Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter
Posted Date: 2016-05-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31212-31222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11741]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711; FRL-9946-60-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 
Ozone and Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve and conditionally approve revisions to the State of 
California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley 
(SJV) area. The revisions consist of an update to the Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budgets (``budgets'') for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for the 
SJV ozone nonattainment area; for NOX and fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for 
NOX and course particulate matter (PM10) for the 
1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV PM10 
maintenance area. The EPA is proposing to approve the SJV ozone and 
PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally approve the 
PM10 budgets in accordance with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and the EPA's regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0711 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket and documents in the docket for 
this action are generally available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket 
are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, 
large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location 
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (775) 434-
8176, oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
    A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action
    B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    C. What is the EMFAC model?
    D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California?
    E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect?
    F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets
    G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014
III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 
Submittals
IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets?
V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the 
State's Submittal
    A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
    B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour 
PM2.5 Standard
    C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 
Standard
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing action on a SIP revision submitted by the 
State of California (``State'') on November 13, 2015. The SIP submittal 
revises budgets applicable to control strategy or maintenance plans for 
the SJV for three different NAAQS. We are proposing to approve revised 
budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard. We are also proposing to conditionally 
approve revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. 
Should the EPA later finalize the revised budgets as proposed herein, 
they will replace the SJV's existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the 1987 24-
hour PM10 standard. At that time, the previously-approved or 
adequate budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation 
conformity purposes, and the revised budgets would need to be used as 
of the effective date of the final approval.

II. Background

A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action

    In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to set the acceptable 
level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts per million, averaged 
over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\1\ On April 15, 
2004, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard and classified the area as ``Serious'' under CAA section 
181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 
(April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, California requested that 
the EPA reclassify the SJV from ``Serious'' to ``Extreme'' 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 
181(b)(3). We granted California's request on May 5, 2010 and 
reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the

[[Page 31213]]

1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the 8-hour 
ozone standard by setting the acceptable level of ozone in the 
ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (``2008 8-
hour ozone standard''). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In 2015, the 
EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 
65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the EPA revised the PM2.5 24-hour standard to 
provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level 
from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (40 
CFR 50.13). On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the SJV as 
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 
58688 (November 13, 2009). This designation became effective on 
December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SJV area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1987, the EPA revised the particulate matter standard, replacing 
standards for total suspended particulates with new standards applying 
only to PM10. 52 FR 24633 (July 1, 1987). In 1990, the SJV 
was designated nonattainment for PM10. 56 FR 11101 (March 
15, 1991). In 2006, the 24-hour PM10 standard was retained, 
but the annual standard was revoked effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 
61144 (October 17, 2006).\3\ In 2008, the EPA approved a 
PM10 maintenance plan and redesignated the SJV to attainment 
for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2013, the EPA again retained the 24-hour PM10 
standard of 150 ug/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment area includes all 
of seven counties, including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San 
Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the western half of Kern 
County. See the NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR 81.305.

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment 
and maintenance areas for a given NAAQS. These emission control 
strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and 
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include 
motor vehicle emissions budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for 
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 
cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the portions of the total allowable 
emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with 
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for RFP, 
attainment or maintenance. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions 
from an area's planned transportation system. For more information 
about budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, 
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects 
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can 
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation 
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing 
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or 
delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations 
can be found at 40 CFR part 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, the EPA 
must affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets 
do not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the 
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same 
purpose, the EPA must approve the budgets, and can affirm that they are 
adequate at the same time. Once the EPA approves the submitted budgets, 
they must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether 
transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section 
176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's substantive criteria for determining the 
adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

C. What is the EMFAC model?

    The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) is a computer model 
developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB updates 
EMFAC on a regular basis and releases new versions generally every 
three or four years. The current version can estimate emission rates 
for on-road mobile sources (``motor vehicles'') operating in California 
for calendar years from 2000 to 2050. Pollutant emissions for VOCs,\4\ 
carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, PM10, 
PM2.5, lead, carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur 
oxides are outputs generated by the model. Emissions are calculated for 
fifty-one different vehicle classes composed of passenger cars, various 
types of trucks and buses, motorcycles, and motor homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMFAC is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor 
vehicle emissions at the state, air district, air basin, or county 
level. EMFAC contains default vehicle activity data, and the option of 
modifying that data, so it can be used to estimate a motor vehicle 
emissions inventory in tons/day for a specific year, month, or season, 
and as a function of ambient temperature, relative humidity, vehicle 
population, mileage accrual, miles of travel and speeds. Thus the model 
can be used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs 
at the local or state level. Inventories based on EMFAC are also used 
to meet the federal CAA's SIP and transportation conformity 
requirements.

D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California?

    Most budgets in the California SIP were developed using EMFAC2007 
(released by CARB in October 2007) or EMFAC2011 (released by CARB in 
September 2011). The EPA approved EMFAC2007 at 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 
2008) and EMFAC2011 at 78 FR 14533 (March 16, 2013) for all areas in 
California.
    EMFAC2011 was considered a major update to previous versions of 
EMFAC and most budgets in the California SIP were updated with 
EMFAC2011 in the 2012-2014 timeframe. EMFAC2011 included a new model 
structure, new data and methodologies regarding calculation of motor 
vehicle emissions, and revisions to implementation data for control 
measures.

E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect?

    The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP revisions and 
transportation conformity at 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC2014 
includes significant changes to its model interface, new data and 
methodologies regarding calculation of motor vehicle emissions and 
revisions to implementation data for control measures. EMFAC2014 
includes updated data on car and truck activity, and emissions 
reductions associated with CARB's Advanced Clean Cars regulations.\5\ 
Motor vehicle fleet age, vehicle types and vehicle population have also 
been updated based on 2000-2012 California Department of Motor Vehicle 
data. EMFAC2014 incorporates new temperature and humidity profiles. 
Each of these changes impact emission factors for each area in 
California. In addition to changes to truck activity, EMFAC 
incorporates updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for all vehicle 
classes. The new model interface for EMFAC2014 allows users to update 
the default VMT data and speed profiles by vehicle class for different 
future

[[Page 31214]]

scenarios. CARB's Web site describes these and other model changes at: 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For further information, see the EPA's January 9, 2013 
waiver of preemption for the Advanced Clean Cars regulations at 78 
FR 2112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets

    The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The ozone 
budgets were included in the EPA's approval of the SJV 2007 8-hour 
Ozone Plan (``2007 Ozone Plan'') at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012), which 
established NOX and VOC budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 
and 2023.\6\ The PM10 budgets were included in the EPA's 
approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 
Redesignation (``2007 PM10 Plan'') at 73 FR 66759 (November 
12, 2008), which established direct PM10 and NOX 
budgets for 2005 and 2020.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 2007 Ozone 
Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV-related portions of CARB's 
2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011).
    \7\ The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10 
Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, September 20, 2007, 
and technical corrections by CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, 
San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 
PM10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri 
from James N. Goldstene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA previously proposed to approve the SJV budgets for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 standard. The PM2.5 budgets were 
included in the EPA's proposed approval of the SJV 2012 
PM2.5 Plan (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'') at 80 FR 1816 
(January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in 
the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April 
15, 2016), establishing direct PM2.5 and NOX 
budgets for 2017. As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must be used to 
determine conformity of transportation plans and TIPs to the control 
strategy plan for the SJV for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air 
Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 
CARB, April 1, 2016 with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current EPA-approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
and PM10 standard were developed using EMFAC2007, and the 
adequate budgets for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard were 
developed using EMFAC2011. In the SJV, the eight county-level 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) are the relevant transportation agencies that must 
use approved or adequate budgets in determining the conformity of 
transportation plans and TIPs within the SJV region.

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014

    The revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 standards were adopted by 
the CARB on October 22, 2015.\9\ They were submitted to the EPA on 
November 13, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CARB Resolution No. 15-50, October 22, 2015.
    \10\ Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015 
with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet 
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that 
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations 
in 40 CFR 51.102.
    CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for 
reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of 
the revised budgets. In the documentation included as part of the 
November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal, CARB provided evidence of the 
required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its 
October 22, 2015 public hearing and adoption of the revised budgets. We 
find, therefore, that the submittal of the revised budgets meets the 
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 
110(a) and 110(l).
    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a 
SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also 
provides that any plan submittal that the EPA has not affirmatively 
determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by 
operation of law six months after the date of submittal. The EPA's SIP 
completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA 
determined that CARB's November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal was 
complete on April 21, 2016.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 
9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated April 21, 
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets?

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, SIP revisions must not interfere 
with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act. Generally, the EPA reviews 
budgets for adequacy or approval in the context of the Agency's review 
of a control strategy implementation plan (i.e., attainment or RFP 
plan) or maintenance plan. However, revisions to budgets can be 
approved without comprehensive updates to the related control strategy 
implementation or maintenance plan if the plan, with the new level of 
motor vehicle emissions contained in the revised budgets, continues to 
meet applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance). 
EPA policy guidance suggests that a state may revise the motor vehicle 
emissions inventories and related budgets without revising their entire 
SIP consistent with section 110(l) if: (1) The SIP continues to meet 
applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions 
inventories are replaced with new MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator 
(MOVES) base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year 
inventories; and (2) the state can document that growth and control 
strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid 
and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the 
SIP.\12\ The EPA's policy guidance for MOVES can be applied to EMFAC 
because EMFAC is a California-specific emissions model analogous to 
MOVES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State 
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and 
Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-14-008, July 2014. See question and answer 
#6 on page 7. Available online at: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b14008.pdf. MOVES is a model that states use to 
estimate on-road emissions for SIP development, transportation 
conformity determinations, and other purposes. Also see examples of 
EPA rulemakings involving replacement of budgets in response to a 
MOVES update, e.g., Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (79 FR 28435, May 16, 
2014) and Beaumont/Port Arthur (78 FR 7672, February 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, revised budgets that are intended to replace adequate 
(but not approved) budgets must meet the adequacy criteria found in our 
transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). These 
criteria include endorsement by the Governor (or designee); prior 
consultation among relevant air and transportation agencies; clear 
identification and precise quantification of the budgets; consistency 
of the budgets, when considered with all other emissions sources, with 
applicable requirements for RFP, attainment or maintenance; consistency 
with and clear relation to the emissions inventory and control 
measures; and explanation and documentation of changes relative to 
previously submitted budgets. In this instance, the adequacy criteria 
do not

[[Page 31215]]

apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan or 
the 2007 PM10 Plan because the budgets they would replace 
are approved budgets. The adequacy criteria do, however, apply to our 
review of the revised budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
because the budgets from that plan have been found adequate, but are 
not yet approved.

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the State's 
Submittal

    Table 1 lists the revised budgets by subarea included in the 
State's submittal for the SJV budgets applicable to the 1997 8-hour 
ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and the 24-hour PM10 
standards. CARB developed the revised budgets using EMFAC2014 and the 
travel activity projections provided by the San Joaquin Valley MPOs 
consistent with the 2015 Federal TIP. As such, we find that the revised 
budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the 
most recent emission factor data and approved calculation methods. A 
comparison of the current approved or adequate budgets with the revised 
budgets and a discussion of the EPA's proposed action on each set of 
budgets is provided further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The county-specific budgets are set forth in attachment A 
to CARB Resolution 15-50. Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision 
adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13, 
2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP 
revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity 
Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and 
PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September 
21, 2015.

                                                           Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed Using EMFAC2014 \13\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         1997 8-hour ozone standard                              2006 24-hour PM2.5           PM10 standard
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------         standard         -------------------------
                                                                      NOX (tons per summer day)              VOC (tons per summer day)       --------------------------               NOX (tons
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------               NOX (tons                 per annual
                        County subarea                                                                                                           Direct     per winter  Direct PM10      day)
                                                                                                                                              PM2.5 (tons      day)      (tons per  ------------
                                                                    2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023      per winter ------------- annual day)
                                                                                                                                                  day)         2017                      2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................................         29.9         24.3         14.6          8.7          6.8          5.6          1.0         32.1          7.0         25.4
Kern (SJV)....................................................         26.8         22.4         12.9          6.9          5.7          4.8          0.8         28.8          7.4         23.3
Kings.........................................................          5.5          4.7          2.7          1.4          1.1          0.9          0.2          5.9          1.8          4.8
Madera........................................................          5.5          4.5          2.7          2.0          1.6          1.3          0.2          6.0          2.5          4.7
Merced........................................................         10.3          8.5          5.1          2.7          2.1          1.7          0.3           11          3.8          8.9
San Joaquin...................................................         14.1         11.3          7.3          6.4          5.1          4.3          0.6         15.5          4.6         11.9
Stanislaus....................................................         11.3          9.2          5.8          4.1          3.2          2.7          0.4         12.3          3.7          9.6
Tulare........................................................         10.3          8.1          4.9          4.0          3.1          2.5          0.4         11.2          3.4          8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton
  for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC, PM2.5 and PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then
  rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method.

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

    Tables 2 and 3 below compare the current EPA-approved 
NOX and VOC budgets developed using EMFAC2007 with the 
revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by 
subarea and apply to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

                                               Table 2--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for NOX for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                                                      [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      2017                                      2020                                      2023
                          County subarea                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Current       Revised     Net change      Current       Revised     Net change      Current       Revised     Net change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................................          22.6          29.9           7.3          17.7          24.3           6.6          13.5          14.6           1.1
Kern (SJV)........................................................          31.7          26.8          -4.9          25.1          22.4          -2.7          18.6          12.9          -5.7
Kings.............................................................           6.7           5.5          -1.2           5.3           4.7          -0.6           4.0           2.7          -1.3
Madera............................................................           5.8           5.5          -0.3           4.7           4.5          -0.2           3.6           2.7          -0.9
Merced............................................................          12.4          10.3          -2.1           9.9           8.5          -1.4           7.4           5.1          -2.3
San Joaquin.......................................................          15.6          14.1          -1.5          12.4          11.3          -1.1          10.0           7.3          -2.7
Stanislaus........................................................          10.6          11.3           0.7           8.4           9.2           0.8           6.4           5.8          -0.6
Tulare............................................................          10.1          10.3           0.2           8.1           8.1           0.0           6.2           4.9          -1.3
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................................................         115.5         113.7          -1.8          91.6          93.0           1.4          69.7          56.0         -13.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and
  nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the
  nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

                           Table 3--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for VOC for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2017                                   2020                                   2023
           County subarea           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.............................          9.3          8.7         -0.6          8.3          6.8         -1.5          8.0          5.6         -2.4
Kern (SJV).........................          8.7          6.9         -1.8          8.2          5.7         -2.5          7.9          4.8         -3.1
Kings..............................          1.8          1.4         -0.4          1.7          1.1         -0.6          1.6          0.9         -0.7
Madera.............................          2.2          2.0         -0.2          2.0          1.6         -0.4          1.9          1.3         -0.6
Merced.............................          3.2          2.7         -0.5          2.9          2.1         -0.8          2.8          1.7         -1.1
San Joaquin........................          7.2          6.4         -0.8          6.4          5.1         -1.3          6.3          4.3         -2.0
Stanislaus.........................          5.6          4.1         -1.5          5.0          3.2         -1.8          4.7          2.7         -2.0

[[Page 31216]]

 
Tulare.............................          5.8          4.0         -1.8          5.3          3.1         -2.2          4.9          2.5         -2.4
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................         43.8         36.2         -7.6         39.8         28.7        -11.1         38.1         23.8        -14.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total
  up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of
  each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding
  method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised NOX and VOC budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 
are intended to replace the EPA-approved NOX and VOC budgets 
in 2007 Ozone Plan developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A 
comparison of the current budgets with the revised budgets is shown in 
tables 2 and 3. The tables show that the NOX and VOC totals 
for the revised budgets are less than the current budgets for all 
years, except 2020 for NOX, which shows a slight increase of 
1.4 tpd or 1.4% when compared to the prior budget.
    First, we note that the 2007 Ozone Plan relied upon motor vehicle 
emissions inventories, from which the budgets \14\ were derived, to 
demonstrate compliance with RFP and attainment requirements. With 
respect to the RFP requirement, we found that the 2007 Ozone Plan 
provided a significant surplus of NOX emissions reductions 
beyond those necessary to meet the RFP requirement. See table 11 of our 
proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan (76 FR 57862, September 16, 
2011). As shown in tables 2 and 3, with one exception, the revised 
regional total motor vehicle emissions estimates submitted by CARB for 
VOC and NOX for 2017, 2020 and 2023 are lower than the 
corresponding estimates from the plan as approved in 2012. As such, the 
replacement of the older budgets with the revised budgets would not 
change the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan meets the requirements 
for RFP. The exception, the 1.4 tpd of NOX in 2020, is too 
minor to affect the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue 
to meet the RFP requirement in that year given the significant surplus 
in NOX emissions reductions in that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In San Joaquin Valley plans, the motor vehicle emissions 
inventories are essentially the same as the budgets. Historically, 
CARB has set the budget for the SJV MPOs by rounding the motor 
vehicle emissions estimate to the nearest tenth of a ton. With more 
recent plans and for the revised budgets, CARB rounds the regional 
total motor vehicle emissions inventories up to the nearest whole 
ton (for NOX) or the nearest tenth of a ton (for ROG, 
PM2.5 and PM10) and then re-allocates the 
emissions to the various counties based on the ratio of the county-
specific motor vehicle emissions to the regional total. The re-
allocated county-specific emissions estimate is rounded 
conventionally to the nearest tenth of a ton, which then constitutes 
the budget. See the attachment to CARB's staff report included in 
the November 13, 2015 submittal in support of the SIP revision 
(i.e., the revised budgets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of 
the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with the 
November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB 
prepared updated NOX and VOC emissions inventories from all 
sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) in the 
SJV for 2017, 2020, and 2023. These updated inventories provide a basis 
for comparison with the corresponding inventories from the 2007 Ozone 
Plan. We would expect that most current emissions estimates from all 
sources in SJV in 2017, 2020, and 2023 would be lower than those 
included in the 2007 Ozone Plan because they reflect control measures 
adopted since the plan was approved, and as shown below in tables 4 and 
5, the updated regional emissions for 2017, 2020, and 2023, including 
the revised budgets, are approximately 20 tpd, 15 tpd, and 34 tpd lower 
for NOX and 0 tpd, 4 tpd, and 12 tpd lower for VOCs, 
respectively, than the corresponding figures in the EPA-approved plan. 
The most significant differences between the inventories are from large 
decreases in the actual reported emissions for several point source 
categories (i.e., cogeneration, oil and gas production, food and 
agriculture, glass manufacturing and composting), compared to their 
projected emissions in the EPA-approved plan.\15\ Other significant 
differences include updates to: (1) Agricultural acreage burned; (2) 
CARB's off-road source emissions using a newer suite of category-
specific models developed to support recent CARB regulations; and (3) 
animal population estimates and VOC emission factors for livestock 
operations. The current emissions estimates for 2023 (161 tpd of 
NOX, and 327 tpd of VOC) are consistent with the attainment 
target level \16\ for the 1997 ozone standard (141 tpd of 
NOX, and 342 tpd of VOC) given the continued implementation 
of the long-term element of the control strategy of the 2007 Ozone Plan 
to develop new technologies or to improve existing control technologies 
as approved by EPA under section 182(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comparing the Emission Inventories for the San Joaquin 
Valley State Implementation Plans, CARB, March 30, 2016. Attachment 
to email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, 
March 30, 2016.
    \16\ See table 9 on page 57858 of our proposed approval of the 
2007 Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we find that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet 
applicable requirements for RFP and attainment when the previously-
approved EMFAC2007-based budgets are replaced with the revised 
EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the changes in the growth and control 
strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the 
overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan. As such, we find that 
approval of the revised NOX and VOC budgets for the 2007 
Ozone Plan for 2017, 2020 and 2023 as shown in table 1 would not 
interfere with attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act 
and would thereby comply with section 110(l), and we propose to approve 
them on that\\ basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from 
appendix A-3 and B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan 
titled ``Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions 
and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation 
Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 
Joaquin Valley Air Basins'' (release date: June 20, 2011). CARB's 
updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report 
submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

[[Page 31217]]

                  Table 4--Comparison of NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                               [Tons per summer day] \17\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Emissions inventory in approved ozone       Updated emissions inventory                     Net change
                                                      plan                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inventory category         ---------------------------------------
                                         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area................           55           53           53           36           36           35          -19          -17          -18
On-road............................          115           91           69          113           92           55           -2            1          -14
Non-road...........................           89           80           73           89           82           70            0            2           -3
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................          259          225          195          239          210          161          -20          -15          -34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in
  emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan.

                  Table 5--Comparison of VOC Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
                                                               [Tons per summer day] \18\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Emissions inventory in approved ozone       Updated emissions inventory                     Net change
                                                      plan                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inventory category         ---------------------------------------
                                         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023         2017         2020         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area................          229          235          244          255          263          272           26           28           28
On-road............................           43           39           37           36           29           24           -7          -10          -13
Non-road...........................           57           57           57           38           35           32          -19          -22          -25
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................          329          331          339          329          327          327            0           -4          -12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in
  emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan.

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 
Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from 
appendix A-3 and appendix B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007 
Ozone Plan titled Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan 
Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation 
Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 
Joaquin Valley Air Basins (release date June 20, 2011). CARB's 
updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report 
submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 below compares the current direct PM2.5 and 
NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2011 that were recently 
found adequate for transportation conformity purposes with the revised 
budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea 
and apply to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

    Table 6--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley 2017 PM2.5 Budgets for PM2.5 and NOX for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
                                                    Standard
                                              [Tons per winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Direct PM2.5                               NOX
          County subarea           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current      Revised     Net change    Current      Revised     Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................          0.9          1.0          0.1         25.2         32.1          6.9
Kern (SJV)........................          1.0          0.8         -0.2         34.4         28.8         -5.6
Kings.............................          0.2          0.2          0.0          7.2          5.9         -1.3
Madera............................          0.2          0.2          0.0          7.0          6.0         -1.0
Merced............................          0.4          0.3         -0.1         13.7           11         -2.7
San Joaquin.......................          0.6          0.6          0.0         15.9         15.5         -0.4
Stanislaus........................          0.5          0.4         -0.1         12.0         12.3          0.3
Tulare............................          0.4          0.4          0.0         10.7         11.2          0.5
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................          4.2          3.9         -0.3        126.1        122.8         -3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from
  EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton
  for direct PM2.5; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's
  contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the
  conventional rounding method. The existing adequate PM2.5 budgets were calculated in the same manner.

    The revised 2017 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets 
are intended to replace the adequate 2017 PM2.5 and 
NOX budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan developed for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. A comparison of the prior 
budgets with the revised budgets, as shown in table 6, indicates that 
the totals for the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX 
budgets are less than the current budgets.
    First, we note that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan relied upon 
motor vehicle emissions inventories, from which the budgets were 
derived, for year 2017 to demonstrate compliance with RFP requirements 
for that year. In our proposed partial approval of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, we proposed to approve the RFP demonstration as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) for year 2017 based 
on emissions

[[Page 31218]]

projections in the plan for that year that reflect full implementation 
of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control 
requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at a minimum). See 80 FR 1816, at 1834-
1837 (January 13, 2015). We deemed such a showing to be sufficient to 
meet the RFP requirement in an area that cannot practicably attain the 
PM2.5 standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment 
date. The revised motor vehicle emissions estimates used to develop the 
revised budgets continue to reflect full implementation of a control 
strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements, and as 
such, replacement of the EMFAC2011-based motor vehicle emissions 
budgets from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan with the revised EMFAC2014-
based motor vehicle emissions budgets would not change the proposal to 
approve the RFP demonstration for 2017 in the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan.
    Second, we have reviewed the analysis that CARB prepared in support 
of the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with 
the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB 
included a comparison of the estimated direct PM2.5 and 
NOX emissions inventories from all sources (i.e., 
stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 2017 with those 
from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. As shown below in table 7, the 
total emissions for 2017 associated with the revised budgets are 
approximately 7 tpd lower for direct PM2.5 and 6 tpd lower 
for NOX when compared to the total emissions inventory in 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan containing the current budgets. The 
differences include updates to: Agricultural acreage burned; locomotive 
and recreational boat emissions; and farming operations.
    Therefore, we find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan continues to 
meet applicable requirements for RFP in 2017 when the EMFAC2011-based 
budgets are replaced with the new EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the 
changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor 
vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions regarding the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan's demonstration of RFP for 2017. As such, we 
find that approval of the revised direct PM2.5 and 
NOX budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for year 2017 
as shown in table 1 would not interfere with attainment or RFP or any 
other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply with section 
110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.
    In addition, we have reviewed the revised direct PM2.5 
and NOX budgets for compliance with the adequacy criteria 
and find that, in addition to being consistent with the 2017 RFP 
demonstration, they are clearly identified and precisely quantified and 
meet all of the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(i)-(vi). See the EPA 
memorandum documenting review of the budgets for compliance with the 
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e) that has been placed in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect our 
January 13, 2015 proposal, or rationale therein, to approve the trading 
mechanism as described on page C-32 in appendix C of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan as enforceable components of the transportation 
conformity program in the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 standard 
with the condition, as explained in our January 13, 2015 proposal, that 
trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NOX 
for increases in PM2.5. See 80 FR at 1816, at 1841 (January 
13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CARB's updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's 
staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision 
submittal.

          Table 7--Comparison of 2017 PM2.5 and NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard
                                                               [Tons per winter day] \19\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2017 emissions inventory in       Updated 2017 emissions                Net change
                                                                  2012 PM2.5 plan                    inventory           -------------------------------
                   Inventory category                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary..............................................             8.9            27.4             8.7            28.5            -0.2             1.1
Area....................................................            46.8            15.6            41.2            11.7            -5.6            -3.9
On-road.................................................             4.2           125.6             3.7           122.3            -0.5            -3.3
Non-road................................................             3.6            64.3             4.1            62.9             0.5            -1.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................            63.6           232.9            57.7           225.4            -5.9            -7.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and
  a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 Standard

    Table 8 below compares the current EPA-approved direct 
PM10 and NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007 
with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are 
provided by subarea and apply to the 24-hour PM10 standard.

                        Table 8--Comparison of San Joaquin Valley PM10 2020 Budgets for Direct PM10 and NOX for the PM10 Standard
                                                              [Annual average tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Direct PM10 \20\                                       NOX
                     County subarea                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current         Revised         Change          Current         Revised         Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..................................................            16.1             7.0            -9.1            23.2            25.4             2.2
Kern (SJV)..............................................            14.7             7.4            -7.3            39.5            23.3           -16.2
Kings...................................................             3.6             1.8            -1.8             6.8             4.8            -2.0

[[Page 31219]]

 
Madera..................................................             4.7             2.5            -2.2             6.5             4.7            -1.8
Merced..................................................             6.4             3.8            -2.6            12.9             8.9            -4.0
San Joaquin.............................................            10.6             4.6            -6.2            17.0            11.9            -5.1
Stanislaus..............................................             6.7             3.7            -3.0            10.8             9.6            -1.2
Tulare..................................................             9.4             3.4            -6.0            10.9             8.4            -2.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................            72.2            34.2           -38.0           127.6            97.0           -30.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised PM10 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up
  to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio
  of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding
  method. The previously approved budgets for PM10 were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets for 
2020 are intended to replace the EPA-approved PM10 and 
NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007 for the 2007 
PM10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The direct PM10 budgets include PM10 
emissions from paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and road 
construction dust, as well as PM10 from vehicle exhaust 
and brake and tire wear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we note that the 2007 PM10 Plan relied upon motor 
vehicle emission inventories, from which the budgets were derived, to 
demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2020. 
Maintenance through 2020 was demonstrated in the 2007 PM10 
Plan using a combination of chemical mass balance receptor modeling to 
identify emission source contributions by chemical species and rollback 
techniques. See pages 6-11 of the 2007 PM10 Plan. Given the 
modeling methods used to demonstrate maintenance, it is not possible to 
precisely calculate the change in concentration associated with the 
substitution of the approved budgets with the revised budgets. However, 
given that the revised budgets, when summed for the SJV region, are 
lower than the regional sum for the approved budgets, replacement of 
the approved budgets with the revised budgets would not undermine the 
maintenance demonstration in the 2007 PM10 Plan.
    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of 
the revised budgets. To further demonstrate that the changes to the 
direct PM10 and NOX budgets are consistent with 
the 2007 PM10 Plan for the 24-hour PM10 standard, 
CARB's analysis included a comparison of the estimated direct 
PM10 and NOX emissions inventories from all 
sources (including stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 
2020. As shown below in table 9, the total emissions for 2020 
associated with the revised budgets are approximately 10.2 tpd lower 
for direct PM10 and 121.0 tpd lower for NOX when 
compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2007 PM10 
Plan. The lower estimates for NOX are primarily due to 
greater reductions in NOX from stationary sources than had 
been assumed in the 2007 PM10 Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 2007 PM10 Plan estimated a reduction in 
stationary source emissions of NOX from 106 tpd to 103 
ptd from 2005 to 2020. See CARB's staff report titled ``Analysis of 
the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,'' 
appendix B. Instead, controls on such sources, as well as 
corrections and updates to inventory methods, are now expected to 
reduce such emissions 30 tpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary differences between the inventories in the 2007 
PM10 Plan and the supporting documentation for the revised 
budgets are from: (1) New or revised CARB mobile source measures (e.g., 
heavy-duty truck retrofit requirements and new or revised emissions 
standards for transportation refrigeration units, portable diesel 
engines, and large spark ignition engine regulation, among other 
categories) and new or revised San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVAPCD or ``District'') stationary and area source measures 
(e.g., regulations affecting open burning; boilers, steam generators 
and process heaters; dryers, dehydrators and ovens; and internal 
combustion engines, among others); (2) corrections to the Manufacturing 
and Industrial and Food and Agriculture categories; (3) updates to 
agricultural and managed burned acreage and the reclassification of 
Wildfire Use as a natural source category; and (4) updates to CARB's 
emission estimation models for locomotives, commercial and recreational 
boats, transportation refrigeration units, construction equipment, oil 
drilling and workover equipment, cargo handling equipment, and farm 
equipment.
    Table 9 shows that CARB's current estimates of NOX 
emissions for 2020 differ substantially from those projected in the 
2007 PM10 Plan. The changes in growth and control strategy 
assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall 
conclusions of the 2007 PM10 Plan because they reflect, 
among other things, additional controls that support continued 
maintenance of the PM10 standard in the SJV beyond those 
assumed in the plan. While the changes in emissions estimates lend 
support to the conclusion that the 2007 PM10 Plan, with the 
revised budget, continues to meet the underlying purpose of the plan, 
i.e., to provide for maintenance of the PM10 standard 
through 2020, the EPA also reviewed the ambient PM10 
concentration data collected over the past several years in the SJV to 
see if they too are consistent with the continued maintenance of the 
standard.

[[Page 31220]]

             Table 9--Comparison of 2020 PM10 and NOX Emissions Reductions Associated with Current and Revised Budgets for the PM10 Standard
                                                           [Annual average tons per day] \22\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2020 Emissions inventory in       Updated 2020 emissions                Net change
                                                                approved PM10 plan                   inventory           -------------------------------
                   Inventory category                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Direct PM10         NOX         Direct PM10         NOX         Direct PM10         NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary..............................................            26.4           103.7            15.3            29.5           -11.1           -74.2
Area....................................................           247.8            17.1           251.7             8.4            +3.9            -8.7
On-road.................................................             9.7           124.7             7.6            96.7            -2.1           -28.0
Non-road................................................             6.1            82.4             5.6            72.2            -0.5           -10.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................           290.0           327.8           280.2           206.8           -10.2          -121.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in
  the 2007 PM10 Plan.

    From our review of the available, quality-assured, and certified 
PM10 ambient air monitoring data in the EPA's Air Quality 
System (AQS) for 2013 and 2014, along with preliminary data for 2015, 
we determined that the SJV PM10 maintenance area experienced 
multiple exceedances of the PM10 standard in 2013 and 2014. 
In response to the exceedances, the EPA evaluated whether the District 
implemented the contingency plan in its 2007 PM10 Plan. In 
its contingency plan, the District established an action level of 155 
[mu]g/m\3\ of PM10 over a 24-hour period. Should the action 
level be reached, the District committed to evaluating the exceedance 
and take appropriate action within 18 months of the event date. The 
following major steps comprise the District's contingency plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 2020 emissions inventory in the approved 2007 
PM10 Plan is from CARB's Staff Report titled ``Analysis 
of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,'' 
appendix B, which was approved as part of the 2007 PM10 
Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)(2). The updated 2020 
emissions inventory is attached to a December 15, 2015 email from 
Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 1. The District will examine the event and determine if it 
needs to be classified as a natural or exceptional event in accordance 
with the EPA's final rulemaking (72 FR 13560). If the data qualify for 
flagging under this rule, the District would proceed with preparing and 
submitting the necessary documentation for a natural/exceptional event, 
and would not consider the monitored level as a trigger for the 
maintenance plan contingency plan.
    Step 2. If the event does not qualify as a natural or exceptional 
event, the District would then analyze the event to determine its 
possible causes. It would examine emission reductions from adopted 
rules or rule commitments in adopted and approved plans to see if 
emission reductions not used in demonstrating maintenance of the 
PM10 NAAQS would address the violation.
    Step 3. If reductions from Step 2 above are insufficient, the 
District would proceed with identifying control measures from any 
feasibility studies (e.g., from the 2007 Ozone Plan) completed to date 
that recommend future controls and prioritize development of the 
measures most relevant to reducing PM10 levels.
    In a March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA,\23\ the District summarized 
the steps they had taken in response to the PM10 
exceedances, including implementation of the contingency plan in their 
2007 PM10 Plan. Specifically, the District identified 
seventeen exceedances of the PM10 standard that occurred at 
five monitoring sites. Of these, the District characterized ten 
exceedances as high wind events that qualify as exceptional events per 
criteria in 40 CFR 50.1(j). CARB indicated they will be submitting to 
the EPA exceptional event documentation for some or all of these 
events; however, the EPA has not yet received the documentation in 
support of determining whether the ten exceedances qualify as 
exceptional events. The District characterized the remaining seven 
exceedances as exceptional events caused by ``exceptional drought 
conditions'' coinciding with stagnant air conditions, and indicated 
they will be submitting to CARB exceptional event documentation for 
these events. On February 16, 2016, the District requested that CARB 
flag five exceedances in AQS as possible exceptional events caused by 
the drought conditions.\24\ On March 10, 2016, CARB responded to the 
District's February 16, 2016 request and indicated that the five 
exceedances could not be flagged as exceptional events because they did 
not meet the definition of an exceptional event in 40 CFR 50.1(j).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter, Samir Sheikh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, 
SJVAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 
March 11, 2016.
    \24\ Email, Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, to Theresa Najita, CARB, 
February 16, 2016.
    \25\ Email, Theresa Najita, CARB, to Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, 
March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA, the District identified 
multiple rules and regulations that reduce PM10 or 
PM10 precursors beyond commitments in the 2007 
PM10 Plan. Based on our analysis of the March 11 letter, the 
EPA has determined there is uncertainty regarding whether the rules and 
regulations identified by the District, when combined with the 
PM10 revised budgets, are sufficient for maintenance of the 
PM10 standard. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA 
may conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the 
State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not 
later than one year after the EPA approval of the plan or plan 
revision. In this instance, the District indicated in their March 11, 
2016 letter that adequate measures have been adopted to provide 
continued maintenance of the PM10 standard; however, the EPA 
has determined that the State's revised budgets submittal and the 
District's March 11, 2016 letter alone are not sufficient for the EPA 
to determine the area will maintain the 24-hour PM10 
standard. To help remedy this situation, in an April 29, 2016 letter to 
the EPA, CARB committed to submit a SIP revision by June 1, 2017 that 
will provide additional documentation on the nature and causes of each 
of the recent PM10 exceedances. To the extent that data is 
available, the State committed to the following: \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For additional background on the District's response to the 
2013-2014 PM10 exceedances and the State's April 29, 2016 
letter, please see the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Evaluation of PM10 filter-based and continuous 
data across the SJV to

[[Page 31221]]

understand the local or regional nature of each exceedance;
     Analysis of PM2.5 data to determine whether 
fine or coarse particles are contributing to the exceedance;
     Analysis of available chemical speciation data including 
additional filter speciation analysis as appropriate to assess 
potential source types contributing to each exceedance; and
     Analysis of wind speed and direction, along with 
geographic visualization tools to help identify the types of sources 
impacting each monitor.
    Based on these analyses, CARB and the District will determine the 
appropriate remedy to address the nature of each exceedance. This may 
include submittal of documentation for exceptional events, or analysis 
and evaluation of the further emission reductions that will accrue from 
ongoing implementation of current control programs or development of 
new control measures as part of upcoming attainment plans.
    For exceedances that qualify as natural or exceptional events, CARB 
and the District will follow the notification and data flagging process 
that is contained in the EPA's revised Exceptional Event Rule (``EE 
Rule''). This will include a commitment to notify the EPA by July 1 of 
each year of the PM10 data that has been flagged. Subsequent 
submittal of documentation for each event will follow requirements 
specified in the EE Rule. In addition, CARB and the District commit to 
ensuring ongoing network adequacy and data completeness through 
existing mechanisms such as data certification and the annual network 
plan review.
    Based on the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX 
budgets in table 8 above, the updated inventory estimates in table 9 
above, and the commitments in CARB's April 29, 2016 letter, the EPA 
concludes that a conditional approval of the 2020 revised direct 
PM10 and NOX budgets supports continued 
maintenance of the PM10 standard and is consistent with 
applicable CAA requirements; thus, we propose to conditionally approve 
the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets as a 
revision to the 2007 PM10 Plan.\27\ If we finalize this 
proposed conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP 
revisions it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to 
comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ To comply with CAA section 175A(a), a maintenance plan must 
provide for the maintenance of standard (for which an area is being 
redesignated) for 10 years from redesignation to attainment, under 
CAA section 175A(b), states are required, within eight years of 
redesignation to attainment, to submit a revision to the SIP that 
provides for the maintenance of the standard an additional ten years 
after expiration of the initial 10-year period. For the SJV and 
PM10, California must submit a subsequent 10-year 
maintenance plan by December 12, 2016. We expect that the subsequent 
SJV PM10 maintenance plan will address the recent 
exceedances described in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect the 
trading mechanism first included in the SJV Amended 2003 
PM10 Plan and approved by the EPA at 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 
2004) and later carried forward and approved as part of the 2007 
PM10 Plan. See pages 20-21 of the 2007 PM10 Plan; 
73 FR 22307, at 22317 (April 25, 2008); and 73 FR 66759, at 66772 
(November 12, 2008). That is, the trading mechanism approved as part of 
the 2007 PM10 Plan will remain available regardless of our 
action on the revised budgets.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve 
the revised ozone and PM2.5 budgets and conditionally 
approve the revised PM10 budgets in California's November 
13, 2015 submittal for the SJV area. The revised budgets are shown in 
table 1 and are based on estimates from California's EMFAC2014 model.
    More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is 
proposing to approve the revised VOC and NOX budgets for 
2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because 
replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised budgets 
would not interfere with the approved RFP and attainment demonstrations 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and because emissions 
changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the 
overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
    Second, the EPA is also proposing to approve the revised direct 
PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard because replacement of the current 
adequate budgets with the revised budgets would be consistent with our 
separate proposal finding that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
demonstrates RFP for year 2017, because emissions changes in non-motor 
vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusion of 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and because the revised budgets meet 
the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi).
    Third, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to 
conditionally approve the revised direct PM10 and 
NOX budgets for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10 
standard because, when combined with implementation of the contingency 
plan in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and fulfillment of 
the commitments in the State's April 29, 2016 letter, they will allow 
the SJV to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 
PM10 standard. If we finalize this proposed conditional 
approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has 
committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to comply with this 
commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. 
Disapproval of the revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan 
would reinstate the existing approved budgets as the budgets that must 
be used in transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations after 
the effective date of the disapproval. See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1). Because 
the submittal of the revised budgets is not a required submittal, 
disapproval would not trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but 
would nonetheless trigger a two-year clock for a federal implementation 
plan under CAA section 110(c), and it would not trigger a 
transportation conformity freeze because the disapproval does not 
affect a control strategy implementation plan as defined in the 
transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).
    Lastly, if the EPA takes final action to approve the revised 
budgets as proposed, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs and DOT must use the 
revised budgets for future transportation conformity determinations.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments 
from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider 
these comments before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

[[Page 31222]]

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 
2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10 
standards: the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the 
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork 
Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of 
Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi 
Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon 
Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River 
Reservation.
    The EPA's proposed approval of the revised budgets submitted by 
CARB to address the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, 
and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards in the San Joaquin Valley 
would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to 
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA 
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In 
those areas of Indian country, the proposed SIP approvals do not have 
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, the EPA has 
concluded that the proposed action will not have tribal implications 
for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and would not impose 
substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal 
law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley 
has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-11741 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P