[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 60 (Friday, March 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17382-17431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05914]
[[Page 17381]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 60
March 27, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 60 / Friday, March 27, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17382]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318; FRL-10006-40-Region 9]
Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'')
proposes to approve portions of two state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious nonattainment
area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve those portions of the
``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards''
and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for
the State Implementation Plan'' that pertain to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and address CAA requirements for Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA also proposes to approve
inter-pollutant trading ratios for use in transportation conformity
analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of this action,
the EPA proposes to grant an extension of the Serious area attainment
date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024 based on a proposed
determination that the State has satisfied the statutory criteria for
this extension. We may, however, reconsider this proposal or deny
California's request for extension of the attainment date if, based on
new information or public comments, we find that the State has not
satisfied the statutory criteria for this extension.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0318, at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary and Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Plan
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area
Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
B. Requirements for Extension of a Serious Area Attainment Date
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area
Plan and Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
B. PM2.5 Precursors
C. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section
188(e)
E. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
G. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA
Section 189(e)
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS
for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([micro]m) in
diameter (PM2.5) by lowering the level from 65 micrograms
([micro]g) per cubic meter (m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.\1\ The 24-hour
standards are based on a three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations. The EPA established these standards
after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 71 Federal Register (FR) 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR
50.13. In promulgating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
retained the level of the 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7.
Subsequently, the EPA strengthened the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\
while retaining the secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the
level of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40
CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5
NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 2006 24-hour standards
(35 [micro]g/m\3\) as codified in 40 CFR 50.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature
mortality. Other important health effects associated with
PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, and new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular
health. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure
include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and
children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or direct
PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary
PM2.5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 81 FR 58010, 58011 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective December 14,
2009, the EPA finalized initial air quality designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the
three-year periods of 2005-2007 and 2006-2008.\4\ The EPA designated
the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San
Joaquin Valley as a Moderate nonattainment area for these NAAQS,
thereby establishing December 31, 2015 as the
[[Page 17383]]
latest permissible attainment date for the area under section 188(c)(1)
of the CAA.\6\ Effective February 19, 2016, the EPA reclassified the
San Joaquin Valley as a Serious nonattainment area for these NAAQS.\7\
Shortly thereafter, the EPA approved the State's demonstration that it
was impracticable to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date and related plan
elements addressing the Moderate area requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\5\ Id. (codified at 40 CFR 81.305). The most recent 24-hour
design value (2016-2018) for the San Joaquin Valley is 65 [micro]g/
m\3\. EPA design value workbook dated July 18, 2019, worksheet
``Table 1b.''
\6\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). The EPA promulgated these
PM2.5 nonattainment area classifications in response to a
2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding
the EPA's prior implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS
and directing the EPA to repromulgate implementation rules pursuant
to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\7\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
\8\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area, the San Joaquin Valley became subject to a new statutory
attainment date no later than the end of the tenth calendar year
following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019) and the requirement to
submit a Serious area plan satisfying the requirements of CAA Title I,
part D, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\ As explained in the EPA's final
reclassification action, the Serious area plan for the San Joaquin
Valley must include, among other things, provisions to assure that,
under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), the best available control measures
(BACM) for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the area
is reclassified and a demonstration (including air quality modeling)
that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
and no later than the applicable attainment date. The EPA established
an August 21, 2017 deadline for California to adopt and submit a SIP
submission addressing the Serious nonattainment area requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\10\ The EPA also noted that California
may choose to submit a request for an extension of the December 31,
2019, Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e)
simultaneously with its submission of a Serious area plan for the
area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 81 FR 2993, 2998.
\10\ Id. at 3000 and 81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (codified at 40
CFR 52.247(f)).
\11\ 81 FR 2993, 2998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described further in section III.B of this preamble, CAA section
188(e) allows the EPA to extend the attainment date for a Serious area
by up to five years if attainment by the Serious area attainment date
is impracticable. However, before the Agency may grant an extension of
the attainment date, the State must first:
(1) Apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM2.5
attainment date beyond 2019,
(2) demonstrate that attainment by 2019 is impracticable,
(3) have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to
the area in its implementation plan,
(4) demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that its
Serious area plan includes the most stringent measures that are
achieved in practice in any state and are feasible for the area, and
(5) submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area
encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight
counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare,
Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.\12\ The area is home to four
million people and is the nation's leading agricultural region.
Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles
wide, 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 Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD or District) has primary responsibility for developing plans
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in this area. The District works
cooperatively with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in
preparing attainment plans. Authority for regulating sources under
state jurisdiction in the San Joaquin Valley is split between the
District, which has responsibility for regulating stationary and most
area sources, and CARB, which has responsibility for regulating most
mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2018, CARB submitted to the EPA substantial
portions of the Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
following CARB's adoption of one component of the plan on October 25,
2018 and the SJVUAPCD's adoption of a second component of it on
November 15, 2018.\13\ Because CARB had not yet adopted this submission
in its entirety, the EPA determined that it did not meet the EPA's
completeness requirements for SIP submissions under 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V, section 2.1.\14\ The EPA's incompleteness findings became
effective on January 7, 2019, and triggered clocks for the application
of emissions offset sanctions for new or modified major stationary
sources in the San Joaquin Valley 18 months after the effective date of
the findings and highway funding sanctions six months thereafter,
unless the EPA affirmatively determines that the State has submitted a
complete SIP addressing the deficiency that was the basis for these
findings, consistent with CAA section 179(b) and the EPA's sanctions
sequencing rule in 40 CFR 52.31.\15\ These findings also triggered the
obligation under CAA section 110(c) on the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan no later than two years after the effective date of
the findings, unless the State has submitted, and the EPA has approved,
the required SIP submittal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Kurt Karperos, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\14\ 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018). The EPA made these findings
in response to a court order issued in Committee for a Better Arvin,
et al., v. Andrew Wheeler, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05700-RS (N.D.
Cal., October 24, 2018).
\15\ 83 FR 62720, 62723.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary and Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Plan
The EPA is proposing action on portions of two SIP revisions
submitted by CARB to meet the Serious nonattainment area requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to act on those portions of the
following two plan submissions that pertain to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS: The ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 Standards,'' adopted by the SJVUAPCD on November 15,
2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019 (``2018 PM2.5 Plan'')
\17\; and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted by CARB on
October 25, 2018 (``Valley State SIP Strategy''). We refer to the
relevant portions of these SIP submissions collectively as the ``SJV
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan.'' The SJV PM2.5 Plan
addresses the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and includes a
request under CAA section 188(e) for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date for the area for this NAAQS. CARB submitted the SJV
PM2.5 Plan to the EPA
[[Page 17384]]
as a revision to the SIP on May 10, 2019.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan was developed jointly by
CARB and the District.
\18\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
The EPA is not, at this time, proposing to act on those portions of
the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards'' or the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' that pertain to the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, or
Serious area contingency measures. We intend to act on these
portions of the submitted SIP revisions in subsequent rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include
evidence that adequate public notice was given and that an opportunity
for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's
implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness
criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
A. 2018 PM2.5 Plan
The following portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
related support documents address the Serious area requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley: (i) Chapter 4
(``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5''); (ii) Chapter 6
(``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
Standard: Serious Plan and Extension Request''); \19\ (iii) numerous
appendices to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan; (iv) CARB's ``Staff
Report, Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,'' release date December 21, 2018
(``CARB Staff Report''); \20\ and (v) the State's and District's board
resolutions adopting the 2018 PM2.5 Plan (CARB Resolution
19-1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16).\21\ The
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 includes emission
reduction commitments on which the SJV PM2.5 Plan
relies.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Chapter 5 (``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 Standard'') and Chapter 7 (``Demonstration of
Federal Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan pertain to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The EPA intends
to act on these portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in
separate rulemakings.
\20\ The CARB Staff Report includes CARB's review of, among
other things, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan's control strategy and
attainment demonstration. Letter dated December 11, 2019 from
Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, transmitting the CARB Staff Report [on
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan].
\21\ CARB Resolution 19-1, ``2018 PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley,'' January 24, 2019,
and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16, ``Adopting the
[SJVUAPCD] 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards,'' November 15, 2018.
\22\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16, paragraph 6,
10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appendices to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, in order of their
evaluation in this preamble, include: (i) App. B (``Emissions
Inventory''); (ii) App. A (``Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis'');
(iii) a plan precursor demonstration and clarifications, including App.
G (``Precursor Demonstration'') and Attachment A (``Clarifying
information for the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan regarding model
sensitivity related to ammonia and ammonia controls'') to the CARB
Staff Report; (iv) control strategy appendices, including App. C
(``Stationary Source Control Measure Analyses''), App. D (``Mobile
Source Control Measures Analyses''), and App. E (``Incentive-Based
Strategy''); (v) modeling appendices, including App. J (``Modeling
Emission Inventory''), App. K (``Modeling Attainment Demonstration''),
and App. L (``Modeling Protocol''); (vi) App. H (``RFP, Quantitative
Milestones, and Contingency''); and (vii) App. I (``New Source Review
and Emission Reduction Credits''). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
addresses motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) requirements in the
``Transportation Conformity'' section of App. D (pages D-119 to D-131).
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes an Executive Summary,
Introduction (Ch. 1), chapters on ``Air Quality Challenges and Trends''
(Ch. 2) and ``Health Impacts and Health Risk Reduction Strategy'' (Ch.
3), and an appendix on ``Public Education and Technology Advancement''
(App. F).
The District provided public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its November 15, 2018 public hearing on and adoption
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\23\ CARB also provided public notice
and opportunity for public comment prior to its January 24, 2019 public
hearing on and adoption of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\24\ The SIP
submission includes proof of publication of notices for the respective
public hearings. It also includes copies of the written and oral
comments received during the State's and District's public review
processes and the agencies' responses thereto.\25\ Therefore, we find
that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan meets the procedural requirements
for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40
CFR 51.102. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan became complete by operation
of law on November 10, 2019. The sanctions clocks that were triggered
by our December 6, 2018 findings that the State had failed to submit
complete SIP submissions addressing the statutory requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS,
however, will continue to run until the EPA affirmatively determines,
by letter to the Governor of California, that CARB has submitted a
complete SIP submission addressing the identified deficiencies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Hearing for Adoption of
Proposed 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
Standards,'' October 16, 2018, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution 18-11-16.
\24\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2018
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' December 21, 2018, and CARB Resolution 19-1.
\25\ CARB, ``Board Meeting Comments Log,'' March 29, 2019; J&K
Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California Air Resources
Board,'' January 24, 2019 (transcript of CARB's public hearing), and
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. M (``Summary of Significant
Comments and Responses'').
\26\ 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for termination of
sanctions clocks in 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Valley State SIP Strategy
CARB developed the ``Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan'' (``2016 State Strategy'') to support
attainment planning in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin (``South Coast'') ozone nonattainment areas.\27\ In its
resolution adopting the 2016 State Strategy (CARB Resolution 17-7), the
Board found that the 2016 State Strategy would achieve 6 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2025
and directed CARB staff to work with the SJVUAPCD to identify
additional reductions from sources under District regulatory authority
as part of a comprehensive plan to attain the PM2.5
standards for the San Joaquin Valley and to return to the Board with a
commitment to achieve additional emission reductions from mobile
sources.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The EPA has approved certain commitments made by CARB in
the 2016 State Strategy for purposes of attaining the ozone NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast ozone nonattainment areas.
See, e.g., 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019) and 84 FR 52005 (October
1, 2019).
\28\ CARB Resolution 17-7, ``2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan,'' March 23, 2017, 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17385]]
CARB responded to this resolution by developing and adopting the
``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP Strategy'') to support
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The State's May 10, 2019 SIP submission
incorporates by reference the Valley State SIP Strategy as adopted by
CARB on October 25, 2018 and submitted to the EPA on November 16,
2018.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley State SIP Strategy includes an Introduction (Ch. 1), a
chapter on ``Measures'' (Ch. 2), and a ``Supplemental State Commitment
from the Proposed State Measures for the Valley'' (Ch. 3). Much of the
content of the Valley State SIP Strategy is reproduced in Chapter 4
(``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.\30\ The Valley State SIP Strategy also includes
CARB Resolution 18-49, which, among other things, commits CARB to
achieve specific amounts of NOX and PM2.5
emission reductions by specific years, for purposes of attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ For example, Table 2 (proposed mobile source measures and
schedule), Table 3 (emissions reductions from proposed mobile source
measures), and Table 4 (summary of emission reduction measures) of
the Valley State SIP Strategy correspond to Tables 4-8, 4-9, and 4-
7, respectively, of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4.
\31\ CARB Resolution 18-49, ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to
the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' October
25, 2018, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its October 25, 2018 public hearing on and adoption of
the Valley State SIP Strategy.\32\ The SIP submission includes proof of
publication of the public notice for this public hearing. It also
includes copies of the written and oral comments received during the
State's public review process and CARB's responses thereto.\33\
Therefore, we find that the Valley State SIP Strategy meets the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the San
Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan,'' September 21, 2018, and CARB Resolution 18-
49.
\33\ CARB, ``Board Meeting Comments Log,'' November 2, 2018 and
compilation of written comments; and J&K Court Reporting, LLC,
``Meeting, State of California Air Resources Board,'' October 25,
2018 (transcript of CARB's public hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley State SIP Strategy became complete by operation of law
on November 10, 2019. The sanctions clocks that were triggered by our
December 6, 2018 findings that the State had failed to submit complete
SIP submissions addressing the statutory requirements that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS, however,
will continue to run until the EPA affirmatively determines, by letter
to the Governor of California, that CARB has submitted a complete SIP
submission addressing the identified deficiencies.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 83 FR 62720 (citing required process for termination of
sanctions clocks in 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious
nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the
Act requires the state to make a SIP submission that addresses the
following Serious nonattainment area requirements: \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 81 FR 58010, 58074-58075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
(2) Provisions to assure that the best available control measures
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
shall be implemented no later than four years after the area is
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
(3) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year after designation as a
nonattainment area (i.e., December 31, 2019, for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), or where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by such date is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable that is no more than five years later (CAA sections
188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
(4) Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP)
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
(5) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
(6) Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
(7) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)); and
(8) A revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program
to lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \36\ thresholds
from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of
PM2.5. CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(vii) and (viii) (defining ``major stationary
source'' in serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serious area plans must also satisfy the requirements for Moderate
area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the extent the state has not
already met those requirements in the Moderate area plan submitted for
the area. In addition, the Serious area plan must meet the general
requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the
CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority
under section 110(a)(2)(E); and the requirements concerning enforcement
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA provided its preliminary views on the CAA's requirements
for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the
following guidance documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble''); \37\ (2) ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (``General
Preamble Supplement''); \38\ and (3) ``State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''
(``General Preamble Addendum'').\39\
[[Page 17386]]
More recently, in an August 24, 2016 final rule entitled, ``Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (``PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule''), the EPA established regulatory requirements and provided
further interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
standards.\40\ We discuss these regulatory requirements and
interpretations of the Act as appropriate in our evaluation of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
\38\ 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
\39\ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
\40\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements for Extension of a Serious Area Attainment Date
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to five
years, which the EPA may grant if the state satisfies certain
conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious
area under section 188(e), the state must:
(1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the
statutory attainment date;
(2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is
impracticable;
(3) demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan;
(4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the
plan for the area includes the ``most stringent measures'' that are
included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in
practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and
(5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ CAA section 188(e) and 40 CFR 51.1005(b). For a discussion
of EPA's interpretation of the requirements of section 188(e), see
the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, 81 FR
58010, 58094-58097, and the General Preamble Addendum, 59 FR 41998,
42002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state must seek an extension of the Serious area attainment date
at the same time it submits the Serious area attainment plan, if the
state cannot demonstrate attainment by the otherwise applicable
statutory attainment date.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state seeking
an extension of the Serious area attainment date under section 188(e)
must submit a Serious area attainment plan that meets the following
requirements:
(1) Base year and attainment projected emissions inventory
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b);
(2) the most stringent measure requirement in 40 CFR
51.1005(b)(1)(iii) and 51.1010(b), and best available control measures
not previously submitted;
(3) attainment demonstration and modeling requirements in 40 CFR
51.1011 and 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(i);
(4) reasonable further progress requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012;
(5) quantitative milestone requirements in 40 CFR 51.1013;
(6) contingency measure requirements in 40 CFR 51.1014; and
(7) nonattainment new source review plan requirements pursuant to
40 CFR 51.165.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2). With respect to contingency measures
and nonattainment new source review plan provisions, the EPA
interprets section 51.1005(b)(2) to require submission of complete
plan provisions addressing these requirements but not to require the
EPA to approve such provisions before granting a section 188(e)
extension request. 81 FR 58010, 58094-58095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to establishing specific preconditions for an extension
of the Serious area attainment date, section 188(e) provides that the
EPA may consider a number of factors in determining whether to grant an
extension and the appropriate length of time for any such extension.
These factors are: (1) The nature and extent of nonattainment in the
area, (2) the types and numbers of sources or other emitting activities
in the area (including the influence of uncontrollable natural sources
and trans-boundary emissions from foreign countries), (3) the
population exposed to concentrations in excess of the standard in the
area, (4) the presence and concentrations of potentially toxic
substances in the mix of particulate emissions in the area, and (5) the
technological and economic feasibility of various control measures.\44\
Notably, neither the statutory requirements nor the discretionary
factors identified in section 188(e) include the specific ambient air
quality conditions in section 188(d)(2), which must be met for an area
to qualify for an extension of a Moderate area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluate the state's request for an extension of the Serious
area attainment date in accordance with these statutory criteria and
regulatory requirements, as described below.
Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment by the statutory Serious area
attainment date is impracticable.
Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to grant a state request for an
extension of the Serious area attainment date if, among other things,
attainment by the date established under section 188(c) would be
impracticable. In order to demonstrate impracticability, the plan must
show that the implementation of BACM and BACT (and additional feasible
measures) on relevant source categories will not bring the area into
attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date.\45\ For the
San Joaquin Valley, the Serious area attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 188(c)(2) was December 31,
2019.\46\ BACM, including BACT, is the required level of control for a
Serious area that must be in place before the Serious area attainment
date. Therefore, we interpret the Act as requiring that a state provide
for at least the implementation of BACM, including BACT, before it can
claim that is impracticable to attain by the statutory deadline. The
statutory provision for demonstrating impracticability requires that
the demonstration be based on air quality modeling.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 81 FR 58010, 58094.
\46\ Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment. . . .'' The EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009. 74 FR 58688. Therefore, the latest
permissible attainment date under section 188(c)(2), for purposes of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area, is December 31, 2019.
\47\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: Comply with all requirements and commitments in the
applicable implementation plan.
A second precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is a showing that the state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area
in the implementation plan. We interpret this criterion to mean that
the state has implemented the control measures and commitments in the
SIP revisions it has submitted to address the applicable requirements
in CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
For a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted
simultaneously with the initial Serious area attainment plan for the
area, the EPA interprets section 188(e) not to require the area to have
a fully approved Moderate area attainment plan, and to allow for
extension of the attainment date if the area has complied with all
Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in
the state's submitted Moderate area implementation plan.\48\ This
[[Page 17387]]
interpretation is based on the plain language of section 188(e), which
requires the state to comply with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the implementation plan.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 81 FR 58010, 58095.
\49\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of the most stringent measures.
A third precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under section 188(e) is for the state to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes
the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation
plan of any state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can
feasibly be implemented in the area. The EPA has defined the term
``most stringent measure'' (MSM) as ``any permanent and enforceable
control measure that achieves the most stringent emissions reductions
in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors from among those control measures
which are either included in the SIP for any other NAAQS, or have been
achieved in practice in any state, and that can feasibly be implemented
in the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area.'' \50\ The
Act does not specify an implementation deadline for MSM, but because
the clear intent of section 188(e) is to minimize the length of any
attainment date extension, the EPA has interpreted the Act to require
implementation of MSM as expeditiously as practicable and no later than
one year before the extended Serious area attainment date identified by
the state in its extension request.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 40 CFR 51.1000 and 81 FR 58010, 58096-58097; see also
General Preamble Addendum, 42010 and 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13,
2000).
\51\ 81 FR 58010, 58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An MSM demonstration must satisfy the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule as described in the preamble to
the rule, as follows: \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 40 CFR 51.1010(b) and 81 FR 58010, 58095-58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Update the emission inventory to identify all sources of direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
nonattainment area;
(2) Identify all potential MSM to reduce emissions from sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors that are
approved into any state implementation plan or used in practice in any
state;
(3) Compare the potential MSM for each relevant source category to
the measures, if any, already adopted for that source category in the
nonattainment area to determine whether such potential MSM would
further reduce emissions and, where the state chooses to reject a
measure from further consideration, demonstrate that it is not
technologically or economically feasible to implement the measure in
whole or in part within five years after the applicable attainment date
for the area; and
(4) Adopt and implement all potential MSM identified through this
process that collectively will achieve attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than five years after the applicable
attainment date, except those measures for which the state has provided
reasoned justification for rejection, based on technological or
economic feasibility.
The level of control required under the MSM standard may depend on
how well other areas have chosen to control their sources. If a source
category has not been well controlled in other areas, MSM could
theoretically result in a low level of control. This contrasts with
BACM and BACT, which represent the ``best'' level of control feasible
for an area, regardless of whether it has been implemented elsewhere.
Thus, in some cases the MSM requirement may result in no more controls
or emission reductions than those that result from implementing BACM
and BACT. However, given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions
of the Act to offset longer attainment timeframes with more stringent
emission control requirements, we interpret the MSM provision so as to
increase the potential that it will result in additional controls
beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM and BACT. Accordingly,
states are required to reanalyze any measures that were rejected during
the state's BACM and BACT analysis to see if they have become feasible
in the area given the longer attainment date sought under CAA section
188(e) and changes that have occurred in the interim that improve the
feasibility of such measures.\53\ MSM may also involve increasing the
coverage of measures that were previously adopted as BACM and BACT.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id. at 58096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, the ``to the satisfaction of the Administrator'' qualifier
on the MSM requirement indicates that Congress granted the EPA
considerable discretion in determining whether a plan in fact includes
MSM, recognizing that the overall intent of section 188(e) is that the
Agency grant as short an extension as practicable, consistent with the
objective of expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. For this reason, the
EPA will apply greater scrutiny to the evaluation of MSM for source
categories that contribute the most to the PM2.5 problem in
the SJV and less scrutiny to source categories that contribute less to
the PM2.5 problem.
Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious alternative
date practicable.
Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the Serious area plan
demonstrate attainment, using air quality modeling, by the most
expeditious date practicable after the statutory Serious area
attainment date.\55\ Evaluation of a modeled attainment demonstration
consists of two parts: Evaluation of the technical adequacy of the
modeling itself and evaluation of the control measures that are relied
on to demonstrate attainment. The EPA's determination of whether the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious date practicable
depends on whether the plan provides for implementation of BACM and
BACT no later than the statutory implementation deadline, MSM as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than one year before the
extended attainment date requested by the state, and any other
technologically and economically feasible measures that will result in
attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id. at 58097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 5: Apply for an attainment date extension.
Finally, the state must apply in writing to the EPA for an
extension of a Serious area attainment date, and this request must
accompany the modeled attainment demonstration showing attainment by
the most expeditious alternative date practicable. Additionally, the
state must provide the public reasonable notice and opportunity for a
public hearing on the attainment date extension request before
submitting it to the EPA, in accordance with the requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110.
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Serious Area Plan and
Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment
area. The EPA discussed the emissions inventory requirements that apply
to PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
[[Page 17388]]
including Serious area requirements, in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and codified these requirements in 40 CFR
51.1008.\56\ The EPA has also issued guidance concerning emissions
inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 81 FR 58010, 58078-58079.
\57\ ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' U.S. EPA, May 2017
(``Emissions Inventory Guidance''), available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base year emissions inventory should provide a state's best
estimate of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutants in the area, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the PM2.5
NAAQS, the base year inventory must include direct PM2.5
emissions, separately reported filterable and condensable
PM2.5 emissions,\58\ and emissions of all chemical
precursors to the formation of secondary PM2.5: nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).\59\ In addition,
the emissions inventory base year for a Serious PM2.5
nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which monitored
data were used to reclassify the area to Serious, or another
technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area
SIP submission.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Emissions Inventory Guidance identifies the types of
sources for which the EPA expects states to provide condensable PM
emission inventories. Emissions Inventory Guidance, section 4.2.1
(``Condensable PM Emissions''), 63-65.
\59\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
\60\ 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state's SIP submission must include documentation explaining how
it calculated emissions data for the inventory. In estimating mobile
source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and
planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. The
latest EPA-approved version of California's mobile source emission
factor model for estimating tailpipe, brake, and tire wear emissions
from on-road mobile sources that was available during the State's and
District's development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan was
EMFAC2014.\61\ Following CARB's submission of the Plan, the EPA
approved EMFAC2017, the latest revision to this mobile source emissions
model, and established grace periods during which EMFAC2014 may
continue to be used for transportation conformity purposes (i.e., new
regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 hot-spot analyses).\62\ States are also required to
use the EPA's ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'' (``AP-
42'') road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions
from paved roads.63 64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC is short for
EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014
model, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register,
for use in state implementation plan development and transportation
conformity in California. Upon that action, EMFAC2014 was required
to be used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO,
PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that were
started on or after December 14, 2017, which was the end of the
grace period for using the prior mobile source emissions model,
EMFAC2011.
\62\ 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). The grace period for new
regional emissions analyses begins on August 15, 2019 and ends on
August 16, 2021, while the grace period for hot-spot analyses begins
on August 15, 2019 and ends on August 17, 2020. 84 FR 41717, 41720.
\63\ The EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011 that
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests
results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). CARB used the revised 2011
AP-42 methodology in developing on-road mobile source emissions; see
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-9_2016.pdf.
\64\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source
of the EPA's emission factor information. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors. It contains emission factors and process
information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A
source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar
emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and
compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and
engineering estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must also submit a
projected attainment year inventory and emissions projections for each
RFP milestone year.\65\ These future emissions projections are
necessary components of the attainment demonstration required under CAA
section 189(a)(1) and (b)(1) and the demonstration of RFP required
under section 172(c)(2).\66\ Emissions projections for future years
(which are referred to in the Plan as ``forecasted inventories'')
should account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic
growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The state's SIP
submission should include documentation to explain how the emissions
projections were calculated. Where a state chooses to allow new major
stationary sources or major modifications to use emission reductions
credits (ERCs) that were generated through shutdown or curtailed
emissions units occuring before the base year of an attainment plan,
the projected emissions inventory used to develop the attainment
demonstration must explicitly include the emissions from such
previously shutdown or curtailed emissions units.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 40 CFR 51.1008 and 51.1012. Also, see Emissions Inventory
Guidance, section 3 (``SIP Inventory Requirements and
Recommendations'').
\66\ 40 CFR 51.1004, 51.1008, 51.1011, and 51.1012.
\67\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
Summaries of the planning emissions inventories for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (NOX,
SOX,\68\ VOC,\69\ and ammonia) and the documentation for the
inventories for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area are located in Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory'') and Appendix I
(``New Source Review and Emission Reduction Credits'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan generally uses ``sulfur
oxides'' or ``SOX'' in reference to SO2 as a
precursor to the formation of PM2.5. We use
SOX and SO2 interchangeably throughout this
notice.
\69\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan generally uses ``reactive
organic gasses'' or ``ROG'' in reference to VOC as a precursor to
the formation of PM2.5. We use ROG and VOC
interchangeably throughout this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB and District staff worked together to develop the emissions
inventories for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area. The District worked with operators of the stationary facilities
in the nonattainment area to develop the stationary source emissions
estimates. The responsibility for developing estimates for the area
sources such as agricultural burning and paved road dust was shared by
the District and CARB. CARB staff developed the emissions inventories
for both on-road and non-road mobile sources.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The EPA regulations refer to ``non-road'' vehicles and
engines whereas CARB regulations refer to ``Other Mobile Sources''
or ``off-road'' vehicles and engines. These terms refer to the same
types of vehicles and engines. We refer herein to such vehicles and
engines as ``non-road'' sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan includes winter (24-hour) average and annual average daily
planning inventories for the 2013 base year, which were modeled from
the 2012 emissions inventory, and estimated emissions for forecasted
years from 2017 through 2028 for the attainment and RFP demonstrations
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\71\ Today we are
proposing action on those winter average and annual average emissions
inventories necessary to support the attainment plan and section 188(e)
extension
[[Page 17389]]
request for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS--i.e., the 2013 base year
inventory, forecasted inventories for the RFP milestone years of 2017,
2020, 2023, and 2026, and the forecasted 2024 attainment year
inventory. Each inventory includes emissions from stationary, area, on-
road, and non-road sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, B-18 to B-19. The
winter average daily planning inventory corresponds to the months of
November through April, when daily, ambient PM2.5
concentrations are typically highest. The base year inventory is
from the California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting
System (CEIDARS) and future year inventories were estimated using
the California Emission Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM), 2016 SIP
Baseline Emission Projections, version 1.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base year inventories for stationary sources were developed
using actual emissions reports made by facility operators. The State
developed the base year emissions inventory for area sources using the
most recent models and methodologies available at the time the State
was developing the Plan.\72\ The Plan also includes background,
methodology, and inventories of condensable and filterable
PM2.5 emissions from stationary point and non-point
combustion sources that are expected to generate condensable
PM2.5.\73\ CARB used EMFAC2014 to estimate on-road motor
vehicle emissions based on transportation activity data from the 2014
Regional Transportation Plan (2014 RTP) adopted by the transportation
planning agencies in the San Joaquin Valley.\74\ Re-entrained paved
road dust emissions were calculated using a CARB methodology consistent
with the EPA's AP-42 road dust methodology.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, section B.2
(``Emissions Inventory Summary and Methodology'').
\73\ Id. at B-42 to B-44.
\74\ Id. at B-37.
\75\ Id. at B-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB developed the emissions forecasts by applying growth and
control profiles to the base year inventory. CARB's mobile source
emissions projections take into account predicted activity rates and
vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model year and adopted controls.\76\
In addition, the Plan states that the District is providing for use of
pre-base year ERCs as offsets by accounting for such ERCs in the
projected 2025 emissions inventory.\77\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies growth factors, control factors, and estimated offset use
between 2013 and 2025 for direct PM2.5, NOX,
SOX, and VOC emissions by source category and lists all pre-
base year ERCs issued by the District for PM10,
NOX, SOX, and VOC emissions, by facility.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id. at B-18, B-19.
\77\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. I, I-1 through I-5.
\78\ Id. at App. I, Tables I-1 through I-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides a summary of the winter (24-hour) average
inventories in tons per day (tpd) of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year. Table 2 provides a
summary of annual average inventories of direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for the 2013 base year. These annual average
inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the
RFP and attainment demonstrations in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Winter Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the
2013 Base Year
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
Category NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.5 35.0 6.9 86.6 13.9
Area Sources.................... 41.4 11.5 0.5 156.8 291.5
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 6.4 188.7 0.6 51.1 4.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources......... 4.4 65.3 0.3 27.4 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals \a\.................. 60.8 300.5 8.4 321.9 309.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5.
\a\ Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Annual Average Emissions Inventory for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the
2013 Base Year
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
Category NOX SOX VOC Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............. 8.8 38.6 7.2 87.1 13.9
Area Sources.................... 41.5 8.1 0.3 153.4 310.9
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 6.4 183.1 0.6 49.8 4.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources......... 5.8 87.4 0.3 33.8 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals \a\.................. 62.5 317.2 8.5 324.1 329.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5.
\a\ Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The inventories in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are based on the
most current and accurate information available to the State and
District at the time they were developing the Plan and inventories,
including the latest version of California's mobile source emissions
model that had been approved by the EPA at the time, EMFAC2014. The
inventories comprehensively address all source categories in the San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area and are consistent
with the EPA's inventory guidance.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1), the 2013 base year is one
of the three years for which monitored data were used for reclassifying
the San Joaquin Valley to Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,\79\ and it represents actual annual average emissions of all
sources within the nonattainment area. Direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors are included in the inventories, and
filterable and condensable direct PM2.5 emissions are
identified separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 81 FR 2993, 2994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to future year baseline projections, we have reviewed
the growth and control factors and find them acceptable and thus
conclude that
[[Page 17390]]
the future baseline emissions projections in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning
assumptions. Also, as a general matter, the EPA will approve a SIP
submission that takes emissions reduction credit for a control measure
only where the EPA has approved the measure as part of the SIP. Thus,
for example, to take credit for the emissions reductions from newly-
adopted or amended District rules for stationary sources, the related
rules must be approved by the EPA into the SIP. See the EPA's
``Technical Support Document, General Evaluation, San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' February
2020 (``EPA's General Evaluation TSD''). Table III-A of EPA's General
Evaluation TSD shows District rules with post-2013 compliance dates
that are reflected in the future year baseline inventories, along with
information on the EPA's approval of these rules, and shows that
stationary source emissions reductions assumed by the SJV
PM2.5 Plan for future years are supported by rules approved
as part of the California SIP for the San Joaquin Valley. With respect
to mobile sources, the EPA has taken action in recent years to approve
CARB mobile source regulations into the state-wide portion of the
California SIP. We therefore find that the future year baseline
projections in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan are properly supported by
SIP-approved stationary and mobile source measures.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The future year emissions projections in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan assume implementation of CARB's Zero Emissions
Vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. On
September 27, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
EPA issued a notice of final rulemaking for the Safer Affordable
Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program
that, among other things, withdrew the EPA's 2013 waiver of
preemption for the ZEV sales mandate and GHG standards. 84 FR 51310.
See also proposed SAFE rule at 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018).
However, the agencies' final rule withdrawing the 2013 waiver did
not include final action on the federal fuel economy and GHG vehicle
emissions standards from the SAFE proposal. If the fuel economy and
GHG standards are finalized prior to our final rulemaking on the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, we will evaluate and address, as appropriate,
the impact of the SAFE action on our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2013 base year
emissions inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. We are also
proposing to find that the forecasted inventories in the Plan provide
an adequate basis for the BACM, MSM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations
in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
B. PM2.5 Precursors
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The composition of PM2.5 is complex and highly variable
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous
SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia to PM2.5,
making them precursors to PM2.5.\81\ Formation of secondary
PM2.5 may also depend on atmospheric conditions, including
solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the
interactions of precursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or
fog droplets.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/P-
99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3.
\82\ ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter''
(EPA/452/R-12-005), EPA, December 2012), 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a
PM2.5 nonattainment area must evaluate all PM2.5
precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM2.5
precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction
that such precursor does not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment
area.\83\ The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term
``precursor'' for purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly
require the control of any specifically identified PM2.5
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however,
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
`air pollutant' is used.'' \84\ The EPA has identified SO2,
NOX, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the formation of
PM2.5.\85\ Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of
subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four precursor pollutants and
direct PM2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act (e.g., CAA section
189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 81 FR 58010, 58017-58020.
\84\ CAA section 302(g).
\85\ 81 FR 58010, 58015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standard in the
area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 [e.g., requirements for reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, MSM, and NSR] for sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although
section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, the
EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under
appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific PM2.5
precursors from other source categories in a given nonattainment area
is not necessary.\86\ For example, under the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the control requirements that apply to stationary,
area, and mobile sources of PM10 precursors in the
nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\87\ a
state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain
precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant
contribution to ambient PM10 levels in the nonattainment
area.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id. at 58018-58019.
\87\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13539-42.
\88\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect
to submit to the EPA a ``comprehensive precursor demonstration'' for a
specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular
precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area.\89\ If the EPA determines that the
contribution of the precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area is
not significant and approves the demonstration, the state is not
required to control emissions of the relevant precursor from existing
sources in the attainment plan.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in May 2019, the EPA issued the ``PM2.5
Precursor Demonstration Guidance'' (``PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance''), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing
nonattainment area PM2.5 emissions and developing such
optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule.\91\ The
[[Page 17391]]
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance builds upon the draft version of
the guidance, released on November 17, 2016 (``Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance''), which CARB referenced in developing its
precursor demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan.\92\ The EPA's
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance are
generally consistent with those in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, with some exceptions, including that the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS changed
from 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ in the draft guidance to 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in
the final guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ ``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-19-004, May 2019, including Memo dated May 30, 2019 from Scott
Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard
Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1-10, EPA.
\92\ ``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance, Draft
for Public Review and Comments,'' EPA-454/P-16-001, November 17,
2016, including Memo dated November 17, 2016 from Stephen D. Page,
Director, OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-
10, EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are evaluating the SJV PM2.5 Plan in accordance with
the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that all PM2.5
precursors must be addressed in the State's evaluation of potential
control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that
emissions of a particular precursor or precursors do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any
determination by the State to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from
the required evaluation of potential control measures, we consider both
the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to
reductions in emissions of that precursor.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The State presents a brief summary of its PM2.5
precursor analysis in Chapter 6 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
the full precursor demonstration in Appendix G of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.\94\ CARB also provided clarifying information on
its precursor assessment, including an Attachment A to its letter
transmitting the SJV PM2.5 Plan to the EPA \95\ and further
clarifications in three email transmittals.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ A copy of the contents of App. G appears in the CARB Staff
Report, App. C4 (``Precursor Demonstrations for Ammonia,
SOX, and ROG'').
\95\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, Attachment A (``Clarifying information for the San Joaquin
Valley 2018 Plan regarding model sensitivity related to ammonia and
ammonia controls'').
\96\ Email dated June 20, 2019, ``RE: SJV model disbenefit from
SOX reduction,'' from Jeremy Avise, CARB, to Scott
Bohning, EPA Region IX, with attachment (``CARB's June 2019
Precursor Clarification''); email dated September 19, 2019, ``FW:
SJV species responses,'' from Jeremy Avise, CARB, to Scott Bohning,
EPA Region IX, with attachments (``CARB's September 2019 Precursor
Clarification''); and email dated October 18, 2019, from Laura Carr,
CARB to Scott Bohning, Jeanhee Hong, and Rory Mays, EPA Region IX,
with attachment ``Clarifying Information on Ammonia'' (``CARB's
October 2019 Precursor Clarification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan provides both concentration-based and sensitivity-based
analyses of precursor contributions to ambient PM2.5
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. These analyses led the State
to conclude that direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley while ammonia,
SOX, and VOC do not contribute significantly to such
exceedances, as discussed below.\97\ We summarize the State's analysis
and conclusions below. For a more detailed summary of the precursor
demonstration in the Plan, please refer to the EPA's ``Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of PM2.5 Precursor
Demonstration, San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' February 2020 (``EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Direct PM2.5 emissions are considered a primary
source of ambient PM2.5 (i.e., no further formation in
the atmosphere is required), and therefore is not considered a
precursor pollutant under subpart 4, which may differ from a more
generalized understanding of what contributes to ambient
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct PM2.5 and NOX, the State modeled
the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley
to a 30 percent (%) reduction in anthropogenic emissions of each
pollutant in 2013, 2020, and 2024.\98\ The State concluded that direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions reductions will continue
to have a significant impact on annual and 24-hour PM2.5
design values in the San Joaquin Valley, with NOX reductions
being particularly important.\99\ Consistent with this conclusion, the
State focused the control strategy and attainment demonstration on
these two pollutants, as described in section IV.D of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-11 to 6-12. CARB
modeled the impacts of both NOX reductions and direct
PM2.5 reductions but the direct PM2.5 results
were used only as a point of comparison, as direct PM2.5
emissions must be regulated in all PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.
\99\ Id. Ch. 6, 6-12; and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 2.
CARB presents its sensitivity analysis for emission reductions in
direct PM2.5 and NOX in the Plan's attainment
demonstration appendix. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, Table 46
(annual average design values) and Table 50 (24-hour average design
values).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ammonia, SOX, and VOC, CARB assessed the 2015 annual
average concentration of each precursor in ambient PM2.5 at
Bakersfield, for which the necessary speciated PM2.5 data is
available and where the highest PM2.5 design values have
been recorded in most years, and compared those concentrations to the
recommended annual average contribution threshold of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\
from the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, which was available
at the time the State developed the SIP.\100\ The contributions of
ammonia, SOX, and VOC were 5.2 [micro]g/m\3\, 1.6 [micro]g/
m\3\ and 6.2 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 3. The Plan does not
present a concentration-based analysis for the 24-hour average
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. Instead, CARB relied on
the annual average concentration based analysis as an interim step
to the sensitivity-based analysis, for which CARB assessed the
sensitivity of both 24-hour average and annual average ambient
PM2.5 concentrations to precursor emission reductions.
Separately, the Plan presents a graphical representation of annual
average ambient PM2.5 components (i.e., crustal
particulate matter, elemental carbon, organic matter, ammonium
sulfate, and ammonium nitrate) for 2011-2013 for Bakersfield,
Fresno, and Modesto. SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 3, 3-3 to 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that these levels are well above the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance, CARB then modeled the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
in the San Joaquin Valley to 30% and 70% reductions in anthropogenic
emissions of each precursor pollutant in 2013 (the Plan's base year),
2020 (the modeled attainment year for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS),
and 2024 (the modeled attainment year for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS).\101\ CARB supplemented the sensitivity analysis with
consideration of additional information, including factors identified
in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, such as emission
trends, the appropriateness of future year versus base year
sensitivity, available emission controls, and the severity of
nonattainment.\102\ The final version of the PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance confirms the relevance of these factors in a sensitivity
analysis.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ SJV PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-11 to 6-12.
\102\ Id. at App. G, 5.
\103\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 18-19 (consideration
of additional information), 31 (available emission controls), and
35-36 (appropriateness of future year versus base year sensitivity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's sensitivity-based analysis used the same modeling
platform as that used for the Plan's attainment demonstration. The
State modeled the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5
concentrations in San Joaquin Valley to 30% and 70% emission reductions
in 2013, 2020, and 2024 for each of ammonia, SOX, and VOC.
The State estimated base case (2013, 2020, and 2024) design values for
PM2.5 using Relative Response Factors and
[[Page 17392]]
calculated the ammonia precursor contribution for a given year and for
each sensitivity scenario (30% and 70% emissions reductions) as the
difference between its base case design value and the design value for
each sensitivity scenario.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ This procedure is the procedure recommended by the EPA.
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We summarize the State's sensitivity-based analysis and additional
information in the sections that follow for ammonia, SOX,
and VOC.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, the State compared the 24-hour precursor contributions
to 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\, the recommended contribution threshold in the
Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. For a modeled 30% ammonia
emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2013
ranged from 0.9 to 3.3 [micro]g/m\3\ across 15 monitoring sites, with a
majority of sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold
(and also above the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold in the
final PM2.5 Precursor Guidance), whereas the
PM2.5 responses in 2024 were all below both recommended
thresholds. For a modeled 70% ammonia emission reduction, the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged from 3.5 to 12.4 [micro]g/
m\3\, with all monitoring sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold
(and above the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold), and the PM2.5
responses in 2024 ranged from 1.2 to 3.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with most sites
above both recommended thresholds. For further detail, please see the
EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD, Table 2, and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Tables 2, 3, 5, and 7.
The State bases its ammonia precursor determination on the
sensitivity analysis for the 2024 attainment year with a 30% ammonia
emission reduction. These respectively reflect its assessment of
research studies and the Plan's projected emission reductions, and on
its assessment of available emission controls. As explained in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, precursor responses may be above
the recommend contribution threshold and yet not contribute
significantly to levels that exceed the standard in the area.
Therefore, as recommended by the EPA, the State considered additional
information to consider whether its identified PM2.5
responses constituted a significant contribution to ambient
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. The additional information
included research studies, emission trends, and information to support
the State's conclusion that a 30% ammonia emission reduction
represented a reasonable upper bound on the ammonia emission reductions
to model in estimating its contribution to ambient PM2.5
levels. We summarize this additional information below and provide a
more detailed evaluation in the EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
The State describes previous research that supports its finding
that ammonium nitrate PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin
Valley is NOX-limited rather than ammonia-limited.\105\
Essentially, ammonia is so abundant that even with large ammonia
emission reductions there would still be enough ammonia to combine with
the available NOX to readily form particulate ammonium
nitrate. Therefore, ammonia emissions reductions would lead to only
small decreases in PM2.5 concentrations. In contrast,
because emissions of NOX are less abundant (i.e., more
limited relative to emissions of ammonia after normalizing for their
differing molecular weights), the PM2.5 concentrations in
the atmosphere are more responsive to reductions in NOX than
to reductions of ammonia. Hence, the area is considered NOX-
limited. The State points to the conclusions of Lurmann et al. based on
ambient measurements during the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS (California
Regional Particulate Air Quality Study) intensive field study.\106\
That study found that most areas of the San Joaquin Valley were
NOX-limited with respect to ammonium nitrate formation. And
since that time, large additional NOX emission reductions
have occurred, which would increase the degree to which ammonium
nitrate formation in the San Joaquin Valley is NOX-limited.
Based on more recent aircraft-borne measurements during the 2013
DISCOVER-AQ campaign,\107\ the State similarly concluded that ammonium
nitrate formation is NOX-limited based on the large amount
of ``excess ammonia,'' which is defined as the amount of measured
ammonia left over if all the nitrate and sulfate present were to
combine with available ammonia to form particulate.\108\ The CARB Staff
Report describes these conclusions in more detail and lists results
from multiple other recent studies with similar conclusions.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, G-9 to G-10; CARB
Staff Report, App. C, 12-15; and Attachment A to CARB's submittal
letter of May 9, 2019.
\106\ Frederick W. Lurmann, Steven G. Brown, Michael C.
McCarthy, and Paul T. Roberts, ``Processes Influencing Secondary
Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter,'' Journal
of the Air & Waste Management Association, (2006), 56:12, 1679-1693,
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464573.
\107\ ``Deriving Information on Surface conditions from COlumn
and VERtically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality'',
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/index.html.
\108\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 2.
\109\ CARB Staff Report, App. C, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding emission trends, the CARB Staff Report presents an
emission inventory-based argument on the relative insensitivity of
PM2.5 to ammonia reductions.\110\ CARB compared the size of
the ammonia and NOX emission inventories in tons per day,
after normalizing for their differing molecular weights, and found that
ammonia was roughly three times as abundant as NOX in 2013
and is projected to be about six times as abundant in 2025, due to the
continuing decline in NOX emissions (while ammonia emissions
are generally constant into the future).\111\ While the State
recognized that this is only a ``first-level assessment,'' it provides
additional support for the State's conclusion that NOX, and
not ammonia, is the limiting precursor for ammonium nitrate formation,
and that the ammonium nitrate portion of ambient PM2.5 would
be expected to be relatively insensitive to ammonia emission
reductions. This is also consistent with the ammonia sensitivity
modeling for the San Joaquin Valley, which showed that PM2.5
concentrations will be less sensitive to ammonia reductions as
NOX emissions go down in the future (i.e., the
PM2.5 impacts were much smaller in the 2024 future modeled
case compared to the 2013 base year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id. App. C, 15.
\111\ Annual average ammonia emissions are projected to decrease
4.6 tpd (1.4%) from 2013 to 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App.
B, Table B-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State finds that NOX emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley are projected to decrease by 53% from 2013 to 2024 while ammonia
emissions are projected to remain relatively flat, thereby increasing
the relative abundance of ammonia.\112\ Based on the Plan's emission
reduction projections combined with the research study conclusions, the
State relies on the modeled responses for the 2024 future year, rather
than the 2013 base year, stating that the future year NOX
emissions are more representative of San Joaquin Valley emission
conditions.\113\ The State references the Draft PM2.5
Precursor Guidance, which notes that it may be appropriate to model
future conditions that are more representative of current atmospheric
conditions and those conditions expected closer to the attainment date.
The State concludes states that this in
[[Page 17393]]
fact applies to the San Joaquin Valley.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 8-9.
\113\ Id. App. G, 9.
\114\ Id (referencing Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance,
33). See also PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the State's selection of 30% as an upper bound on
the ammonia reductions to model, the State described its review of the
most important ammonia source categories in the San Joaquin Valley,
existing control measures that affect ammonia emissions from these
sources, additional mitigation options for these sources, and
information provided in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance about
ammonia reductions achieved nationwide from 2011 to 2017.\115\ The
primary sources of ammonia emissions identified in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan are: (1) Confined animal facilities (CAFs), (2)
agricultural fertilizer, (3) biosolids, animal manure, and poultry
litter operations, and (4) organic material composting operations.\116\
CAFs are subject to District Rule 4570; biosolids, animal manure, and
poultry litter operations are subject to District Rule 4565; and
organic material composting operations are subject to District Rule
4566. Although these District rules explicitly apply only to VOC
emissions from these sources, the State concludes that these rules also
reduce ammonia emissions. Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
cites a number of scientific studies that address the correlation
between VOC and ammonia emissions from these emission sources.\117\
Based on these evaluations, the State concludes that ammonia control
measures achieving even the low end of the range (30%) are not feasible
for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley and that it is therefore
reasonable to treat a 30% ammonia reduction as an upper bound for
modeling in the precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 13 and App. C, section
C-25 and email dated October 18, 2019, from Laura Carr, CARB to
Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, attaching document entitled
``Clarifying Information on Ammonia.''
\116\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, section C-25.
\117\ Id. at C-314 and following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the State's sensitivity analysis presents a range of
PM2.5 responses to ammonia emission reductions depending on
base year versus future year and depending on the scale of emission
reductions that may be possible. The Plan provides the State's bases
for finding that the sensitivity result for 2024 better represents
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley than the 2013 base year and for
finding a 30% ammonia reduction to be a reasonable upper bound for
modeled ammonia emission reductions in assessing the ammonia
contribution. Based on these analyses, the State concludes that ammonia
does not contribute significantly to levels above the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
b. SOX
For SOX, the State compared the 24-hour precursor
contributions to the recommended draft contribution threshold of 1.3
[micro]g/m\3\ in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. For
modeled SOX emission reductions of 30% and 70%, the ambient
PM2.5 responses in 2013 ranged from -1.4 to +0.5 [micro]g/
m\3\ across 15 monitoring sites, which all fall below the 1.3 [micro]g/
m\3\ draft contribution threshold, and hence also below the
contribution threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the final version of the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. The response was below zero at
most monitoring sites, indicating an increase, rather than decrease, in
ambient PM2.5 in response to SOX emission
reductions (i.e., a disbenefit). Only the Stockton and Manteca sites
had slightly positive responses to 30 and 70% emission reductions, and
the Tranquillity site also had a slightly positive response only to a
30% reduction. For 2024, the response ranged from -0.3 [micro]g/m\3\ to
+0.3 [micro]g/m\3\; these are also all below the contribution
threshold, with most sites showing a disbenefit from SOX
reductions. For further detail, please see EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD, Table 3, and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G,
Tables 8 and 9.
CARB also included additional information regarding emission trends
and an evaluation of the SOX emission reduction disbenefit.
We summarize this additional information below and provide a more
detailed evaluation in the EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
In terms of emission trends, the State found that SOX
emissions decreased from 2013 to 2014 and then very gradually rise to
8.0 tpd in 2024.\118\ On the basis of SOX emissions being
very similar in 2020 and 2024 (7.8 tpd and 8.0 tpd, respectively), the
State concluded that the 2020 and 2024 sensitivity results were
redundant. Comparing the ambient responses in 2013 and 2024, the State
found that the responses were slightly less negative or, for a small
number of sites, slightly more positive in 2024, but still no more than
0.6 [micro]g/m\3\ in response to a 70% SOX emission
reduction. This supports the State's conclusion as to the overall
disbenefit of reducing SOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, Figure 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To explain the SOX emission reduction disbenefit, CARB
refers to the non-linearity of inorganic aerosol thermodynamics, as
described in a study by West et al.\119\ That paper discusses how,
under certain conditions, reducing SOX could free ammonia to
combine with nitrate, increasing overall PM2.5 mass. To
investigate this issue further, CARB conducted simulations with the
ISORROPIA inorganic aerosol thermodynamic equilibrium model used within
the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model and provided
clarifications to the EPA.\120\ In essence, CARB states that for some
conditions typical of San Joaquin Valley, ISORROPIA switches to a
different chemical regime in which the disbenefit occurs. CARB states
that it is not known how well this model behavior reflects the actual
atmosphere, but CARB accepts the results because is it a well-known and
widely used chemical model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6
(``PM2.5 Precursor Sensitivity Analysis''); and West,
J.J., Ansari, A.S., Pandis, S.N., 1999, Marginal PM2.5:
Nonlinear aerosol mass response to sulfate reductions in the eastern
United States, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
49, 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463973.
\120\ CARB's June 2019 Precursor Clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the small and mostly negative modeled response of ambient
PM2.5 to SOX emission reductions, and based on
its scientific understanding of sulfate interactions with other
molecules in the air, the State concludes that SOX does not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
c. VOC
For VOC, CARB compared the 24-hour precursor contributions to the
EPA's recommended draft contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\.
For a modeled 30% VOC emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5
responses in 2013 ranged from 0.1 to 1.9 [micro]g/m\3\ across 15
monitoring sites, with two sites above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
contribution threshold.\121\ The PM2.5 responses to a 70%
VOC emission reduction in 2013 ranged from 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ to 4.8
[micro]g/m\3\, including responses above the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
contribution threshold at a majority of sites. For a modeled 30% VOC
emission reduction, the ambient PM2.5 responses in 2024
ranged from -0.4 to 0.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with all monitoring sites below
the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft
[[Page 17394]]
contribution threshold, and hence also below the contribution threshold
of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ that was finalized the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule. The PM2.5 responses to a 70% VOC emission
reduction in 2024 ranged from -1.0 to 0.0 [micro]g/m\3\, with all
monitoring sites below the 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ draft contribution
threshold. In other words, CARB models a decrease in ambient
PM2.5 levels in 2013 in response to either a 30% or 70% VOC
emission reduction, whereas CARB models an increase in ambient
PM2.5 levels in 2024 in response to either a 30% or 70%
reduction in VOC emissions, i.e., a disbenefit. For further detail,
please see EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD, Table 4, and the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Tables 10, 11, 13, and 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ We note that one site (Visalia) has a modeled response
above the EPA's final recommended contribution threshold of 1.5
[micro]g/m\3\ and one additional site (Bakersfield-California
Avenue) has a modeled response below the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold
but above the EPA's draft threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB then considered additional information to consider whether
these PM2.5 responses constituted a significant contribution
to ambient PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley, including
emission trends and an assessment of the modeled disbenefit of VOC
emission reductions in 2024. CARB bases its precursor determination on
sensitivity analysis for the 2024 attainment year, reflecting its
assessment of the Plan's projected emission reductions. We summarize
this additional information below and present greater detail in the
EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD.
Regarding emission trends, CARB found that VOC emissions would
decrease approximately 30 tpd (or 9%) from 2013 to 2024.\122\ The State
concludes that the formation of ambient PM2.5 from VOC may
therefore differ in base and future years and that the sensitivity
analysis for 2013 is not representative of current or future
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. G, 19 and Figure 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB explained the modeled disbenefit of VOC reductions as follows:
Emissions of VOC and NOX react in the atmosphere to form
organic nitrate species, such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), meaning
that some portion of the NOX emissions is not available to
react with ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. In other words, VOC
emissions are a ``sink'' for NOX emissions. Reducing VOC
emissions therefore reduces the formation of organic nitrates, so the
sink is smaller and nitrate molecules are freed to react with ammonia
to form particulate ammonium nitrate.\123\ The State further explored
the VOC disbenefit based on a 2016 CARB modeling assessment provided in
Appendix A (``Air Quality Modeling'') of the ``2016 Moderate Area Plan
for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard'' for the San Joaquin Valley
(``2016 PM2.5 Plan''), which CARB submitted to the EPA as a
SIP revision on May 10, 2019.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 72 (citing Meng, Z.,
D. Dabdub, D., Seinfeld, J.H., Chemical Coupling Between Atmospheric
Ozone and Particulate Matter, Science 277, 116 (1997). DOI: 10.1126/
science.277.5322.116).
\124\ 2016 PM2.5 Plan, App. A, A-57. See also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. K, section 5.6 (``PM2.5
Precursor Sensitivity Analysis''), 71-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its sensitivity-based analysis of VOC emission reductions
in the 2013 base and 2024 future years, VOC emission trends, and the
scientific understanding of atmospheric VOC chemistry in the San
Joaquin Valley, CARB concludes that VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstration
consistent with the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and the
recommendations in the PM2.5 Precursor Guidance. Based on
this evaluation, the EPA agrees that NOX emissions
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and that
NOX emission sources, therefore, remain subject to control
requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act. For
the reasons provided below, the EPA proposes to approve the State's
demonstration that ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Regarding the State's analytical approach, the EPA finds that the
State based its analyses on the latest available data and studies
concerning ambient PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin Valley
from precursor emissions. Regarding the required concentration-based
analysis, the EPA finds that the State assessed the absolute annual
average contribution of each precursor in ambient PM2.5
(i.e., in 2015). On the basis of the absolute concentrations being well
above the EPA's recommended contribution thresholds for both the 24-
hour and annual average NAAQS, the State proceeded with its
sensitivity-based analysis, which is an acceptable progression of
analyses under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ For further discussion of the EPA's evaluation of the
State's concentration-based analysis, see EPA's PM2.5
Precursor TSD, sections entitled ``Concentration-based analysis''
within the EPA's evaluation for each of ammonia, SOX, and
VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the sensitivity-based analysis, we find that the
State performed its analyses in a straightforward application of the
EPA's recommended approach--i.e., for each modeled year and percent
precursor emission reduction, the State estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response using the procedure recommended in the
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, and compared the result to the
recommended contribution threshold. The EPA also finds that the
performance of the photochemical model was adequate for use in
estimating the ambient PM2.5 responses, as discussed in
section J (``Air Quality Model Performance'') of the EPA's ``Technical
Support Document, EPA Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling, San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,''
February 2020 (``EPA's Modeling TSD''). The State considered the EPA's
recommended range of emission reductions (30% to 70%) for the 2013 base
year, an interim year (2020), and the projected 2024 attainment year
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and quantified the estimated
response of ambient PM2.5 concentrations to precursor
emission changes for the first time in a PM2.5 SIP
submission for the San Joaquin Valley. The EPA finds that such
quantification and CARB's consideration of additional information
provide an informed basis on which to make a determination as to
whether ammonia, SOX, and VOC do or do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, we turn to
our evaluation of the State's determination for each of these three
precursor pollutants.
a. Ammonia
For ammonia, as detailed above, CARB estimated the ambient
PM2.5 response to both a 30% and a 70% emission reduction.
We find that it was appropriate for the State to consider additional
information to interpret those results to determine whether the ammonia
contribution is significant. We have evaluated CARB's determination
that the projected 2024 attainment year is more representative of
conditions in the San Joaquin Valley for sensitivity-based analyses and
that 30% is a reasonable upper bound for ammonia emission reductions to
assess the precursor contribution, as discussed below.
The State provided ample information from scientific studies based
on ambient measurements to help assess the estimated sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 to ammonia reductions. Conclusions based on
ambient data are particularly relevant because they provide direct
evidence of the chemical state of the atmosphere, and are not dependent
on modeled estimates of emissions or
[[Page 17395]]
ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Measurements represent the
``real world'' result of the pollutants' differing geographic
distributions, the various meteorological and chemical factors
influencing their conversion to particulate, and their removal from the
atmosphere by deposition and other processes. The observed abundance of
ammonia relative to nitric acid, and the positive amount of chemically
excess ammonia, both provide strong evidence that ammonia is not the
limiting pollutant for particulate ammonium nitrate formation. They
also support the State's conclusion that PM2.5 is likely to
be insensitive to ammonia emission reductions.
We note that the model response to precursor reductions may be
unrealistically large. There is some evidence that ammonia emissions
may be underestimated based on direct measurements of ammonia emissions
flux during two measurement campaigns, as discussed in the EPA's
PM2.5 Precursor TSD. If ammonia emissions were higher in the
modeling, then ammonia would be more abundant relative to nitrate and
particulate nitrate formation would be more NOX-limited, and
less sensitive to ammonia reductions. This would make the model
response more consistent with the ambient measurement studies, which
suggest a very low sensitivity to ammonia. The ammonia contribution to
PM2.5 levels above the standard may therefore be less than
estimated by the State modeling. The 2024 year modeling incorporates
lower NOX emissions and so has a larger abundance of ammonia
relative to nitrate, more similar to the studies' ambient measurements.
The 2024 response to ammonia reductions may thus be more reliable than
the 2013 and 2020 responses, and may be more representative of current
atmospheric conditions despite its use of emission projections for a
future year.
The relative sizes of the ammonia and NOX precursor
emission inventories after accounting for their differing molecular
weights are a rough indicator of which is the limiting pollutant for
production of ammonium nitrate, because it forms from a one-to-one
ratio of molecules derived from each precursor (i.e., one ammonium
nitrate forms from one ammonium and one nitrate). However, unlike
measurements and photochemical modeling, a simple emissions ratio does
not account for the various processes mentioned above; it just assumes
all the emitted molecules find each other and fully react. The State
found ammonia to be roughly three times as abundant as NOX
currently after accounting for their differing molecular weights, and
even more so in the future. The EPA repeated the exercise to account
for SOX as well, and found that the ratio of total ammonia
to that needed to react with both nitrate and sulfate ranged from 2.7
in 2013 to 5.6 in 2028. These are about the same as the CARB
NOX-only results, because SOX emissions are very
small relative to those of NOX and ammonia (e.g., in 2013,
winter daily emissions were 8.4 tpd SOX, vs. 300.5 tpd for
NOX and 309.8 tpd for ammonia).\126\ These observations
support the State's finding that PM2.5 is expected to be
relatively insensitive to ammonia reductions, though it is not
definitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Tables B-2, B-3, and
B-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also concludes that there are continuing large decreases
in NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley from 2013 to
2024, including 53% reductions from baseline measures and 10-11%
reductions from additional new measures, while ammonia emissions are
projected to remain roughly constant (i.e., decreasing 1-2%).\127\ In
conjunction with the ambient evidence that ammonia is already
chemically overabundant relative to NOX in the San Joaquin
Valley, this shows that in the future the overabundance will become
even greater, and thus ambient PM2.5 would be even less
responsive to ammonia reductions. This adds conservatism to the State's
conclusions about ammonia insensitivity based on the scientific
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ For further discussion of the SJV PM2.5 Plan's
control strategy, see section IV.D.4.b of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the base year for an attainment plan for a given
nonattainment area is generally more representative of current
conditions, the EPA believes that either a base year or a future year
may be used for modeling an ambient PM2.5 response to
precursor emission reductions, provided the state explains how the
choice of analysis year and associated assumptions are
appropriate.\128\ The State relied on 2024 model responses mainly on
the grounds that large NOX emissions reductions will occur
during 2013-2024, so that the 2024 results will continue to be
representative, unlike earlier model years. These reductions are the
result of regulations put in place by past air quality planning
decisions, and they will occur regardless of decisions about additional
NOX or ammonia controls in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. In
assessing the effect of potential ammonia reductions, the EPA believes
it is reasonable to account for these NOX reductions and the
effect that ammonia reductions would have in the attainment year and
after. In addition, as noted above, the greater abundance of ammonia
relative to NOX in the 2024 year modeling is more consistent
with recent ambient measurements, and may make the 2024 responses more
representative of current atmospheric conditions than the other model
years for assessing sensitivity to ammonia reductions. Therefore, in
consideration of the scientific studies and emission trends, including
the projected large amount of NOX emission reductions
through the attainment period, the EPA agrees that the modeled 2024
year is acceptable and representative of conditions in the San Joaquin
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of interpreting the full set of modeling results for
ammonia emissions reductions, the EPA also considered the State's
conclusion that the absence of available ammonia controls for sources
in the San Joaquin Valley supports its decision to treat a 30%
reduction as a reasonable upper bound on the ammonia emission
reductions to model in estimating the precursor contribution. As the
State correctly notes, the 30% to 70% range recommended by the EPA is
based on historical NOX and SOX emission
reductions, and changes in ammonia emission levels nationally from 2011
to 2017 ranged from a 9% decrease to a 6% increase.\129\ The State's
descriptions of both the past research relied upon to develop existing
rules that apply to ammonia emission sources and ongoing research show
that it has considered the availability of ammonia controls both in the
past and in the present context, and that the State has a basis for its
conclusion that 30% is a reasonable upper bound on achievable
reductions for ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ PM2.5 Precursor Guidance, Table 2, page 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we find that the State quantified the sensitivity of
ambient PM2.5 levels to reductions in ammonia using
appropriate modeling techniques, which performed well, and that the
State's choice of 2024 as the reference point for purposes of
evaluating the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels to
ammonia emission reductions is well-supported. We also find that the
State adequately documented its bases for using a 30% reduction in
ammonia emissions as an upper bound in the modeling to assess ambient
sensitivity to ammonia emission reductions. Based on all of these
considerations, the EPA proposes to approve the State's demonstration
that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley.
[[Page 17396]]
b. SOX
For SOX, the State found that the ambient
PM2.5 responses to SOX emission reductions were
below the EPA's recommended contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\
in the Draft PM2.5 Precursor Guidance (and below the EPA's
recommended threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the (final)
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance) and, indeed, that for most sites
there would be an increase in ambient PM2.5 levels in
response to such reductions (i.e., a disbenefit). The EPA has evaluated
the State's determination as to this disbenefit and the State's
resulting conclusion as to the precursor's significance.
Because the results of the sensitivity analysis were all below the
EPA's recommended 24-hour contribution thresholds at both the 30% and
70% emission reductions, and in both the 2013 base year and 2024
attainment year, it is not necessary to distinguish between the timing
and scale of emission reductions with respect to the response of
ambient PM2.5 levels, as in the ammonia evaluation where the
results diverged according to scale and timing of modeled emission
reductions. The EPA's PM2.5 Precursor TSD contains
additional detail on the EPA's evaluation of SOX as a
PM2.5 precursor, including the unexpected disbenefit of
reducing SOX emissions. Accordingly, we find that the
State's decision to rely on the 2013 sensitivity modeling results for a
30% SOX reduction is acceptable.
Therefore, on the basis of the modeled ambient PM2.5
response to both a 30% and 70% reduction in SOX emissions in
2013, and the facts and circumstances of the area, the EPA proposes to
approve the State's demonstration that SOX emissions do not
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
c. VOC
For VOC, the State found that the ambient PM2.5 response
to VOC emission reductions were generally below the EPA's recommended
contribution threshold of 1.3 [micro]g/m\3\ in the Draft
PM2.5 Precursor Guidance (and below the EPA's recommended
threshold of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ in the final PM2.5 Precursor
Guidance), and often predicted an increase in ambient PM2.5
levels in response to such reductions (i.e., a disbenefit), except for
a 70% emission reduction for the 2013 base year, where the State
predicted the ambient PM2.5 response to be above both
recommended thresholds at a majority of sites. The EPA has evaluated
and agrees with the State's determination that the projected 2024
attainment year is more representative of conditions in the San Joaquin
Valley for sensitivity-based analyses and that VOC reductions in 2024
would mostly result in a disbenefit to ambient PM2.5 levels,
as well as the State's resulting conclusion as to whether VOC's
contribution is significant.
Regarding emission trends, the EPA agrees that the 9% VOC emissions
decrease from 2013 to 2024 favors reliance on the 2024 modeling
results. Furthermore, there is a large decrease in NOX
emissions over this period, as discussed in the EPA's evaluation of
ammonia in section IV.B.3.a of this preamble, which affects the
atmospheric chemistry with respect to ambient PM2.5
formation from VOC emissions. The 9% VOC emission reductions and the
vast majority of NOX emissions will result from baseline
measures that are projected to occur, even absent any further action by
the State. We therefore find it reasonable to rely on future year 2024
modeled responses to VOC reductions. The EPA also finds that the State
provided a reasonable explanation for the VOC reduction disbenefit and
evidence that it occurs in the San Joaquin Valley.
For all of these reasons, we propose to approve the State's
demonstration that VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
C. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area that the state submit provisions to
assure that the best available control measures (BACM) for the control
of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be
implemented no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified as a serious area. The EPA has defined BACM in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule to mean ``any technologically
and economically feasible control measure that can be implemented in
whole or in part within 4 years after the date of reclassification of a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area to Serious and that
generally can achieve greater permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors from sources in the area than can be
achieved through the implementation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM
includes best available control technology (BACT).'' \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 40 CFR 51.1000 (definitions). In longstanding guidance,
the EPA has similarly defined BACM to mean, ``among other things,
the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or
source category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts.'' General
Preamble Addendum, 42010, 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA generally considers BACM a control level that goes beyond
existing RACM-level controls, for example by expanding the use of RACM
controls or by requiring preventative measures instead of
remediation.\131\ Indeed, as implementation of BACM and BACT is
required when a Moderate nonattainment area is reclassified as Serious
due to its inability to attain the NAAQS through implementation of
``reasonable'' measures, it is logical that ``best'' control measures
should represent a more stringent and potentially more costly level of
control.\132\ If RACM and RACT level controls of emissions have been
insufficient to reach attainment, the CAA contemplates the
implementation of more stringent controls, controls on more sources, or
other adjustments to the control strategy necessary to attain the NAAQS
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ 81 FR 58010, 58081 and General Preamble Addendum, 42011,
42013.
\132\ Id. and General Preamble Addendum, 42009-42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with longstanding guidance provided in the General
Preamble Addendum, the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule discusses the following steps for determining BACM
and BACT:
(1) Develop a comprehensive emission inventory of the sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors;
(2) Identify potential control measures;
(3) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
technologically feasible;
(4) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
economically feasible; and
(5) Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or
technology can be implemented in whole or in part.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 81 FR 58010, 58083-58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA allows consideration of factors such as physical plant
layout, energy requirements, needed infrastructure, and workforce type
and habits when considering technological feasibility. For purposes of
evaluating economic feasibility, the EPA allows consideration of
factors such as the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and
cost effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of
[[Page 17397]]
pollutant reduced by a measure or technology) associated with the
measure or control.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3) and 81 FR 58010, 58041-58042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these analyses are complete, the state must use this
information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to
the EPA for evaluation as SIP provisions to meet the basic requirements
of CAA section 110 and any other applicable substantive provisions of
the Act. The EPA is using these steps as guidelines in the evaluation
of the BACM and BACT measures and related analyses in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
Because the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley as Serious
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective February
19, 2016,\135\ the date four years after reclassification is February
19, 2020. In this case, however, the Serious area attainment date for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley under section
188(c) is no later than December 31, 2019, and to qualify for an
extension of this date under section 188(e), the state must, among
other things, demonstrate that implementation of BACM and BACT for
relevant source categories will not bring the area into attainment by
this date. Given these circumstances, the EPA is evaluating the Plan's
control strategy for implementation of BACM and BACT as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 81 FR 2993.
\136\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a
Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the state must,
among other things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent
measures (MSM) that are included in the implementation plan of any
state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area. The state must implement MSM as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than the beginning of the year containing
the attainment date identified by the state in its extension request,
i.e., in this case, by January 1, 2024, because the State is seeking an
extension of the attainment date to December 31, 2024, under section
188(e).\137\ Section III.B of this preamble contains a more detailed
discussion of the MSM requirement in CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5) (requiring implementation of all
control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than the beginning of the year containing
the applicable attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
As discussed in section IV.A of this proposed rule, Appendix B of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the planning inventories for
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors
(NOX, SOX, VOC, and ammonia) for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area together with documentation to support these
inventories. Each inventory includes emissions from stationary, area,
on-road, and non-road emission sources, and the State specifically
identifies the condensable component of direct PM2.5 for
relevant stationary and area source categories. As discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble, the State's analysis indicates that the Plan
should control emissions of PM2.5 and NOX in
order to reach attainment. Accordingly, the Plan evaluates potential
controls for those pollutants in the analysis of what is necessary to
meet the BACM (including BACT) and MSM requirements.
For stationary and area sources, the District identifies the
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX in the San
Joaquin Valley that are subject to District emission control measures
and provides its evaluation of these regulations for compliance with
BACM and MSM requirements in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan. As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM and MSM and
considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional
control measures, the District reviewed the EPA's guidance documents on
BACM, additional guidance documents on control measures for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emission sources, and control
measures implemented in other ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment
areas in California and other states.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mobile sources, CARB identifies the sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX in the San Joaquin Valley that are
subject to the State's emission control measures and provides its
evaluation of these regulations for compliance with BACM and MSM
requirements in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. Appendix
D describes CARB's process for determining BACM and MSM, including
identification of the sources of direct PM2.5 and
NOX in the San Joaquin Valley, identification of potential
control measures for such sources, assessment of the stringency and
feasibility of the potential control measures, and adoption and
implementation of feasible control measures.\139\ CARB further
discusses its current mobile source control program and additional
mobile source measures in the Valley State SIP Strategy. Appendix D of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan also describes the current efforts of
the eight local jurisdiction metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
to implement cost-effective transportation control measures (TCMs) in
the San Joaquin Valley.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Id. at App. D, Ch. II.
\140\ Id. at App. D, D-127 and D-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
As discussed in sections III.B and IV.D of this preamble, the EPA
has established a process for evaluating potential BACM (including
BACT) in serious area plans and a similar process for evaluating MSM.
Because of the substantial overlap in the source categories and
controls evaluated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our
evaluation of the SJV PM2.5 Plan's provisions for including
MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan's provisions for implementing
BACM and BACT for each identified source category.
The first step in determining BACM and MSM is to develop a
comprehensive emissions inventory of the sources of direct
PM2.5 and relevant PM2.5 precursors that can be
used with modeling to determine the effects of these sources on ambient
PM2.5 levels. Based on our review of the emission
inventories provided in Appendix B of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
and the State's and District's identification of the sources subject to
control in Appendix C and Appendix D, the EPA is proposing to find that
the Plan appropriately identifies all sources of direct
PM2.5 and NOX that are subject to evaluation for
potential control consistent with the requirements of subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act.
The remaining steps are to identify potential control measures for
each source category, determine whether available control measures or
technologies are technologically and economically feasible for
implementation in the area, and determine the earliest date by which
those control measures or technologies found to be feasible can be
implemented, in whole or in part.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 81 FR 58010, 58083-58085. The EPA's recommended steps for
a BACM demonstration are substantively similar to the required steps
for an MSM demonstration in 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss below key components of the BACM and MSM evaluations
provided by the District, CARB, and the
[[Page 17398]]
local jurisdiction MPOs in the SJV PM2.5 Plan in accordance
with these steps. We provide a more detailed evaluation of many of the
District's control measures for stationary and area sources in the
EPA's ``Technical Support Document, EPA Evaluation of BACM/MSM, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' February 2020 (``EPA's BACM/MSM TSD''), together with
recommendations for possible future improvements to these rules.
a. District Measures for Stationary and Area Sources
Open Burning
SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (``Open Burning''), as amended April 15, 2010,
is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from
open burning of agricultural waste and other materials.\142\ The rule
restricts the type of materials that may be burned and establishes
other conditions and procedures for open burning in conjunction with
the District's Smoke Management Program.\143\ The EPA approved Rule
4103 into the California SIP on January 4, 2012.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15, 2010.
\143\ Id.
\144\ 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4103 to several other open burning rules
implemented in other parts of California and found that no other rules
are more stringent, as a whole, than Rule 4103. According to the
information provided, although the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) implements a rule that restricts burning on
residential wood combustion (RWC) curtailment days (Rule 444) and
District Rule 4103 does not contain the same restriction, in practice
the District generally limits burning on RWC curtailment days through
implementation of its Smoke Management Program, which specifically
allocates allowable burn acreage for 97 geographic zones based on local
meteorology. We note that a restriction on burning on RWC curtailment
days by itself may not consistently reduce wintertime PM2.5
emission levels as it could shift more waste burning activity to days
with more favorable meteorology. On balance we find that Rule 4103's
general prohibitions on the burning of specific agricultural crops and
burn permitting program are more effective means for reducing
PM2.5 emissions than targeted restrictions on RWC
curtailment days.
Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the California Health and Safety
Code require the District to prohibit open burning of specific crop
categories unless the District determines either that there is no
economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste or
that there is no long-term federal or state funding commitment for the
continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or
for the development of alternatives to burning.\145\ The District has
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to
burning several times in the last several years and concluded that such
alternatives are not feasible for selected crop categories at this
time.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ California Health & Safety Code, sections 41855.5 and
41855.6.
\146\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-18 and C-23 to C-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 Million
British Thermal Units per Hour (MMBtu/hr)
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 3''), as amended October 16, 2008, establishes
NOX emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 parts per million
(ppm) and related operational requirements for gaseous fuel- or liquid
fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total
rated heat input greater than 5 MMBtu/hr.\147\ The EPA approved Rule
4306 into the California SIP on January 13, 2010.\148\ SJVUAPCD Rule
4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr''), as
adopted October 16, 2008, establishes more stringent NOX
emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and related operational requirements for
these units but allows sources to pay an emission fee in lieu of
compliance with the NOX emission limits.\149\ The EPA
approved Rule 4320 into the California SIP on March 25, 2011, but
determined that this rule, as approved, may not be credited for
attainment planning purposes because the fee provision renders the
NOX emission limits unenforceable.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October 16, 2008.
\148\ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
\149\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16, 2008.
\150\ 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared both Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 to several other
analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the
Sacramento Metro area, the South Coast, and the Bay Area.\151\
According to the information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4306
are generally within the same range as, and in some cases are more
stringent than, those contained in analogous rules implemented by these
other California agencies, except that the SCAQMD implements a rule
containing NOX emission limits that are potentially more
stringent for units of certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended
November 1, 2013).\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-71 to C-79.
\152\ Id. and 79 FR 57442 (September 25, 2014) (final action
approving Rule 1146 into California SIP). The SCAQMD amended Rule
1146 on December 8, 2018 and CARB submitted the amended rule to the
EPA on February 6, 2020. The amended rule is available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1146.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 ppm NOX emission limit
for larger units (i.e., those with heat rate inputs above 75 MMBtu/hr),
whereas Rule 4320 establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306 establishes a
9 ppm limit for such units.\153\ SCAQMD Regulation XX (``Regional Clean
Air Incentives Market'' or ``RECLAIM'') also applies to units within
the same range of sizes as Rule 4320 but allows sources to comply with
emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits.\154\ Because
SCAQMD Rule 1146 allows individual units with rated heat inputs above
75 MMBtu/hr to comply with RECLAIM in lieu of compliance with the 5 ppm
emission limit in the rule,\155\ the SIP-approved NOX
emission limit for these units in the South Coast is either the
applicable limit in SCAQMD Rule 1146 or the applicable provision of the
RECLAIM program, which may allow for emission levels higher than 5 ppm
at individual units.\156\ We do not have information
[[Page 17399]]
about the rated heat input of the units subject to RECLAIM in the South
Coast and, therefore, have no information confirming that any unit with
a rated heat input above 75 MMBtu/hr has achieved the 5 ppm
NOX emission limit in Rule 1146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended November 1, 2013) at
section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2018
PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-73. The SCAQMD's December 8, 2018
amendments to Rule 1146 did not alter the provisions of section
(c)(1)(F).
\154\ RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow
facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements
for NOX and SOX through, among other things,
add-on controls, equipment modifications, reformulated products,
operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase of excess emission
reductions. SCAQMD Rule 2000, section (a). The SCAQMD is currently
transitioning the RECLAIM program to a command-and-control
regulatory structure requiring ``best available retrofit control
technology'' as soon as practicable. See, e.g., SCAQMD, Draft Staff
Report, ``Proposed Amended Rule 1110.2--Emissions from Gaseous- and
Liquid-Fueled Engines, Proposed Amended Rule 1100--Implementation
Schedule for NOX Facilities,'' September 2019, Chapter 1.
\155\ SCAQMD Rule 1146, ``Emissions of NOX from
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers and Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters'' (amended November 1, 2013), Table
1146-1, section (a)(4) and SCAQMD Rule 2001, ``Applicability''
(amended May 6, 2005), section (j) and Table 1.
\156\ The EPA's most recent action approving revisions to the
RECLAIM program into the California SIP published on September 14,
2017. 82 FR 43176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative NOX and PM2.5 control techniques
for this source category, such as low temperature oxidation and
EMX system for NOX control, and alternative
fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers for direct
PM2.5 control.\157\ Based on its consideration of the
technical constraints and costs associated with each of these control
options, as explained in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
the District concluded that these additional controls are not feasible
for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley at this time.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-88 to C-92.
\158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the NOX emission limits in Rule 4320 do not
satisfy the Act's enforceability requirements because of the option to
pay an emission fee, we note that the requirement to pay the emission
fee itself is an enforceable requirement and that the fee provision
appears to function effectively as a pollution deterrent.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ EPA's BACM/MSM TSD at section 3.b.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flares
SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (``Flares''), as amended June 18, 2009,
establishes specific operational and administrative requirements to
limit emissions of NOX, SOX, and VOCs from the
operation of flares.\160\ Under Rule 4311, for each refinery flare and
other flare with a capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the operator must submit
a flare minimization plan (FMP) to the District describing relevant
equipment and preventative measures and demonstrating that the operator
appropriately minimized flaring activity.\161\ The EPA approved Rule
4311 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18, 2009.
\161\ Id.
\162\ 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District compared Rule 4311 with several other analogous rules
implemented in other parts of California, including the South Coast,
Bay Area, and Santa Barbara, all of which require regulated sources to
submit FMPs to the local air districts.\163\ The District also compared
Rule 4311 with North Dakota's Century Code 38-08-06.4, which requires,
among other things, that after one year of uncontrolled operations each
oil well be equipped with a control system that captures at least 75%
of the gas (i.e., allowing up to 25% of the gas to be flared).\164\
According to the information provided, the average volume of gas flared
at facilities in the San Joaquin Valley between 2009 and 2013 was 3.8%,
well below both the amount of flaring allowed under the North Dakota
rule and the amount allowed in the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District's Rule 359, which requires that each FMP list a targeted
maximum monthly flared gas volume of 5% of the average monthly gas
handled/produced/treated, with limited exceptions.\165\ As described in
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District concluded
that, because of wide variation in flaring operations in the San
Joaquin Valley, requirements to submit detailed FMPs, as in Rule 4311,
are the most effective means of reducing NOX emissions from
flaring and that additional control techniques are not technologically
and economically feasible for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley
at this time.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-150 to C-156.
\164\ Id. at C-155 and North Dakota Century Code 38-08-06.4,
section 2.d (as in effect February 13, 2015), available at https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t38c08.pdf?20150213153521.
\165\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, C-154 and C-155.
\166\ Id. at C-147 to C-148 and C-156 to C-161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with a commitment in a prior PM2.5 attainment
plan to evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of
additional flare minimization practices, the District recently
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the most effective flare
minimization practices included in approved FMPs and additional
NOX control information and published two reports containing
its findings and recommendations.\167\ As part of its final report in
2016, the District identified flare minimization practices in use at
certain facilities that could be employed at other facilities to reduce
flaring and stated its intent to propose potential rule amendments to
require use of these practices where technologically and economically
feasible.\168\ Additionally, the District found that ultra-low
NOX control technologies have recently become available and
stated its intent to thoroughly evaluate this control option and to
then propose potential rule amendments to require use of these controls
where technologically and economically feasible.\169\ In the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the District provided a summary economic
analysis indicating that the annualized cost-effectiveness of ultra-low
NOX control technology would range from $23,000 to $1
million per ton of NOX reduced.\170\ Finally, the District
considered a number of alternatives to flaring, preventative
maintenance measures, procedures to reduce flaring during maintenance
and shutdowns, and procedures to prevent or mitigate effects of power
outages that would further reduce NOX emissions from this
source category.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ SJVUAPCD, ``Rule 4311 (Flares) Further Study, 2014,''
September 16, 2014 and SJVUAPCD, ``Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare
Minimization Plans, 2015,'' March 31, 2016.
\168\ SJVUAPCD, ``Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare Minimization
Plans, 2015,'' March 31, 2016, 16-17.
\169\ Id.
\170\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, C-156 and C-157.
\171\ Id. at C-157 to C-161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters''), as amended December 15, 2011, establishes
NOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters that burn municipal
solid waste (MSW), biomass, and other solid fuels.\172\ Specifically,
the rule establishes NOX emission limits of 165 parts per
million volume (ppmv) for units burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units burning
biomass, and 65 ppmv for units burning other solid fuels.\173\ The EPA
approved the District's 2011 amendments to this rule into the
California SIP on November 6, 2012.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December 15, 2011.
\173\ Id.
\174\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 have been lowered
significantly over time and are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements implemented in other parts of California. The District
compared the provisions of Rule 4352 to potentially more stringent
rules implemented in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) (Rule 1146), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
(Regulation 9 Rule 7) and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) (Rule 411) and found that the lower
NOX emission limits in these rules are not comparable to the
provisions of Rule 4352. According to the District, all of remaining
solid fuel-fired boilers operating in the San Joaquin Valley are used
by electric utilities to generate electricity, a category that is
specifically exempted from the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1146, BAAQMD
Regulation 9 Rule 7, and SMAQMD
[[Page 17400]]
Rule 411.\175\ The District also compared Rule 4352 to analogous rules
implemented by three other California air districts that apply to
active biomass-fueled units, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD), El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
(EDAQMD), and Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD),
and found that the NOX emission limits for biomass-fueled
units in these regulations are all within the same range as the limits
in SJVUAPCD Rule 4352.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-165 to C-167.
\176\ Id. at C-168 to C-169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District also considered the technological and economic
feasibility of alternative control techniques for this source category,
such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and ``Covanta LN''
technology for NOX control and catalytic baghouse filter
bags (``Gore De-NOX systems'') for direct PM2.5
control.\177\ Based primarily on its consideration of the costs
associated with retrofitting these controls onto existing MSW-fired or
biomass-fired units, the District concluded in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that none of these control options is
economically feasible for sources in the San Joaquin Valley at this
time.\178\ The District noted, however, that in May 2018 it issued a
construction permit requiring installation of Covanta LN technology to
limit NOX emissions from certain MSW-fired units and that it
would continue to monitor the implementation of this control technology
to determine whether it is feasible for implementation on a continuous
basis.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Id. at C-170 to C-179.
\178\ Id.
\179\ Id. at C-179. The permitted source had not yet begun
construction at the time the District adopted the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the relevant provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 9-7,
SCAQMD Rule 1146 and SMAQMD Rule 411 and agree with the District's
conclusion that these SIP-approved regulations exempt from their
NOX emission limits boilers used at electric utilities to
generate electricity.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ BAAQMD Regulation 9-7, section 110.4, SCAQMD Rule 1146,
section 110, and SMAQMD Rule 41, section (f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass Melting Furnaces
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), as amended May 19,
2011, establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and
PM10 emission limits and related operational requirements
for glass melting furnaces.\181\ Specifically, the rule establishes
NOX emission limits of 1.5 to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton
glass, depending on glass product and averaging time, and
SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. SOX/ton
glass.\182\ The EPA approved the District's 2011 amendments to Rule
4354 into the California SIP on January 31, 2013.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011.
\182\ Id. at 5, 7.
\183\ 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4354
require implementation of oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems, which are the
best available NOX control techniques for this source
category and are at least as stringent as analogous requirements
implemented in the South Coast and Bay Area.\184\ We are not aware of
prohibitory rules for glass melting furnaces in other areas that are
more stringent than Rule 4354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-189 to C-194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our review of a previous PM2.5 attainment
plan submitted for the San Joaquin Valley, we also considered whether
NOX emission levels lower than the limits in Rule 4354 may
be feasible for container glass manufacturing facilities. Specifically,
under the SCAQMD's RECLAIM Program, the SCAQMD determined in 2000 that
a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled
represented Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT),\185\
and in 2015 the SCAQMD determined that a lower NOX limit of
0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled represents BARCT for this
source category based on use of SCR or the ``Ultra Cat ceramic filter
system,'' which has been installed or is under construction at a number
of glass manufacturing locations worldwide.\186\ The EPA obtained
information from the SCAQMD indicating that the Owens-Brockway
Container Glass facility in the South Coast (now operated by Owens-
Illinois Glass Company) operated at 90% production capacity in February
2015 and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs NOX/ton of
glass pulled during that month, using oxyfuel firing to control
NOX emissions.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
\186\ SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, ``Proposed Amendments to
Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM),
NOX RECLAIM,'' December 4, 2015, 170-171. The RECLAIM
program requires that container glass melting facilities achieve
NOX reductions consistent with the 2015 BARCT
determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled) by 2022.
SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended October 5, 2018), subparagraph
(f)(1)(K) and Table 6 (``RECLAIM NOX 2022 Ending Emission
Factors'').
\187\ 81 FR 69396, 69399 (October 6, 2016) (citing email dated
April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana, SCAQMD to Idalia Perez, EPA
Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this information, the EPA requested additional information
from the District about the technological and economic feasibility of
additional NOX control techniques for container glass
manufacturing facilities, and on January 28, 2020, the District
submitted a document entitled ``Further Information for EPA Regarding
the MSM Analysis for District Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)''
(referred to herein as the ``Rule 4354 Additional Analysis'').\188\ The
information provided by the District indicates that, because the costs
due to lost production can be significant if a glass melting furnace is
taken off-line during the middle of its campaign, retrofits to install
additional combustion controls are generally performed only when a
furnace is shut down for rebricking, which occurs once every 10 to 15
years.\189\ Because of wide variations in the costs and technical
difficulties associated with installation of NOX controls
depending on the physical layout of each furnace and the time of its
last re-bricking, the District concluded that generic economic
feasibility analyses are not possible and that extensive facility-
specific evaluations would be necessary to determine whether additional
control technologies are feasible for implementation at the three
container glass melting facilities currently operating in the San
Joaquin Valley.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Email dated January 28, 2020, from John Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Follow up questions on
glass melting and IC engines for MSM analysis,'' attaching ``Further
Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for District Rule
4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)'' (``Rule 4354 Additional Analysis'').
\189\ Rule 4354 Additional Analysis, 5-7.
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the District also stated in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that the Owens-Brockway (now Owens-Illinois)
facility in the South Coast has experienced wide-ranging spikes in the
NOX emissions from its glass furnaces while operating its
new control systems and that it is not known at this time whether the
facility will be able to consistently achieve emission rates as low as
0.20 lbs of NOX/ton of glass produced as shown by the
facility's preliminary source test data from 2018.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with the District's conclusion that the feasibility of
retrofits to install additional NOX controls at the existing
glass melting facilities in the San Joaquin Valley is
[[Page 17401]]
highly dependent on timing and site-specific factors, as the real costs
of installing post-combustion controls or oxy-fuel firing retrofits and
the lost revenue resulting from early furnace shutdowns may vary
significantly from facility to facility.
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion Engines''), as amended
November 14, 2013, establishes NOX, CO, VOC, and
SOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
internal combustion (IC) engines.\192\ The rule contains separate
emission limits for spark-ignited IC engines used in agricultural
operations (SI AO engines), spark-ignited IC engines used in non-
agricultural operations (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC
engines.\193\ The EPA approved the District's 2013 amendments to this
rule into the California SIP on April 25, 2016.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013.
\193\ Id.
\194\ 81 FR 24029 (April 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX
emission limits ranging from 11 to 75 ppmv, depending on the type of
engine.\195\ According to Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
these NOX emission limits are at least as stringent as many
analogous control requirements implemented in the Bay Area, Sacramento
Metro, and Ventura County areas.\196\ We also note that the Rule 4702
limits for these engines are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements in the Feather River, Placer County, Mojave Desert, and
San Diego areas.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.2 and tables 1 and 2.
\196\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-214 to C-221.
\197\ Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County APCD Rule 242;
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the emission limits for specific types of SI non-AO engines
in Rule 4702 are, however, less stringent than those implemented in the
South Coast, El Dorado, and Antelope Valley areas for similar engines.
Specifically, the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC
engines;\198\ El Dorado has adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ``rich-
burn'' engines and a 65 ppmv limit for SI ``lean-burn'' engines (except
those used exclusively in agricultural operations); \199\ and Antelope
Valley has adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines (except those used
exclusively in agricultural operations).\200\ As explained in Appendix
C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District considered the
technical and economic feasibility of alternative control techniques
for certain SI non-AO engines (e.g., waste gas engines, cyclic loaded
field gas-fueled engines, limited use engines, two-stroke gaseous
fueled engines, and lean-burn engines used in gas compression) that
would lower the emission levels for these engines to 11 ppmv but found
that these NOX controls are not feasible for implementation
in the San Joaquin Valley at this time.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
\199\ El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006.
\200\ Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21,
2003.
\201\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-221 to C-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX emission
limits ranging from 90 to 150 ppmv.\202\ These NOX emission
limits are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in the Sacramento Metro, Placer County, El Dorado, and
Antelope Valley areas, which exempt AO engines from control
requirements altogether, and are equivalent to analogous control
requirements implemented in the Mojave Desert area.\203\ The SCAQMD,
however, has adopted an 11 ppmv NOX emission limit for all
stationary SI and CI engines rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011,
with limited exceptions for agricultural engines that meet certain
conditions.\204\ Additionally, the Feather River Air Quality Management
District (FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, establishes
NOX emission limits of 25 parts per million (ppm) and 65 ppm
for rich-burn and lean-burn agricultural engines in southern FRAQMD,
respectively, except for engines located at agricultural sources that
emit less than 50% of the major source thresholds for regulated air
pollutants and/or hazardous air pollutants.\205\ These NOX
emission limits in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD Rule 3.22 thus appear
to be more stringent in some respects than the 90 ppmv and 150 ppmv
limits applicable to agricultural engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. As of
June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of any stationary SI
engines currently operating at agricultural facilities in the Feather
River area that have demonstrated compliance with the 25 ppm or 65 ppm
NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22.\206\ Nonetheless,
because these NOX emission limits are approved into the
California SIP,\207\ they are required as MSM if they can feasibly be
implemented in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.3 and Table 3.
\203\ SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; Placer County
APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule
233, as amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as
amended January 21, 2003; and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as
adopted January 23, 2012.
\204\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008, section
(d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). Rule 1110.2 provides an
exemption from the 11 ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines
that meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of two additional
conditions: (1) The engine operator submits documentation to the
SCAQMD, by the deadline for a permit application, that the
applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an
electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or (2) the
SCAQMD determines that the operator does not qualify for funding
under California Health and Safety Code Section 44229 to replace,
retrofit or repower the engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section
(h)(9).
\205\ FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, section D.1,
Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e
(Exemptions).
\206\ Email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit Mangat, FRAQMD to
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, regarding ``Engines in FRAQMD'' (stating
that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating in the Feather
River area qualify for an exemption from the NOX emission
limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22). The 25 ppm and 65 ppm NOX
emission limits in SIP-approved Rule 3.22 apply only to engines
located at agricultural sources that emit at least 50% of the major
source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/or hazardous air
pollutants. FRAQMD Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, section
D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e
(Exemptions).
\207\ 80 FR 22646 (April 23, 2015) (final rule approving FRAQMD
Rule 3.22 into California SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of
alternative control techniques for SI AO engines that would lower the
emission levels for certain engines to 11 ppmv but found that these
NOX controls are not feasible for implementation within San
Joaquin Valley's agricultural industry at this time.\208\ Based on our
understanding that three natural gas-fired SI AO engines in the South
Coast are currently subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission
limit in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and use nonselective catalytic reduction
(NSCR, also called ``three-way catalysts'') control technology to
comply with this emission limit,\209\ the EPA requested additional
information from the District regarding the technological and economic
feasibility of additional NOX control techniques for SI AO
engines, and on October 7, 2019, the District submitted a document
entitled ``Further Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for
Agricultural Operation Engines'' (referred to herein as the ``AO Engine
Additional Analysis'').\210\
[[Page 17402]]
According to the District, the NOX controls that would be
necessary to achieve a 11 ppmv emission limit at SI AO engines in the
San Joaquin Valley are not economically feasible because of factors
such as increased fuel costs, increased engine maintenance costs, and
the costs of engine overhaul/replacement,\211\ and installation of
control equipment on an SI AO engine generally is not technologically
feasible without substantial and costly engine retrofits.\212\ The AO
Engine Additional Analysis explains the District's cost-effectiveness
calculations.\213\ The District also provided information regarding
technical feasibility challenges related to the specific type of
workforce, and physical size and location of agricultural operations in
the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-231 to C-238.
\209\ 81 FR 69396, 69398 (October 6, 2016) (citing email dated
May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana, SCAQMD to Nicole Law, EPA Region
IX).
\210\ Email dated October 7, 2019, from John Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Follow up questions on
glass melting and IC engines for MSM analysis,'' attaching ``Further
Information for EPA Regarding the MSM Analysis for Agricultural
Operation Engines'' (``AO Engine Additional Analysis'').
\211\ AO Engine Additional Analysis, 9-12.
\212\ Id. at 10-11.
\213\ Id. at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the SCAQMD, like SJVUAPCD, has provided economic
incentive grants for agricultural engine retrofits and replacement in
recognition of unique economic and technical circumstances in the
agricultural industry.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 2005, App.
B (``Incentive Funding Available for Agricultural Engine Emission
Reductions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for compression-ignited IC engines (both those used in
agricultural operations and those used in non-agricultural operations),
Rule 4702 requires compliance by specified dates with EPA Tier 3 or
Tier 4 NOX emission standards for non-road CI engines in 40
CFR part 89 or part 1039, as applicable, or an 80 ppmv NOX
emission limit, depending on engine type.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, section
5.2.4, Table 4, and section 3.37 (defining Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3,
and Tier 4 engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Management Practices
SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices''), as
adopted August 19, 2004, establishes requirements for owners and
operators of agricultural sites to implement conservation management
practices (CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from on-field
crop and animal feeding operations.\216\ Under the rule, each owner/
operator of an agricultural site must select and implement a CMP for
each category of operations, including unpaved roads and unpaved
vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and submit a CMP application to the
District for its review and approval.\217\ The EPA approved this rule
into the California SIP on February 14, 2006.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19, 2004.
\217\ Id.
\218\ 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Rule
4550 was the first rule of its kind in the nation to reduce fugitive
particulate emissions from agricultural operations through
implementation of conservation practices.\219\ The District compared
the provisions of Rule 4550 to analogous regulations implemented by air
agencies in other parts of California (Imperial County and South Coast)
and in Arizona, and found that Rule 4550 is at least as stringent as
each of these other regulations.\220\ We note that it is difficult to
directly compare the requirements among these rules because of the
widely varying rule structures and operations of the affected
agricultural sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-196.
\220\ Id. at C-202, C-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that additional CMPs and
other controls for windblown dust would not substantially impact
PM2.5 design values in the San Joaquin Valley because
windblown dust events typically do not coincide with the winter period
during which PM2.5 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley
are the highest.\221\ According to the District, PM2.5
design values in the San Joaquin Valley are driven primarily by high
winter-time concentrations, mostly due to organic carbon and the
secondary formation of ammonium nitrate, while the geologic component
of peak PM2.5 concentrations is a fraction (less than 6%) of
the mass formed by secondary processes and other sources.\222\
Additionally, the District states that PM2.5 comprises a
small fraction (approximately 6% to 12%) of total PM10
emissions from agricultural field operations in the San Joaquin
Valley.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Id. at C-200, C-201.
\222\ Id. at C-201.
\223\ Id. at C-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Charbroiling
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling''), as amended
September 17, 2009, establishes control requirements to reduce
PM10 (including PM2.5) and VOC emissions from
chain-driven charbroilers.\224\ Specifically, the rule requires that
chain-driven charbroilers be equipped and operated with a catalytic
oxidizer with a control efficiency of at least 83% for PM10
emissions and 86% for VOC emissions.\225\ The rule does not require
controls for under-fired charbroilers (UFCs). The EPA approved the
District's 2009 amendments to Rule 4692 into the California SIP on
November 3, 2011.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17, 2009.
\225\ Id.
\226\ 76 FR 68103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a comparison
of the requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous requirements for chain-
driven charbroilers implemented by the SCAQMD, Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), BAAQMD, and New York Department of
Environmental Protection (NYDEP) and found no requirements for chain-
driven charbroilers in these rules that are more stringent than those
contained in Rule 4692.\227\ With respect to UFCs, the District noted
that two regulations, the BAAQMD's Regulation 6 Rule 2 and title 24,
section 24-149.4 of the New York City Administrative Code, contain
control requirements for UFCs. According to the District, however, the
majority of the UFCs in the Bay Area are not subject to the
requirements for UFCs in BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 2 because they fall
below the rule's applicability thresholds, and the BAAQMD has not
enforced its UFC requirements because no control technologies have yet
been certified.\228\ Similarly, the District states in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that NYDEP staff are in the introductory
stages of establishing an inventory and planning for inspections at
charbroiling facilities, and that installation of controls for new UFCs
is not yet required under title 24, section 24-149.4 of the New York
City Administrative Code.\229\ The SJVUAPCD therefore concluded that
control requirements for UFCs are not technologically and economically
feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-205 to C-208.
\228\ Id. at C-206. We note that the BAAQMD and NYDEP
charbroiler rules have not been approved into the California SIP and
New York SIP, respectively.
\229\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not aware of requirements for chain-driven charbroilers in
other areas that are more stringent than the requirements of Rule 4692.
Although the BAAQMD and NYDEP implement rules that require controls for
UFCs, neither agency has yet confirmed that any regulated sources have
successfully installed and operated certified UFC control
technologies.\230\ Staff at the
[[Page 17403]]
BAAQMD recently noted that electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have been
installed in commercial kitchens in San Francisco and San Jose but that
the BAAQMD has not yet enforced control requirements for UFCs.\231\ We
note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies several restaurants
inside and outside of the San Joaquin Valley that have installed UFC
control technologies, and that these installations may inform the
District's ongoing feasibility analyses.\232\ For example, the District
has implemented a first-of-its-kind pilot project to install and assess
the feasibility of UFC controls at an operating restaurant.\233\ We
encourage the District to continue monitoring the operation of these
control technologies to determine whether they can feasibly be
implemented at other charbroiling sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Email dated July 11, 2019, from Stanley Tong, EPA Region
IX to Krishnan Balakrishnan, BAAQMD, Subject: ``Underfired
charbroiler updates'' and email dated June 17, 2019, from Ronald
Vaughn, NYDEP to Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE New
Charbroiler Registrations NYC.''
\231\ Email dated January 9, 2020, from Virginia Lau, BAAQMD to
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Underfired charbroiler--
Q: SJ discussion about BA rule'' (noting that the BAAQMD has
conducted enforcement inspections concerning food throughput and
grill size).
\232\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-209.
\233\ Id. at App. E, E-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District revised Rule 4692 on June 21, 2018, to require owners
and operators of commercial cooking operations with UFCs to submit, by
January 1, 2019, a one-time informational report providing information
about the UFC and its operations--including, e.g., information about
the cooking surface area, type and quantity of meat cooked on the UFC
on a weekly basis during the previous 12-month period, daily operating
hours, and the manufacturer and model number of any installed pollution
control device designed to reduce particulates, kitchen smoke, or
odor.\234\ The revisions to Rule 4692 also require such owners and
operators to register with the District and keep weekly records
relating to the quantity of meat cooked, but exempt from the
registration and recordkeeping requirements UFCs that cook quantities
of meat below certain thresholds provided the owner or operator
complied with the one-time informational reporting requirement. CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA on November 21, 2018, via a
letter dated November 16, 2018.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21, 2018. The
revisions to Rule 4692 provide that commercial cooking operations
with UFCs that are operated outdoors and are not connected to an
exhaust hood or other form of ventilation system are exempt from the
requirements of the rule. Id. at sections 3.9 and 4.3.
\235\ Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX (transmitting amended Rule 4692).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Gas Turbines
SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (``Stationary Gas Turbines''), as amended
September 20, 2007, establishes NOX emission limits and
related operational requirements for stationary gas turbines with
greater than 0.3 MW capacity or a maximum heat input rating of more
than 3 million Btu/hr.\236\ The NOX emission limits in the
rule range from 3 to 25 ppm for gas-fired operations and from 25 to 42
ppm for liquid-fired operations.\237\ These units operate primarily in
the oil and gas production and utility industries, with some also
operating in manufacturing and government facilities.\238\ The EPA
approved this rule into the California SIP on October 21, 2009.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 20, 2007.
\237\ Id. at Table 5-3.
\238\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-243 to C-247.
\239\ 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the NOX emission limits in Rule 4703
are at least as stringent as analogous control requirements implemented
in the Bay Area, South Coast, and Ventura County.\240\ We note that the
SCAQMD recently revised its rule for stationary gas turbines (Rule
1134) to establish, among other things, a NOX emission limit
of 2 ppmv for natural gas-fired combined cycle turbines, which is more
stringent than the 3 ppmv limit in SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 for these
units.\241\ Because the compliance date for this requirement in SCAQMD
Rule 1134 is December 31, 2023, however, it is not clear that the
controls necessary to achieve a 2 ppmv emission level are
technologically and economically feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-243 to C-247.
\241\ SCAQMD Rule 1134, as amended April 5, 2019, section (d)
and table I (``Emission Limits for Stationary Gas Turbines'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters''), as amended June 20, 2019, is designed to limit emissions of
PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, and other
pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood
burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes
requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood
burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the San
Joaquin Valley. The EPA proposed to approve the District's 2019
amendments to the rule into the SIP on January 9, 2020.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ 85 FR 1131 (January 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the evaluation supporting our proposed approval,\243\ we
found that Rule 4901 and the related Check Before You Burn program
(http://valleyair.org/rule4901) implemented by the District provide for
a comprehensive residential wood smoke program that incorporates all of
the elements outlined in EPA's ``Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke.''
\244\ Among the key elements of the rule are a wood burning curtailment
program (triggered by forecasted PM2.5 concentrations for
the next day), opacity and visible emission limits, requirements
regarding wood moisture content, removal of uncertified wood burning
stoves upon home resale, restrictions on installation of wood burning
devices, requirement that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred
within the District meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), a
wood burning change-out program and education and outreach. In the
Technical Support Document to support our separate proposal on Rule
4901, we compare this rule to analogous rules implemented elsewhere and
conclude that Rule 4901, as a whole, is as or more stringent than
analogous local, state, and federal rules and guidance.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Technical Support Document for the EPA's Proposed
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901 (``Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters''), December 2019.
\244\ Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA-456/B-13-01, March
2013.
\245\ Id. The SJVUAPCD provides its comparisons of Rule 4901 to
analogous rules implemented elsewhere in Appendix C of the Plan.
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-259 to C-280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular relevance for reducing PM2.5 emissions,
Rule 4901 includes a tiered mandatory curtailment program that
establishes different curtailment thresholds based on the type of
device and county. During a level one episodic woodburning curtailment,
operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregistered wood burning
heaters is prohibited, but properly operated, registered \246\ wood
burning devices may be used. During a level two episodic woodburning
curtailment, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited.
However, the rule includes an exemption from the curtailment provisions
for (1) locations where natural gas service is not available and (2)
residences for which a wood burning
[[Page 17404]]
fireplace or wood burning heater is the sole available source of heat.
In the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern, the level one
PM2.5 threshold is 12 [mu]g/m\3\, and the level two
PM2.5 threshold is 35 [mu]g/m\3\. In the remaining counties
in the District (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Kings, and Tulare),
the level one PM2.5 threshold is 20 [mu]g/m\3\, and the
level two PM2.5 threshold is 65 [mu]g/m\3\. These
curtailment thresholds in Rule 4901 are collectively as stringent as or
more stringent than those in any other rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ In order to be registered, a device must either be
certified under the NSPS at time of purchase or installation and at
least as stringent as Phase II requirements or be a pellet-fueled
wood burning heater exempt from EPA certification requirements at
the time of purchase or installation. The rule includes requirements
for documentation and inspection to verify compliance with these
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. State Measures for Mobile Sources
Mobile source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility
for reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on-
and non-road engines and vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan's BACM and MSM demonstration provides a general
description of CARB's key mobile source programs and regulations and a
comprehensive table listing on-road and non-road mobile source
regulatory actions taken by CARB since 1985.\247\ Given the need for
substantial emissions reductions from mobile sources to meet the NAAQS
in California's nonattainment areas, CARB has established stringent
control measures for on-road and non-road mobile sources and the fuels
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209
(subject to a waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emission
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new
and in-use non-road vehicles and engines. The EPA has approved such
mobile source regulations for which waiver authorizations have been
issued as revisions to the California SIP.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 17.
\248\ See, e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 also been submitted and approved as revisions to
the California SIP.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ See, e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-
powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), revisions to the
California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations
at 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the California motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During its development of the Valley State SIP Strategy, CARB
identified measures that would achieve additional NOX and
direct PM2.5 emissions reductions from sources under CARB
jurisdiction, including more stringent in-use performance standards for
heavy-duty vehicles, a low-NOX engine standard for vehicles
with new heavy-duty engines, and a low-emission diesel fuel
requirement.\250\ The Valley State SIP Strategy includes a commitment
by CARB to bring a list of defined measures to the Board for action
according to the schedule provided in Table 7 of the Valley State SIP
Strategy.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Valley State SIP Strategy, Chapter 2 (``Measures''), 2018
PM2.5 Plan, section 4.4 and App. D, Chapter IV
(``Identification and Evaluation of Potential Measures'').
\251\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the process conducted by CARB to develop the Valley
State SIP Strategy was reasonably designed to identify additional
available measures within CARB's jurisdiction, and that CARB's programs
constitute the most stringent emission control programs currently
available for the mobile source and fuels categories, taking into
account economic and technological feasibility.
c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
TCMs are projects that reduce air pollutants from transportation
sources by reducing vehicle use, traffic congestion, or vehicle miles
traveled. TCMs are currently being implemented in the San Joaquin
Valley as part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality cost
effectiveness policy adopted by the eight local jurisdiction MPOs and
in the development of each Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality policy, which is included in a
number of the District's prior attainment plan submissions for the
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, provides a standardized process for
distributing 20 percent of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds to projects that meet a minimum cost effectiveness threshold
beginning in fiscal year 2011. The MPOs revisited the minimum cost
effectiveness standard during the development of their 2018 RTPs and
2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program and concluded that they
were implementing all reasonable transportation control measures.\252\
Appendix D of the District's ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016, contains a listing of adopted TCMs
for the San Joaquin Valley.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-127.
\253\ Id. and SJVUAPCD, ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard'' (adopted June 16, 2016), App. D, Attachment D, tables D-
10 through D-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Conclusion and Proposed Action
We find that the evaluation process followed by CARB and the
District in the SJV PM2.5 Plan to identify potential BACM
and MSM were generally consistent with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the State's and District's
evaluation of potential measures is appropriate, and the State and
District have provided reasoned justifications for their rejection of
potential measures based on technological or economic infeasibility. We
also agree with the District's conclusion that all reasonable TCMs are
being implemented in the San Joaquin Valley and propose to find that
these TCMs implement BACM and MSM for transportation sources.
For the foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and NOX as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019, and for the
implementation of MSM for such sources as expeditiously as practicable
and no later than December 31, 2023, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
D. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
In this section of the preamble, we present our evaluation of the
State's request to extend the Serious area attainment date from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, under CAA section 188(e) and,
given the section 188(e) requirement to demonstrate expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS, our evaluation of the SJV PM2.5
Plan's attainment demonstration, including the Plan's air quality
modeling approach and results and control strategy.
1. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
a. Summary of State's Impracticability Demonstration
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes a demonstration, based on
air quality modeling, that even with the implementation of BACM and
BACT for all appropriate sources, attainment by December 31, 2019, is
not practicable. The impracticability demonstration is included in
Appendix K of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
[[Page 17405]]
Table 26 in Appendix K presents base year and modeled 2020 future
year 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations at 15
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area. The demonstration is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3--Impracticability Demonstration, 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Design
Value Concentrations
[[micro]g/m\3\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 (projected
Monitoring Site 2013 (base year) future year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield--California............. 64.1 47.6
Fresno--Garland..................... 60.0 44.3
Hanford............................. 60.0 43.7
Fresno--Hamilton & Winery........... 59.3 45.6
Clovis.............................. 55.8 41.1
Visalia............................. 55.5 42.8
Bakersfield--Planz.................. 55.5 41.2
Madera.............................. 51.0 38.9
Turlock............................. 50.7 37.8
Modesto............................. 47.9 35.8
Merced--Main Street................. 46.9 32.9
Stockton............................ 42.0 33.5
Merced--S Coffee.................... 41.1 30.0
Manteca............................. 36.9 30.1
Tranquility......................... 29.5 21.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix K, Table 26.
b. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The impracticability demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan is based
on air quality modeling that is generally consistent with applicable
EPA guidance. We find the modeling, described in section IV.D.4.a of
this preamble, adequate to support the impracticability demonstration
in the Plan. We note that the modeled year of the impracticability
demonstration is 2020, the year following the December 31, 2019
attainment date. However, as the projected 24-hour average
concentration in 2020 is 48 [micro]g/m\3\, well above the 35 [micro]g/
m\3\ level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we find it
reasonable to conclude based on this evaluation that attainment by the
end of 2019 is impracticable.
In addition to the information in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan,
we have reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring data from the San
Joaquin Valley. These data show that 24-hour average PM2.5
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, with a 2016-2018 design value of 65
[micro]g/m\3\, continue to be above the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ level of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Recent trends in annual
PM2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley are not consistent
with a projection of attainment by the end of 2019. A more detailed
analysis, including 24-hour PM2.5 trend data in the San
Joaquin Valley for years 2004-2018, is contained in section II of the
EPA's General Evaluation TSD.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ See also, Attachment A to the EPA's General Evaluation
TSD, ``Practicability of San Joaquin Valley Attaining 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2019,'' October 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss in section IV.C of this proposed rule our evaluation of
the BACM and BACT demonstration and the bases for our proposal to find
that the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of
all BACM and BACT by the statutory implementation deadline. Based on
our evaluation of the State's impracticability demonstration, including
the demonstration concerning BACM and BACT, and our review of the
available ambient air quality data, we propose to approve the State's
demonstration in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by the
Serious area attainment date of December 31, 2019, is impracticable.
2. Compliance With All Requirements and Commitments in the
Implementation Plan
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented
the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172
and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For the San Joaquin
Valley, the EPA has approved the control measure requirements and
commitments of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS) and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) into the California
SIP. The EPA has not yet taken action on the State's SIP revisions for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we describe below the
State's and District's implementation of the control measures and
commitments for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. For more detail on our evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to section III of the EPA's
General Evaluation TSD.
a. Requirements and Commitments for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,\255\ which we refer to collectively
as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved most elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, including
commitments by CARB and the SJVUAPCD to take specific actions with
respect to identified control measures and to achieve specific amounts
of direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission
reductions by 2014.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ 76 FR 69896, n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\256\ Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2),
52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific State and District commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
as follows:
(1) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures identified in
Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,'' dated
April 28, 2011 (``2011 Progress
[[Page 17406]]
Report''), in accordance with the timetable specified therein; \257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB Resolution No. 07-
28, Attachment B (September 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34
(April 24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921-69922, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan'' in accordance with the
timetable specified in Table 6-2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as
amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB
for transmittal to EPA as SIP revisions; \258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (June 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896
at 69921, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2014 as described in CARB
Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and 2011; \259\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of
NOX emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct PM2.5
emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SOX emission reductions
by 2014 as described in Table 6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c,
respectively, of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA's final action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied
substantial portions of these control measure and emission reduction
commitments. Specifically, CARB had proposed action on six of the seven
measures it had committed to propose for Board consideration, leaving
one additional measure that was scheduled for proposal in 2013 (``New
Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats'').\261\ The District had
adopted 12 of the 13 measures it had committed to adopt and implement,
leaving one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014,
amendments to Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces'').\262\ Finally, together CARB and the SJVUAPCD had achieved
all of the SOX emission reduction commitments and
substantial portions of the direct PM2.5 and NOX
emission reduction commitments through implementation of State and
District control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emission reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ 76 FR 69896, 69922, Table 2 (``2007 State Strategy Defined
Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status'').
\262\ Id. at 69921, Table 1 (``San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule
Commitments'').
\263\ Id. at 69923, Table 4 (``Reductions Needed for Attainment
Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, CARB submitted a staff report, entitled ``Review of
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan'' (``2015
CARB Compliance Demonstration''), that contains CARB's demonstration
that both CARB and the District have satisfied the commitments in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained outstanding as of November 9,
2011, as follows.\264\ First, on January 22, 2015, the District adopted
amendments to Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule
to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.\265\ Second, on
February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for Board consideration, and the Board
adopted, new emission standards for recreational boats entitled
``Evaporative Emissions Control Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine
Watercraft.'' \266\ These State and District rulemaking actions
satisfied the last remaining control measure commitments in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. All of these measures have been submitted to the
EPA and approved into the California SIP, as summarized in Table III-A
of EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ CARB, ``Review of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
State Implementation Plan,'' released April 20, 2015 (``2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration''), transmitted by email dated February 5,
2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region
IX, 17-22 and App. B.
\265\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 19, Table 7 and
letter dated April 7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting air district regulations to the EPA as California SIP
revisions).
\266\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 20, Table 8 and
CARB, Resolution 15-3, ``Evaporative Emissions Control Requirements
for Spark-Ignition Marine Watercraft,'' February 19, 2015, available
at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/simw2015.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the remaining emission reduction commitments (also
called ``aggregate tonnage commitments''), the 2015 CARB Compliance
Demonstration, as amended by CARB's ``Technical Clarifications to the
2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan''
(``Technical Clarifications''), identifies nine State and District
control measures that, according to CARB, achieved emission reductions
beyond those already credited towards the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and satisfy the State's remaining 2014 emission reduction
obligations.\267\ We have reviewed the State's demonstration with
respect to each of these nine measures and propose to find that all but
one achieved emission reductions that may be credited towards the
remaining 2014 emission reduction obligation, because the State has
adequately documented its bases for concluding that each measure either
contains enforceable, SIP-approved requirements or otherwise achieved
specified amounts of emission reductions by January 1, 2014. The one
measure identified in the 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration that did
not achieve any SIP-creditable emission reductions is the District's
Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'').\268\ The EPA's General
Evaluation TSD contains a more detailed evaluation of each of the eight
measures that we are proposing to credit toward the emission reduction
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21-22 and CARB,
``Technical Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' transmitted by email
dated February 5, 2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith
Kurpius, EPA Region IX, 1-4.
\268\ The EPA approved SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, as adopted December
15, 2005, into the California SIP on May 9, 2011 but identified a
number of concerns about the enforceability of the rule's provisions
that the District would need to resolve before relying on this rule
for credit in an attainment plan. 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration and Technical
Clarifications, implementation of these control measures achieved, by
the beginning of 2014, 26.4 tpd of additional NOX emission
reductions and 2.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
beyond those already credited toward the 2008 PM2.5
Plan.\269\ These NOX emission reductions exceeded the
State's outstanding NOX commitment (12.9 tpd) by 13.9 tpd,
and the direct PM2.5 emission reductions fell short of the
State's outstanding PM2.5 commitment (3.0 tpd) by 0.9
tpd.\270\ Citing air quality modeling conducted as part of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, CARB stated that a reduction of 9 tpd of
NOX emissions provides an air quality improvement equivalent
to a 1 tpd reduction in directly emitted PM2.5. On this
basis, CARB concluded that the approximately 13 tpd of surplus
NOX reductions achieved through implementation of the
identified State and District measures would adequately cover the 0.9
tpd shortfall in required reductions of direct PM2.5.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration at 21-22 and Technical
Clarifications at 1-4.
\270\ Id.
\271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find the technical bases for a 9:1 NOX for direct
PM2.5 trading ratio are generally sound and therefore
propose to use this trading ratio to credit the State with an
additional 1.07 tpd of PM2.5 emission reduction, rounding to
[[Page 17407]]
the nearest hundredth (based on 9.63 tpd of ``excess'' NOX
emission reductions) toward its outstanding 2014 commitment.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ For further discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1
NOX to direct PM2.5 trading ratio for purposes
of the aggregate commitment, please see section IV of the EPA's
General Evaluation TSD.
Table 4--2008 PM2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment--EPA Proposed Emission Reduction Credit for Measures in the 2015
CARB Compliance Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Emission reductions
(annual average tpd)
Measure -------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................................... Rule 4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction 1.8 0.0
Options for Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
B..................................... Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'').. 0.0 0.0
C..................................... Woodstove Replacements.................. 0.0 0.1
D..................................... District Funded Incentive-Based Emission 1.5 0.1
Reduction Measures.
E..................................... Rule 9410 (``Employer Based Trip 0.3 0.0
Reduction'').
F..................................... Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and 0.0 1.3
Wood Burning Heaters'').
G..................................... State Funded Incentive-Based Emission 5.0 0.13
Reduction Measures \a\.
H..................................... CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 11.5 0.1
Measure.
I..................................... CARB Portable Equipment Registration 2.5 0.2
Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM.
J..................................... TOTAL SIP-Creditable Emission Reductions 22.6 1.93
from State and District Measures (Sum
of A through I).
K..................................... NOX to PM2.5 Emissions Equivalence at -9.63 1.07
9:1 Ratio.
L..................................... TOTAL Emission Reductions Achieved (J+K) 12.97 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ On August 12, 2016, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of CARB's demonstration
concerning the emission reductions achieved by the State-Funded Emission Reduction Measure (also referred to
as the ``Emission Reduction Report''). 81 FR 53300. As part of that action, the EPA determined that the
incentive projects identified in the Emission Reduction Report achieved a total of 4.971 tpd of NOX emission
reductions and 0.134 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014, slightly less than the
7.8 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions that CARB had identified in
this submission. Id. at 53306.
In sum, the CARB Compliance Demonstration and Technical
Clarifications demonstrate that implementation of State and District
measures achieved a total of 12.97 tpd of NOX emission
reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
that have not previously been credited as part of the attainment
demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and that may,
therefore, be credited toward the State's outstanding obligation to
achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014.
Based on these evaluations, we propose to find that the State has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in the implementation plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
b. Requirements and Commitments for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In 2013 and 2014, California made two SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV, which we refer to collectively herein as the ``2012
PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.'' \273\ On August 31, 2016, the
EPA approved most elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and
Supplement into the California SIP.\274\ As part of this action, the
EPA approved, among other things, commitments by the District to take
specific actions with respect to identified control measures and to
achieve specific amounts of direct PM2.5 emission reductions
from these or substitute measures by 2017.\275\ The specific District
commitments that the EPA approved into the California SIP as part of
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ SJVUAPCD, ``2012 PM2.5 Plan,'' December 20,
2012 (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'') and SJVUAPCD, ``Supplemental
Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan
for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and District Rule 2201 (New
and Modified Stationary Source Review),'' September 18, 2014
(``Supplement'').
\274\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
\275\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3) and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 2012-12-19 (December 20, 2012). See also 81 FR
59876, 59893, Table 5. CARB did not make any separate commitments in
this SIP submission. CARB Resolution 13-2 (adopting the 2012
PM2.5 Plan) and CARB Resolution 14-37 (adopting the
Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 5'' of the
2012 PM2.5 Plan and to submit these rules and measures to
CARB within 30 days of adoption for transmittal to the EPA as SIP
revisions; and
(2) A commitment by the District to ``achieve the emission
reductions shown in Chapter 5'' of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,
which are 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, through the rules
and measures identified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan
or through substitute measures.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Chapter 6, section 6.2 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
(``Compliance with the Applicable SIP''), the District discusses its
compliance with these rulemaking and emission reduction commitments as
of October 16, 2018, when the Plan was made available for public
review.
Table 5 provides the current status of the District's compliance
with its rulemaking commitments in the Moderate area plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that although Table 5 includes specific
projected emission reductions associated with two rules, Rule 4692
(``Commercial Charbroiling'') and Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces
and Wood Burning Heaters''), the District's emissions reduction
commitment was an aggregate commitment that could be met through the
identified measures or substitute measures.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(478)(ii)(A)(3).
[[Page 17408]]
Table 5--EPA Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan's Specific SJVUAPCD Commitments To Adopt or Amend Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Commitment District Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Number (Title) Amendment Compliance
year year Emission reductions Amendment date Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, 2013 2015 TBD November 14, 2013 EPA approval, 80 FR 7803
and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/ (February 12, 2015).
hr'').
Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'').. 2016 2017 0.4 tpd direct PM2.5........ June 21, 2018 Submitted to the EPA November 21,
2018; Amended rule does not
establish control requirement
for under-fired commercial
charbroilers.
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and 2016 2016/2017 1.5 tpd direct PM2.5........ September 18, 2014 EPA approval, 81 FR 69393
Wood Burning Heaters''). (October 6, 2016).
Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 2014 2015 TBD January 22, 2015 EPA approval, 81 FR 17390 (March
Residential Central Furnaces''). 29, 2016).
Rule 9610 (``SIP-creditability of 2013 2013 TBD June 20, 2013 EPA limited approval and limited
Incentives''). disapproval, 80 FR 19020 (April
9, 2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), Chapter 5, Table 5-3 (``Regulatory Control Measure Commitments'').
In sum, the District has adopted and submitted to the EPA all five
of the regulatory measures specified in Chapter 5 of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan that it had committed to adopt and implement by
specified dates. Based on our review of this information, we propose to
find that the District has satisfied all of its rulemaking commitments
in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
With respect to the District's aggregate tonnage commitment to
achieve 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, the District states
that measures adopted after the State's adoption of the 2012
PM2.5 Plan achieved emission reductions in excess of those
committed to in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.\278\
Specifically, the District states that its commitment has been achieved
through amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters'').\279\ We have reviewed the District's and CARB's
explanations of how the District fulfilled this commitment through
implementation of revisions to its residential wood burning rule during
the relevant time period.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, 6-3 to 6-4.
\279\ Id. at 6-5 to 6-6.
\280\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2; email dated
November 27, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD, to Rory Mays, EPA
Region IX, Subject: Emissions Reductions from 2014 Amendment to Rule
4901; and letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to
Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District has amended Rule 4901 several times since its original
adoption in 2003. As of the date the District adopted the 2012
PM2.5 Plan, the October 16, 2008 amendment to Rule 4901
applied and the District committed to further amend the rule. The
District further amended the rule on September 18, 2014, and the
amended rule took effect in the November 2014-February 2015 period. The
District's staff report for the 2014 amendment to Rule 4901 projected
that the amendment would achieve 24-hour winter-season average emission
reductions by 2018 of 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5.\281\ The EPA
approved this rule into the SIP on October 6, 2016.\282\ In our final
action, we noted that the District had projected that the rule revision
would achieve 3.27 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions during
November through February (120-day) (equivalent to a winter-season
average reduction of 2.2 tpd).\283\ This approval did not include an
evaluation of whether the rule had achieved any particular level of
emissions reductions, or whether the District had fulfilled its
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions through revisions
to Rule 4901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ SJVUAPCD, ``Final Staff Report for Amendments to the
District's Residential Wood Burning Program,'' September 18, 2014
(``2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report''), App. B, B-12. We note that the
2.2 tpd is based on a 180-day season that reflects the November
through April (180-day) period used by the State for ``winter-
season,'' 24-hour average emissions inventories for the San Joaquin
Valley. This District staff report estimates that the 2014 amendment
would achieve emission reductions of 3.27 tpd of direct
PM2.5 during the November through February (120-day)
period in which it applies. See also 80 FR 58637, 58639 (September
30, 2015) (proposed approval of 2014 amendment to Rule 4901) and 81
FR 69393 (October 6, 2016) (final approval of 2014 amendment).
\282\ 81 FR 69393.
\283\ Id., at 69393-69394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan included updated
emissions inventories for this source category.\284\ Consistent with
CAA section 172(c)(3), which requires nonattainment plans to include
inventories that are ``comprehensive, accurate, [and] current,''
attainment plans often include updated emission inventories that rely
on information developed since an earlier plan. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan's updated emission inventories for wood burning
devices may be relevant to a determination of whether the 2014
amendments to Rule 4901 resulted in 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5
emissions reductions by 2017. In particular, the 2018 PM2.5
Plan's control measure analyses differ from previous inventory
estimates in the following ways:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ Appendix B Table B-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
contains a summary of direct PM2.5 emissions inventories
from various source categories, including Residential Fuel
Combustion, but does not include emissions values specific to wood-
burning devices. The emissions inventories for wood burning devices
are found in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, at C-257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories estimate that
2013 winter season emissions from residential wood burning devices were
6.35 tpd, compared with the 2015 winter season estimate of 8.037 tpd in
the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report, App. B, B-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan inventories estimate that
2017 winter season emissions from residential wood burning devices were
5.49 tpd,
[[Page 17409]]
compared with the 2017 winter season inventory of 8.35 tpd estimated in
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.
Overall, the more recent inventories presented in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan show a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season direct
PM2.5 emissions from wood burning devices between 2013 and
2017.\286\ Similarly, the State's August 12, 2019 clarification to its
2017 quantitative milestone report states that a 0.86 tpd reduction in
these emissions occurred from 2013 to 2017.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-257.
\287\ Letter dated August 12, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, transmitting ``Attachment: Supplemental Information and
Clarifications to 2017 Quantitative Milestones.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This difference between the emission reductions projected in the
2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission reductions reflected in
the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan appears
to be due to an update to emissions inventory methods in 2015-2016. The
updated methodology indicates that emissions from this source category
are lower than emissions as calculated by the methodology used to
develop the emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.\288\
The updated methodology is based on a 2014 survey of San Joaquin Valley
residents, which provided more representative data regarding fuel usage
rates and the number of wood burning devices in use in the
District.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ SJVUAPCD, ``2015 Area Source Emissions Inventory
Methodology 610--Residential Wood Combustion,'' (dated October 18,
2016), 27, Table 12 (showing decrease in estimated 2015 annual
emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces of 461 tons per year).
\289\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of this difference between the emission reductions
projected in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission
reductions reflected in the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the EPA sought clarification from CARB and the
District regarding the reductions achieved by the 2014 rule amendment.
In response, CARB pointed to the analysis of emissions reductions in
the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report as demonstrating compliance with the
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions.\290\ CARB and
the District also noted that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan projected
that 2017 emissions from wood burning devices would be 8.35 tpd and the
2018 PM2.5 Plan inventory estimates that 2017 emissions from
wood burning devices were 5.49 tpd, and concluded that this comparison
reflects emission reductions of 2.86 tpd for this source category.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ Email dated November 27, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD,
to Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, Subject: Emissions Reductions from 2014
Amendment to Rule 4901; Letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt
Karperos, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region IX, 2-3.
\291\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find, based upon the analysis of projected emission
reductions in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report, that the District has
complied with the aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5
Plan to achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct
PM2.5 by 2017. Given the differences between the inventories
used to create the commitment and the current inventories, we also seek
comment as to whether the State and District have met the commitment to
achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5
by 2017.
3. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State must demonstrate
to the EPA's satisfaction that its Serious area plan includes the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any
state, or achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.
As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, because of the
substantial overlap in the source categories and controls evaluated for
BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our evaluation of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan's provisions for including MSM alongside our
evaluation of the Plan's provisions for implementing BACM for each
identified source category. For the reasons provided in section IV.C
and further in the EPA's BACM/MSM TSD, we propose to determine that the
SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of MSM for
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
as expeditiously as practicable and no later than January 1, 2024, in
accordance with the requirements of CAA section 188(e) and the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.
4. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious Alternative Date
Practicable
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that each Serious area
plan include a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan provides for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date or, where the State is seeking an extension
of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by that date is impracticable and that the plan provides for
attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. We
discuss below our evaluation of the modeling approach in the Plan, the
State's basis for excluding one 24-hour data point from the modeling
analysis, and the control strategy in the Plan for attaining the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable.
a. Air Quality Modeling Approach and Results
The EPA's recommended procedures for modeling ambient
PM2.5 as part of an attainment demonstration are contained
in the EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze''
(``Modeling Guidance'').\292\ This guidance recommends that a state use
a photochemical model, such as the Comprehensive Air-quality Model with
extensions (CAMx) or CMAQ, to simulate a base case, with meteorological
and emissions inputs reflecting a base case year, to replicate
concentrations monitored in that year. The model application to the
base case year undergoes a performance evaluation to ensure that it
corroborates concentrations monitored in that year. States may then use
the model to simulate emissions occurring in other years required for
an attainment plan, namely the base year (which may differ from the
base case year) and a future year. The modeled response to the emission
changes between those years is used to calculate Relative Response
Factors (RRFs), which are applied to the design value in the base year
to estimate the projected design value in the future year for
comparison against the NAAQS. Separate RRFs are estimated for each
chemical species component of PM2.5, and for each quarter of
the year, to reflect their differing responses to seasonal
meteorological conditions and emissions. Since each species is handled
separately, before applying an RRF the base year design value must be
speciated using available chemical species measurements, that is, each
[[Page 17410]]
day's measured PM2.5 comprising the design value must be
split into its species components. The Modeling Guidance provides
additional detail on the recommended approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals
for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/R-18-009,
November 2018; available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. During
development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB relied on the
draft version of this guidance update, ``Draft Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' OAQPS, EPA, December 3, 2014
Draft,; 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. K, 11. Additional EPA
modeling guidance can be found in 40 CFR 51 App. W (``Guideline on
Air Quality Models''), 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017); available at
https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a modeled demonstration
projecting that the San Joaquin Valley will attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024. Specifically, CARB
conducted photochemical modeling with the CMAQ model using inputs
developed from routinely available meteorological and air quality data,
as well as more detailed and extensive data from the DISCOVER-AQ field
study conducted in January to February 2013.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ NASA, ``Deriving Information on Surface conditions from
COlumn and VERtically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air
Quality,'' available at https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/discover-aq/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan's primary discussion of the photochemical modeling appears
in Appendix K (``Modeling Attainment Demonstration'') of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. The State briefly summarizes the area's air
quality problem in Chapter 2.2 (``Air Quality Challenges And Trends'')
and summarizes the modeling results in Chapter 6.4 (``Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling'') of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The
State provides a conceptual model of PM2.5 formation in the
San Joaquin Valley as part of the modeling protocol in Appendix L
(``Modeling Protocol''). Appendix J (``Modeling Emission Inventory'')
describes emission input preparation procedures. The State presents
additional relevant information in Appendix C (``Weight of Evidence
Analysis'') of the CARB Staff Report, which includes ambient trends and
other data in support of the attainment demonstration.
CARB's air quality modeling approach investigated the many inter-
connected facets of modeling ambient PM2.5 in the San
Joaquin Valley, including model input preparation, model performance
evaluation, use of the model output for the numerical NAAQS attainment
test, and modeling documentation. Specifically, this required the
development and evaluation of a conceptual model, modeling protocol,
episode (i.e., base year) selection, modeling domain, CMAQ model
selection, initial and boundary condition procedures, meteorological
model choice and performance, modeling emissions inventory preparation
procedures, model performance, attainment test procedure, adjustments
to baseline air quality for modeling, the 2024 attainment test, and an
unmonitored area analysis. CARB's supplemental weight of evidence
analysis further supports the Plan's demonstration of attainment by the
end of 2024. These analyses are generally consistent with the EPA's
recommendations in the Modeling Guidance.
The model performance evaluation in Appendix K included statistical
and graphical measures of model performance. The magnitude and timing
of predicted concentrations of total PM2.5, as well as of
its ammonium and nitrate components, generally match the occurrence of
elevated PM2.5 levels in the measured observations. A
comparison to other recent modeling efforts shows good model
performance on bias, error, and correlation with measurements, for
total PM2.5 and for most of its chemical components. The
Weight of Evidence Analysis\294\ shows the downward trend in
NOX emissions along with a 50% decrease between 1999 and
2017 in the number of days above the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\295\
The analysis also shows decreases in daily PM2.5
concentrations during winter, and in the frequency of high
PM2.5 concentrations generally. Available ambient air
quality data shows that total PM2.5 and ammonium nitrate
concentrations have clearly declined over the 2001-2015 period, despite
some increases from time to time.\296\ These air quality trends show
that there has been a substantial improvement in air quality due to
emission reductions in the SJV, although that point is not fully
reflected in the 98th percentile statistic, which is the basis for the
regulatory design value.\297\ These lines of evidence all lend
confidence in the modeling and the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ CARB Staff Report, Appendix C.
\295\ Id. at 28.
\296\ An increase in 2013 and 2014 is attributed to severe
drought-related conditions during the winter of 2013-2014. Id. at
27.
\297\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting SJV PM2.5 Plan to EPA), Attachment A, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the State's extensive discussion of modeling procedures,
tests, and performance analyses in the Modeling Protocol, and the good
model performance, the EPA finds that the modeling in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan is adequate for purposes of supporting the
demonstration of attainment by 2024. For further detail, please see the
EPA's Modeling TSD.
b. Control Strategy
The SJV PM2.5 Plan's control strategy to reduce
emissions from sources of NOX and direct PM2.5 is
presented in Chapter 4 (``Attainment Strategy for PM2.5'')
\298\ and related supporting information in the Plan's control strategy
appendices, including Appendix C (``Stationary Source Control Measure
Analyses''), Appendix D (``Mobile Source Control Measures Analyses''),
and Appendix E (``Incentive-Based Strategy''). Most of the projected
emission reductions are achieved by baseline measures--i.e., the
combination of State and District measures adopted prior to the State's
and District's adoption of the Plan--that will achieve ongoing emission
reductions from the 2013 base year to the 2024 projected attainment
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ Consistent with the State and District's determination
that ammonia, SOX, and VOC do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley, the Plan's control strategy focuses on
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX. CARB Staff Report, 12. Nonetheless, the Plan
projects the following annual average emission reductions from the
2013 base year to 2024: 0.5 tpd reductions in SOX (5.9%),
30.3 tpd reductions in VOC (9.3%), and 4.6 tpd reductions in ammonia
(1.4%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B, Tables B-3, B-4, and B-
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the emission reductions are achieved by an
incentive-based measure adopted by CARB in December 2019, a regulatory
measures adopted by the District in June 2019, and a number of
additional measures to be adopted and implemented by CARB and the
District, including regulatory measures and incentive-based measures.
In addition, both the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and the Valley State
SIP Strategy include commitments to take action on specific measures by
specific dates and to achieve specified amounts of NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions by certain dates.\299\ We refer to
these commitments herein as ``aggregate commitments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ CARB Resolution 18-49, paragraph 2 and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 18-11-16, paragraph 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the SJV PM2.5 Plan generally relies on
annual average emission inventory and control strategy estimates
because it was designed to address requirements for the 1997 annual and
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The State views the
control strategy for the annual average attainment needs as providing
sufficient emission reductions for 24-hour average (winter average)
attainment and RFP needs.\300\ We agree with this assessment and have
evaluated the control strategy in the Plan by reference to annual
average emission reductions. Table 6 provides a summary
[[Page 17411]]
of the 2013 base year emissions and the reductions from baseline
measures, additional State measures, and additional District measures
that are necessary for the San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024.\301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ See, e.g., Letter dated August 12, 2019 from Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, regarding the State's ``2017
Quantitative Milestone Report for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS,'' 2, n.
3.
\301\ Emission reductions from baseline measures are calculated
as the sum of all stationary, area, and mobile source emission
reductions from 2013 to 2024 in App. B of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.
Table 6--Summary of SJV PM2.5 Plan's Annual Average Emission Reductions to Attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of 2013-
% of 2013 base Direct PM2.5 base year
NOX (tpd) year emissions (tpd) emissions
(percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................................. 2013 Base Year Emissions............... 317.2 .............. 62.5 ..............
B.............................................. Baseline Measure Emission Reductions 168.3 53.1 4.2 6.7
(2013-2024).
C.............................................. Additional State Measures.............. 32 10.1 0.9 1.4
D.............................................. Additional District Measures........... 1.88 0.6 1.3 2.1
E.............................................. Total 2013-2024 Emission Reductions 202.2 63.7 6.4 10.2
(B+C+D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2, and Ch. 4, Tables 4-3 and 4-7.
i. Baseline Measures
Baseline measures will provide the majority of emissions reductions
needed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley, amounting to approximately 83.2% of the NOX
emission reductions and 65.6% of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions necessary for attainment.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ The EPA calculated these percentages as follows: Annual
average baseline NOX reductions are 168.3 tpd of 202.2
tpd necessary for attainment (83.2%) and annual average baseline
direct PM2.5 reductions are 4.2 tpd of 6.4 tpd necessary
for attainment (65.6%). 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4 and App.
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan states that mobile sources emit over
85% of the NOX in the San Joaquin Valley and that CARB has
adopted and amended regulations to reduce public exposure to diesel
particulate matter, which includes direct PM2.5, and
NOX, from ``fuel sources, freight transport sources like
heavy-duty diesel trucks, transportation sources like passenger cars
and buses, and non-road sources like large construction equipment.''
\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4-9 and Valley State
SIP Strategy, 4. For CARB's analysis of its mobile source measures
for BACM and MSM, see 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, including
analyses for on-road light-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page D-
17), on-road heavy-duty vehicles and fuels (starting page D-35), and
non-road sources (starting page D-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has developed stringent control measures for on-
road and non-road mobile sources and the fuels that power them.
California has unique authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a
waiver by the EPA) to adopt and implement new emissions standards for
many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new and in-use non-
road vehicles and engines. The EPA has approved such mobile source
regulations for which waiver authorizations have been issued as
revisions to the California SIP.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ See e.g., 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016); 82 FR 14447 (March
21, 2017); and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 also been submitted and approved as revisions to
the California SIP.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ See e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel
trucks, 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), and revisions to the California
on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations, 75 FR
26653 (May 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to stationary sources, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan states
that stringent regulations adopted for prior attainment plans continue
to reduce emissions of NOX and direct PM2.5.\306\
Specifically, Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan (``District
Rules Reducing PM and NOX Emissions in the Valley'')
identifies 33 District measures that limit NOX and direct
PM2.5 emissions.\307\ The EPA has approved each of the
identified measures into the California SIP,\308\ with four exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, 4-3. For the District's
analysis of its stationary source measures for BACM and MSM, see
2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C.
\307\ Id. Ch. 4, Table 4-1.
\308\ See EPA Region IX's website for information on District
control measures that have been approved into the California SIP,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca/epa-approved-san-joaquin-valley-unified-air-district-regulations-california-sip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the District amended Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'')
on June 21, 2018, to establish new registration and reporting
requirements for certain types of charbroiling operations. These
amendments to Rule 4692 require commercial cooking operations with UFCs
to report by January 1, 2019, on the type and quantity, in pounds, of
meat cooked on the UFCs on a weekly basis for the previous 12-month
period as well as other information regarding the nature of their
operations, and for certain such operations to register with the
District and keep weekly records relating to the quantities of meat
cooked.\309\ CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA on November 21,
2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on this submission.
The EPA approved a prior version of this rule into the SIP on November
3, 2011.\310\ The District states that the 2018 amendment was an
important first step in its ongoing process to develop a new control
measure that will include financial incentives to help fund accelerated
deployment of under-fired charbroiler emission control
technologies.\311\ The 2018 amendments do not, however, establish any
new control requirements and therefore do not achieve additional
emission reductions beyond those that continue to be achieved by the
SIP-approved version of Rule 4692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended June 21, 2018, and
SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to Rule 4692
(Commercial Charbroiling),'' June 21, 2018, 1 and 5-6.
\310\ 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011) (approving Rule 4692 as
amended September 17, 2009).
\311\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to Rule
4692 (Commercial Charbroiling),'' June 21, 2018, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the District amended Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-fired, Fan-
type, Residential Central Furnaces'') on June 21, 2018, to extend the
period during which manufacturers may pay emission fees in lieu of
meeting the rule's NOX
[[Page 17412]]
emission limits.\312\ CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA on
November 21, 2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on this
submission. The EPA approved a prior version of Rule 4905 into the
California SIP on March 29, 2016.\313\ As part of that rulemaking, the
EPA noted that because of the option in Rule 4905 to pay mitigation
fees in lieu of compliance with emission limits, emission reductions
associated with the rule's emission limits would not be creditable in
any attainment plan without additional documentation.\314\ Until the
District submits the necessary documentation to credit emission
reductions achieved by Rule 4905 toward an attainment control strategy,
this rule is not creditable for SIP purposes. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan indicates that the District attributed 0.26 tpd of NOX
reductions between 2013 and 2024 to Rule 4905.\315\ These emission
reductions have de minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Proposed Amendments
to Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type Central Furnaces),'' 2.
\313\ 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016) (approving Rule 4905 as
amended January 22, 2015).
\314\ EPA, Region IX Air Division, ``Technical Support Document
for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District's Rule 4905, Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces,'' October 5, 2015, n. 8.
\315\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the District amended Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'')
on December 21, 2017, to eliminate inconsistencies in its applicability
provisions and to ensure that all large development projects are
subject to the rule.\316\ CARB submitted this rule to the EPA on May
23, 2018, and the EPA has not yet proposed any action on the
submission. The EPA approved a prior version of this rule into the
California SIP on May 9, 2011.\317\ As part of that rulemaking, the EPA
noted that emission reductions associated with this rule would not be
creditable in any attainment or RFP demonstration unless the District
revises the rule to address the EPA's enforceability concerns.\318\
Until the District adopts such revisions to the rule, Rule 9510 is not
creditable for SIP purposes. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan does not,
however, appear to rely on this rule to any measurable extent in the
projected attainment inventory.\319\ Therefore, the District's
inclusion of this rule in Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
has no impact on our evaluation of the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Rule 9510 Indirect
Source Review.'' December 21, 2017, 1.
\317\ 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011) (approving Rule 9510 as amended
December 15, 2005).
\318\ 76 FR 26609, 26612-26614.
\319\ The District's control analysis states that there is no
emissions inventory specific to Rule 9510. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, App. C, C-302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan lists Rule 4203
(``Particulate Matter Emissions from Incineration of Combustible
Refuse'') as a baseline measure. This rule has not been approved into
the California SIP.\320\ Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
states, however, that the emissions inventory for incineration of
combustible refuse is 0.00 tpd of NOX and 0.00 direct
PM2.5 from 2013 through 2024.\321\ Thus, to the extent the
District relied upon emission reductions achieved by this rule in its
future baseline emissions estimates, those emission reductions have de
minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ The EPA does not have any pending SIP submission for Rule
4203.
\321\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, although Table 4-1 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies four baseline measures that are not creditable for SIP
purposes at this time, we find that the total emission reductions
attributed to these four measures in the future baseline inventories
have de minimis impacts on the attainment demonstration in the Plan.
ii. Additional Measures and Aggregate Commitments
The SJV PM2.5 Plan relies on an incentive-based measure
recently adopted by CARB to achieve 5.9 tpd of NOX
reductions and 0.3 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions--2.9% and
4.7%, respectively, of the total NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for the San Joaquin
Valley to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2024.\322\ Under longstanding guidance, the EPA has recommended
presumptive limits on the amounts of emission reductions from certain
voluntary and other nontraditional measures that may be credited in a
SIP. Specifically, for voluntary mobile source emission reduction
programs, the EPA has identified a presumptive limit of three percent
(3%) of the total projected future year emission reductions required to
attain the appropriate NAAQS, and for any particular SIP submittal to
demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward
attainment (RFP), 3% of the specific statutory requirement.\323\ The
EPA may, however, approve measures for SIP credit in amounts exceeding
the presumptive limits where a clear and convincing justification is
made by the State as to why a higher limit should apply in its
case.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan shows that 202.2 tpd of
NOX and 6.4 tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions
are necessary for San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2024. 2018 PM2.5
Plan, revised App. H, Table H-6. For further discussion of Appendix
H, see section IV.E of this preamble.
\323\ EPA, ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source
Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),''
October 24, 1997, 5.
\324\ EPA, ``Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a
State Implementation Plan (SIP),'' October 4, 2004, 9; see also EPA,
``Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State
Implementation Plan,'' August 16, 2005, 8, n. 6, and EPA, ``Diesel
Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and
Conformity: Guidance for State and Local Air and Transportation
Agencies,'' March 2018, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley's topography and meteorology present
significant challenges for air quality. As stated in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, ``the surrounding mountains trap pollution and
block airflow'' and ``[t]emperature inversions, while present to some
degree throughout the year, can last for days during the winter,
holding in nighttime accumulations of pollutants.'' \325\ In addition,
the population of the area continues to grow at a rate higher than the
statewide growth rate, leading to increased vehicular traffic along
major highways that run through the San Joaquin Valley.\326\ Given
these unique challenges, both the State and District continue to
implement both traditional and non-traditional emission reduction
strategies to attain the PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin
Valley, including regulatory programs, incentive programs, and rigorous
outreach and education efforts.\327\ Over the past several decades, the
State and District have developed and implemented several comprehensive
plans to address attainment of the NAAQS for ozone and particulate
matter.\328\ These attainment plans have resulted in the State's and
District's adoption of numerous regulations for stationary, area, and
mobile sources, many of which are among the most stringent control
measures in the nation. Given the air quality needs of the area and the
numerous control measures that both the State and District have adopted
and
[[Page 17413]]
implemented in the San Joaquin Valley to date, we believe it is
appropriate to allow the State to rely on the Valley Incentive Measure
to achieve 2.9% (5.9 tpd) of the NOX reductions and 4.7%
(0.3 tpd) of the direct PM2.5 reductions necessary for the
area to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 2, 2-1.
\326\ Id. at 2-4.
\327\ Id. at 2-2.
\328\ See, e.g., 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004) (approving plan to
attain the 1987 PM10 NAAQS), 76 FR 69896 (November 9,
2011) (partially approving and partially disapproving plan to attain
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012)
(approving plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), and 81 FR
19492 (April 5, 2016) (approving plan to attain the 1979 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the emission reductions necessary for
attainment, the SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control measures beyond baseline measures
that will contribute to expeditious attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. For mobile sources, CARB's commitment
identifies a list of 12 State regulatory measures and three incentive-
based measures that CARB has committed to propose to its Board for
consideration by specific dates.\329\ For stationary sources, the
District's commitment identifies a list of nine regulatory measures and
three incentive-based measures that the District has committed to
propose to its Board for consideration by specific dates.\330\ The Plan
contains CARB's and the District's estimates of the emission reductions
that would be achieved by each of these additional measures, if
adopted.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), Attachment A and
Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 7 (``State Measures and Schedule
for the San Joaquin Valley''). The EPA is excluding two State
measures listed in Table 7 of the Valley State SIP Strategy--the
``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and the ``Cleaner In-Use
Agricultural Equipment'' measure--because these measures are
scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030, respectively, well
after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024. 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
\330\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018) and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4 (``Proposed
Regulatory Measures'') and Table 4-5 (``Proposed Incentive-Based
Measures'').
\331\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-3 (''Emission
Reductions from District Measures'') and Table 4-9 (''San Joaquin
Valley Expected Emission Reductions from State Measures'') and
Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 8 (``San Joaquin Valley Expected
Emission Reductions from State Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's commitments are contained in CARB Resolution 18-49 (October
25, 2018) and the Valley State SIP Strategy and consist of two parts: A
control measure commitment and a tonnage commitment. First, CARB has
committed to ``begin the measure's public process and bring to the
Board for consideration the list of proposed SIP measures outlined in
the Valley State SIP Strategy and included in Attachment A, according
to the schedule set forth.'' \332\ By email dated November 12, 2019,
CARB confirmed that it intended to begin the public process on each
measure by discussing the proposed regulation or program at a public
meeting (workshop, working group, or Board hearing) or in a publicly-
released document and to then propose the regulation or program to its
Board.\333\ Second, CARB has committed ``to achieve the aggregate
emissions reductions outlined in the Valley State SIP Strategy of 32
tpd of NOX and 0.9 tpd of PM2.5 emissions
reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024.'' \334\ The Valley State
SIP Strategy explains that CARB's overall commitment is to ``achieve
the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal air
quality standards, reflecting the combined reductions from the existing
control strategy and new measures'' and that ``if a particular measure
does not get its expected emissions reductions, the State is still
committed to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions.'' \335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
\333\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV PM2.5
information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'') and
CARB Staff Report, 14.
\334\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
\335\ Valley State SIP Strategy, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's commitments are contained in SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018) and Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and similarly consist of two parts: A control
measure commitment and a tonnage commitment. First, the District has
committed to ``take action on the rules and measures committed to in
Chapter 4 of the Plan by the dates specified therein, and to submit
these rules and measures, as appropriate, to CARB within 30 days of
adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the [SIP].'' \336\ By
email dated November 12, 2019, the District confirmed that it intended
to take action on the listed rules and measures by beginning the public
process on each measure, i.e., discussing the proposed regulation or
program at a public meeting, including a workshop, working group, or
Board hearing, or in a publicly-released document, and then proposing
the rule or measure to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board.\337\ Second, the
District has committed to ``achieve the aggregate emissions reductions
of 1.88 tpd of NOX and 1.3 tpd of PM2.5 by 2024/
2025'' through adoption and implementation of these measures or, if the
total emission reductions from these rules or measures are less than
these amounts, ``to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules and
measures that achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct
PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors'' in the same
implementation timeframes.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11.
\337\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate
commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District
Progress In Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan'').
\338\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2019, CARB provided status updates on its progress to
date on developing and adopting the additional mobile source measures
identified in its control measure commitment.\339\ Table 7 lists each
measure and provides a summary of the anticipated emission reductions
and the current status for each measure. As shown in the ``Current
Status'' column, CARB has adopted five measures and begun the public
process on seven of the remaining 10 measures listed in its control
measure commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV PM2.5
information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'').
Table 7--Status of CARB Compliance With Control Measure Commitments for the San Joaquin Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX emission emission
Count Measure Public process Action Implementation reductions reductions Current status
begins begins (tpd) (tpd) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 State SIP Strategy Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Lower Opacity Limits 2016 2018 2018-2024...... 6.8............ <0.1........... Adopted July
for Heavy-Duty 25, 2018.
Vehicles.
2............................ Amended Warranty 2016 2018 2022........... ............... ............... Adopted June
Requirements for 28, 2018.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
3............................ Heavy-Duty Vehicle 2019 2020 2022 +......... ............... ............... Public process
Inspection and began February
Maintenance (I/M) 11, 2019.
Program.
4............................ Heavy-Duty Low-NOX 2016 2019 2023........... 0.7............ ............... Public process
Engine Standard-- began November
California Action. 3, 2016.
[[Page 17414]]
5............................ Innovative Clean 2015 2018-2019 2020........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Adopted
Transit. December 14,
2018.
6............................ Advanced Clean Local 2016 2019 2020........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Public process
Trucks (Last Mile began November
Delivery). 1, 2016.
7............................ Zero-Emission Airport 2017 2018 2023........... NYQ............ NYQ............ Adopted June
Shuttle Buses. 27, 2019.
8............................ Zero-Emission Off- 2020 2020 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Road Forklift to begin 2020.
Regulation Phase 1.
9............................ Zero-Emission Airport 2018 2019 2023........... <0.1........... <0.1........... Public process
Ground Support began June 6,
Equipment. 2018.
10........................... Small Off-Road 2016 2018-2020 2022........... 0.1............ <0.1........... Public process
Engines. began May 23,
2016.
11........................... Transport 2016 2018-2019 2020 +......... NYQ............ NYQ............ Public process
Refrigeration Units began April
Used for Cold 13, 2016.
Storage.
12........................... Low-Emission Diesel 2019 2021 2023........... 0.8............ 0.1............ Public process
Fuel Requirement. began October
18, 2019.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed State Measures for the Valley (Valley State SIP Strategy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13........................... Accelerated Turnover 2018 by 2021 Ongoing........ 10............. NYQ............ Public process
of Trucks and Buses to begin by
Incentive Projects 2021.
\b\.
14........................... Accelerated Turnover 2018 by 2020 Ongoing........ Existing 3; New Existing 0.2; CARB adopted
of Agricultural 8. New 0.6. December 12,
Equipment Incentive 2019.
Projects \b\.
15........................... Accelerated Turnover 2020 by 2021 Ongoing........ 2.............. NYQ............ Public process
of Off-Road to begin by
Equipment Incentive 2021.
Projects \b\.
--------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd) 32............. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Tables 4-8 and 4-9 and email dated November 12, 2019, from Sylvia Vanderspek, CARB to Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, ``RE: SJV
PM2.5 information'' (attaching ``Valley State SIP Strategy Progress'').
NYQ means ``not yet quantified.''
\a\ For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
\b\ Indicates that CARB intends to develop a SIP-creditable measure to demonstrate that the emission reductions from incentive projects can be credited
towards the aggregate commitment.
In November 2019, the District also provided status updates on its
progress to date on developing and adopting the additional stationary
source measures identified in its control measure commitment.\340\
Table 8 lists each measure and provides a summary of the anticipated
emission reductions and the current status for each measure. As shown
in the ``Current Status'' column, the District has adopted and
submitted one of these measures (the 2019 amendment to Rule 4901) to
the EPA for approval into the SIP and has begun the public process on
five of the remaining 11 measures listed in its control measure
commitment.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ Email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD
to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate
commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District
Progress In Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5
Plan'').
\341\ The EPA has recently proposed to approve amended Rule 4901
into the California SIP. 85 FR 1131.
Table 8--Status of SJVUAPCD Compliance with Control Measure Commitments for the San Joaquin Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX emission emission
Count Measure Public process Action date Implementation reductions reductions Current status
begins begins (tpd) (tpd) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Rule 4311 2018 2020 2023........... 0.05........... ............... Public workshop
(``Flares''). held November
13, 2019.
2............................ Rule 4306 (``Boilers, 2019 2020 2023........... 0.76........... 0.03........... Public scoping
Steam Generators, meeting held
and Process Heaters-- December 5,
Phase 3''). 2019.
3............................ Rule 4320 (``Advanced .............. .............. ............... ............... ............... Public scoping
Emission Reduction meeting held
Options for Boilers, December 5,
Steam Generators, 2019.
and Process Heaters
Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
4............................ Rule 4354 (``Glass 2020 2021 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Melting Furnaces''). to begin in
2020.
5............................ Rule 4352 (``Solid 2020 2021 2023........... ............... ............... Public process
Fuel-Fired Boilers, to begin in
Steam Generators and 2020.
Process Heaters'').
6............................ Rule 4702 (``Internal 2019 2020 2024........... ............... ............... Public scoping
Combustion meeting held
Engines''). December 5,
2019.
7............................ Rule 4550 2021 2022 2024........... ............... 0.32........... Public process
(``Conservation to begin in
Management 2021.
Practices'').
8............................ Rule 4692 2019 2020 2024........... ............... ............... Public scoping
(``Commercial Under- meeting held
fired December 12,
Charbroilers''). 2019.
[[Page 17415]]
9............................ Rule 4901 2019 2019 2019........... ............... 0.26........... Rule adopted
(``Woodburning June 20, 2019
Fireplaces and Wood and submitted
Burning Heaters'') to EPA July
(Hot-spot strategy). 22, 2019.
10........................... Agricultural 2019 2020 Ongoing........ 1.07........... ............... Public process
Operation Internal pending.
Combustion Engines
Incentive Projects.
11........................... Commercial Under- 2019 2020 Ongoing........ ............... 0.53........... Public process
fired. pending.
Charbroiling
Incentive Projects.
12........................... Residential Wood 2019 2020 Ongoing........ ............... 0.16........... Public process
Burning Devices pending.
Incentive Projects.
--------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Emission Reductions (tpd) 1.88........... 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and Appendix E, Table E-3; SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ``Amendments to District's
Residential Wood Burning Emission Reduction Strategy,'' June 20, 2019 (``2019 Rule 4901 Staff Report''); and email dated November 12, 2019, from Jon
Klassen, SJVUAPCD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, ``RE: follow up on aggregate commitments in SJV PM2.5 plan'' (attaching ``District Progress In
Implementing Commitments with 2018 PM2.5 Plan'').
\a\ For references on the current status of these measures, see section VIII of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
With respect to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters''), the District amended this rule on June 20, 2019, to
establish more stringent limitations on the use of residential wood
burning devices. Specifically, the June 20, 2019 amendment to Rule 4901
lowered the thresholds at which ``No Burn'' days will be imposed to
limit direct PM2.5 emissions from residential wood burning
during the November through February timeframe in three ``hot spot''
counties (Fresno, Kern, and Madera).\342\ CARB submitted this amended
rule to the EPA on July 22, 2019, and the EPA has proposed to approve
the amended rule into the California SIP.\343\ The EPA approved a prior
version of this rule into the SIP on October 6, 2016.\344\ The
District's control measure commitment for 2024 and 2025 in Chapter 4 of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the District expects to
achieve 0.42 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions through
implementation of its residential wood burning strategy, including
implementation of the ``No Burn'' provisions in amended Rule 4901.\345\
Upon the EPA's final action to approve amended Rule 4901 into the SIP,
the additional emission reductions resulting from the ``No Burn''
provisions of the amended rule may be credited toward the attainment
demonstration in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ The revised rule adds additional restrictions on the
installation of wood burning devices, new requirements for fireplace
and chimney remodel projects, additional requirements for
residential real estate sales, non-seasoned wood to the list of
prohibited fuel types, a new visible emissions limit for fireplaces
and non-registered devices, and other editorial revisions to improve
rule clarity. The emission reductions from these additional
revisions were not quantified.
\343\ 85 FR 1131.
\344\ 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016) (approving Rule 4901 as
amended September 18, 2014).
\345\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the District's current estimate of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions to be achieved through the ``No
Burn'' provisions of amended Rule 4901 (0.26 tpd) is based on a
compliance rate (referred to as a ``control efficiency'') of 100%. The
District estimates an actual control efficiency of 97% to 99%, based on
the District's surveillance of neighborhoods in the San Joaquin
Valley.\346\ This control efficiency is significantly higher than the
75% control efficiency that EPA guidance attributes to wood burning
curtailment programs.\347\ Because the District has not provided
adequate support for a 97-100% rule effectiveness rate, we are
crediting the amended rule at this time with 0.20 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions toward the attainment control
strategy, based on a 75% control efficiency. We have factored this
amount into the direct PM2.5 emission reductions from
approved measures, shown in Row C of Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ Email dated October 9, 2019 from Jon Klassen, SJVUAPCD to
Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Info to support Rule
4901.''
\347\ Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke, EPA-456/B-13-01, March
2013, 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 provides a summary of the total NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions necessary for attainment in the
San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024, the emission reductions
attributed to baseline measures and new control strategy measures, and
the emission reductions remaining as aggregate tonnage commitments.
Approximately 13.8% of the NOX reductions necessary for
attainment and 26.6% of the direct PM2.5 reductions
necessary for attainment remain as aggregate tonnage commitments.
Table 9--Reductions Needed for Attainment and Aggregate Tonnage Commitments
[tpd, 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5
NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................................... Total reductions needed from baseline 202.2 6.4
and control strategy measures.
B..................................... Reductions from baseline measures....... 168.3 4.2
C..................................... Total reductions from approved measures. 5.9 0.5
D..................................... Total reductions remaining as 28.0 1.7
commitments (A-B-C).
E..................................... Percent of total reductions needed 13.8% 26.6%
remaining as commitments (D/A).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-3 and 4-7, and Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2; 2019 Rule 4901 Staff
Report, 34; and ``Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District''
(proposed rule to approve ``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure''), pre-publication
notice signed February 13, 2020.
[[Page 17416]]
The CAA allows for approval of enforceable commitments that are
limited in scope where circumstances exist that warrant the use of such
commitments in place of adopted measures.\348\ Specifically, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques .
. . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirement of the
Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to nonattainment
SIPs, is virtually identical to section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in
these sections of the CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any
``means or techniques'' that the EPA determines are ``necessary or
appropriate'' to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the designated date.
Furthermore, the express allowance for ``schedules and timetables''
demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls might
not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ Commitments approved by the EPA under CAA section
110(k)(3) are enforceable by the EPA and citizens under CAA sections
113 and 304, respectively. In the past, the EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions
against states that failed to comply with those commitments. See,
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v.
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
the EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under
CAA section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to
correct the non-implementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the EPA determines that circumstances warrant consideration of
an enforceable commitment to satisfy a CAA requirement, it considers
three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable
commitment: (a) Does the commitment address a limited portion of the
CAA requirement; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment;
and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of
time.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's
interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the
Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving
enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for Houston-
Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th
Cir. 2003). More recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the EPA's approval of enforceable commitments in ozone and
PM2.5 SIPs for the San Joaquin Valley, based on the same
three factor test. Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. EPA, 786
F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the SJV PM2.5 Plan, circumstances
warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the
attainment demonstration for this area. As shown in Table 9 of this
preamble, the majority of the emissions reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment and RFP in the San Joaquin Valley are achieved
by rules and regulations adopted prior to the State's development of
the SJV PM2.5 Plan, i.e., baseline measures. As a result of
these already-adopted State and District measures, most air pollution
sources in the San Joaquin Valley were already subject to stringent
rules prior to the development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan,
leaving fewer and more technologically-challenging opportunities to
reduce emissions. Despite these significant emission reductions, as
shown in Table 6 of this preamble, the San Joaquin Valley area needs to
reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emission levels by a
total of 63.7% and 10.2%, respectively, from 2013 base year levels in
order to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2024.
As part of their respective control measure commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District each have identified
potential control measures that are expected to achieve the additional
emissions reductions needed for attainment. The timeline needed to
develop, adopt, and implement these measures, however, goes well beyond
the December 31, 2019 serious area attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area. Both the State and District are
making progress in adopting the rules and measures listed in their
respective control measure commitments but have not yet completely
fulfilled them. Given these circumstances, we find that the State's and
District's reliance on enforceable commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan is warranted. Therefore, we have considered the
three factors the EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable
commitments in lieu of adopted measures satisfies CAA planning
requirements.
(a) The Commitment Represents a Limited Portion of Required Reductions
For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a
limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as the amount of
emissions reductions needed to attain the NAAQS in a nonattainment
area. As shown in Table 9 of this preamble, most of the total emission
reductions needed to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley by the end of 2024 will be achieved through
implementation of both baseline and new measures, leaving 13.8% (28.0
tpd) of the necessary NOX reductions and 26.6% (1.7 tpd) of
the necessary direct PM2.5 reductions as aggregate tonnage
commitments.
Given the nature of the PM2.5 challenge in the San
Joaquin Valley, the significant reductions in NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission levels achieved through implementation of
baseline measures over the past several decades, and the difficulty of
identifying additional control measures that are feasible for
implementation in the area, we find it reasonable for the State and
District to seek additional time to adopt the last increment of
emission reductions necessary for attainment by 2024.
Therefore, we find that the emission reductions remaining as
enforceable commitments in the SJV PM2.5 Plan represent a
limited portion of the total emissions reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment by December 31, 2024.
(b) The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District
are capable of fulfilling their commitments. CARB and the District
recently provided updates on their progress in developing and adopting
the additional mobile source and stationary source measures listed in
their respective control measure commitments. Specifically, as shown in
Table 7 of this preamble, CARB has adopted four of the 12 regulatory
measures listed in its control measure commitment, including heavy-duty
vehicle opacity limits, heavy-duty vehicle warranty requirements,
Innovative Clean Transit, and Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses. CARB
has also begun the public process on seven of the remaining eight
regulatory measures listed in CARB's control measure commitment.
Additionally, on December 12, 2019, CARB adopted the San Joaquin Valley
Agricultural Incentive Measure, one of the three incentive-based
measures identified in its control measure commitment. CARB submitted
this measure to the EPA on February 11, 2020, and the EPA has proposed
to approve it as a revision to the California SIP.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ Letter dated February 11, 2020, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, and ``Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District'' (proposed rule to approve
``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure''),
pre-publication notice signed February 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17417]]
For CARB's Heavy Duty I/M Program, in addition to the February 11,
2019 workshop, CARB has held three other workshops in 2019.\351\ With
the passage of California Senate Bill 210, the Heavy Duty I/M Program
will be considered for Board action in 2020.\352\ For CARB's Heavy-Duty
Low-NOX Engine Standard, following the November 3, 2016
public workshop, CARB held six additional workshops between 2017 and
2019.\353\ For the Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment, CARB
held a workshop on August 2, 2018.\354\ For the Small Off-Road Engines
measure, CARB has held five additional working group meetings and three
public workshops between 2017 and 2019.\355\ For Transport
Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage, CARB held additional
workshops in 2017 and most recently in October 2019.\356\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty I/M Program is
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/inspection-and-maintenance-program/Meetings-and-Workshops.
\352\ SB 210 was signed by the California Governor and filed
with the Secretary of State on September 20, 2019.
\353\ Information about the proposed Heavy-Duty Low-
NOX Engine Standard is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/heavy-duty-low-nox/heavy-duty-low-nox-meetings-workshops.
\354\ Information about the proposed Zero-Emission Airport
Ground Support Equipment regulation is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-airport-ground-support-equipment/ze-airport-gse-meetings-workshops.
\355\ Information about the proposed Small Off-Road Engines
measure is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/small-off-road-engines-sore/resources and https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sore-workshops.
\356\ Information about the proposed Transport Refrigeration
Units Used for Cold Storage measure is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/transport-refrigeration-unit/tru-meetings-workshops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB continues to pursue additional control strategies to reduce
emissions in California's nonattainment areas. For example, ongoing
CARB programs that address zero emission airport shuttle buses and
transportation refrigeration units used for cold storage have yet to be
quantified but are expected to further reduce NOX and direct
PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2024.\357\
Additionally, as part of the development of a draft plan submission to
address attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the South Coast, CARB has
identified a number of potential new state control measures that would
achieve NOX and direct PM2.5 emission reductions
not only in the South Coast but also in the San Joaquin Valley.\358\
These include a Tier 5 non-road diesel engine standard, a state green
contracting measure, a measure to reduce single occupancy vehicle
travel, and a locomotive emission reduction measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\357\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-9.
\358\ CARB, ``2019 South Coast 8-hour Ozone SIP Update,''
December 12, 2019. See also CARB Resolution 19-31 (December 12,
2019). Further information about this SIP revision is available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/scabsip/scabsip.htm#2019o3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the District has made progress in meeting its control
measure commitments for the San Joaquin Valley. As shown in Table 8 of
this preamble, following an initial December 2018 public workshop, the
District adopted amendments to Rule 4901 on June 20, 2019, and CARB
submitted the amended rule to the EPA on July 22, 2019.\359\ The
amendments to Rule 4901 include lowering the residential wood burning
curtailment thresholds for Madera, Fresno, and Kern Counties in
addition to Valley-wide rule enhancements. The EPA has proposed to
approve amended Rule 4901 into the California SIP.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ Letter dated July 19, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\360\ 85 FR 1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the District has started a public process for five of
the remaining eight regulatory measures, including each of the five
regulatory measures for which it committed to do so by 2019 or earlier.
Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the District hosted an initial public
scoping meeting on potential amendments to Rule 4311 (``Flares''), and
on November 13, 2019, the District hosted a public workshop on
potential amendments to the rule.\361\ These potential amendments
include additional flare minimization requirements, where
technologically achievable and economically feasible, and additional
ultra-low NOX flare emission limitations for existing and
new flaring activities at Valley facilities, where technologically
achievable and economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\361\ For more information on this workshop, see https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/11-13-19_Flares/presentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remaining four measures in the District's control measure
commitment, on June 21, 2018, the District adopted amendments to Rule
4692 that require commercial cooking operations with UFCs to report by
January 1, 2019, on the type and quantity, in pounds, of meat cooked on
the UFCs on a weekly basis for the previous 12-month period as well as
other information regarding the nature of their operations, and for
certain such operations to register with the District and keep weekly
records relating to the quantities of meat cooked. This is an important
first step in the District's development of a new control measure for a
source category not previously subject to direct PM2.5
emission control requirements in the San Joaquin Valley. The District
hosted a public scoping workshop for Rule 4692 on December 12,
2019,\362\ and a scoping meeting for Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 on
December 5, 2019.\363\ Finally, the District held a scoping meeting for
Rule 4702, also on December 5, 2019.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\362\ More information on the public scoping workshop on Rule
3692 can be found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-12-19_CC/presentation.pdf.
\363\ More information on the scoping workshop for Rules 4306
and 4320 can be found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-05-19_BGH/presentation.pdf.
\364\ Information on the scoping meeting on Rule 4702 can be
found at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2019/12-05-19_ICE/presentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have
well-funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from mobile,
stationary, and area sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Funding for the
State's incentive programs in the San Joaquin Valley comes from various
sources including the Carl Moyer Program, Proposition 1B Goods Movement
Emission Reduction Program, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the
Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions
(FARMER) program.\365\ Funding for the District's incentive programs
comes from a combination of federal, State, and local funding
mechanisms, including the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) and
Target Airshed Grant programs, the Carl Moyer Program, and fees
assessed in the San Joaquin Valley by the California Department of
Motor Vehicles and by the District through programs for Indirect Source
Review, Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreements, and large boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\365\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. E, E-6.
\366\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, these incentive funds have been applied to a wide
range of emission sources, including heavy-duty trucks, light-duty
vehicles, mobile agricultural equipment, locomotives, school buses,
alternative fuel infrastructure, community-based programs, agricultural
irrigation pumps, residential wood combustion devices, and commercial
charbroilers.\367\ The Plan identifies the total funding need for
expeditious attainment as $5 billion, including $3.3 billion for heavy-
duty trucks and buses and $1.4 billion for mobile agricultural
equipment.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ Id. at App. E, E-8 to E-21.
\368\ Id. at App. E, Table E-4 (``Incentive Funding Needed for
Expeditious Attainment''). The CARB Staff Report describes the
status of current incentive funding and CARB's expectations
concerning future incentive funding out to 2024 for the San Joaquin
Valley. CARB Staff Report, section F (``Status of Incentive
Funding''), 24-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17418]]
We note that, during CARB's September 19, 2019 hearing on the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, community and environmental advocacy groups
raised concerns that incentive funding recently appropriated fell short
of the Plan's needs and requested that the State pursue alternative
measures to obtain emission reductions from specific stationary sources
in the San Joaquin Valley.\369\ In response to these concerns and
similar concerns raised by CARB Governing Board Member Dean Florez,
CARB committed to follow-up with the District and stakeholders and to
hold public workshops in the San Joaquin Valley to discuss additional
emission reduction opportunities.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ Letter dated September 17, 2019, from Genevieve Gale,
Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition, et al to CARB Board
Members and Staff.
\370\ J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California
Air Resources Board,'' September 19, 2019 (transcript of CARB's
public hearing), 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note also that the State and District will have to submit to the
EPA, for SIP approval, any control measure that it intends to rely on
to satisfy the aggregate tonnage commitments in the Plan. Where the
State or District intends to substitute reductions in one pollutant to
achieve a tonnage commitment concerning a different pollutant (e.g.,
substituting NOX reductions to satisfy a direct
PM2.5 reduction commitment), it must include an appropriate
inter-pollutant trading (IPT) ratio and the technical basis for such
ratio. The EPA will review any such IPT ratio and its bases before
approving or disapproving the measure.
Given the evidence of the State's and District's progress to date
in proposing and adopting the measures listed in their respective
control measure commitments and their continuing efforts to develop
additional control measures to further reduce NOX and
PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, we find that the
State and District are capable of meeting their commitments.
(c) The Commitment Is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe
For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment
is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. As discussed in
section II.B of this preamble, on March 23, 2017, CARB adopted the 2016
State Strategy and directed staff to return to the Board with a
commitment to achieve additional emission reductions from mobile
sources in the San Joaquin Valley.\371\ CARB responded by developing
the Valley State SIP Strategy, which includes additional state
commitments to achieve accelerated emission reductions for purposes of
attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ CARB Resolution 17-7 (March 23, 2017), page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Valley State SIP Strategy, CARB recognized that the earlier
attainment dates for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley compared to ozone attainment dates in the San
Joaquin Valley and elsewhere in the State required accelerating the
pace of NOX reductions.\372\ Thus, in the Valley State SIP
Strategy CARB identified and committed to achieve emission reductions
of 32 tpd of NOX and 0.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by
2024,\373\ significantly greater amounts than those CARB had committed
to in the 2016 State Strategy (6 tpd of NOX and 0.1 tpd of
direct PM2.5 by 2025).\374\ CARB defined the estimate of
emission reductions by 2024 from the lower in-use performance level of
heavy-duty trucks as 6.8 tpd of NOX, representing the
largest emission reduction among the additional prohibitory
measures.\375\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ Valley State SIP Strategy, 2-3 and 6.
\373\ CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), page 5.
\374\ CARB Resolution 17-7 (March 23, 2017), paragraph 7.
\375\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Table 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes specific rule development,
adoption, and implementation schedules designed to meet the State's and
District's commitments to reduce emissions to the levels needed to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by
2024. For example, the aggregate commitments in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan include commitments by both the State and the
District to begin the public process on each of their respective
control measure commitments by specific dates ranging from 2015 to
2021. The commitments also identify action and implementation dates
ranging from 2018 to 2024 for a number of State and District control
measures, including amendments to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, Rule 4311, Rule
4306, Rule 4320, Rule 4354, and Rule 4352.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\376\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that these schedules provide a reasonable and appropriate
amount of time for the State and District to achieve the remaining
emission reductions necessary to the attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024.
We therefore conclude that the third factor is satisfied.
c. Conclusion
The EPA must make several findings in order to approve the modeled
attainment demonstration in an attainment plan SIP submission. First,
we must find that the attainment demonstration's technical bases,
including the emissions inventories and air quality modeling, are
adequate. As discussed in sections IV.A and IV.D.4.a of this preamble,
we are proposing to approve both the emissions inventories and the air
quality modeling on which the SJV PM2.5 Plan's attainment
demonstration and related provisions are based.
Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for
expeditious attainment through the timely implementation of all BACM
and BACT. As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, we are
proposing to approve the BACM/BACT demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
Third, the EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are
relied on for attainment in the SIP submission are creditable. As
discussed in section IV.D.4, the SJV PM2.5 Plan relies
principally on already adopted and approved rules to achieve the
emissions reductions needed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards in the San Joaquin Valley by December 31, 2024. The balance
of the reductions is currently in the form of enforceable commitments
that account for 13.8% of the NOX and 26.6% of the direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions needed for attainment, as shown
in Table 9 of this preamble.
The EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of
adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when the
circumstances warrant it and the commitments meet three criteria. As
discussed herein, we find that circumstances here warrant the
consideration of enforceable commitments and that the three criteria
are met: (1) The commitments constitute a limited portion of the
required emissions reductions, (2) both the State and the District have
demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and (3) the
commitments are for an appropriate timeframe. We therefore propose to
allow the State to rely on these enforceable commitments in its
attainment demonstration.
Based on these evaluations, we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan provides for attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable, consistent with the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e).
[[Page 17419]]
5. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
As discussed in section I of this preamble, the Serious area
attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31,
2019. The first criterion for an extension of the attainment date
beyond this statutory attainment date is that the State must apply for
such extension. In the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD
submitted a complete application for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date for the SJV to December 31, 2024, for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\377\ In accordance with the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule in 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2), the SJV
PM2.5 Plan contains all of the required components of a
Serious area plan containing a request for extension of the attainment
date under CAA section 188(e), as follows: (1) Base year and attainment
projected emissions inventories, (2) provisions to implement MSM and
BACM, (3) a modeled attainment demonstration, (4) reasonable further
progress provisions, (5) quantitative milestone provisions, (6)
contingency measure provisions, and (7) nonattainment new source review
plan provisions.\378\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ CARB Resolution 19-1 (January 24, 2019), (submitting the
Plan to EPA as a SIP revision), SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution
18-11-16 (November 15, 2018), paragraph 1 (adopting the 2018
PM2.5 Plan), and 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-1
to 6-2.
\378\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting adopted SJV PM2.5 Plan) and letter dated
November 15, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting
adopted nonattainment new source review rules for the San Joaquin
Valley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our evaluation of the Plan, we propose to grant the
State's request to extend the Serious area attainment deadline from
December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. We are requesting public comment to
ensure that the EPA fully considers all relevant factors in evaluating
the State's request. If based on new information or public comments we
find that a decision to grant the requested extension would not be
consistent with the requirements of the Act, the EPA may reconsider
this proposal or deny California's request to extend the deadline.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ Under CAA section 179(c), the EPA must determine no later
than 6 months after the applicable attainment date for any
nonattainment area whether the area attained the NAAQS by that date.
Absent an extension of the Serious area attainment date under CAA
section 188(e), the latest permissible attainment date for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Serious
nonattainment area was December 31, 2019, and the statutory deadline
under CAA section 179(c) for the EPA to determine whether the area
attained these NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date is June 30,
2020. See also Memorandum dated November 14, 1994, from Sally L.
Shaver, EPA Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, to EPA
Air Division directors, Regions I through X, RE: ``Criteria for
Granting 1-Year Extensions of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Attainment Dates, Making Attainment Determinations, and Reporting on
Quantitative Milestones,'' 16 (stating that EPA regional offices
will address state requests for 1-year attainment date extensions
under CAA section 188(d) no later than 6 months after the applicable
attainment date). The CAA does not establish a specific deadline for
the EPA's denial of a request for extension of an attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the EPA were to take final action to deny the request for
extension of the attainment date, the EPA would be required under CAA
section 179(c) to determine, based on the San Joaquin Valley's air
quality as of December 31, 2019, whether the area attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by that date.
E. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 172(c)(2) of the Act provides that all nonattainment area
plans shall require reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires that all
PM2.5 nonattainment area plans contain quantitative
milestone for purposes of measuring RFP, as defined in CAA section
171(1), every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment.
Section 171(1) of the Act defines RFP as the annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D, title I of the Act, or as may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act requires that states achieve a set percentage of
emissions reductions in any given year for purposes of satisfying the
RFP requirement.
For purposes of the particulate matter NAAQS, RFP has historically
been met by showing annual incremental emissions reductions sufficient
to maintain ``generally linear progress'' toward attainment by the
applicable deadline.\380\ As discussed in EPA guidance in the General
Preamble Addendum, requiring generally linear progress in reductions of
direct PM2.5 and relevant PM2.5 precursors in a
PM2.5 attainment plan may be appropriate in situations
where:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ General Preamble Addendum, 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of
sources,
the relationship between any individual source or source
category and overall air quality is not well known,
a chemical transformation is involved (e.g., secondary
particulate significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels over
the standard), and/or
the emission reductions necessary to attain the
PM2.5 standards are inventory-wide.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\381\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that the facts and circumstances of each specific
area will be relevant to whether the emissions reductions meet the
agency's expectations for generally linear progress.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\382\ 81 FR 58010, 15386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Preamble Addendum also indicates that requiring
generally linear progress may be less appropriate in other situations,
such as:
Where there are a limited number of sources of direct
PM2.5 or a relevant precursor,
where the relationships between individual sources and air
quality are relatively well defined, and/or
where the emission control systems utilized (e.g., at
major point sources) will result in swift and dramatic emission
reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter
conditions, the EPA has recommended that RFP may be met by stepwise
progress as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions
soon thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major stationary sources, EPA guidance recommends
that states may meet RFP by ``adherence to an ambitious compliance
schedule'' that is likely to yield significant reductions of direct
PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor on a periodic basis,
rather than on a generally linear basis.\383\ The EPA believes that the
facts and circumstances of each specific area will be relevant to
whether the emissions reductions meet the agency's expectations for
stepwise progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas should include
detailed schedules for compliance with emission control measures in the
area and provide corresponding annual emission reductions to be
achieved by each milestone in the schedule.\384\ In reviewing an
attainment plan under subpart 4, the EPA considers whether the annual
incremental emissions reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light
of the statutory objective of timely attainment. Although early
[[Page 17420]]
implementation of the most cost-effective control measures is often
appropriate, states should consider both cost-effectiveness and
pollution reduction effectiveness when developing implementation
schedules for control measures, and may implement measures that are
more effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to provide greater
public health benefits.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ Id. at 42016.
\385\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the EPA's longstanding guidance on the RFP
requirements, the Agency has established specific regulatory
requirements in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule for purposes
of satisfying the Act's RFP requirements and provided related guidance
in the preamble to the rule. Specifically, under the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, each PM2.5 attainment plan must
contain an RFP analysis that includes, at minimum, the following four
components: (1) An implementation schedule for control measures; (2)
RFP projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year,
based on the anticipated control measure implementation schedule; (3) a
demonstration that the control strategy and implementation schedule
will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the base
year and the attainment year; and (4) a demonstration that by the end
of the calendar year for each triennial milestone date for the area,
pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect either generally
linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual
basis between the base year and the attainment year.\386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state intending to meet the RFP requirement on a stepwise basis
must provide an appropriate justification for the selected
implementation schedule.\387\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a plan that relies on a
stepwise approach to meeting RFP should include ``a clear rationale and
supporting information to explain why generally linear progress is not
appropriate (e.g., due to the nature of the nonattainment problem, the
types of sources contributing to PM2.5 levels in the area
and the implementation schedule for control requirements at such
sources).'' \388\ Additionally, states should estimate the RFP
projected emissions for each quantitative milestone year by sector on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis.\389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
\388\ 81 FR 58010, 58057.
\389\ 81 FR 58010, 58056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(c) of the Act requires that PM2.5 attainment
plans include quantitative milestones that demonstrate RFP. The purpose
of the quantitative milestones is to allow periodic evaluation of the
area's progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
consistent with RFP requirements. Because RFP is an annual emission
reduction requirement and the quantitative milestones are to be
achieved every three years, when a state demonstrates compliance with
the quantitative milestone requirement, it should also demonstrate that
RFP has been achieved during each of the relevant three years.
Quantitative milestones should provide an objective means to evaluate
progress toward attainment meaningfully, e.g., through imposition of
emissions controls in the attainment plan and the requirement to
quantify those required emissions reductions. The CAA also requires a
state to submit, within 90 days after each three-year quantitative
milestone date, a milestone report that includes technical support
sufficient to document completion statistics for appropriate
milestones, e.g., the calculations and any assumptions made concerning
emission reductions to date.\390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\390\ General Preamble Addendum, 42016, 42017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-
year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In
the General Preamble and General Preamble Addendum, the EPA interpreted
the CAA to require that the starting point for the first three-year
period be the due date for the Moderate area plan submission.\391\ In
keeping with this historical approach, the EPA established December 31,
2014, the deadline that the EPA established for a state's submission of
any additional attainment-related SIP elements necessary to satisfy the
subpart 4 Moderate area requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, as the starting point for the first three-year
period under CAA section 189(c) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\ General Preamble, 13539, and General Preamble Addendum,
42016.
\392\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishing
subpart 4 moderate area classifications and deadline for related SIP
submissions). Although this final rule did not affect any action
that the EPA had previously taken under CAA section 110(k) on a SIP
for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the EPA noted that states
may need to submit additional SIP elements to fully comply with the
applicable requirements of subpart 4, even for areas with previously
approved PM2.5 attainment plans, and that the deadline
for any such additional plan submissions was December 31, 2014. Id.
at 31569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each attainment
plan submission for an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three years after
December 31, 2014, and every three years thereafter until the milestone
date that falls within three years after the applicable attainment
date.\393\ If the area fails to attain, this post-attainment date
milestone provides the EPA with the tools necessary to monitor the
area's continued progress toward attainment while the state develops a
new attainment plan under CAA section 189(d).\394\ Quantitative
milestones must provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further
progress toward timely attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
area and include, at minimum, a metric for tracking progress achieved
in implementing SIP control measures, including BACM and BACT, by each
milestone date.\395\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
\394\ 81 FR 58010, 58064.
\395\ Id. at 58064 and 58092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as a
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009,\396\ the plan for this area must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three years after
December 31, 2014, and every three years thereafter until the milestone
date that falls within three years after the applicable attainment
date.\397\ The SJV PM2.5 Plan contains a request by the
State under CAA section 188(e) to extend the applicable attainment date
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
to December 31, 2024. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1013(a)(4), the Serious area plan for this area must contain
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than December 31, 2017,
December 31, 2020, December 31, 2023, and December 31, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\396\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\397\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
Appendix H (``RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the State's RFP demonstration
and quantitative milestones for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Following the identification of a transcription error in the RFP
tables of Appendix H, the State submitted a revised version of Appendix
H that corrects the transcription error and provides additional
information on the RFP demonstration.\398\ Given the State's
[[Page 17421]]
conclusions that ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the RFP demonstration provided by the
State addresses emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX.\399\ Similarly, the State developed quantitative
milestones based upon the Plan's control strategy measures that achieve
emission reductions of direct PM2.5 and NOX.\400\
For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the RFP demonstration in the Plan
follows a stepwise approach due to the time required for CARB and the
District ``to amend rules, develop programs, and implement the emission
reduction measures.'' \401\ The revised Appendix H provides clarifying
information on the RFP demonstration, including additional information
to justify the Plan's stepwise approach to demonstrating RFP. This
clarifying information did not affect the Plan's quantitative
milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ Appendix H to 2018 PM2.5 Plan, submitted
February 11, 2020 via the EPA State Planning Electronic
Collaboration System. This revised version of Appendix H replaces
the version submitted with the 2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10,
2019. All references to Appendix H in this proposed rule are to the
revised version of Appendix H submitted February 11, 2020.
\399\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-1.
\400\ Id. at H-22 to H-23 (for State milestones) and H-19 to H-
20 (for District milestones).
\401\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We describe the RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan in greater detail below.
a. Reasonable Further Progress
The State addressed the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements
in Appendix H to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan submitted in February
2020. The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX will generally decline from the 2013 base year to the
projected 2024 attainment year, and beyond to the 2026 quantitative
milestone year. The Plan's emissions inventory shows that direct
PM2.5 and NOX are emitted by a large number and
range of sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-2 in Appendix H
contains an anticipated implementation schedule for District regulatory
control measures and Table 4-8 in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule
for CARB control measures in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-5 in
Appendix H (reproduced in Table 10) contains projected emissions for
each quantitative milestone year and the attainment year. These
emission levels reflect both baseline emissions projections and
commitments to achieve additional emission reductions through
implementation of new control measures beginning in 2024.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\402\ In App. H, see Tables H-3 (emission projections based on
baseline measures) and H-4 (reductions from control measure
commitments). The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes commitments for
reductions from new control measures in 2024 and 2025. With respect
to the projected emission reductions for 2026, the District and CARB
stated in a conversation with EPA staff on January 6, 2020 that they
assumed reductions achieved in 2026 would be similar to reductions
committed to in 2024 and 2025. See memorandum dated January 6, 2020,
from Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX Air Planning Office, to docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318.
Table 10--PM2.5 Projected Emissions Inventory for Base and Milestone Years, Including Baseline Measures and Emission Reduction Commitments
[Annual average tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2017 2020 2023 2024 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Attainment Quantitative
Baseline year milestone milestone milestone year milestone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 62.5 58.9 59.0 58.3 56.1 56.2
NOX..................................................... 317.2 233.3 203.3 153.6 115.0 105.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Table H-5.
Table H-6 and Table H-7 of Appendix H (reproduced in Table 11)
identify the reductions needed for attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by 2024, and the San Joaquin Valley's progress
toward attainment in each milestone year.
Table 11--Reductions Needed for Attainment and Achieved in Each Milestone Year
[Annual average]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reductions achieved in milestone year
Reductions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
needed for 2017 2020 2023 2024 2026 \a\
Pollutant attainment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from 2013 Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative
baseline) milestone milestone milestone Attainment milestone
(tpd) (percent) (percent) (percent) year (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 6.4 56.3 54.7 65.6 100 98.4
NOX..................................................... 202.2 41.5 56.3 81.0 100 104.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-6 and H-7.
\a\ The EPA has made minor corrections to the calculated percentages for 2026 in Table H-7 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
Based on the data in Tables 10 and 11, the State and District set
RFP targets for the attainment year and quantitative milestone years as
shown in Table H-10 of Appendix H (reproduced in Table 12). The targets
are consistent with a stepwise approach to demonstrating RFP. For
direct PM2.5, significant reductions between the 2013
baseline and the 2017 milestone year (approximately 56% of the
reductions needed for attainment) are consistent with a generally
linear approach to demonstrating RFP. However, between the 2017 and
2020 milestone years, projected direct PM2.5 emissions
increase. Emissions of direct PM2.5 decrease by the 2023
milestone year but fall short of the rate of reductions that would show
generally linear
[[Page 17422]]
progress.\403\ The Plan relies on a more substantial direct
PM2.5 emission reduction in 2024 due, in large part, to the
State's and District's commitments to achieve additional
PM2.5 emission reductions from new measures in 2024. Direct
PM2.5 emissions are projected to increase slightly in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ To show generally linear progress, direct PM2.5
emissions would need to decrease by approximately 64% from the
baseline year in 2020, and by approximately 91% from the baseline
year in 2023. The actual decreases for these years are 55% in 2020,
and 66% in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NOX, the emission projections show steady reductions
over time. The projection for the 2017 milestone year is consistent
with a generally linear RFP demonstration, but for the 2020 and 2023
milestone years, emission reductions fall short of generally linear
progress toward attainment.\404\ The Plan relies on a more substantial
NOX emission reduction in 2024 due, in large part, to the
State's and District's commitments to achieve additional NOX
reductions from new measures that year. NOX emissions are
projected to continue to decrease in the 2026 milestone year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ To show generally linear progress, NOX
emissions would need to decrease by approximately 64% from the
baseline year in 2020, and by approximately 91% from the baseline
year in 2023. The actual decreases for these years are 56% in 2020,
and 81% in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Plan, reductions in both direct PM2.5
and NOX emissions from 2013 base year levels result in
emissions levels consistent with attainment in the 2024 attainment
year. Based on these analyses, the State and District conclude that the
adopted control strategy and additional commitments for reductions from
new control programs beginning in 2024 are adequate to meet the RFP
requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Table 12--Stepwise RFP Target Emission Levels and Projected Emission Levels for Milestone and Attainment Years
[Annual average tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2020 2023 2024 \a\ 2026
Pollutant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Projected Target Projected Target Projected Target Projected Target \b\ Projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5......................................................... 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 58.3 58.3 56.1 56.1 56.2 56.2
NOX........................................................... 233.3 233.3 203.3 203.3 153.6 153.6 115.0 115.0 105.5 105.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-6 and H-10.
\a\ Emissions targets and projections for the 2024 attainment year are provided in Table H-6 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
\b\ Direct PM2.5 emissions for 2026 are derived from the Plan's projected emissions inventory (including baseline controls), less the 2.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions that CARB and the
District committed to achieve by 2024. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Tables H-3, H-4, and H-5.
The State and District's control strategy for attaining the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS relies primarily on ongoing reductions from
baseline measures, recent revisions to the District's residential wood
burning rule (Rule 4901), and an aggregate tonnage commitment for the
remaining reductions needed for attainment. The majority of the
NOX and PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment
result from CARB's current mobile source control program. As shown in
Table 11, the attainment control strategy in the Plan is projected to
achieve a total of 202.2 tpd of NOX reductions by 2024, of
which 78% (157 tpd) is attributed to CARB's mobile source control
program.\405\ Similarly, the attainment control strategy is projected
to achieve a total of 6.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions by
2024, of which 72% (4.6 tpd) is attributed to CARB's mobile source
control program.\406\ These on-going controls will thus result in
additional reductions in NOX and direct PM2.5
emissions between the base year (2013) and the attainment year
(2024).\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ Id. at Chapter 4, Table 4-7.
\406\ Id.
\407\ Id. at App. H, H-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's mobile source control program provides significant ongoing
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX
from on-road and non-road mobile sources such as light duty vehicles,
heavy-duty trucks and buses, non-road equipment, and fuels. For on-road
and non-road mobile sources, which represent the largest sources of
NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, Appendix H of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies five mobile source regulations
and control programs that limit emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX: The On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use)
Regulation (``Truck and Bus Regulation''), the Advanced Clean Cars
Program (``ACC Program''), the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets
Regulation (``Off-Road Regulation''), the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program, and the California Low-NOX Engine
Standard for new on-road heavy-duty engines used in medium- and heavy-
duty trucks purchased in California.\408\ CARB's mobile source BACM and
MSM analysis in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides a
more comprehensive overview of each of these programs and regulations,
among many others.\409\ CARB's emission projections for mobile sources
are presented in the Plan's emissions inventory.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-21 and H-22. Because
the second phase of the Advanced Clean Cars Program (``ACC 2'') is
not scheduled for implementation until 2026 (see 2018
PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-8), which is after the January 1,
2024 implementation deadline under 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5) for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024, we are not
reviewing this program as part of the control strategy in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
\409\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Ch. IV.
\410\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Truck and Bus Regulation, first adopted in 2008 and amended in
2011, has rolling compliance deadlines based on truck engine model year
(MY). CARB's implementation of the Truck and Bus Regulation includes
phase-in requirements for PM2.5 and NOX emissions
reductions that began in 2012 and require nearly all pre-2010 vehicles
to have exhaust emissions meeting 2010 MY engine emission levels by
2023.\411\ The 2010 MY engines include particulate filters for direct
PM2.5 control. By 2016, the particulate filter requirement
for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,001
pounds was fully implemented in the San Joaquin Valley and all heavier
trucks with 1995 and older model year engines were required to have a
2010 engine installed or replaced by a truck with a 2010 MY
engine.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ The State's quantitative milestone report for the 2017
milestone indicates that the requirement for heavier trucks to
install diesel particulate filters was fully implemented by 2016.
CARB and SJVUAPCD, ``2017 Quantitative Milestone Report for the 1997
and 2006 NAAQS,'' November 21, 2018 (``2017 QM Report''), 5.
\412\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non-road vehicles, CARB adopted the Off-Road Regulation in 2007
to regulate vehicles used in construction, mining, and other industrial
applications. The Off-Road Regulation requires owners to (1) replace
older
[[Page 17423]]
engines or vehicles with newer, cleaner models, (2) retire older
vehicles or reduce their use, or (3) apply retrofit exhaust
controls.\413\ Beginning in 2014 for large fleets and in 2017 for
medium fleets, non-road fleets are required to meet increasingly
stringent fleet average indices over time.\414\ These indices reflect a
fleet's overall PM and NOX emissions rates by model year and
horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ 2017 QM Report, 8.
\414\ A fleet average index is an indicator of a fleet's overall
emissions rate of particulate matter and NOX based on the
horsepower and model year of each engine in the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District has also adopted numerous stationary and area source
rules for direct PM2.5 and NOX emission sources
that are projected to contribute to RFP and attainment of the
PM2.5 standards. These include control measures for
stationary internal combustion engines, residential fireplaces, glass
manufacturing facilities, agricultural burning sources, and various
sizes of boilers, steam generators, and process heaters used in
industrial operations. Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
identifies stationary source regulatory control measures implemented by
the District that achieve ongoing PM2.5 and/or
NOX reductions through the Plan's RFP milestone years and
the attainment year, including the following: Rule 4354 (``Glass
Melting Furnaces''), Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines''), and
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'').\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\415\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4354 was last amended in 2011 to lower certain limits on
emissions of NOX, SOX, and PM10 from
container glass, flat glass, and fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
Rule 4702 was last amended in 2013 to lower the NOX and
SOX emission limits for various types of internal combustion
engines rated at 25 brake horsepower or greater. The District most
recently amended Rule 4901 in 2019 to lower the thresholds at which
``No Burn'' days will be imposed to limit direct PM2.5
emissions from high-polluting wood burning heaters and fireplaces
during the November through February timeframe in three ``hot spot''
counties (Fresno, Kern, and Madera). These rules contribute to
incremental reductions in emission of direct PM2.5 and
NOX from the 2013 base year to the 2017 and 2020 RFP
milestone years.\416\ Additional District measures to control sources
of direct PM2.5 and NOX are also presented in the
Plan's BACM/MSM analyses and reflected in the Plan's baseline emission
projections.\417\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ 2017 QM Report, 2-3.
\417\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. B and App. C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the emission reductions necessary for
attainment, the SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies a series of
additional State and District commitments to achieve emission
reductions through additional control measures and incentive programs
that will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
by 2024. For mobile sources, CARB's commitment identifies a list of 12
regulatory measures and three incentive-based measures that CARB has
committed to propose to its Board for consideration by specific
dates.\418\ For stationary and area sources, the District's commitment
identifies a list of nine regulatory measures and three incentive-based
measures that the District has committed to propose to its Board for
consideration by specific dates.\419\ Both CARB and the District have
committed to achieve specific amounts of reductions in direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions by 2024, either through
implementation of these listed measures or through implementation of
other control measures that achieve the necessary amounts of emission
reductions by 2024.\420\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\418\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-8 and CARB
Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5. Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan lists 14 State regulatory measures but we are
excluding from our review the ``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and
the ``Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment'' measure, because these
measures are scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030,
respectively, well after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline
for control measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024.
40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
\419\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-4 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018),
10-11.
\420\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15,
2018), 10-11 and CARB Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan discusses a number of additional
control measures that the District may adopt to meet its aggregate
tonnage commitment, including additional control requirements for
flares; boilers, steam generators, and process heaters of various
sizes; glass melting furnaces; internal combustion engines;
conservation management practices for agricultural operations; and
commercial under-fired charbroilers.\421\ In addition, the Plan states
that the District intends to use incentive programs to reduce emissions
of direct PM2.5 and NOX from internal combustion
engines used in agricultural operations, commercial under-fired
charbroilers, and residential woodburning devices.\422\ The 2018
PM2.5 Plan establishes deadlines between 2018 and 2023 for
CARB to take action on and begin implementing the 15 additional mobile
source control measures that CARB has committed to propose to its Board
\423\ and similar deadlines between 2019 and 2024 for the District to
take action on and begin implementing the 12 additional District
control measures that the District has committed to propose to its
Board.\424\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\421\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, 4-12 and 4-15 to 4-
22.
\422\ Id. at 4-22 to 4-24.
\423\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-8 and CARB
Resolution 18-49 (October 25, 2018), 5. The EPA is excluding two
State measures listed in Table 4-8 of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan, the ``Advanced Clean Cars 2'' measure and the ``Cleaner In-Use
Agricultural Equipment'' measure, because these measures are
scheduled for implementation in 2026 and 2030, respectively, well
after the January 1, 2024 implementation deadline for control
measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 2024. 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
\424\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 18-11-16 (November 15, 2018),
10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anticipated implementation schedule for new District measures
is presented both in Table H-2 of Appendix H and in tables 4-4 and 4-5
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and the anticipated implementation
schedule for new CARB measures is presented in Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. These anticipated implementation schedules are
summarized in Table 13, below. Although the commitment to achieve
reductions is based on an aggregate commitment for total reductions in
2024, the State and District anticipate implementing many of the
measures in Table 13 prior to these dates to achieve the aggregate
tonnage commitment.
Specifically, implementation of the District's revisions to Rule
4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') began in
2019, and implementation of CARB's lower opacity limits for heavy-duty
vehicles began in 2018. Additionally, the District anticipates
implementing several measures beginning in 2023 and CARB anticipates
implementing several measures in 2020, 2022, and 2023.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\425\ For more detail on our evaluation of the State's and
District's aggregate commitments, see section IV.D.4.b.ii of this
preamble.
[[Page 17424]]
Table 13--Anticipated Implementation Schedule for State and District
Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB measures Implementation begins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower In-Use Emission Performance
Level:
Lower Opacity Limits for Heavy- 2018-2024.
Duty Vehicles.
Amended Warranty Requirements for 2022.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and 2022.
Maintenance Program.
Low-NOX Engine Standard............... 2023.
Innovative Clean Transit.............. 2020.
Advanced Clean Local Trucks (Last Mile 2020.
Delivery).
Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses... 2023.
Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift 2023.
Regulation Phase 1.
Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support 2023.
Equipment.
Small Off-Road Engines................ 2022.
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for 2020.
Cold Storage.
Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Requirement.. 2023.
Accelerated Turnover of Trucks and Ongoing.
Buses.
Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Ongoing.
Equipment.
Accelerated Turnover of Off-Road Ongoing.
Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District measures Implementation begins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4311 (``Flares'')................ 2023.
Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam 2023.
Generators, and Process Heaters--
Phase 3''), Rule 4320 (``Advanced
Emission Reduction Options for
Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters Greater than 5.0
MMBtu/hr'').
Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion 2024.
Engines'').
Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces'') 2023.
Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, 2023.
Steam Generators and Process
Heaters'').
Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management 2024.
Practices'').
Rule 4692 (``Commercial 2024.
Charbroiling'') (Hot-spot Strategy).
Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces 2019.
and Wood Burning Heaters'') (Hot-spot
Strategy).
Replacement of Internal Combustion Ongoing.
Engines used at Agricultural
Operations.
Installation of Commercial Under-fired Ongoing.
Charbroiling Controls (Hot-spot
Strategy).
Replacement of Residential Wood Ongoing.
Burning Devices (Valley-wide and Hot-
spot Strategy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-4, Table 4-5, Table 4-8 and Appendix H,
Table H-2.
Section H.1.3 of Appendix H of the Plan provides the State's and
District's justifications for the stepwise approach to meeting the RFP
requirement and the related implementation schedules for new or revised
control measures. These justifications include the time needed to
engage in the rulemaking process, including time for state and local
public processes; the need to provide time for industry to comply with
new regulatory requirements; the need to resolve feasibility issues for
emerging technologies; and, for CARB mobile source measures, the need
for affected industries to prepare technologies and infrastructure for
market-scale adoption.
For example, Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan states
that ``time after rule adoption will be necessary for unit
manufacturers and vendors to make available compliant equipment, and
for facility operators to source, purchase, and install new units or
compliant retrofit equipment. Dependent on the source category,
construction of controls will include engineering, site preparation and
infrastructure upgrades, unit installation, and operator training on
proper operation.'' \426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present below some of the implementation challenges that the
State and District have identified as part of their justification for
meeting the RFP requirement by the stepwise approach in the Plan.
The new NOX control measures that CARB and the District
anticipate implementing toward the end of the attainment period can be
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
provides the following explanation for the need to implement the listed
measures in a stepwise manner:
``The objective of many of CARB's new measures is to introduce or
advance innovative technologies in early stages of development or
market penetration. In the case of technology-forcing regulations, . .
. time is needed by the affected industry to ready the technologies,
including infrastructure, for market-scale adoption, and would have
been discussed previously by CARB and stakeholders during the measure
development phase. The time required to facilitate new and innovative
technologies is a principle driver of the timeline for control measure
implementation CARB laid out in Table 4-8.'' \427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\427\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided more specific information regarding two of these
measures on pages H-9 and H-10 of Appendix H. For instance, the
development of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program was affirmed by California legislative action in 2019, and CARB
is now working on program design and infrastructure to implement new
legislative direction.\428\ For the Low-NOX Engine Standard,
the implementation timeline has been influenced by a multi-year
research program to assess the feasibility of this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ California Senate Bill 210, signed September 20, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new direct PM2.5 measures that CARB and the District
anticipate implementing toward the end of the attainment period can be
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. CARB's additional measures are expected to
achieve 0.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions \429\
and the District's
[[Page 17425]]
additional measures, including revised rules for commercial
charbroiling and conservation management practices (CMPs) for
agricultural operations, are expected to achieve 1.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions in 2024.\430\ New or revised
District measures are thus expected to achieve a significant portion of
the State's and District's 2.2 tpd direct PM2.5 emission
reduction commitment for the 2024 attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\429\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Table 4-9.
\430\ Id. at Table 4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan shows that
approximately one fourth of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions that the State and District have committed to achieve by
2024 (0.53 of 2.2 tpd) are expected to result from a planned revision
to the District's commercial charbroiling rule (Rule 4692) that would
contain control requirements for under-fired charbroilers (UFCs).\431\
The District anticipates proposing this revised rule to the SJVUAPCD
Governing Board in 2020 and implementing it beginning in 2024.\432\
According to information provided in Appendix C of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, the costs associated with retrofitting control
technology onto equipment at existing restaurants and maintaining such
equipment can be prohibitively expensive, especially for smaller
restaurants.\433\ Because of ongoing uncertainties about the
technological and economic feasibility of controls for UFCs, the
District has adopted a set of registration and reporting provisions in
a revised version of Rule 4692 that required owners and operators of
commercial cooking operations with UFCs to register each unit and to
submit, by January 1, 2019, a one-time informational report providing
information about the UFC and its operations. CARB submitted this
revised rule to the EPA on November 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\431\ Id. at 4-19, 4-2 and Table 4-3.
\432\ Id. at Table 4-4.
\433\ Id. at C-209 to C-210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also shows that a portion of the
necessary direct PM2.5 emission reductions in 2024 (0.32 of
2.2 tpd) is expected to result from a revised version of the District's
CMP rule (Rule 4550), which is designed to reduce particulate emissions
from agricultural operations.\434\ The District anticipates proposing
this revised rule to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board in 2022 and
implementing it beginning in 2024.\435\ As explained in Appendix C of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, an important step in developing
effective PM2.5 controls for dust from agricultural
operations is to develop an understanding of the effectiveness of CMPs
on controlling PM2.5 emissions in the Valley.'' \436\
Towards this end, the District intends to work with stakeholders and
researchers to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of additional
control measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions, including:
Tilling and other land preparation activities; selection of
conservation tillage as a CMP for croplands; and CMPs on fallow lands
that are tilled or otherwise worked with implements of husbandry (e.g.,
a farm tractor drawing a trailer with crops) to reduce windblown PM
emissions from disturbed fallowed acreage.\437\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\434\ Id. at Table 4-3.
\435\ Id. at Table 4-4.
\436\ The District is holding a series of workshops from January
to March 2020 with the stated goal of ``assisting growers and dairy
families in understanding and complying with District Rule 4550.''
SJVUAPCD, ``Notice of Public Hearing for Adoption of Proposed 2018
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 Standards,''
available at https://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2020/2020_CMP/notice.pdf.
\437\ Id. at C-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies December 31
milestone dates for the 2017, 2020, and 2023 milestone years and for
the 2026 post-attainment milestone year.\438\ Appendix H also
identifies target emissions levels to meet the RFP requirement for
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each of these
milestone years,\439\ as shown in Table 10, above, and control measures
that the State or District plan to implement by each of these years, in
accordance with the control strategy in the Plan.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\438\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, Table H-12.
\439\ Id. at Table H-5.
\440\ Id. at H-22 to H-23 (for State milestones) and H-19 to H-
20 (for District milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan includes quantitative milestones for mobile, stationary,
and area sources. For mobile sources, the State has developed
quantitative milestones that provide for evaluation of RFP based on the
implementation of specific control measures by the relevant three-year
milestones. For the first three quantitative milestones, the Plan
provides for evaluating RFP with implementation of regulatory measures;
for the final post attainment date quantitative milestone in 2026, the
Plan provides for evaluating RFP with implementation of incentive
measures.\441\ For the 2017, 2020, and 2023 milestone years, the
quantitative milestones include implementation of the Truck and Bus
Regulation, which requires particulate filters and cleaner engines on
existing trucks and buses, in the years preceding each milestone year
(i.e., between 2012-2017, 2017-2020, and 2020-2023, respectively). Each
of these milestone years also includes action on or implementation of
certain State measures for light-duty vehicles and non-road vehicles as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ Id. at H-22 to H-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017--Truck and Bus Regulation, ACC Program, and Off-Road
Regulation;
2020--Truck and Bus Regulation, ACC 2: Reduced ZEV Brake
and Tire Wear, and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program; and
2023--Truck and Bus Regulation and the California Low-
NOX Engine Standard for new on-road heavy-duty engines in
medium- and heavy-duty trucks bought in California.
For 2026, the Plan's quantitative milestone includes an update on
the State's implementation of two incentive programs, specifically,
identification of the number of trucks and buses turned over to low-
NOX or cleaner engines due to the State's Accelerated
Turnover of Trucks and Buses Measure, and identification of the number
of pieces of agricultural equipment replaced with Tier 4 engines due to
the State's Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment
Measure.\442\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\442\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. H, H-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For stationary and area sources, the District has developed
quantitative milestones that similarly include updates on a combination
of regulatory measures and incentive measures. For 2017, the District's
quantitative milestones are to report on its implementation of six
District measures: 2014 amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') and certain incentive programs
for direct PM2.5, Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters (0.075 to <2 MMBtu)''), 2011 amendments to Rule
4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), 2013 amendments to Rule 4702
(``Internal Combustion Engines''), Rule 4902 (``Residential Water
Heaters''), and Rule 4905 (``Natural Gas-fired, Fan-type, Residential
Central Furnaces'').\443\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\443\ Id. at H-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2020, 2023, and 2026 milestone years, the District's
quantitative milestones are to report on the status of measures
proposed and/or adopted during the preceding three years according to
the schedule in the Plan.\444\ Consistent with the State and District's
control strategy in Chapter 4 of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the
District's quantitative milestones include updates on the status of the
District's residential wood burning strategy (both the 2019 amendments
to Rule 4901 and incentive
[[Page 17426]]
projects for residential wood burning devices), the District's
incentive-based strategy for commercial under-fired charbroilers, and
the regulatory measures scheduled for SJVUAPCD Board consideration
during the three years preceding the following milestone years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ Id. at H-19 to H-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020--Rule 4311 (``Flares), Rules 4306/4320 (large
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters), Rule 4702 (``Internal
Combustion Engines''), and Rule 4692 (``Commercial Under-fired
Charbroilers''); and
2023--Rules 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), 4352
(``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters''),
and Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices'').\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\445\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 4, Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that CARB submitted its 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report
to the EPA on December 20, 2018.\446\ This report includes a
certification that CARB and the District met the 2017 quantitative
milestones for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and discusses the State's and District's progress on implementing
the three CARB measures and six District measures identified in
Appendix H as quantitative milestones for the 2017 milestone year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
attachment, December 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. Reasonable Further Progress
We have evaluated the RFP demonstration in Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and, for the following reasons, propose to find
that it satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for RFP.
First, the Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule for the
attainment control strategy, including all BACM, BACT, and MSM control
measures and the State's and District's aggregate tonnage commitments,
as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1). The implementation schedule is
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and in Table H-2 of Appendix H. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan documents the State's and District's conclusion
that they are implementing all BACM, BACT, and MSM for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions in the Valley as
expeditiously as practicable.\447\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ The BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy that provides the
basis for these emissions projections is described in Chapter 4,
App. C, and App. D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the RFP demonstration contains projected emission levels
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for each applicable
milestone year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). These projections
are based on continued implementation of the existing control measures
in the area (i.e., baseline measures), recent revisions to the
District's residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901), and commitments
to achieve additional reductions from new measures in 2024, and reflect
full implementation of the State's, District's, and MPOs' attainment
control strategy for these pollutants. With regard to the 2026
milestone year, we note that the projection is based on reductions from
baseline measures and on an assumption that the amount of reductions
from new control measures that will be achieved in 2026 is the same as
those achieved in 2024 and 2025.
Third, the projected emissions levels based on the implementation
schedule in the Plan demonstrate that the control strategy will achieve
reasonable further progress toward attainment between the 2013 baseline
year and the 2024 attainment year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(3).
Tables 11 and 12 of this proposed rule show decreases in emissions
levels in each milestone year, leading to the achievement of the
reductions required for attainment in 2024. Although the direct
PM2.5 emissions increase slightly (0.1 tpd) over attainment
year levels in the 2026 post-attainment milestone year, we expect that
this small emissions increase will have de minimis impacts on the
area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows that overall pollutant
emissions will be at levels that reflect stepwise progress between the
base year and the attainment year and provides a justification for the
selected implementation schedule, as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
The steeper decline in emissions in 2024 is primarily due to a
commitment by the State and District to achieve reductions from new
control measures beginning in 2024. The State's and District's
justifications for their selected implementation schedules, i.e., for
the delay to 2024 in their respective commitments to achieve emissions
reductions from new or revised control measures, include the time
needed for rulemaking processes, the time needed for industry to comply
with new regulatory requirements, the need to resolve feasibility
issues for emerging technologies, and the time needed to prepare
technologies and infrastructure for market-scale adoption.
We note that although both the State and District have committed to
propose to their respective boards certain new or revised control
measures in the years leading up to the 2024 attainment year, the only
enforceable commitment in the Plan that requires adoption of control
measures is the tonnage commitment for 2024, which provides the basis
for the stepwise approach to RFP. Because of the size of the tonnage
commitments for the 2024 attainment year, and the absence of
commitments to adopt measures or achieve emission reductions in earlier
years, we request comment on whether additional enforceable commitments
for regulatory action to implement emission controls in the interim
years (i.e., in 2022 or 2023) are necessary to ensure that the stepwise
approach to emission reductions in the Plan is consistent with
reasonable further progress toward expeditious attainment. Such
commitments may include commitments to achieve specified amounts of
emission reductions before 2024 (i.e., aggregate tonnage commitments)
or commitments to adopt specific new or revised control measures by
specific dates before 2024, and may provide a basis for reducing the
size of the total tonnage commitment for the 2024 attainment year.
b. Quantitative Milestones
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies milestone
dates (i.e., December 31 of 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026) that are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and target
emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and NOX to be
achieved by these milestone dates through implementation of the Plan's
control strategy. These target emission levels and associated control
requirements provide for objective evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to take
action on or to implement specific measures listed in the State's
control measure commitments that apply to heavy-duty trucks and buses,
light-duty vehicles, and non-road equipment sources and may provide
substantial reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
Similarly, the District's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to
take action on or to implement specific measures listed in the
District's control measure commitments that apply to sources such as
residential wood burning, commercial charbroiling, conservation
management practices,
[[Page 17427]]
glass melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines and that may
provide substantial reductions in emission of direct PM2.5
and NOX from stationary sources. These milestones provide an
objective means for tracking the State's and District's progress in
implementing their respective control measure and aggregate tonnage
commitments and, thus, provide for objective evaluation of the San
Joaquin Valley's progress toward timely attainment.
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan satisfies the requirements for quantitative
milestones in CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013 for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A (``Transportation Conformity Rule''). Under this rule,
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and
transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an
area's regional transportation plans (RTP) and transportation
improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy plans applicable to the area. An
attainment or maintenance plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should
include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone
year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate, for
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors subject to
transportation conformity analyses. Budgets are generally established
for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and must
reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the
attainment and RFP demonstrations.\448\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\448\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Serious area
PM2.5 attainment plans must include appropriate quantitative
milestones and projected RFP emission levels for direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year.\449\ For an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, the attainment plan
must contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three
years after December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within three years after the applicable
attainment date.\450\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, it is important to include a
post-attainment year quantitative milestone to ensure that, if the area
fails to attain by the attainment date, the EPA can continue to monitor
the area's progress toward attainment while the state develops a new
attainment plan.\451\ Although the post-attainment year quantitative
milestone is a required element of a Serious area plan, it is not
necessary to demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use
the 2026 budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\449\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a), 51.1013(a)(1).
\450\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-
58064 (August 24, 2016).
\451\ 81 FR 58010, 58063-58064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct
PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5
precursors for which on-road emissions are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP
milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates
attainment. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake
wear, and tire wear. With respect to PM2.5 from re-entrained
road dust and emissions of VOC, SO2, and/or ammonia, the
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A,
apply only if the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
state air agency has made a finding that emissions of these pollutants
within the area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and Department of
Transportation (DOT), or if the applicable implementation plan (or
implementation plan submission) includes any of these pollutants in the
approved (or adequate) budget as part of the RFP, attainment, or
maintenance strategy.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\452\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and 93.122(f); see
also Conformity Rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-36 (July 1,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, transportation conformity requirements apply with
respect to emissions of NOX unless both the EPA Regional
Administrator and the director of the state air agency have made a
finding that transportation-related emissions of NOX within
the nonattainment area are not a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and have so notified the MPO and
DOT, or the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan
submission) does not establish an approved (or adequate) budget for
such emissions as part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not always necessary for states to establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all of the PM2.5 precursors. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule allows a state to demonstrate
that emissions of certain precursors do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in a nonattainment area,
in which case the state may exclude such precursor(s) from its control
evaluations for the specific NAAQS at issue. If a state successfully
demonstrates that the emissions of one or more of the PM2.5
precursors from all sources do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels in the subject area, then it is not necessary
to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for that precursor(s).
Alternatively, the transportation conformity regulations contain
criteria for determining whether emissions of one or more
PM2.5 precursors are insignificant for transportation
conformity purposes.\454\ For a pollutant or precursor to be considered
an insignificant contributor based on the transportation conformity
rule's criteria, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate that it
would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant and/or
precursor for a NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations
are based on factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control
measures, trends and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the
percentage of the total attainment plan emissions inventory for the
NAAQS at issue that is comprised of motor vehicle
[[Page 17428]]
emissions. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July 1, 2004 revision to the
Transportation Conformity Rule.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\454\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
\455\ 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40
CFR 93.124 where a state establishes appropriate mechanisms for such
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment
modeling that establishes the relative contribution of each
PM2.5 precursor pollutant. The applicability of emission
trading between conformity budgets for conformity purposes is described
in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
The EPA's process for determining the adequacy of a budget consists
of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budgets during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy.\456\ The EPA can notify the public by either posting an
announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets on the EPA's
adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), or through a Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking when the EPA reviews the adequacy of an
implementation plan budget simultaneously with its review and action on
the SIP itself (40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ 40 CFR 93.118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each RFP milestone
year (2017, 2020, and 2023), the projected attainment year (2024), and
one post-attainment year quantitative milestone (2026).\457\ The Plan
establishes separate direct PM2.5 and NOX subarea
budgets for each county, or partial county (for Kern County), in the
San Joaquin Valley.\458\ CARB calculated the budgets using
EMFAC2014,\459\ CARB's latest version of the EMFAC model for estimating
emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California that was
available at the time of Plan development, and the latest modeled
vehicle miles traveled and speed distributions from the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs from the Final 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement
Plan, adopted in September 2016. The budgets reflect winter average
emissions because those emissions are linked with the District's
attainment demonstration for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\457\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3-2.
\458\ 40 CFR 93.124(c) and (d).
\459\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the
availability of the EMFAC2014 model for use in state implementation
plan development and transportation conformity in California on
December 14, 2015. The EPA's approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions
model for SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the date of
publication of the notice in the Federal Register. EMFAC2014 must be
used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10
and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after
December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for
EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the requirements set forth in the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, the SJV PM2.5 Plan contains RFP
budgets for 2026, which is the year following the attainment year. As
explained below, we are not taking action on the 2026 budgets at this
time. The EPA is also not reviewing the submitted motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2017. These budgets would not be used in any
future transportation conformity determinations because the plan
contains budgets for 2020 and other years in the future.
The direct PM2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions but do not include paved road dust, unpaved
road dust, and road construction dust emissions.\460\ The State did not
include budgets for VOC, SO2, or ammonia. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the State submitted a PM2.5
precursor demonstration documenting that control of these precursors
would not significantly contribute to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA is proposing to approve the
precursor demonstration. Therefore, if the EPA approves the
demonstration, the State would not be required to submit budgets for
these precursors. The State included a discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for ammonia, SO2, and VOC, which
would demonstrate a finding of insignificance under the transportation
conformity rule.\461\ The State is not required to include re-entrained
road dust in the budgets under section 93.103(b)(3) unless the EPA or
the State has made a finding that these emissions are significant.
Neither the State nor the EPA has made such a finding. The Plan does
include a discussion of the significance/insignificance factors for re-
entrained road dust.\462\ The budgets included in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan are shown in Table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\460\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-122 to D-123.
\461\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
\462\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-121 and D-122.
Table 14--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard
[Winter average, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2020 2023 2024 2026
Budget year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................................ 0.9 29.3 0.9 25.9 0.8 15.5 0.8 15.0 0.8 14.3
Kern.......................................................... 0.8 28.7 0.8 23.8 0.7 13.6 0.7 13.4 0.8 12.8
Kings......................................................... 0.2 5.9 0.2 4.9 0.2 2.9 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.7
Madera........................................................ 0.2 5.5 0.2 4.4 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.3
Merced........................................................ 0.3 11.0 0.3 9.1 0.3 5.5 0.3 5.3 0.3 4.9
San Joaquin................................................... 0.7 15.5 0.6 12.3 0.6 7.9 0.6 7.6 0.6 6.9
Stanislaus.................................................... 0.4 12.3 0.4 9.8 0.4 6.2 0.4 6.0 0.4 5.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-2. Budgets are rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton.
Note: We are not proposing any action at this time on the 2017 RFP or the 2026 post-attainment year RFP budgets.
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that the EPA limit the duration the approval of the budgets
to the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\463\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conformity Trading Mechanism
The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in direct PM2.5
emissions. For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State is proposing
to use
[[Page 17429]]
the 2:1 NOX: PM2.5 ratio. The ratio is based on a
sensitivity analysis based on a 30% reduction of NOX or
PM2.5 emissions and the corresponding impact on design
values at sites in Bakersfield and Fresno.
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the San Joaquin Valley to meet the NOX budget, the
NOX emission reductions available to supplement the
PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the
NOX budget has been met.\464\ The Plan also provides that
the San Joaquin Valley MPOs shall clearly document the calculations
used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126 and D-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5
for adequacy, prior to taking action on the plan itself, and did so
with respect to the PM2.5 budgets in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. On June 18, 2019, the EPA announced the
availability of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day
public comment period. This announcement was posted on the EPA's
Adequacy website at: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa. The comment period for this notification ended on July 18,
2019. We did not receive any comments during this comment period.
Based on our proposal to approve the State's demonstration that
emissions of ammonia, SO2, and VOCs do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, and the information about ammonia,
SO2, and VOC emissions in the Plan, the EPA proposes to find
that it is not necessary to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets
for transportation-related emissions of ammonia, SO2, and
VOC to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley. Based on the information about re-entrained road dust
in the Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary to include re-entrained road
dust emissions in the budgets for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley.
For the reasons discussed in sections IV.D and IV.E of this
proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and attainment
demonstrations, respectively, in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The
2020 and 2023 RFP budgets and 2024 attainment budgets, as shown in
Table 14 of this preamble, are consistent with these demonstrations,
are clearly identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, the EPA
proposes to approve the budgets listed in Table 14. We provide a more
detailed discussion in section IV of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
We are not proposing to approve the 2017 budget or the post-attainment
year 2026 RFP budget at this time. The budgets that the EPA is
proposing to approve relate to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
only, and our proposed approval does not affect the status of the
previously-approved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
related trading mechanism, which remain in effect for that
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although the post-attainment year quantitative milestone is a
required element of the Serious area plan, it is not necessary to
demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use the 2026
budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such time as
the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
the EPA is not taking action on the submitted budgets for 2026 in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan at this time. Additionally, the EPA has not
yet started the adequacy process for the 2026 budgets.
If the EPA were either to find adequate or to approve the post-
attainment milestone year budgets now, those budgets would have to be
used in transportation conformity determinations that are made after
the effective date of the adequacy finding or approval even if the San
Joaquin Valley ultimately attains the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Serious area attainment date. This would mean that the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs would be required to demonstrate conformity for the post-
attainment date milestone year and all later years addressed in the
conformity determination (e.g., the last year of the metropolitan
transportation plan) to the post-attainment date RFP budgets rather
than the budgets associated with the attainment year for the area
(i.e., the budgets for 2024). The EPA does not believe that it is
necessary to demonstrate conformity using these post-attainment year
budgets in areas that either the EPA anticipates will attain by the
attainment date or in areas that attain by the attainment date.
If and when the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley has
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, the EPA would begin the budget adequacy and
approval processes for the post-attainment year (2026) budgets. If the
EPA finds the 2026 budgets adequate or approves them, those budgets
will have to be used in subsequent transportation conformity
determinations. The EPA believes that initiating the process to act on
the submitted post-attainment year MVEBs following a determination that
the area has failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date
ensures that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to
new violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violations, or delay timely attainment or any required interim emission
reductions or milestones in the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
176(c)(1)(B).
As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used
in transportation conformity analyses that would be used in conjunction
with the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as allowed for
under 40 CFR 93.124(b). This trading mechanism would allow future
decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources to
offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a 2:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio. To ensure that the trading
mechanism does not affect the ability to meet the NOX
budget, the Plan provides that the NOX emission reductions
available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those
remaining after the NOX budget has been met. The San Joaquin
Valley MPOs will have to document clearly the calculations used in the
trading when demonstrating conformity, along with any additional
reductions of NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the
conformity analysis. The trading calculations must be performed prior
to the final rounding to demonstrate conformity with the budgets.
The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as described on pages D-
125 through D-127 in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
finds it is appropriate for transportation conformity purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
methodology for estimating the trading ratio for conformity purposes is
essentially an update (based on newer modeling) of the approach that
the EPA previously approved for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS \465\ and the 2012
[[Page 17430]]
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\466\
The State's approach in the previous plans was to model the ambient
PM2.5 effect of areawide NOX emissions reductions
and of areawide direct PM2.5 reductions, and to express the
ratio of these modeled sensitivities as an interpollutant trading
ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) (noting the EPA's
prior approval of MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76
FR 69896).
\466\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the updated analysis for the 2018 PM2.5 plan, the
State completed separate sensitivity analyses for the annual and 24-
hour standards and modeled only transportation related sources in the
nonattainment area. The ratio the State is proposing to use for
transportation conformity purposes is derived from air quality modeling
that evaluated the effect of reductions in transportation-related
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
on ambient concentrations at the Bakersfield-California Avenue,
Bakersfield-Planz, Fresno-Garland, and Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitoring sites. The modeling that the State performed to evaluate the
effectiveness of NOX and PM2.5 reductions on
ambient 24-hour concentrations showed NOX:PM2.5
ratios that range from a high of 2.3 at the Bakersfield-California
Avenue monitor to a low of 1.6 at the Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitor.\467\ We find that the State's approach is a reasonable method
to use to develop ratios for transportation conformity purposes. We
therefore propose to approve the 2:1 NOX for
PM2.5 trading mechanism as enforceable components of the
transportation conformity program for the San Joaquin Valley for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If approved, this trading ratio will
replace the 8:1 NOX for PM2.5 trading ratio
approved for the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\467\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the transportation conformity rule, once budgets are
approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets submitted for
the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by the previously
approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets as a SIP
revision. In other words, as a general matter, such approved budgets
cannot be superseded by revised budgets found adequate, but rather only
through approval of the revised budgets, unless the EPA specifies
otherwise in its approval of a SIP by limiting the duration of the
approval to last only until subsequently submitted budgets are found
adequate.\468\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submittal letter for the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that we limit the duration our approval of the budgets to the
period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets.\469\ The transportation conformity rule
allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\470\ However, we will
consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEBs only if
the request includes the following elements: \471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
\470\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
\471\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEBs in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the period before new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB has
requested that we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in
light of the EPA's recent approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of
the model (EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.\472\ EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the
previously approved version of the model, EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for
use by the State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. 84
FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the EPA's approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, which we are proposing to
approve in today's action, will become outdated and will need to be
revised using EMFAC2017. In addition, CARB states that, without the
ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or
more after the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017-derived budgets) is
submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process. We find that
CARB's explanation for limiting the duration of the approval of the
budgets is appropriate and provides us with a reasonable basis for
limiting the duration of the approval of the budgets.
We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must
submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as
the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).\473\ Therefore, we do not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons provided above, and in light
of CARB's explanation for why the budgets will become outdated and
should be replaced upon an adequacy finding for updated budgets, we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan to the period before we find revised budgets
based on EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not find a budget
in a submitted SIP to be adequate unless, among other criteria, the
budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP and attainment.
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)
Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the standards in the area.\474\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit
program meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and
189(b)(3).\475\ As part of our January 20, 2016 final action to
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley area as Serious nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 standards, we established a February 21, 2017
deadline for the State to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions
addressing the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the
Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent those
requirements had not already been met by the nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\476\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\474\ General Preamble at 13539 and 13541-42.
\475\ CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious area plans
include provisions submitted to meet the requirements for Moderate
areas in section 189(a)(1)).
\476\ 81 FR 2993, 2994 (January 20, 2016) and 40 CFR 52.245(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California submitted nonattainment NSR SIP revisions to address the
subpart 4 requirements for the San
[[Page 17431]]
Joaquin Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area on November
20, 2019.\477\ We are not proposing any action on this submission at
this time. We will act on this submission through a separate
rulemaking, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\477\ Letter dated November 15, 2019 from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. California previously submitted nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions for the San Joaquin Valley to address the subpart 4
requirements for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and
the EPA approved these SIP revisions on September 17, 2014 (79 FR
55637).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California
SIP, the following portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
The 2013 base year emission inventories (CAA section
172(c)(3));
the demonstration that BACM, including BACT, for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
will be implemented no later than 4 years after the area was
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 2024 (CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e));
plan provisions that require RFP toward attainment by the
applicable date (CAA section 172(c)(2));
quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every
three years until the area is redesignated attainment and that
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(CAA section 189(c));
motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020, 2023, and 2024
as shown in Table 14 of this proposed rule (CAA section 176(c) and 40
CFR part 93, subpart A); and
the inter-pollutant trading mechanism provided for use in
transportation conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124(b).
The EPA is proposing to grant the State's request for extension of
the Serious area attainment date from December 31, 2019, to December
31, 2024, based on a conclusion that the State has satisfied the
requirements for such extensions in section 188(e) of the Act. We may,
however, reconsider this proposal or deny California's request to
extend the attainment date if the EPA concludes based on new
information or public comments that the State has not satisfied the
requirements for such extensions.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For these reasons, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon
monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 27, 2020.
John W. Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-05914 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P