G, figures 18–22, 

pages G–20—G–23), these stagnant 

periods are likely due to unfavorable 

meteorology. The 2013 Ozone Plan also 

includes trends adjusted for the effect of 

meteorology, based on a statistical 

analysis that estimates what ozone 

would have been had wind speeds and 

temperatures been more typical 

(appendix G, section G–2). Since a 

statistical analysis requires numerous 

data points, 20-day averages were 

examined rather than the design values, 

of which there are only one per year. 

While this means that the results cannot 

be used to directly adjust the design 

value trends, it is clear that for 2008– 

2011, unfavorable meteorology resulted 

in higher ozone concentrations 

(appendix G, figure 12, page G–14), and 

partly explains the slower recent 

progress in the design values at some 

monitoring sites. 

The 2013 Ozone Plan includes NOX

vs. VOC diagrams showing the modeled 

sensitivity of ozone to reductions at 

each monitoring site (appendix G, figure 

23, pages G–34—G–39.). The relatively 

flat slopes mean that ozone changes 

relatively little with VOC reductions. 

While the relative effectiveness varies 

by site and reduction amount, on a tpd 

basis NOX reductions approximately 20 

times as effective as VOC reductions; for 

the Edison design value site, the relative 

effectiveness is closer to 7. In 

conjunction with the pronounced 

downward NOX emission trend referred 

to above, these findings provide 

confidence in the attainment strategy. 

Finally, the 2013 Ozone Plan provides 

a supplemental attainment 

demonstration using a traditional 

‘‘single RRF’’ approach, in addition to 

the ‘‘band-RRF’’ approach (appendix G, 

sections 6.1 and 6.2, pages G–26—G– 

33). (As described above, in the former 

approach, described in the Modeling 

Guidance for 8-hour ozone, a single RRF 

is used regardless of the ozone 

concentration. In the latter approach 

there is a different RRF for each ‘‘band’’ 

or range of ozone values.) The single 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2153 

30 G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, memorandum titled ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

August 13, 1993. 

RRF approach is more conservative, 

giving slightly higher future 

concentrations; this was expected since 

the RRF includes model results from 

lower, less responsive, ozone levels. The 

single RRF approach nevertheless also 

shows 2017 attainment. 

The various analyses provided in 

appendix G of the 2013 Ozone Plan 

provide assurance in the attainment 

demonstration’s conclusion that the 1-hr 

ozone NAAQS will be attained in 2017. 

c. Evaluation of the Air Quality 

Modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan 

The modeling showed that existing 

State and District control measures are 

sufficient to attain the 1979 1-hour 

Ozone NAAQS by 2017 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 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

3. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

To approve a SIP’s attainment 

demonstration, the EPA must make 

several findings: First, we must find that 

the demonstration’s technical bases— 

emissions inventories and air quality 

modeling—are adequate. As discussed 

above in section III.A, we propose to 

find that the inventories in the 2013 

Ozone Plan provide an appropriate basis 

for the various other elements of the 

2013 Ozone Plan, including the 

attainment demonstration, and for the 

reasons discussed above, we find the air 

quality modeling adequate to support 

the attainment demonstration. 

Second, we must find that the SIP 

provides for expeditious attainment 

through the implementation of all 

RACM. As discussed above in section 

III.B, we are proposing to approve the 

RACM demonstration in the 2013 Ozone 

Plan. 

Third, we must find that the 

emissions reductions that are relied on 

for attainment are creditable and are 

sufficient to provide for attainment. As 

stated previously in today’s action, the 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2013 

Ozone Plan in part based on the 

permanence and enforceability of the 

waiver measures flowing from the 

approval of the measures as part of the 

SIP. Thus, the EPA will not finalize 

approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan until 

the Agency takes final action to approve 

the waiver measures as part of the 

California SIP. Once that occurs, the 

2013 Ozone Plan will rely entirely on 

adopted and approved rules to achieve 

the emissions reductions needed to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley in 2017. 

E. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the 

CAA require that SIPs contain 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

or the EPA if an area fails to attain the 

ozone standard by the applicable 

attainment date (section 172(c)(9)) or 

fails to meet an ROP milestone (section 

182(c)(9)). This requirement is a 

continuing applicable requirement for 

the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area under 

the EPA’s anti-backsliding rules that 

apply once a standard has been revoked. 

See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(13). 

The Act does not specify how many 

contingency measures are needed or the 

magnitude of emission reductions that 

must be provided by these measures. 

However, the EPA provided initial 

guidance interpreting the contingency 

measure requirements in the General 

Preamble at 13510. Our interpretation is 

based upon the language in sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) in conjunction 

with the control measure requirements 

of sections 172(c), 182(b) and 

182(c)(2)(B), the reclassification and 

failure to attain provisions of section 

181(b) and other provisions. In the 

General Preamble, the EPA indicated 

that states with moderate and above 

ozone nonattainment areas should 

include sufficient contingency measures 

so that, upon implementation of such 

measures, additional emissions 

reductions of three percent of the 

emissions in the adjusted base year 

inventory (or such lesser percentage 

what will cure the identified failure) 

would be achieved in the year following 

the year in which the failure is 

identified. These reductions should be 

beyond what is needed to meet the 

attainment and/or ROP requirement. 

States may use reductions of either VOC 

or NOX or a combination of both to meet 

the contingency measure requirements. 

General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. 

The states must show that the 

contingency measures can be 

implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions. 

In subsequent guidance,30 the EPA 

indicated that contingency measures 

could be implemented early, i.e., prior 

to the milestone or attainment date. 

Consistent with this policy, states are 

allowed to use excess reductions from 

already adopted measures to meet the 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

contingency measures requirement. This 

is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions 

that are not relied on for ROP or 

attainment that will provide continued 

progress while the plan is being revised 

to fully address the failure to meet the 

required milestone. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a state from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

This approach has been approved by the 

EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana 

portion of the Chicago area 15 percent 

ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of 

the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 

66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed 

approval of the Rhode Island post-1996 

ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 

634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the 

Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstrations). In 

the only adjudicated challenge to this 

approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN 

v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 

FR 71611, 71651. 

2. Contingency Measures in the 2013 

Ozone Plan 

Contingency measure provisions are 

described in Section 4.4 of the 2013 

Ozone Plan. To provide for contingency 

measures for failure to meet the ROP 

milestones, the SIP relies on surplus 

NOX reductions in the ROP 

demonstration. See 2013 Ozone Plan, 

table 4–2. See also table 3 above. 

For the failure to attainment 

contingency measure, the 3 percent 

reduction from the 2007 baseline can 

come from either VOC or NOX. A three 

percent reduction from the 2007 

baseline is equivalent to 14.5 tpd of 

NOX. VOC emission reductions are only 

0.3 tpd between 2017 and 2018; thus, 

NOX emission reductions are necessary 

to satisfy the attainment contingency 

measure requirement. Fleet turnover in 

2018 is expected to reduce NOX

emissions by 11.0 tpd. See 2013 Ozone 

Plan, appendix B, Tables B–1 and B–2. 

In the 2013 Ozone Plan, the District 

relies on 3.5 tpd of NOX reductions from 

unspecified incentive programs plus the 

NOX reductions from fleet turnover to 

achieve the 14.5 tpd of NOX necessary 

for the failure to attainment contingency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2154 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

31CAA 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). The decision by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Association of Irritated Residents case, and 

the EPA’s related withdrawal of the San Joaquin 

Valley approvals and finding of failure to submit, 

relate only to the first element of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A)(i.e., the VMT emissions offset 

requirement). Accordingly, this proposed action 

relates only to the first element of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A). 

measure. See 2013 Ozone Plan, table 

4–4. 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

Contingency measures for ROP. As 

discussed above in section III.C, we are 

proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone 

Plan’s ROP demonstration. As seen in 

the second to last line on table 3 above 

(in the ROP demonstration), there are 

sufficient excess reductions of NOX in 

each milestone year beyond those 

needed to meet the next ROP percent 

reduction requirement to provide the 3 

percent of adjusted baseline emissions 

reductions needed to meet the RFP 

contingency measure requirement for 

2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017. 

Accordingly, we propose to approve the 

ROP contingency measures in the 2013 

Ozone Plan under CAA section 182(c)(9) 

and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(13). 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain. We are not proposing action on 

the plan’s attainment contingency 

measures at this time. Attainment 

contingency measures are a distinct 

provision of the CAA that we may act 

on separately from the attainment 

demonstration. 

F. Clean Fuels or Advanced Control 

Technology for Boilers 

1. Requirements for Clean Fuels or 

Advanced Control Technology for 

Boilers 

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that 

SIPs must require each new, modified, 

and existing electric utility and 

industrial and commercial boiler that 

emits more than 25 tons per year (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 technology or other 

comparably effective control methods). 

This requirement is a continuing 

applicable requirement for the San 

Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area under the EPA’s 

anti-backsliding rules that apply once a 

standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR 

51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6). 

Further 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. 

General Preamble at 13523. In addition, 

boilers with rated heat inputs less than 

15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which 

are oil or gas fired may generally be 

considered de minimis and exempt from 

these requirements since it is unlikely 

that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX

emission limit. General Preamble at 

13524. 

2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in 

the San Joaquin Valley District Rules 

The 2013 Ozone Plan, which 

addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) 

requirements on page 4–10, states that 

District Rules 4306 and 4352 address 

NOX from affected boilers and that these 

rules meet the requirements of the CAA. 

Rule 4306 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’ as 

revised on October 16, 2008, applies to 

any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired 

boiler, steam generator, or process 

heater with a total rated heat input 

greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The 

emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30 

ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for 

liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without 

the use of advanced control 

technologies. See ‘‘Alternative Control 

Techniques Document—NOX Emissions 

from Industrial/Commercial/

Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ Emissions 

Standards Division, EPA, March 1994; 

see also 76 FR 57846 at 57864–57865 

(September 11, 2011) and 77 FR 12652 

at 12670 (March 1, 2012) (proposed and 

final rules approving 2007 Ozone Plan 

for the San Joaquin Valley). All units 

subject to Rule 4306 were required to 

comply with the limits in the rule no 

later than December 1, 2008. See Rule 

4306, section 7.0. We most recently 

approved Rule 4306 as a SIP revision at 

75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). 

Rule 4352 ‘‘Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, 

Steam Generators And Process Heaters’’ 

as revised December 15, 2011, applies to 

any boiler, steam generator or process 

heater fired on solid fuel at a source that 

has a 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. Rule 4352, section 5.1. 

We most recently approved Rule 4352 

into the California SIP at 77 FR 66548 

(November 6, 2012). In an EPA action 

on the previous version of Rule 4352, 

we determined that all of the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4352 effectively 

require operation of Selective 

Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control 

systems, which are comparably effective 

to Selective Catalytic Reduction for the 

affected sources. SNCR also appears to 

achieve NOX emission reductions 

comparable to combustion of clean fuels 

at these types of boilers. We therefore 

concluded that Rule 4352 satisfies the 

requirements of section 182(e)(3) for 

solid fuel-fired boilers in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 75 FR 60623 (October 

10, 2010). 

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 ‘‘New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule.’’ This 

rule requires new and modified source 

to install and operate best available 

control technology/lowest achievable 

emissions reductions technology. The 

EPA most recently approved Rule 2201 

into the California SIP at 79 FR 55637 

(September 17, 2014). 

3. Proposed Finding on the Clean Fuel/ 

Advanced Technology for Boilers 

Based on our review of, and previous 

approval of, the emission limitations in 

the District’s rules discussed above, we 

propose to find that the 2013 Ozone 

Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced 

control technology for boilers 

requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) 

and 40 CFR 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(6). 

G. Transportation Control Strategies 

and Transportation Control Measures 

To Offset Growth in Emissions From 

Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled or 

Number of Vehicle Trips 

1. Requirements for VMT Emissions 

Offset Demonstrations 

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

requires, in relevant part, 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 or number of vehicle trips in 

such area.’’ 31 This requirement is a 

continuing applicable requirement for 

the San Joaquin Valley ‘‘Extreme’’ ozone 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 

1997 8-hour standards under the EPA’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2155 

32Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, 

Transportation and Climate Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edland, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 30, 

2012. 

anti-backsliding rules that apply once a 

standard has been revoked. See 40 CFR 

40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(10). 

As described above, in 2012, 77 FR 

70376 (November 26, 2012), the EPA 

withdrew the Agency’s approvals of the 

VMT emissions offset demonstrations 

for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour 

ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

In both instances, the EPA had based its 

approvals on the Agency’s long-standing 

interpretation of the VMT emissions 

offset requirement that was rejected by 

the Ninth Circuit in the Association of 

Irritated Residents case. In response to 

the Court’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’’).32

The August 2012 Guidance discusses 

the meaning of the terms, 

‘‘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 is a broad term that 

encompasses many types of controls 

including, for example, motor vehicle 

emission limitations, inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative 

fuel programs, other technology-based 

measures, and TCMs, that would fit 

within the regulatory definition of 

‘‘control strategy.’’ See, e.g., 40 CFR 

51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 

51.100(r) as meaning ‘‘any measure that 

is directed toward reducing emissions of 

air pollutants from transportation 

sources. Such measures include, but are 

not limited to those listed in section 

108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]’’ and 

generally refer to programs intended to 

reduce the VMT, the number of vehicle 

trips, or traffic congestion, such as 

programs for improved public transit, 

designation of certain lanes for 

passenger buses and high-occupancy 

vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction 

ordinances, and the like. 

The August 2012 guidance explains 

how states may demonstrate that the 

VMT emissions offset requirement is 

satisfied in conformance with the 

Court’s ruling. States are recommended 

to estimate emissions for the 

nonattainment area’s base year and the 

attainment year. One emission 

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 based on VMT in that year 

and it 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’’ taken scenario. 

Emissions in the attainment year in this 

scenario may be lower than those in the 

base year due to the fleet that was on the 

road in the base year gradually being 

replaced through fleet turnover; 

however, provided VMT and/or 

numbers of vehicle trips will in fact 

increase by the attainment year, they 

would still likely be higher than they 

would have been assuming VMT had 

held constant. 

The second of the attainment year’s 

emissions calculations would also 

assume that no new TCSs or TCMs 

beyond those already credited have 

been put in place since the base year, 

but 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 the fleet that was on the road in 

the base year gradually being replaced 

by cleaner vehicles through fleet 

turnover, but in this case they 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 Court 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 would 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 

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 which 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2156 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

33 In this context, ‘‘attainment year’’ refers to the 

ozone season immediately preceding a 

nonattainment area’s attainment date. In the case of 

the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, the proposed applicable attainment date 

is November 26, 2017, and the ozone season 

immediately preceding that date will occur in year 

2017. 

growth in emissions and 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 Court. 

2. Revised San Joaquin Valley VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

For the revised San Joaquin Valley 

VMT emissions offset demonstrations, 

the State used EMFAC2011, the latest 

EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions 

model for California. The EMFAC2011 

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 EMFAC2011 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 the State included 

emissions from them in the calculations 

that provide the basis for the revised 

San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions 

offset demonstrations. The State 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 revised San Joaquin Valley VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations address 

both the 1-hour ozone standard and the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and include 

two different ‘‘base year’’ scenarios: 

1990, for the purposes of the VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

1-hour ozone standard, and 2002, for the 

purposes of the VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The ‘‘base year’’ for 

VMT emissions offset demonstration 

purposes should generally be the same 

‘‘base year’’ used for nonattainment 

planning purposes. In 2012, the EPA 

approved the 2002 base year inventory 

for the San Joaquin Valley for the 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, 77 FR 12652, at 12670 (March 

1, 2012), and thus, the State’s selection 

of 2002 as the base year for the revised 

San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard is appropriate. With 

respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, 

the attainment demonstration in the 

2013 Ozone Plan relies on a base year 

of 2007, rather than 1990; however, the 

State’s selection of 1990 as the base year 

for the VMT offset demonstration is 

appropriate because 1990 was used as 

the base year for 1-hour ozone SIP 

planning purposes under the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, which 

established, among other requirements, 

the VMT emissions offset requirement 

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

The demonstrations also include the 

previously described three different 

attainment year scenarios (i.e., no 

action, VMT offset ceiling, and 

projected actual) but the attainment year 

differs between the two demonstrations. 

Year 2017 was selected as the 

attainment year for the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

1-hour ozone standard, and year 2023 

was selected as the attainment year for 

the revised demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. For the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, the State’s 

selection of 2023 is appropriate given 

that the approved San Joaquin Valley 

1997 8-hour ozone plan demonstrates 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date of June 15, 2024 based on the 2023 

controlled emissions inventory. See 76 

FR 57846, at 57856–57861 (September 

16, 2011) and 77 FR 12652, at 12670 

(March 1, 2012). 

The San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone 

Plan, which includes the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations in 

appendix D, provides a demonstration 

of attainment by 2017. The revised San 

Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration thus provides a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin 

Valley by 2017 based on the controlled 

2017 emissions inventory. As described 

in section III.D of this document, the 

EPA is proposing to approve 2017 as the 

attainment year for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the San Joaquin Valley.33

Based on the proposed approval of 2017 

as the attainment year for the San 

Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, we find CARB’s selection of 

year 2017 as the attainment year for the 

revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard to be acceptable. For 

additional background and justification 

regarding the 2017 attainment year, 

please see section III.D in today’s notice. 

Tables 4 and 5 summarize the 

relevant distinguishing parameters for 

each of the emissions scenarios and 

show the State’s corresponding VOC 

emissions estimates. Table 4 provides 

the parameters and emissions estimates 

for the revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and table 5 provides the 

corresponding values for the revised 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

TABLE 4—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

Emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ................................................ 1990 52,199 1990 7,730 1990 196 

No Action ................................................. 2017 115,070 2017 17,133 1990 178 

VMT Offset Ceiling ................................... 1990 52,199 1990 7,730 1990 81 

Projected Actual ....................................... 2017 115,070 2017 17,133 2017 30 

Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2017 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight 

San Joaquin Valley MPOs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2157 

34The docket for today’s action includes an 

updated list of the post-1990 transportation control 

strategies in attachment A of appendix D to the 

2013 Ozone Plan. 

TABLE 5—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

Emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ................................................ 2002 78,400 2002 11,307 2002 76 

No Action ................................................. 2023 130,431 2023 19,466 2002 49 

VMT Offset Ceiling ................................... 2002 78,400 2002 11,307 2002 28 

Projected Actual ....................................... 2023 130,431 2023 19,466 2023 24 

Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2023 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight 

San Joaquin Valley MPOs. 

For the two ‘‘base year’’ scenarios, the 

State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 

applicable base year (i.e., 1990 for the 1- 

hour ozone standard and 2002 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard) using VMT 

and starts data corresponding to those 

years. As shown in tables 5 and 6, the 

State estimates the San Joaquin Valley 

VOC emissions at 196 tpd in 1990 and 

76 tpd in 2002. 

For the two ‘‘no action’’ scenarios, the 

State first identified the on-road motor 

vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or 

TCMs) put in place since the base years 

and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and 

then ran EMFAC2011 with the VMT and 

starts data corresponding to the 

applicable attainment year (i.e., 2017 for 

the 1-hour ozone standard and 2023 for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) 

without the emissions reductions from 

the on-road motor vehicle control 

programs put in place after the base 

year. Thus, the ‘‘no action’’ scenarios 

reflect the hypothetical VOC emissions 

that would occur in the attainment years 

in the San Joaquin Valley if the State 

had not put in place any additional 

TCSs or TCMs after 1990 (for the 1-hour 

ozone VMT emissions offset 

demonstration) or after 2002 (for the 8- 

hour ozone demonstration). As shown 

in tables 5 and 6, the State estimates the 

‘‘no action’’ San Joaquin Valley VOC 

emissions at 178 tpd in 2017 and 49 tpd 

in 2023. The principal difference 

between the two estimates is that the 

latter value (used for the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

8-hour ozone standard) reflects the 

emissions reductions from TCSs and 

TCMs put in place by the end of 2002 

whereas the former value (used for the 

revised demonstration for the 1-hour 

ozone standard) reflects only the 

emissions reductions from TCSs and 

TCMs put in place by the end of 1990. 

The most significant of the measures 

adopted since 1990 and relied upon for 

the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset 

demonstration include tiered (series of 

increasingly stringent limits) emissions 

standards for new motor vehicles (i.e., 

Low Emissions Vehicles I, II, and III 

standards), content specifications for 

gasoline (i.e., California Reformulated 

Gasoline Phases 1, 2, and 3), and 

enhancements to the State’s I/M 

program (i.e., Smog Check II). See 

attachments A and B to appendix D of 

the 2013 Ozone Plan for lists of TCSs 

and TCMs adopted by the State and 

MPOs since 1990.34

For the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenarios, the State ran the EMFAC2011 

model for the attainment years but with 

VMT and starts data corresponding to 

base year values. Like the ‘‘no action’’ 

scenarios, the EMFAC2011 model was 

adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions 

levels in the attainment years without 

the benefits of the post-base-year onroad motor vehicle control programs. 

Thus, the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenarios reflect hypothetical VOC 

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if 

the State had not put in place any TCSs 

or TCMs after the base years and if there 

had been no growth in VMT or vehicle 

trips between the base years and the 

attainment years. 

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’’ scenarios and the 

corresponding estimates under the 

‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenarios. Based 

on the values in tables 5 and 6, the 

hypothetical growth in emissions due to 

growth in VMT and trips in the San 

Joaquin Valley would have been 97 tpd 

(i.e., 178 tpd minus 81 tpd) for the 

purposes of the revised VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, and 21 tpd (i.e., 49 tpd 

minus 28 tpd) for the purposes of the 

corresponding demonstration for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. These 

hypothetical differences establish the 

levels of VMT growth-caused emissions 

that need to be offset by the 

combination of post-baseline year TCMs 

and TCSs and any necessary additional 

TCMs and TCSs. 

For the ‘‘projected actual’’ scenario 

calculations, the State ran the 

EMFAC2011 model for the attainment 

years 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, the State included the 

emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs 

put in place since the base year. The 

most significant measures put in place 

during the 2002 to 2023 time frame 

include Low Emission Vehicles II and 

III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle 

standards, and California Reformulated 

Gasoline Phase 3. These measures are 

also relied upon for the revised 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration 

(proposed for approval herein) and the 

approved 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

As shown in tables 5 and 6, the 

results from these calculations establish 

projected actual attainment-year VOC 

emissions of 30 tpd for the 1-hour 

standard demonstration and 24 tpd for 

the 1997 8-hour standard 

demonstration. The State then 

compared these values against the 

corresponding VMT offset ceiling values 

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, the State 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 both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour 

standards. In fact, taking into account of 

the creditable post-baseline year TCMs 

and TCSs, the State showed that they 

offset the hypothetical differences by 

148 tpd for the 1-hour standard and by 

25 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standards, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

35The 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 tables 5 and 6. For 

the purposes of the 1-hour ozone demonstration, 

the offsetting emissions reductions, 148 tpd (178 

tpd minus 30 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions 

from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (97 tpd). For 

the purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration, 

the offsetting emissions reductions, 25 tpd (49 tpd 

minus 24 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT and vehicle trips (21 tpd). 

36 In our final action, we also intend to remove 

a certain paragraph from the ‘‘Identification of 

Plan’’ section of 40 CFR part 52 for the State of 

California. In withdrawing our approval of the 2004 

Ozone Plan, as revised and clarified, 77 FR 70376 

(November 26, 2012), we inadvertently failed to 

remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which codified our 

March 8, 2010 final approval of the ‘‘2008 

Clarifications’’ for the 2004 San Joaquin Valley (1- 

hour ozone) plan. 

rather than merely the required 97 tpd 

and 21 tpd, respectively.35

3. Proposed Action on the VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

Based on our review of revised San 

Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations in appendix D of the 

2013 Ozone Plan and the related 

technical supplement, we find the 

State’s analysis to be acceptable and 

agree that the State 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 1- 

hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. As such, we find that the 

revised San Joaquin Valley VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations comply 

with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement in CAA section 

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

approval of the revised San Joaquin 

Valley VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone 

and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a 

revision to the California SIP. 

IV. Proposed Action 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

EPA is proposing to approve, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB’s 

submittal dated December 20, 2013 of 

the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan 

as a revision to the California SIP.36 In 

so doing, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the following elements of the 

plan as meeting the specified 

requirements for the revoked 1-hour 

ozone standard: 

• RACM demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 

51.1100(o)(17); 

• ROP demonstrations as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 

51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4); 

• Attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12); 

• ROP contingency measures as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and 

• Provisions for clean fuels or 

advanced control technology for boilers 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6). 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the 

specified requirements for the revoked 

1-hour ozone standard and the revoked 

1997 8-hour ozone standard: 

• VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) 

and 51.1100(o)(10). 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document or on other relevant 

matters. We will accept comments from 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve a state plan 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the San Joaquin 

Valley air quality planning area for the 

1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone 

standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of 

Mono Indians of California, the Cold 

Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the North Fork Rancheria of 

Mono Indians of California, the 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians of California, the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the 

Table Mountain Rancheria of California, 

the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule 

River Indian Tribe of the Tule River 

Reservation. 

The EPA’s proposed approval of the 

various SIP elements submitted by 

CARB to address the 1-hour ozone and 

1997 8-hours ozone standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley would not have tribal 

implications because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed SIP approvals do 

not have tribal implications and will not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2159 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that 

the proposed action will not have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, and would not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. 

We note that none of the tribes located 

in the San Joaquin Valley has requested 

eligibility to administer programs under 

the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: December 24, 2015. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00089 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0790; FRL–9941–02– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Missouri’s Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Reporting 

Emission Data, Emission Fees and 

Process Information 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 

revisions to the Operating Permits 

Program for the State of Missouri 

submitted on March 16, 2015. These 

revisions update the emissions fee for 

permitted sources as set by Missouri 

Statute from $40 to $48 per ton of air 

pollution emitted annually, effective 

January 1, 2016. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

February 16, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0790, to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Krabbe, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

913–551–7991, or by email at 

krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

Title V revision to 10 C.S.R. 10–6.110 

‘‘Reporting Emission Data, Emission 

Fees, and Process Information’’ as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial revision amendment 

and anticipates no relevant adverse 

comments to this action. A detailed 

rationale for the approval is set forth in 

the direct final rule. If no relevant 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated in relation to 

this action. If EPA receives relevant 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed action. EPA will not institute 

a second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on part of this rule and if that 

part can be severed from the remainder 

of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 

those parts of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule which is located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 70 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Operating 

permits, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 23, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00190 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS