Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posted Date: 2016-01-15T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2140-2159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00089]

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

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.

[[Page 2141]]

    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 off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and 
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden 
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public 
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in 
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone 
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase 
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. See 
``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2142]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For further background on this court decision, see our 
proposed rule at 77 FR 58078 (September 19, 2012).
    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2143]]

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 year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the San Joaquin 
Valley from a base year through the applicable attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2144]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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.
    \8\ Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, December 20, 2013 
with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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.
    \10\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA 
Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated May 
19, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2145]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      NOX                                         VOC
                            Category                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     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

[[Page 2146]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Measure                                          Emission
             Rule                description     Adoption date  Submittal date     reductions         Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4308.........................  Boilers, Steam         11/14/13         5/13/14  Minimal in 2017  Approved 2/12/
                                Generators,                                                       15 (80 FR
                                and Process                                                       7803).
                                Heaters 0.075
                                to <2 MMBtu/hr.
4905.........................  Natural Gas-            1/22/15          4/7/15  To Be            Proposed
                                Fired, Fan                                       Determined.      Approval 11/5/
                                Type                                                              15 (80 FR
                                Residential                                                       68484).
                                Central
                                Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
on-road 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

[[Page 2147]]

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 
heavy-duty 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 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.
    \17\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
cost-effective 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

[[Page 2148]]

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 on-road 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

                                     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          ..............             5.6             3.7             2.7             0.7
 adjustments....................
Adjusted baseline VOC inventory   ..............           451.6           447.9           445.2           444.5
 in baseline year (Line 1-Line
 2).............................
Basis for required VOC            ..............           451.6           407.3           367.9           334.1
 reductions.....................
RFP Percent Reduction Required    ..............              9%              9%              9%              3%
 from prior milestone...........
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  ..............              0%            6.5%            2.2%            7.5%
 addressed provided by NOX
 substitution...................
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   ..............           480.0           481.9           475.6           475.2
 for milestones.................

[[Page 2149]]

 
Change since 2007...............  ..............           111.8           165.9           216.4           228.1
Forecasted Percent NOX            ..............           23.3%           34.4%           45.5%           48.0%
 creditable reductions since
 2007...........................
NOX percent previously used for   ..............              0%            6.5%            6.5%           11.7%
 VOC shortfall by NOX
 substitution...................
NOX percent available for VOC     ..............           23.3%           27.9%           39.0%           36.3%
 shortfall by NOX substitution
 and contingency................
NOX percent substitution needed   ..............            6.5%            0.0%            5.2%            2.0%
 for VOC shortfall..............
Forecasted NOX percent reduction  ..............           16.7%           27.9%           33.8%           34.2%
 surplus........................
Contingency measure reserve       ..............             Yes             Yes             Yes             Yes
 achieved?......................
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2150]]

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 (``non-waiver'' 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \21\ Tier 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 
Model,'' EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 2151]]

    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-mean-
square 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 ``band-RRF'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Sarika 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.
    \26\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2152]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Specifically, 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.
    \28\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 three-design 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 NAAQS-compliant 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 Fresno-Drummond 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

[[Page 2153]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 2154]]

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

[[Page 2155]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements. 
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt 
transportation control strategies and measures (1) to offset growth 
in emissions from growth in VMT, and, (2) in combination with other 
emission reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP, and (3) to 
demonstrate attainment. For more information on the EPA's 
interpretation of the three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), please 
see 77 FR 58067, at 58068 (September 19, 2012)(proposed withdrawal 
of approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Memorandum 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2156]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               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.

[[Page 2157]]

                              Table 5--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 on-road 
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,

[[Page 2158]]

rather than merely the required 97 tpd and 21 tpd, respectively.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and 
TCMs put in place after the respective base year can be determined 
by subtracting the ``projected actual'' emissions estimates from the 
``no action'' emissions estimates in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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

[[Page 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