[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68509-68533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0425; FRL-10015-07-Region 9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California;
Sacramento Metro Area; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, or conditionally approve, all or portions of two state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to meet
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the
Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment area. These SIP revisions include
the ``Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-hour Attainment and Reasonable
Further Progress Plan'' and the Sacramento Metro portion of the ``2018
Updates to the California State Implementation Plan.'' Collectively,
the EPA refers to these submittals as the ``Sacramento Metro Area Ozone
SIP.'' The Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP addresses the CAA
nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such as the
requirements for an emissions inventory, an attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, and
contingency measures, and it establishes motor vehicle emissions
budgets. The EPA is proposing to approve the Sacramento Metro Area
Ozone SIP as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area
requirements, except for the contingency measure requirement where the
EPA is proposing a conditional approval. Also, the EPA is beginning the
adequacy process for the 2023 and 2024 motor vehicle emissions budgets
in the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP via this proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before November 30, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0425 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, or if you need assistance in a language
other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, 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: Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4111, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Regulatory Context
A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations, and SIPs
B. The Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Area
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 Ozone Nonattainment
Area SIPs
II. Submissions from the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone
Standard Requirements in the Sacramento Metro Area
A. Summary of State Submissions
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and
Submission of SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP
A. Emissions Inventories
B. Emissions Statement
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration
D. Attainment Demonstration
E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures to Offset
Emissions Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled
G. Contingency Measures
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
[[Page 68510]]
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Regulatory Context
A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations, and SIPs
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases
(ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozone-related SIP submissions.
As a practical matter, ROG and VOC refer to the same set of chemical
constituents, and for the sake of simplicity, we refer to this set
of gases as VOC in this proposed rule.
\2\ ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established primary
and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (``1-hour ozone
standard'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Sacramento Metro ozone
nonattainment area (``Sacramento Metro Area'') was designated as
``Serious'' for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard and was required to
submit an attainment plan designed to meet this NAAQS by 1999. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted such an attainment plan
to the EPA on November 15, 1994, and we approved this attainment plan
on January 8, 1997.\4\ When subsequent air quality modeling studies
from the State showed that the control strategy in the 1994 attainment
plan would not meet the 1-hour ozone standard, the State requested and
the EPA approved a voluntary reclassification from Serious to ``Severe-
15.'' \5\ This reclassification extended the deadline for attaining the
1-hour ozone standard from 1999 to November 2005. Based on the air
quality data collected from 2007 through 2009, the EPA determined that
the Sacramento Metro Area met the 1979 1-hour ozone standard on October
18, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997).
\5\ 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995).
\6\ 77 FR 64036 (October 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at
0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (``1997 8-hour ozone
standard'').\7\ The EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the previous 1-hour ozone standard was set. The EPA
determined that the 1997 8-hour standard would be more protective of
human health, especially children and adults who are active outdoors,
and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as
asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, the Sacramento Metro Area was designated as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and classified as Serious.\8\
Subsequently, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify the Sacramento
Metro Area, under CAA section 181(b)(3), from Serious to ``Severe-15.''
\9\ The EPA then finalized the reclassification of the Sacramento Metro
Area to Severe-15 on May 5, 2010.\10\ The State and local air districts
developed an attainment plan, along with state-wide and local control
measures, for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and submitted the plan and
related components to the EPA over the course of several years from
2006 to 2013.\11\ The EPA approved the ``Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan'' on January 29, 2015.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
\9\ Letter dated February 14, 2008, from James N. Goldstene,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
\10\ 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).
\11\ See Table 4 of our proposed rule for a listing of state and
local submittals composing the attainment plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard; 79 FR 61803 (October 15, 2014).
\12\ 80 FR 4795 (January 29, 2015). Please see our proposed rule
for this final action for a complete description of the attainment
plan and state and local control measures; 79 FR 61799 (October 15,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone by setting the acceptable level
of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period (``2008 8-hour ozone standard'').\13\ On May 21, 2012, we
designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\14\ At
the same time, we assigned classifications to many of these areas based
upon their ozone design value, in accordance with the structure of part
D, subpart 2 of Title I of the CAA.\15\ We designated the Sacramento
Metro Area as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards, and at the
request of CARB retained the Severe-15 classification, consistent with
previous ozone NAAQS.\16\ The Sacramento Metro Area's outermost
attainment date for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard is as expeditious as
practicable but no later than July 20, 2027. As a practical matter, the
Sacramento Metro Area would be required to demonstrate attainment of
the 2008 NAAQS no later than the previous ozone season, 2026. As
discussed further below, the EPA has determined that expeditious
attainment for the Sacramento Metro Area can be achieved in 2024.
Accordingly, the effective attainment date for the area is December 31,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\14\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) and 40 CFR 81.330.
\15\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 51.903(a). The
designations and classifications for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
for California nonattainment areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. A
design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific
methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and is used to
determine whether an area's air quality is meeting a NAAQS. The
methodology for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
\16\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Area
The Sacramento Metro Area consists of Sacramento and Yolo counties
and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter counties.\17\
Several local air agencies have jurisdiction in this area. Sacramento
County is under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern
portion of Solano County comprise the Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD). The
southern portion of Sutter County is part of the Feather River AQMD
(FRAQMD). The western portion of Placer County is part of the Placer
County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). Lastly, the western
portion of El Dorado County is part of the El Dorado County AQMD
(EDCAQMD). In this action, we refer to these five districts
collectively as the ``Districts.'' Under California law, each air
district is responsible for adopting and implementing stationary source
rules, while CARB adopts and
[[Page 68511]]
implements consumer products and mobile source rules. The Districts'
and State's rules are submitted to the EPA by CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 ozone standards, see 40 CFR
81.305. Specifically included portions are the eastern portion of
Solano County, the western portions of Placer and El Dorado counties
outside of the Lake Tahoe Basin, and the southern portion of Sutter
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current ambient 8-hour ozone levels in the Sacramento Metro Area
are well above the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the 2014-2016 period,
the design value for the area, based on monitored readings at the
Placerville monitor in El Dorado County, is 0.085 ppm. Since 2010, the
highest design values have been found at the Folsom monitor in
Sacramento County and the Placerville monitor in El Dorado County,
ranging from 0.085 ppm to 0.102 ppm.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-hour Attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Table 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area
SIPs
States must implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS under Title 1, part D of
the CAA, including sections 171-179B of subpart 1 (``Nonattainment
Areas in General'') and sections 181-185 of subpart 2 (``Additional
Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas''). To assist states in
developing effective plans to address ozone nonattainment problems, in
2015, the EPA issued a SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS (``2008 Ozone SRR'') that addressed implementation of the 2008
standards, including attainment dates, requirements for emissions
inventories, attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations, among other SIP elements, as well as the transition
from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and associated anti-
backsliding requirements.\19\ The 2008 Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart AA. In section III below, we discuss in more detail
the CAA and regulatory requirements for the air quality plans required
to meet the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR was challenged, and on February 16, 2018,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'')
published its decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District
v. EPA (``South Coast II'') \20\ vacating portions of the 2008 Ozone
SRR. The only aspect of the South Coast II decision that affects this
proposed action is the vacatur of the alternative baseline year for RFP
plans. More specifically, the 2008 Ozone SRR required states to develop
the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans using the emissions for
the most recent calendar year for which states submit a triennial
inventory to the EPA under subpart A (``Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements'') of 40 CFR part 51, which was 2011. The 2008 Ozone SRR,
however, allowed states to use an alternative year, between 2008 and
2012, for the baseline emissions inventory provided that the state
demonstrated why the alternative baseline year was appropriate. In the
South Coast II decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the provisions of the
2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to use an alternative baseline year
for demonstrating RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The term ``South Coast II'' is used in
reference to the 2018 court decision to distinguish it from a
decision published in 2006 also referred to as ``South Coast.'' The
earlier decision involved a challenge to the EPA's Phase 1
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Submissions From the State of California To Address 2008 Ozone
Standard Requirements in the Sacramento Metro Area
A. Summary of Submissions
The EPA's designation of an area as nonattainment for a NAAQS
starts the process for a state to develop and submit to the EPA a plan
providing for attainment of the given NAAQS under title 1, part D of
the CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas designated as nonattainment under the
2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012, the Sacramento Metro Area's
attainment plan was due by July 20, 2016.\21\ The State did not meet
this July 20, 2016 deadline to submit an attainment plan and the EPA
issued a finding of failure to submit an attainment SIP and several of
its required elements on September 26, 2017.\22\ This finding of
failure to submit an attainment plan and other required elements was
addressed by the submittals discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 40 CFR 51.1108(b) and 40 CFR 51.1110.
\22\ 82 FR 44736 (September 26, 2017), effective on October 26,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has submitted two SIP revisions to address the
Sacramento Metro Area's CAA planning obligations for attaining the 2008
8-hour ozone standard. The principal submittals are as follows:
``Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment
Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan,'' dated July 25, 2017
(``2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan''); and
The Sacramento Metro portion of CARB's ``2018 Updates to
the California State Implementation Plan'' (``2018 SIP Update'').
In this document, we are proposing action on all or portions of
these SIP revisions, which are summarized below. Collectively, we refer
to the relevant portions of these SIP revisions as the ``Sacramento
Metro Area Ozone SIP.''
1. 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
On December 18, 2017, CARB submitted the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.\23\ The 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan addresses the nonattainment area
requirements for the Sacramento Metro Area concerning the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The SIP revision for the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
includes the Plan itself with its chapters and appendices, plus the
Districts' resolutions of adoption for the plan, and CARB's resolution
of adoption for the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. The 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan was adopted by the Districts' governing
boards beginning in late August through October 2017, and then by CARB,
via Resolution 17-40, on November 16, 2017. See Table 1 for the
Districts' adoption dates and board resolution or order numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter dated December 18, 2017, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
Table 1--Districts and Adoption Dates for 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone
Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board
District Hearing and adoption dates resolution/
order
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD....................... August 24, 2017............. 2017-015
EDCAQMD...................... September 12, 2017.......... 141-2017
FRAQMD....................... October 2, 2017............. 2017-10
YSAQMD....................... October 11, 2017............ 17-06
PCAPCD....................... October 12, 2017............ 17-08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan is organized into thirteen
chapters and six technical appendices addressing the CAA requirements
for VOC and NOX emissions inventories, air quality and
photochemical modeling to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone
standard, reasonably available control measures (RACM) for each of the
Districts along with the overall control strategy for the Sacramento
Metro Area, RFP, adoption and implementation of transportation control
strategies and measures, and contingency measures for failure to meet
RFP or attain, among other requirements. Submittal of the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and the EPA's completeness determination
for the Plan set aside our September 26,
[[Page 68512]]
2017 finding of failure to submit.\24\ In addition to the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, CARB submitted its Staff Report
reviewing the plan and discussing the photochemical modeling supporting
its attainment demonstration and referred to herein as the ``CARB Staff
Report.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Letter dated June 14, 2018, from Elizabeth Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB.
\25\ ``Staff Report, ARB Review of the Sacramento Regional 2008
NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan''
(``CARB Staff Report''), release date October 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2018 SIP Update
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update to the EPA
as a revision to the California SIP.\26\ CARB developed the 2018 SIP
Update in response to the court's decision in South Coast II vacating
the 2008 Ozone SRR with respect to the use of an alternate baseline
year for demonstrating RFP and to address contingency measure
requirements in the wake of the court decision in Bahr v. EPA.\27\ The
2018 SIP Update includes an RFP demonstration using the required 2011
baseline year for the Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The 2018 SIP Update also includes updated motor vehicle emission
budgets and information to support the contingency measure element of
the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. The 2018 SIP Update includes
updates for 8 different California ozone nonattainment areas. We have
already acted to approve portions of the 2018 SIP Update related to
other nonattainment areas.\28\ In this action, we are proposing action
on the Sacramento Metropolitan Area portion of the 2018 SIP Update,
specifically, Section V--SIP Elements for the Sacramento Metropolitan
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Letter dated December 5, 2018, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX. CARB adopted the 2018 SIP Update on October 25, 2018.
\27\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (``Bahr v.
EPA''). In Bahr v. EPA, the court rejected the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early
implementation of contingency measures. The court concluded that a
contingency measure must take effect at the time the area fails to
make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not before.
\28\ See, e.g., 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019) (final approval of
the San Joaquin Valley portion of the 2018 SIP Update), 84 FR 52005
(October 1, 2019) (final approval of the South Coast portion of the
2018 SIP Update), and 85 FR 38081 (June 25, 2020) (final approval of
the Ventura County portion of the 2018 SIP Update).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To supplement the contingency measure element of the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, in a letter dated July 7, 2020, CARB
forwarded to the EPA a May 26, 2020 letter of commitment from the
Districts.\29\ In this letter, the Districts commit to modify their
existing architectural coatings rules, and the SMAQMD also commits to
adopt a VOC rule that would serve as contingency measures that will be
triggered if the area fails to meet an RFP milestone or fails to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\30\ In the July 7, 2020 letter, CARB commits to
submit the Districts' revised rules to the EPA as a SIP revision within
12 months of the EPA's final conditional approval of the contingency
measures element of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Letter dated July 7, 2020, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
\30\ Letter dated May 26, 2020, from the Districts' respective
Executive Officer or Air Pollution Control Officer, Alberto Ayala-
SMAQMD, Dave Johnston-EDCAQMD, Christopher Brown-FRAQMD, Erik White-
PCAPCD, Mat Ehrhardt-YSAQMD to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB.
\31\ Letter dated July 7, 2020, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of
SIP Revisions
CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require a state to provide
reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to
the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this
requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate
public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was
provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR
51.102.
The Districts, collectively, and CARB have satisfied the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and
hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of the SIP revisions that
comprise the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP. With respect to the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, the Districts held hearings prior to
adoption to discuss the plan and solicit public input. Prior to these
adoption hearings, the Districts published notices of public hearing
for the adoption of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan in local
newspapers within the Districts.\32\ As noted in Table 1 above, the
Districts adopted the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and each
directed their respective Executive Officer or Air Pollution Control
Officer to forward the plan to CARB for inclusion in the California
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Please refer to the EPA's Completeness Determination and
supporting information included in the docket for this proposal
concerning the specific notices of public hearing, their evidence of
publication in local newspapers, and the Districts' public hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also provided public notice and opportunity for public comment
on the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. On October 12, 2017, CARB
released for public review its Staff Report for the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan and published a notice of public meeting to be held
on November 16, 2017, to consider adoption of the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan.\33\ On November 16, 2017, CARB held the public
hearing and adopted the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as a
revision to the California SIP, and directed the Executive Officer to
submit the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan to the EPA for approval
into the California SIP.\34\ On December 18, 2017, the Executive
Officer of CARB submitted the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan to
the EPA and included the transcript of the hearing held on November 16,
2017.\35\ On June 14, 2018, the EPA determined that this submittal
addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS was complete.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Ozone State
Implementation Plan for the Sacramento Nonattainment Region,''
signed by Richard W. Corey, CARB Executive Officer, October 12,
2017. The Notice was made available on CARB's website.
\34\ CARB Resolution 17-40.
\35\ Compilation of Public Comments and Response for the
November 16, 2017 Meeting of the State of California Air Resources
Board.
\36\ Letter dated June 14, 2018, from Elizabeth Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the 2018 SIP Update, CARB also provided public
notice and opportunity for public comment. On September 21, 2018, CARB
released for public review the 2018 SIP Update and published a notice
of a public meeting to be held on October 23, 2018, to consider
adoption of the 2018 SIP Update.\37\ On October 23, 2018, through
Resolution 18-50, CARB adopted the 2018 SIP Update. On December 5,
2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2018 Updates to
the California State Implementation Plan signed by Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, September 21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in each of the SIP revisions
summarized above, the EPA has determined that all hearings were
properly noticed. Therefore, we find that the submittals of the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and the 2018 SIP Update meet the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
[[Page 68513]]
III. Evaluation of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP
A. Emissions Inventories
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require states to submit for
each ozone nonattainment area a ``base year inventory'' that is a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. In
addition, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires that the inventory year be
selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP demonstration,
which is the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial
inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 2008 Ozone SRR at 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and the Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has issued guidance on the development of base year and
future year emissions inventories for 8-hour ozone and other
pollutants.\39\ Emissions inventories for ozone must include emissions
of VOC and NOX and represent emissions for a typical ozone
season weekday.\40\ States should include documentation explaining how
the emissions data were calculated. When estimating mobile source
emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA-454/B-17-002, May 2017.
At the time the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan was developed,
the following EPA emissions inventory guidance applied: ``Emissions
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional
Haze Regulations'' EPA-454-R-05-001, August 2005.
\40\ 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 51.1100(bb) and (cc).
\41\ 80 FR 12264, 12290 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future baseline emissions inventories must reflect the most recent
population, employment, travel and congestion estimates for the area.
In this context, ``baseline'' emissions inventories refer to emissions
estimates for a given year and area that reflect rules and regulations
and other measures that are already adopted. Future baseline emissions
inventories are necessary to show the projected effectiveness of SIP
control measures. Both the base year and future year inventories are
necessary for photochemical modeling to demonstrate attainment.
2. Summary of State's Submission
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan includes base year (2012)
and future year baseline inventories for NOX and VOC for the
Sacramento Metro Area. Documentation for the inventories is found in
Chapter 5 (``Emissions Inventory'') and Appendix A (``Emission
Inventory'') of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.\42\ The
emissions inventories represent average summer day emissions,
consistent with the observation that ozone levels in the Sacramento
Metro Area are typically higher from May through October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Appendix A-4 contains detailed source category and
emissions inventory projections from CARB's California Emission
Projection Analysis Model. This detailed information is consolidated
and presented in Chapter 5 of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2012 base year and future year inventories in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan reflect District and CARB rules adopted
prior to the plan in late 2015.\43\ The plan's emission reductions are
based on continuing implementation of existing federal, state and local
control measures. Both base year and projected future year inventories
use the most recent EPA-approved version of California's mobile source
emissions model at the time the plan was developed, EMFAC2014, for
estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 5-11 and 7-12 to 7-14.
\44\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). 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 was the most recently
approved version of the EMFAC model that was available at the time
of preparation of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. Recently,
the EPA approved an updated version of the EMFAC model, EMFAC2017,
for future SIP development and transportation purposes in
California; 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC and NOX emissions estimates in the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan are grouped into two general categories, stationary
sources and mobile sources. Stationary sources are further divided into
``point'' and ``area'' sources. Point sources typically refer to
permitted facilities and have one or more identified and fixed pieces
of equipment and emissions points. Area sources consist of widespread
and numerous smaller emission sources, such as small permitted
facilities and households. The mobile sources category is divided into
two major subcategories, ``on-road'' and ``off-road'' mobile sources.
On-road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles, light-, medium-,
and heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. Off-road mobile sources include
aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, mobile equipment, and
recreational vehicles.
For the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, point source emissions
for the 2012 base year emissions inventory are based on reported data
from facilities using the Districts' annual emissions reporting
programs. Area sources include smaller emissions sources distributed
across the nonattainment area. CARB and the Districts estimate
emissions for area sources using established inventory methods,
including publicly available emission factors and activity information.
Activity data are derived from national survey data such as the Energy
Information Administration or from local sources such as public
utilities, paint suppliers, and Districts' databases. Emission factors
used for the estimates come from many sources, such as facility and
equipment source tests, compliance reports, and the EPA's compilation
of emissions factors document known as ``AP-42.''
CARB calculated the on-road emissions inventories in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and the 2018 SIP Update using the
EMFAC2014 model and the vehicle travel activity data provided by the
Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) in its ``2016 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy'' (``2016 MTP/
SCS'') \45\ as updated in the ``2017-20 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program'' (``2017 MTIP'') \46\ and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) in its 2012 ``Bay Area Plan--Preferred
Land Use and Transportation and Investment Strategy.'' \47\ CARB
provided emissions inventories for off-road equipment, including
construction and mining equipment, industrial and commercial equipment,
lawn and garden equipment, agricultural equipment, ocean-going
[[Page 68514]]
vessels, commercial harbor craft, locomotives, cargo handling
equipment, pleasure craft, and recreational vehicles. CARB uses several
models to estimate emissions for more than one hundred off-road
equipment categories.\48\ Aircraft emissions are developed in
conjunction with the airports in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ SACOG, ``2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy,'' February 2016. Available at http://www.sacog.org/general-information/2016-mtpscs.
\46\ SACOG, ``2017-20 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program,'' September 15, 2016, Appendix A-6, ``Amendment #1 to the
2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy,'' available at https://www.sacog.org/post/2017-20-mtip.
\47\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Sections 10-2--10-6.
2018 SIP Update, 31. SACOG is the regional transportation planning
agency for the greater Sacramento area and covers Sacramento and
Yolo counties, and portions of El Dorado, Placer, and Sutter
counties. MTC is the regional transportation planning agency for the
San Francisco Bay area, including portions of Solano County within
the Sacramento Metro Area.
\48\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 5-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides a summary of the Sacramento Metro Area's 2012 base
year, interim, and future attainment year baseline emissions estimates
in tons per average summer day for NOX and VOC. These
inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the
attainment demonstrations in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.
This emissions inventory includes emissions throughout the Sacramento
Metro Area. In the 2012 emissions inventory, stationary and area
sources account for roughly 45 percent of VOC emissions and 10 percent
of the NOX emissions in the Sacramento Metro Area while
mobile sources account for roughly 55 percent of the VOC emissions and
90 percent of the NOX emissions. For a more detailed
discussion of the inventories, see Chapter 5 and Appendix A-4 of the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.
Table 2--Sacramento Metro Area Base Year, Interim, and Attainment Year Baseline Emissions Inventories
[Summer planning inventory, tons per day (tpd)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2018 2021 2024
Source category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources...................................... 8 22 7 22 7 23 7 23
Area Sources............................................ 3 29 2 29 2 30 2 31
On-Road Mobile Sources.................................. 61 34 35 20 26 16 19 14
Off-Road Mobile Sources................................. 30 26 26 20 23 18 21 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 101 110 69 91 58 87 49 84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, tables 5-1 and 5-2. The sum of the emissions values may not equal the total shown due to
rounding of the numbers.
Future emissions forecasts in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone
Plan, particularly on-road mobile source emissions, are based primarily
on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SACOG, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Sacramento Metro Area,
and the MTC, the MPO for Solano County. The Districts and CARB
developed stationary and area source control factors in reference to
the 2012 base year, and then used the California Emission Projection
Analysis Model to project these 2012 baseline inventories to future
years.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, and
Appendices A-2 and A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the South Coast II decision, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP
Update to the EPA to revise, among other things, the RFP demonstration
in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan based on a 2011 RFP baseline
year (i.e., rather than 2012).\50\ Our analysis of the emissions
inventories for the 2011 RFP baseline year and RFP milestone years 2017
and 2020 can be found in section III.E below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 2018 SIP Update, Section V (``SIP Elements for the
Sacramento Metropolitan Area''), 27-34; and Appendix A, A-15 through
A-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
We have reviewed the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, and the inventory methodologies used by
the District and CARB, for consistency with CAA requirements and EPA
guidance. First, as required by EPA regulation, we find that the 2012
inventory includes estimates of VOC and NOX for a typical
ozone season weekday and that CARB has provided adequate documentation
explaining how the emissions are calculated. Second, we find that the
2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan reflects appropriate emissions models and methodologies;
therefore, the submitted emissions inventory represents a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions
during that year in the Sacramento Metro Area. Third, we find that
selection of year 2012 for the base year emissions inventory is
appropriate because it is consistent with the 2011 RFP baseline year
(from the 2018 SIP Update) that is derived from a common set of models
and methods. Consequently, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2012
emissions inventory in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as
meeting the requirements for a base year inventory set forth in CAA
section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115.
With respect to future year baseline projections, we have reviewed
the growth and control factors and find them acceptable and conclude
that the future baseline emissions projections in the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan reflect appropriate calculation methods and the
latest planning assumptions. Also, as a general matter, the EPA will
approve a SIP revision that takes emissions reduction credit for a
control measure only where the EPA has approved the measure as part of
the SIP. Thus, 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. The 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan emissions inventories reflect credit for local VOC
and NOX control measures adopted and submitted to CARB
through late 2015 and for the future effects of these currently adopted
control measures; no new future local stationary or area source control
measures were submitted or credited within the Plan. With respect to
mobile sources, the EPA has acted in recent years to approve CARB
mobile source regulations into the California SIP.\51\ CARB mobile
source control measures are reviewed in more detail in Sections III.C
and III.D of this action. Based on our review, we find that the future
year baseline projections in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
are properly supported by SIP-approved stationary and mobile source
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017),
and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2019 and April 2020, the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the EPA published separate final actions concerning
the ``Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule'' (``SAFE
rule'') that, among other things, withdrew the EPA's
[[Page 68515]]
2013 waiver of preemption for CARB's Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) sales
mandate and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards that are applicable to new
model year 2021 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (``SAFE Part 1''), and
relaxed federal GHG emissions and fuel economy standards (``SAFE Part
2'').\52\ The future year emissions projections in the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan assume implementation of CARB's entire Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) program including the third generation of Low-Emission
Vehicle (``LEV III'') criteria pollutant standards, but also including
the ZEV sales mandate and GHG standards. The Plan's on-road emissions
projections for NOX and VOCs are based on EMFAC2014, the
EPA-approved model at the time the Plan was developed, and assumptions
concerning implementation of the ACC program. Calculations for other
portions of the future year emissions inventories (e.g., the point and
area source portions of the inventories) also include assumptions about
the continued implementation of the ACC program, which were appropriate
when the plan was submitted in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 84 FR 51310 (September 27, 2019) and 85 FR 24174 (April 30,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the EPA's final action on SAFE Part 1, CARB
developed adjustment factors for EMFAC to account for criteria
pollutant emissions increases associated with the revocation of the ZEV
sales mandate waiver.\53\ CARB's EMFAC off-model adjustment factors are
multipliers that are to be applied to gasoline-powered light-duty
automobiles, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles modeled by
EMFAC2014 (and its more recent EPA-approved update, EMFAC2017). The EPA
reviewed CARB's EMFAC off-model adjustment factors and concluded that
they are acceptable for use because the effect of their application is
more conservative than necessary, and that, therefore, the factors may
be used in transportation conformity determinations and SIP
development.\54\ We applied the adjustment factors to the relevant
light duty gasoline motor vehicle source categories in the relevant
years, 2023--RFP year and 2024--attainment year, to estimate the VOC
and NOX increases in the Sacramento Metro Area relative to
those included in the Plan and found that the emissions increases were
so small as to be negligible.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Letter dated March 5, 2020, from Steven S. Cliff, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA, Region IX; includes enclosure, ``EMFAC Off-
Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part
One,'' November 20, 2019. CARB has determined that additional EMFAC
adjustment factors for criteria pollutants are not needed in
response to SAFE Part 2; CARB, ``EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors
for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the
SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule,'' June 26,
2020.
\54\ Letter dated March 12, 2020, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Steven
Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB.
\55\ We estimated SAFE rule effects as follows: 2023 VOC and
NOX emissions increase 0.0115 and 0.0026 tons per day,
respectively; 2024 VOC and NOX emissions increase 0.0189
and 0.0047 tons per day, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFE Parts 1 and 2 could result in a higher level of gasoline
production, transport, and usage, with associated upstream emissions,
than had been assumed for the Plan. We believe, however, that the
incremental increase in upstream impacts would be limited between now
and 2024, the last year addressed in this Plan. Moreover, the relevant
source categories that may be affected by increased gasoline
production, transport, and usage: Oil and gas production (combustion),
and petroleum production and marketing, collectively represent only 5.6
percent of the area's projected VOC emissions estimates and 0.02
percent of the area's projected NOX emissions estimates for
the relevant years.\56\ As such, the anticipated small incremental
increase in emissions from these upstream sources due to higher-than-
expected gasoline consumption in the wake of SAFE Part 1 and SAFE Part
2 would be inconsequential from the standpoint of the RFP and
attainment demonstrations in the Plan. Therefore, we find that the
regulatory changes established by the SAFE Part 1 and Part 2 final
rules do not undermine the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the
Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Total petroleum production and marketing VOC and
NOX emissions in the Sacramento Metro Area are estimated
as follows: 4.72 tpd and 0.01 tpd in 2023, respectively; and, 4.62
tpd and 0.01 tpd in 2024, respectively. Total VOC and NOX
emissions in the Sacramento Metro Area are estimated as follows:
83.46 and 48.25 in 2023, respectively; and, 82.86 and 46.53,
respectively. 2018 SIP Update, A-15 to A-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Emissions Statement
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or
NOX to provide the state with statements of actual emissions
from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and
must contain a certification that the information contained in the
statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual
certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows
states to waive the emissions statement requirement for any class or
category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year
(tpy) of VOC or NOX, if the state provides an inventory of
emissions from such class or category of sources as part of the base
year or periodic inventories required under CAA sections 182(a)(1) and
182(a)(3)(A), based on the use of emission factors established by the
EPA or other methods acceptable to the EPA.
The preamble of the 2008 Ozone SRR states that if an area has a
previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for
purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\57\ The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is
adequate and, if so, may rely on it to meet the emissions statement
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Where an existing emissions
statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of
this rule, states can provide the rationale for that determination to
the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement.
States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by
the existing emissions statement program. Where an emissions statement
requirement is modified for any reason, a state must provide the
revision to the emissions statement as part of its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 80 FR 12264, 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The Districts in the Sacramento Metro Area have adopted and CARB
has submitted emissions statement rules for incorporation into the
California SIP. The EPA has reviewed and approved into the SIP the
rules listed in Table 3.
[[Page 68516]]
Table 3--EPA-Approved Emissions Statement Rules for the Sacramento Metro
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA approval date
District Rule No. and name and cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD...................... Rule 105, Emission 73 FR 32240, June 6,
Statements. 2008.
EDCAQMD..................... Rule 1000, Emission 69 FR 29880, May 26,
Statement. 2004.
FRAQMD...................... Rule 4.8, Further 69 FR 29880, May 26,
Information. 2004.
YSAQMD...................... Rule 3.18, Emission 69 FR 29880, May 26,
Statements. 2004.
PCAPCD...................... Rule 503, Emission 77 FR 72968,
Statement. December 7, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CARB Staff Report submitted with the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan certified the submittal and EPA approval of the Districts'
emissions statement rules and their applicability to the area.\58\ CARB
certified that these emissions statement rules are applicable to the
area and the 75 ppb ozone standard because the nonattainment area
boundaries have not changed since the EPA's approval of these rules and
the reporting thresholds within the rules are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ CARB Staff Report, 7. The CARB Staff Report cites a June 6,
2006 rulemaking for SMAQMD Rule 105; while the Federal Register
citation is correct, the correct date is June 6, 2008. The EPA's
2012 approval of PCAPCD Rule 503 provided in Table 3 is not cited by
CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As noted above, the EPA has reviewed and approved the Districts'
emissions statement rules as meeting the requirements of section
182(a)(3)(B) and incorporated them into the SIP. Also, although the
emissions reporting requirements in these rules do not apply to
permitted sources of emissions less than 10 or 25 tpy (depending on the
subject rule), we note that such an exclusion is allowed under CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), so long as the state includes estimates of
such class or category of stationary sources in base year emissions
inventories and periodic inventories, submitted under CAA sections
182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A), based on EPA emission factors or other
methods acceptable to the EPA. The EPA has routinely approved emissions
inventories developed by the Districts and CARB for the Sacramento
Metro Area that include actual emissions estimates for all stationary
sources or classes or categories of such sources, including those
emitting less than the reporting thresholds within these emissions
statement rules, and that such inventories provide the basis for
inventories submitted to meet the requirements of CAA sections
182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A). Most recently, we approved the base year
emissions inventory for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on January 29,
2015.\59\ Similarly, we are proposing approval of the base year
inventory for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as noted in the previous section.
Therefore, for the reasons described above, we propose to approve the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as meeting the emissions statement
requirements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 80 FR 4795.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through implementation of reasonably available
control technology (RACT)) and for attainment of the NAAQS. For each
nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration, the
2008 Ozone SRR requires that the state concurrently submit a SIP
revision showing that it has adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP
requirements.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (``General Preamble'') and in a memorandum entitled
``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
\61\ In short, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states
should consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's
attainment date by one year or more.\62\ Any measures that are
necessary to meet these requirements that are not either federally
promulgated, or part of the state's SIP, must be submitted in
enforceable form as part of the state's attainment plan for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992) and
memorandum dated November 30, 1999, from John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, titled ``Guidance on the
Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
\62\ Id. 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), and memorandum dated
December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Regional
Air Directors, titled ``Additional Submission on RACM from States
with Severe 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``Moderate'' or above,
CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of RACT for all
major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which the EPA
has issued a control techniques guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f)
requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major
stationary sources of NOX. In Severe-15 areas, a major
source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit
at least 25 tpy of VOC or NOX (see CAA section 182(d) and
(f)). CARB has submitted separate SIP revisions to address these
requirements for each of the Districts.\63\ We are not addressing the
section 182 RACT requirements in today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The EPA fully approved the submissions for EDCAQMD (83 FR
67696, December 31, 2018), FRAQMD (80 FR 38959, July 18, 2015), and
PCAPCD (82 FR 38604, August 15, 2017). The EPA has not yet acted on
the SMAQMD and YSAQMD submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
For the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, the Districts, SACOG,
and CARB undertook collective and individual processes to identify and
evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to expeditious attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area. We describe each
agency's evaluation below.
a. The Districts' RACM Analysis
The Districts' RACM demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS focuses
on stationary and area source controls, and is described in Appendix E
(``Reasonably Available Control
[[Page 68517]]
Measures (RACM) Analysis'') of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.
Appendix E contains summary analyses of all potential control measures
for emissions reduction opportunities, as well as their economic and
technological feasibility. As a first step in the RACM analysis, the
Districts prepared a detailed inventory of emissions sources that emit
VOC and NOX to identify source categories from which
emissions reductions would effectively contribute to attainment.
Details on the methodology and development of this source category and
control measure review are discussed in chapter 7 and appendix E of the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix E provides
the overall discussion, while tables E-1 through E-5 list the
Districts' rules that were reviewed for RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Districts' RACM analysis builds upon a foundation of the
respective rules developed for earlier ozone plans and approved as part
of the SIP, e.g., the Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. The Districts' rules listed in Tables E-1
to E-5 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan establish emissions
limits or other types of emissions controls for a wide range of
sources, including use of solvents, refineries, gasoline storage,
architectural coatings, spray booths, various types of commercial
coatings, boilers, steam generators and process heaters, oil and gas
production wells, and many more. These rules have already provided
significant and ongoing reductions toward attainment of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by 2024.
To identify all potential RACM, staff from the Districts reviewed
multiple sources of control measure information. These sources included
past regional ozone plans, rules adopted between January 2006 and July
2013 by other California air quality management districts, the EPA's
``RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse,'' \65\ CARB's BACT Clearinghouse, the
Bay Area AQMD's 2010 Clean Air Plan, the South Coast AQMD's 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan, and rules from ozone nonattainment areas in
other states, such as Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Texas), Dallas-Fort
Worth (Texas), and Baltimore (Maryland). Next, the Districts performed
the RACM analyses for the stationary and areawide sources within their
jurisdictions. For each potential RACM measure, Districts' staff
estimated the emissions inventory, emissions reductions, and cost
effectiveness. With this process, the Districts evaluated and analyzed
all reasonable control measures that were available to include within
the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. The Districts determined that
emissions reductions associated with the evaluated control measures
would not advance the area's attainment date or RFP because the
emission reductions, in total, were either too small or
unquantifiable.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ LAER means lowest achievable emission rate. For more
information on the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, see https://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/index.cfm?action=Home.Home&lang=en.
\66\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix E and Tables
E-1 through Table E-5. These tables present a list of the individual
district rules and control measures evaluated by the Districts and a
brief discussion of their respective conclusions for each district
rule or source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the Districts are required to make submittals
addressing the CAA section 182(b)(2) requirement to implement RACT for
all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which the
EPA has issued control techniques guidelines. CAA section 182(f)
requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major
stationary sources of NOX. California has submitted the CAA
section 182 RACT SIPs from the Districts, and the EPA has approved the
submittals from EDCAQMD, FRAQMD, and PCAPCD. The CARB Staff Report,
submitted with the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, identified
commitments by SMAQMD and YSAQMD to submit or amend rules for several
source categories to address the RACT SIP requirement.\67\ As a result,
the SMAQMD and YSAQMD adopted or amended the following stationary
source rules: SMAQMD Rule 419 (``Miscellaneous Combustion Units'');
SMAQMD Rule 468 (``Plastic Parts''); and YSAQMD Rule 2.29 (``Graphic
Arts''). Subsequently, the State submitted these rules to the EPA in
2018 and 2019.\68\ Within the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, the
SMAQMD and YSAQMD evaluated these rules and/or the relevant source
categories for RACM and found that controls applied to these sources
would not individually or collectively advance the attainment date.\69\
The control strategy for the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP, overall,
takes credit for emissions reductions from the Districts' stationary or
area source rules adopted or amended before late 2015.\70\
Consequently, any emission reductions after 2015 and associated with
the later 2018 amendments to or adoption of these SMAQMD and YSAQMD
rules to meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) requirement are not credited or
incorporated within the attainment demonstration of the Sacramento
Metro Area Ozone SIP. Accordingly, the EPA's approval of these three
rules, submitted in 2018 and 2019, are not required for our proposed
action on the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP; however, our review and
approval into the SIP of these local rules remain relevant for our
action on the submitted RACT SIPs, in accordance with CAA section
182(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ CARB Staff Report, 9.
\68\ California submitted these rules to the EPA on the
following dates: SMAQMD Rule 419 on August 15, 2018 and January 23,
2019; SMAQMD Rule 468 on May 18, 2018; and YSAQMD Rule 2.29 on
August 15, 2018.
\69\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix E.4, Table E-
1, and Appendix E.8, Table E-5.
\70\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 5-11 and 7-12 to 7-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis and Transportation Control
Measures
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan's Appendix E-9
(``Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Transportation
Control Measures Considered''), contains the transportation control
measures (TCMs) RACM component for the plan. This analysis was
conducted by SACOG, the MPO for the Sacramento Metro Area region. In
its initial analysis, SACOG conducted a comprehensive review of
implemented TCMs in California and other states, measures and
strategies from the Sacramento Region's 2009 Ozone SIP, and statewide
and mobile source emissions reduction strategies, and identified almost
100 potential TCM measures. Of these, SACOG selected and analyzed 22
measures that were not already implemented in Sacramento Metro Area.
These measures were assessed based on the criteria specified in the
2015 Ozone SRR and the EPA's RACT guidance, such as technical and
economic feasibility, enforceability, local applicability, and the
measures' ability to provide emission reductions before 2026 to advance
attainment of the ozone standard. A summary of SACOG's findings for
each measure is provided in Table E-6 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan. Using the assessment criteria, SACOG concluded that none of
the additional 22 measures that they identified were appropriate for
implementation. Individual measures were economically infeasible, and
when considered together, the 22 measures did not advance attainment of
the ozone standard by one year. Based on this comprehensive review of
TCM projects, SACOG determined that the TCMs being
[[Page 68518]]
implemented in the Sacramento Metro Area are inclusive of all RACM.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 7-16 and Appendix E-9,
E-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. CARB's RACM Analysis
CARB's RACM analysis is contained in Appendix E-10 (``California
Mobile Source Reasonably Available Control Measures Assessment'') of
the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. This analysis provides a
general description of CARB's existing mobile source programs. A more
detailed description of these mobile source control programs, including
comprehensive tables listing on- and off-road mobile source regulatory
actions taken by CARB since as early as 1985, is contained in Section
7.2 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. Collectively, the
Appendix E.10 RACM analysis and Section 7.2 contain CARB's evaluation
of mobile source and other statewide control measures that reduce
emissions of NOX and VOC in the Sacramento Metro Area.
Within California, CARB has primary responsibility for reducing
emissions in several state-wide source categories, including most new
and existing on- and off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle
fuels, and consumer products. Given the need for substantial emissions
reductions from mobile and area sources to meet the NAAQS in California
nonattainment areas, CARB has developed stringent control measures for
on-road and off-road mobile sources and their related fuels. California
has authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a waiver by the EPA) to
adopt and implement new emission standards for many categories of on-
road vehicles and engines, and new and in-use off-road vehicles and
engines.
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 engine standards, gasoline and diesel fuel
specifications, and other requirements to control emissions from in-use
heavy-duty trucks and buses and many other types of mobile sources.
Generally, these regulations have been submitted and approved as
revisions to the California SIP.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See, e.g., 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), the EPA's approval
of standards and other requirements to control emissions from in-use
heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks; 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010),
revisions to the California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel
fuel regulations; and, 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010), revisions to the
California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the strength of the measures included in the current
statewide mobile source program, and the extensive public process
involved in developing that program, CARB concluded that there are no
additional RACM that would further advance attainment of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area, and as a result, that California's
mobile source programs fully meet the RACM requirement.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix E.10, E-37.
CARB's 2016 Mobile Source Strategy and the public process they
conducted for this submittal is referenced in the appendix at
footnote 2, E-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As described above, collectively, the Districts already implement
many rules to reduce VOC and NOX emissions from stationary
and area sources in the Sacramento Metro Area. For the Sacramento Metro
Area Ozone SIP, the Districts evaluated a wide range of potentially
available measures. We find that the process followed by the Districts
and described in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan to identify
additional RACM is generally consistent with the EPA's recommendations
in the General Preamble, that the Districts' evaluation of potential
measures to be appropriate, and that the Districts have provided
reasoned justifications that additional measures would not advance
attainment. Regarding TCMs, we find that SACOG's process for
identifying additional TCM RACM and conclusion that the TCMs being
implemented in the Sacramento Metro Area (identified in Section 7.7 and
Table E-6 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan), are inclusive of
all TCM RACM that are reasonably justified and supported.
With respect to mobile sources, CARB's current program addresses
the full range of mobile sources in the Sacramento Metro Area through
regulatory programs for both new and in-use vehicles. We find that the
process conducted by CARB, as described in Appendix E.10, was
reasonably designed to identify additional available measures within
CARB's jurisdiction, and that CARB has adopted those measures that are
reasonably available.
Based on our review of these RACM analyses and the Districts' and
CARB's adopted rules, we propose to find that there are, at this time,
no additional RACM that would further advance attainment of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area. For the foregoing reasons, we
propose to find that the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP provides for
the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and
40 CFR 51.1112(c).
If finalized, this finding under CAA section 172(c)(1) does not
affect the State's and the EPA's continuing obligation under CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii) to implement
RACT on all major sources and all CTG source categories.
D. Attainment Demonstration
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
An attainment demonstration consists of the following: (1)
Technical analyses, such as base year and future year modeling, to
locate and identify sources of emissions that are contributing to
violations of the ozone NAAQS within the nonattainment area (i.e.,
analyses related to the emissions inventory for the nonattainment area
and the emissions reductions necessary to attain the standard); (2) a
list of adopted measures (including RACT controls) with schedules for
implementation and other means and techniques necessary and appropriate
for demonstrating RFP and attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than the outside attainment date for the area's
classification; (3) a RACM analysis; and, (4) contingency measures
required under sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA that can be
implemented without further action by the state or the EPA to cover
emissions shortfalls in RFP plans and failures to attain.\74\ This
subsection of today's proposed rule addresses the first two components
of the attainment demonstration--the technical analyses and a review of
adopted measures. Section III.C (``Reasonably Available Control
Measures Demonstration'') of this document addresses the RACM
component, and section III.G (``Contingency Measures'') addresses the
contingency measures component of the attainment demonstration in the
Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 78 FR 34178, 34184 (June 6, 2013), the EPA's proposed rule
for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the technical analyses, section 182(c)(2)(A) of the
CAA requires that a plan for an ozone nonattainment area classified
Serious or above include a ``demonstration that the plan . . . will
provide for attainment of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable
attainment date. This attainment demonstration must be based on
photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined .
. . to be at least as effective.'' The attainment demonstration
predicts future ambient concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS,
making use of available information on measured
[[Page 68519]]
concentrations, meteorology, and current and projected emissions
inventories of ozone precursors, including the effect of control
measures in the plan. Areas classified Severe-15 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but
no later than 15 years after the effective date of designation as
nonattainment. The Sacramento Metro Area was designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012,\75\ and accordingly
must demonstrate attainment of the standards by no later than July 20,
2027.\76\ An attainment demonstration must show attainment of the
standards for a full calendar year before the attainment date, so in
practice, Severe-15 nonattainment areas must demonstrate attainment no
later than 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
\76\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's recommended procedures for modeling ozone as part of an
attainment demonstration are contained in ``Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (``Modeling Guidance'').\77\ The
Modeling Guidance includes recommendations for a modeling protocol,
model input preparation, model performance evaluation, use of model
output for the numerical NAAQS attainment test, and modeling
documentation. Air quality modeling is performed using meteorology and
emissions from a base year, and the predicted concentrations from this
base case modeling are compared to air quality monitoring data from
that year to evaluate model performance. Once the model performance is
determined to be acceptable, future year emissions are simulated with
the model. The relative (or percent) change in modeled concentration
due to future emissions reductions provides a relative response factor
(RRF). Each monitoring site's RRF is applied to its monitored base year
design value to provide the future design value for comparison to the
NAAQS. The Modeling Guidance also recommends supplemental air quality
analyses, which may be used as part of a weight of evidence (WOE)
analysis. A WOE analysis corroborates the attainment demonstration by
considering evidence other than the main air quality modeling
attainment test, such as trends and additional monitoring and modeling
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA
454/R-18-009; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. See also
December 2014 draft of this guidance, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft-O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf. The December 2014 draft guidance was
available during development of the Plan; the final version differs
mainly in organization, and in updates to the regional haze portion
and to other document references. Additional EPA modeling guidance
can be found in 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality
Models, 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017); available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Modeling Guidance also does not require a particular year to be
used as the base year for 8-hour ozone plans.\78\ The Modeling Guidance
states that the most recent year of the National Emissions Inventory
may be appropriate for use as the base year for modeling, but that
other years may be more appropriate when considering meteorology,
transport patterns, exceptional events, or other factors that may vary
from year to year.\79\ Therefore, the base year used for the attainment
demonstration need not be the same year used to meet the requirements
for emissions inventories and RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Modeling Guidance at section 2.7.1, 35.
\79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a more detailed discussion of photochemical modeling guidance
recommendations, please see the technical support document (TSD)
provided in the docket for this proposal.
With respect to the list of adopted measures, CAA section 172(c)(6)
requires that nonattainment area plans include enforceable emissions
limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for timely
attainment of the NAAQS.\80\ Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, all control
measures needed for attainment must be implemented no later than the
beginning of the attainment year ozone season.\81\ The attainment year
ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately preceding a
nonattainment area's maximum attainment date; in the case of the
Sacramento Metro area, the attainment year is 2026.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
\81\ 40 CFR 51.1108(d).
\82\ 40 CFR 51.1100(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
a. Photochemical Modeling
CARB performed the air quality modeling for the Sacramento Metro
Area Ozone SIP with assistance from the Districts and has included
documentation of this modeling within the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan and the CARB Staff Report. The modeling relies on a 2012
base year and projects design values for 2022 and 2026. As discussed
below, CARB also included an interpolation of NOX emissions
to estimate the design value in the attainment year 2024. The
attainment plan's modeling protocol is in Appendix B-3 of the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and contains all the elements
recommended in the Modeling Guidance.
The modeling and modeled attainment demonstration are described in
Chapter 6 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and in more detail
in Appendix B-4, which provides a description of model input
preparation procedures and various model configuration options.
Appendix B-5 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan provides the
coordinates of the modeling domain and thoroughly describes the
development of the modeling emissions inventory, including its chemical
speciation, its spatial and temporal allocation, its temperature
dependence, and quality assurance procedures. The modeling analysis
used version 5 of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
photochemical model developed by the EPA. To prepare meteorological
input for CMAQ, CARB used the Weather and Research Forecasting model
version 3.6 (WRF) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The WRF modeling uses routinely available meteorological and air
quality data collected during 2012. Those data cover May through
September, a period that spans the period of highest ozone
concentrations in the Sacramento Metro Area. CMAQ and WRF are both
recognized in the Modeling Guidance as technically sound, state-of-the-
art models. The areal extent and the horizontal and vertical resolution
used in these models were adequate for modeling Sacramento Metro Area
ozone.
The WRF meteorological model results and performance statistics are
described in Appendix B-4.\83\ There is a slight underprediction of
wind speeds and overprediction of temperatures in the eastern portion
of the nonattainment area; but overall, modeled wind speed, temperature
and relative humidity all track observations well, as shown in scatter
and time series plots. The modeling was able to replicate some
important meteorological features such as the bifurcation of the delta
breeze from the ocean into northern and
[[Page 68520]]
southern branches, and afternoon upslope flows in the Sierra Nevada
foothills. The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan states that the bias
and error are relatively small and are comparable to those seen in
previous meteorological modeling of central California and cited in the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. In summary, the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan's meteorological modeling performance statistics
appear satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Appendix B-4, section 3.2, B-125; also, refer to
supplemental figures S.1-S.15 at B-166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone model performance statistics are described in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan at Appendix B-4.\84\ It includes tables
of statistics recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 8-hour and 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, for the whole nonattainment
area and for three Sacramento Metro Area subregions (i.e., western,
central, and eastern. There is a slight negative bias (underprediction)
for the central and eastern subregions. Because only the relative
response to emissions changes from the modeling is used, note that the
underprediction of absolute ozone concentrations does not mean that
future concentrations will be underestimated. The 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan found the statistics to be within the ranges for
other modeling applications, at the low end of the distribution for
error and bias. The Plan's supplemental figures with hourly time series
show generally good performance; although some individual daily ozone
peaks are missed, for each site there are days for which the modeled
highest concentration is close to the value of the highest observed
concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Appendix B-4, section 5.2, B-139; also, refer to
supplemental figures S.16-S.69, B-182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan's modeling
protocol, the Modeling Guidance recognizes that limited time and
resources can constrain the extent of the diagnostic and dynamic
evaluation of model performance undertaken.\85\ The 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan describes a dynamic evaluation \86\ in which model
predictions of ozone concentrations for weekdays and weekends were
compared to each other and to observed concentrations. This evaluation
provides useful information on how well the model simulates the effect
of emissions changes, since NOX emissions are lower on
weekends than on weekdays, but otherwise similar. The model-predicted
ozone reduction on weekends tends to match the observed ozone
reduction; this match lends confidence to the modeling. The modeled
weekend response is also consistent with an independent study \87\ that
examined the frequency of ozone exceedance days over 2001-2007 and the
NOX emission reductions during the same period. The study
concluded the NOX reductions were effective at reducing
ozone throughout the entire Sacramento urban ozone plume (i.e.,
downwind and northeast of urban Sacramento, within the nonattainment
area), which exhibits ``NOX-limited'' ozone chemistry except
in the urban core, and is expected to transition to NOX-
limited conditions everywhere in the nonattainment area as
NOX emissions continue to decline.\88\ The Plan also
contains results of an analysis of weekday and weekend ozone
concentrations during the 2000-2014 period. It notes a shift over the
years toward lower ozone on weekends, especially after 2010, showing
that lower NOX emissions lead to lower ozone
concentrations.\89\ Both the modeling and the observed weekday-weekend
trends throughout the Sacramento Metro Area show that ozone responds to
NOX emission reductions, i.e., that ozone formation is
NOX-limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix B-3
(``Modeling Protocol''), B-76; Modeling Guidance, 63.
\86\ See ``Diagnostic Evaluation'' in Appendix B-4 section
5.2.1, B-146.
\87\ La Franchi et al., ``Observations of the temperature
dependent response of ozone to NOX reductions in the
Sacramento, CA urban plume,'' Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11,
6945-6960, doi:10.5194/acp-11-6945-2011, 2011; described in Appendix
B, B-150.
\88\ The term ``NOX-limited'' can mean either that
reducing NOX emissions decrease ozone (as opposed to
increasing it); or that reducing NOX is much more
effective at decreasing ozone than is reducing VOC. Both are true in
this case; as discussed below, ambient Sacramento Metro Area ozone
responds only weakly to VOC reductions. The NOX-limited
ozone regime in the Sacramento Metro Area is discussed in Plan
Appendix B. See, e.g., B-147 through B-150 (comparing weekend-
weekday concentrations); B-150 through B-152; B-157 through B-158.
The issue is also discussed in the CARB Staff Report Appendix B, B-
17 and B-36.
\89\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix B, B-149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After model performance for the 2012 base case was accepted, the
model was applied to develop RRFs for the attainment demonstration.\90\
This entailed running the model with the same meteorological inputs as
before, but with adjusted emissions inventories to reflect the expected
changes between the 2012 base year and the 2022 and 2026 future years.
These modeling inventories excluded ``emissions events which are either
random and/or cannot be projected to the future . . . wildfires, and
events such as the [San Francisco Bay Area] Chevron refinery fire.''
\91\ The future inventories project the base year with these exclusions
into the future by including the effect of economic growth and
emissions control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, section 6.8, 6-10, and
Appendix B-4, section 5.3, B-150.
\91\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix B-3
(``Modeling Protocol''), B-78; and, Appendix B-5 (``Modeling
Emissions Inventory''), B-259. To include the fires in the base year
but not the future year would effectively credit the Plan's control
measures with eliminating emissions from the fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan carried out the attainment
test procedure consistent with the Modeling Guidance. The RRFs were
calculated as the ratio of future to base year concentrations; these
were then applied to 2012 weighted base year design values for each
monitor to arrive at future year design values.\92\ The highest 2022
ozone design value is 75.2 ppb, which occurs at the Folsom Natoma
Street site, and just barely meets the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.\93\ The highest 2026 ozone design value is 70.7 ppb
at the same monitoring site, and is well below the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Table 6-2 and Appendix
B-4, Table 13, B-151.
\93\ The Modeling Guidance recommends that RRFs be applied to
the average of three three-year design values centered on the base
year, in this case the design values for 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and
2012-2015. This amounts to a 5-year weighted average of individual
year 4th high concentrations, centered on the base year of 2012, and
so is referred to as a weighted design value. 75.2 ppb is equivalent
to 0.0752 ppm, which is truncated to 0.075 ppm according to the data
handling conventions of 40 CFR 50 Appendix P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in chapter 8 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone
Plan, the reduction per year needed from the monitored design value of
83 in 2016 to the projected 75 in 2022 was roughly twice the reduction
per year seen during 2010-2016. Given the uncertainty posed by the
magnitude of the reductions necessary to reach this level by 2022
relative to the historic rate of reduction, and the fact that 2022
design values would achieve the standard by only a very small margin,
the Districts determined that a 2024 attainment year would be more
appropriate, while still representing an ambitious target for
expeditious attainment in advance of the statutory outermost deadline
for attainment.\94\ Since modeling was not available for year 2024, the
plan interpolated between the 2022 and 2026 modeling results, on the
basis of projected NOX emissions. The Plan's discussion of
the weekend-weekday
[[Page 68521]]
differences, described above, notes that the area's ozone formation is
NOX-limited, so NOX emissions are a reasonable
basis for interpolation. The interpolation is a form of a scaling of
model results and has been done for previous EPA-approved plans.\95\
The interpolation gives a 2024 design value estimate of 72.1 ppb,
corresponding to 0.072 ppm, which is below the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
of 0.075 ppm, and therefore demonstrates attainment in 2024.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 8-2. Here, the year
2024 is discussed for modeling purposes. As noted earlier, the
effective attainment date for a determination of attainment is
December 31, 2024 if we approve this attainment demonstration as we
propose.
\95\ San Joaquin Valley ``phase 2'' plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, 83 FR 61346 (November 29, 2018), and revisions to the San
Joaquin Valley plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 77 FR 12652 (March 1,
2012).
\96\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 8-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan modeling includes
an ``Unmonitored Area Analysis'' (UAA) to assess whether locations
without a monitor are able to reach attainment; the standard attainment
test procedure covers only locations with a monitor.\97\ The Modeling
Guidance describes a procedure utilizing ``gradient adjusted spatial
fields,'' as well as the EPA software used to carry it out.\98\ This
procedure uses a form of interpolation, combining monitored
concentrations and modeled gradients (modeled changes in concentration
with distance from a monitor) to estimate future concentrations at
locations without a monitor. The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
describes an UAA carried out using software developed by CARB and
implemented in ``R,'' \99\ using a procedure virtually the same as that
outlined in the Modeling Guidance. The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone
Plan states that the 2026 results showed concentrations below 70 ppb
for all locations except for one grid square at Folsom Lake; the Plan
notes that this was likely an artifact of too-low mixing heights, a
known problem over water. Because the results are well below the 2008
ozone NAAQS level of 75 ppb, the UAA supports the demonstration that
all locations in the Sacramento Metro Area will attain the NAAQS by
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix B-4, section
5.4.
\98\ Modeling Guidance section 4.7.
\99\ The R Project for Statistical Computing, https://www.r-project.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the formal attainment demonstration, the plan also
contains a WOE analysis within Appendix B to the CARB Staff Report. It
mainly shows the long-term downward trends that continue through 2015,
the latest year available prior to 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
development. Downward trends are demonstrated for measured ozone
concentrations, number of days above the ozone NAAQS, geographic area
and population exposed to concentrations above the NAAQS, and emissions
of the ozone precursors NOX and VOC. These all show the
substantial air quality progress made in the Sacramento Metro Area and
add support to the attainment demonstration for 2024.
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan includes an additional
attainment demonstration using ``banded'' RRFs; the EPA also considers
this to be part of the WOE.\100\ The banded approach is described more
fully in a study cited in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, and
also cited in the Modeling Guideline as an alternative RRF
approach.\101\ The banded RRF approach divides ozone concentrations
into ranges or bands and computes a specific RRF for each band. This
allows different ozone concentrations to respond differently to
emission changes, a refinement on the standard approach. In this case,
the banded approach increased design values for some monitors and
decreased them for others; for Folsom, the site with the highest 2026
design value, the design value decreased from 75.2 ppb to 69.0 ppb.
This more refined approach provides corroboration for the attainment
demonstration and suggests that the analysis was done conservatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan Appendix B-4, section
5.5, and Appendix B-3, section 8.2.
\101\ Modeling Guidance, 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Control Strategy for Attainment
The control strategy for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan relies primarily on emissions
reductions from control measures that have been adopted by the
Districts and CARB prior to the submittal of the plan. Local stationary
and area source emissions reductions come from baseline (i.e., already-
adopted) control measures.\102\ Overall, nearly all of the emissions
reductions that the control strategy relies upon are expected to come
from already-adopted and EPA-approved state on- and off-road mobile
source control measures, which are discussed in section III.C of this
document.\103\ For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, already-adopted control
measures from the Districts and CARB are expected to achieve almost all
of the reductions needed from the 2012 base year to attain the 2008
NAAQS in 2024. As tables 4 and 5 show, the vast majority of emissions
reductions relied upon by the Plan's control strategy are from the on-
and off-road mobile source inventory and can be largely attributed to
control measures adopted by CARB, subsequently approved by the EPA, and
cited in detail in Section III.C.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Sections 7.3, 7.4,
and 7.5, 7-12 to 7-14.
\103\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Section 7.2, 7-1 to
7-14.
\104\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 5-13, Figures 5-8 and
5-9 show VOC and NOX emission reductions by source
category over time.
Table 4--2012 and 2024 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions for the Sacramento Metro Area
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Percentage of
Source category 2012 2024 difference from total emission
2012 to 2024 reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources........................ 22 23 +1 -4
Area Sources.............................. 29 31 +2 -8
On-Road Mobile Sources.................... 34 14 -20 77
Other Mobile Sources...................... 26 17 -9 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 110 84 -26 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The sum of the emissions values may not equal
the total shown due to rounding. Percentage reductions are calculated against net total of gross reductions.
[[Page 68522]]
Table 5--2012 and 2024 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions for the Sacramento Metro Area
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Percentage of
Source category 2012 2024 difference from total emission
2012 to 2024 reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources........................ 8 7 -1 2
Area Sources.............................. 3 2 -1 2
On-Road Mobile Sources.................... 61 19 -42 81
Other Mobile Sources...................... 30 21 -9 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 101 49 -52 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The sum of the emissions values may not equal
the total shown due to rounding.
c. Attainment Demonstration
Chapter 8 of the Plan describes the attainment demonstration in
general terms, including photochemical modeling results, and the
process for selecting and demonstrating a 2024 attainment year, while
Appendix B to the Plan provides more detail concerning photochemical
modeling. Other aspects of this demonstration are included throughout
the Plan, including emissions inventory forecasts included in section
5.5 and the control strategy described in Chapter 7. The WOE analysis
in Appendix B to the CARB Staff Report includes additional supporting
information to complement the photochemical modeling and to provide
context for this attainment demonstration, such as analyses of
anthropogenic emission, ambient ozone data, and meteorological
analyses. Table 6 below summarizes the attainment demonstration for the
2008 ozone NAAQS by listing the base year (2012) emissions level, the
modeled attainment emissions level, and the total reductions that the
District and CARB estimate to achieve through baseline control measures
and accounting for growth. Baseline measures are expected to reduce
base year (2012) emissions of NOX by 51 percent and VOC
emissions by 24 percent by the 2024 attainment year, notwithstanding
growth and the emission reduction credit (ERC) balance, and to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area by 2024, two years
ahead of the required attainment year, 2026.
Table 6--Summary of Sacramento Metro Area 2008 Ozone NAAQS Attainment
Demonstration
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Base Year Emissions Level (A)...... 101 110
2024 Modeled Attainment Emissions Level 49 84
(B)....................................
-------------------------------
Total Reductions Needed from 2012 52 26
Base Year Levels to Demonstrate
Attainment (A-B)...................
Reductions from Baseline (i.e., 52 26
adopted) Measures, net of growth
and excluding ERC balance..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Emissions with Reductions from 49 84
Baseline Control Strategy (compare to
Row B).................................
Attainment demonstrated?................ Yes Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes and sources: 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Figure 5-8 and 5-
9, 5-3.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
a. Photochemical Modeling
The interpolation of 2022 and 2026 modeling results to estimate the
2024 design value assumed that only NOX emissions needed to
be considered; it was assumed that small changes in VOC emissions have
a negligible effect on ozone. That assumption is supported by the ozone
isopleth diagram in the Plan showing the ozone results from modeling
various combinations of NOX and VOC reductions.\105\ Its
lines of constant ozone are nearly parallel to the VOC axis; that is,
ozone is about the same for the whole range of VOC emissions levels,
and ozone changes very little with VOC emissions reductions.
Conversely, the lines are nearly perpendicular to the NOX
axis, indicating ozone varies strongly with NOX emissions
levels. This illustrates the ozone formation is not just
NOX-limited (responsive to NOX emissions
changes), but also far more sensitive to emissions changes in
NOX than VOC. On a percentage basis, ozone is about 14 times
as sensitive to NOX reductions than to VOC reductions; on a
tons per year basis, it is about 24 times as sensitive. Nevertheless,
the isopleth diagram shows there is some modeled sensitivity to VOC
change, so the EPA used it to estimate a 2024 design value, as an
alternative to the Plan's interpolation approach. The methodology used
is discussed in the TSD, which applies the modeled sensitivity from the
2026 isopleth diagram to the NOX and VOC emissions
differences between 2026 and 2024, to arrive at an ozone difference
between 2026 and 2024. The result was a 2024 design value of 72.7 ppb,
about 0.6 ppb higher than the Plan's estimate, but still well below the
75 ppb NAAQS. The difference is due mainly to the different simplifying
assumptions used in the two approaches, rather than to the inclusion of
the effect of VOC, which by itself resulted in an impact of only 0.03
ppb. The results corroborate the Plan's attainment demonstration,
including the assumption that VOC emissions changes have little effect
on ozone concentrations.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Plan Appendix B-4, Figure 16, p. B-158.
\106\ The relative sensitivity of ozone to NOX and
VOC and the alternative 2024 design value are discussed in
``Assessment of Sacramento Metro NAA Conformity Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget Consistency with O3 NAAQS Attainment,''
draft August 7, 2020, EPA Region IX, within the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68523]]
The modeling shows that existing control measures from CARB and the
Districts are sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2024
at all monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro Area. Because the Plan
properly incorporates all modeling and input preparation procedures,
tests, and performance analyses called for in the modeling protocol,
demonstrates good model performance, and responds to emission changes
consistent with observations, the EPA finds that the photochemical
modeling is adequate for purposes of supporting the attainment
demonstration.
b. Control Strategy for Attainment
As discussed above, the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP relies on
state and locally adopted baseline control measures, i.e., already-
adopted control measures, to achieve the emissions reductions needed to
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2024. As shown in Tables 4-6 and
discussed in Section III.C, the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP relies
on these measures to achieve all the emissions reductions needed to
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2024. These baseline measures are
approved into the SIP and, as such, are fully creditable within the
attainment demonstration analysis. Accordingly, we propose to find that
the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are
creditable and sufficient to provide for attainment.
c. Attainment Demonstration
The Plan followed the modeling procedures recommended in the EPA's
Modeling Guidance and showed excellent performance in simulating
observed ozone concentrations in the 2012 base year; the TSD discusses
the modeling in detail. Given the extensive discussion of modeling
procedures, tests, and performance analyses called for in the modeling
protocol, the good model performance, and the model response to
emissions changes consistent with observations, the EPA finds that the
modeling is adequate for purposes of supporting the attainment
demonstration. Based on our review of the Plan and our proposed
findings that the photochemical modeling and control strategy are
acceptable and demonstrate attainment by the applicable attainment
date, we propose to approve the attainment demonstration for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108.
E. Rate of Progress Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for RFP for ozone nonattainment areas are specified in
CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B). Under CAA section
171(1), RFP is defined as meaning such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required under part D
(``Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas'') of the CAA or as may
reasonably be required by the EPA for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. CAA section
182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone nonattainment areas that are
classified as Moderate or above demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in
VOC between the years of 1990 and 1996. The EPA has typically referred
to section 182(b)(1) as the rate of progress (ROP) requirement. For
ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher, section
182(c)(2)(B) requires VOC reductions of at least 3 percent of baseline
emissions per year, averaged over each consecutive 3-year period,
beginning 6 years after the baseline year until the attainment date.
CAA section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allows an amount less than 3 percent of
such baseline emissions each year if the state demonstrates to the EPA
that the plan includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in
the area in light of technological achievability. Additionally, under
CAA section 182(c)(2)(C), a state may substitute NOX
emissions reductions for VOC emissions reductions.
In the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA provides that an area classified
Moderate or higher will have met the ROP requirements of CAA section
182(b)(1) if the area has a fully approved 15 percent ROP plan for the
1-hour or 1997 8-hour ozone standards, provided the boundaries of the
ozone nonattainment areas are the same.\107\ For such areas, the EPA
interprets the RFP requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) to require
areas classified as Moderate to provide a 15 percent emissions
reduction of ozone precursors within 6 years of the baseline year.
Areas classified as Serious or higher must meet the RFP requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) by providing an 18 percent reduction of ozone
precursors in the first 6-year period, and an average ozone precursor
emissions reduction of 3 percent per year for all remaining 3-year
periods thereafter.\108\ To meet CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, a state may substitute NOX
emissions reductions for VOC reductions.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ 80 FR 12264, 12271 (March 6, 2015).
\108\ Id.
\109\ 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(C) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(ii)(B); 80 FR 12264, 12271 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C),
emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally promulgated, or
otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the baseline year
are creditable for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are
met. Because the EPA has determined that the passage of time has caused
the effect of certain exclusions to be de minimis, the RFP
demonstration is no longer required to calculate and specifically
exclude reductions from measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or
evaporative emissions promulgated by January 1, 1990; regulations
concerning Reid vapor pressure promulgated by November 15, 1990;
measures to correct previous RACT requirements; and, measures required
to correct previous inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 Ozone SRR requires the RFP baseline year to be the most
recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory was
required to be submitted to the EPA. For the purposes of developing RFP
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the applicable triennial
inventory year is 2011. As discussed above, the 2008 Ozone SRR provided
states with the opportunity to use an alternative baseline year for
RFP,\111\ but this provision was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the
South Coast II decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 40 CFR 51.1110(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
In response to the South Coast II decision, CARB developed the 2018
SIP Update, which replaces the RFP portion of the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan and includes updated emissions estimates for the
RFP baseline year, subsequent milestone years, and the attainment year,
and an updated RFP demonstration relying on a 2011 RFP baseline
year.\112\ To develop the 2011 RFP baseline inventory, CARB relied on
actual emissions reported from industrial point sources for year 2011
and back-cast emissions from smaller stationary sources and area
sources from 2012 to 2011 using the same growth and
[[Page 68524]]
control factors as was used for the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone
Plan. To develop the emissions inventories for the RFP milestone years
(i.e., 2017, 2020, 2023) and attainment year (i.e., 2024), CARB also
relied upon the same growth and control factors as the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan. The 2018 SIP Update emissions estimates reflect
District rules adopted and submitted to CARB through November 2015 and
CARB rules adopted through December 2014.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 2018 SIP Update, Section V.B. Reasonable Further Progress,
28-30.
\113\ 2018 SIP Update, Appendix A, A-1, A-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation for the Sacramento Metro Area RFP baseline and
milestone emissions inventories is found in the 2018 SIP Update.\114\
The updated RFP demonstration for the Sacramento Metro Area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS is shown in Table 7. This demonstration calculates
future year VOC targets from the 2011 baseline, consistent with CAA
182(c)(2)(B)(i), which requires reductions of ``at least 3 percent of
baseline emissions each year,'' and it substitutes NOX
reductions for VOC reductions beginning in milestone year 2020 to meet
VOC emission targets.\115\ For the Sacramento Metro Area, CARB
concludes that the RFP demonstration meets the applicable requirements
for each milestone year as well as the attainment year.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ 2018 SIP Update, 27-30, and Appendix A, A-15 through A-18.
\115\ NOX substitution is permitted under EPA
regulations. See 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(C) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(ii)(B); and 80 FR 12264, 12271 (March 6, 2015).
\116\ In addition to the RFP demonstration in Table 7, CARB
provided a clarification including the small rounding additions in
the motor vehicle emission budgets to ensure that they are accounted
for and that RFP would still be met; email dated August 11, 2020,
from Webster Tasat, CARB to Anita Lee, USEPA, including attached RFP
demonstration table, in the docket.
Table 7--RFP Demonstration for the Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, Summer Planning Inventory,
tpd or Percentage (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2020 2023 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline VOC.................... 111.6 91.7 91.3 88.5 87.9
Transportation conformity safety 0 0 0 0 0.5
margin *.......................
Baseline + safety margin (VOC).. 111.6 91.7 91.3 88.5 88.4
Required change since 2011 (VOC .............. 18 27 36 39
or NOX), %.....................
Target VOC level................ .............. 91.5 81.5 71.4 68.1
Apparent shortfall (-)/surplus .............. -0.2 -9.9 -17.0 -20.3
(+) in VOC.....................
Apparent shortfall (-)/surplus .............. -0.1 -8.8 -15.3 -18.2
(+) in VOC, %..................
VOC shortfall previously .............. 0 -0.1 8.8 15.3
provided by NOX substitution, %
Actual VOC shortfall (-)/surplus .............. -0.1 -8.7 -6.4 -2.9
(+), %.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2020 2023 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NOX.................... 107.7 71.7 63.8 52.2 50.5
Transportation conformity safety 0 0 0.4 0.9 1.2
margin *.......................
Baseline + safety margin (NOX).. 107.7 71.7 64.2 53.2 51.7
Change in NOX since 2011, tpd... .............. 36.0 43.4 54.5 56.0
Change in NOX since 2011, %..... .............. 33.4 40.3 50.6 52.0
NOX reductions used for VOC .............. 0 0.1 8.8 15.3
substitution through last
milestone year, %..............
NOX reductions since 2011 .............. 33.4 40.2 41.8 36.7
available for VOC substitution
in this milestone year, %......
NOX reductions since 2011 used .............. 0.1 8.7 6.4 2.9
for VOC substitution in this
milestone year, %..............
NOX reductions since 2011 .............. 33.3 31.5 35.3 33.8
surplus after meeting VOC
substitution needs in this
milestone year, %..............
Total shortfall for RFP......... .............. 0 0 0 0
RFP met?........................ .............. Yes Yes Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 SIP Update, Table V-3, and Appendix A, A-15--A-18. The sum of the emissions values may not equal
the total shown due to rounding of the numbers. Baseline emissions for 2020, 2023, and 2024 include 5 tpd VOC
and 4 tpd NOX to account for area ERC banking and accounting.
* We discuss the concept of a safety margin within motor vehicle emissions budgets below in the Section H
concerning transportation conformity.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
In 2015, the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the Sacramento
Metro Area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,\117\
and the boundaries of the Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS are the same as the Sacramento Metro Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.\118\ As a result, the Districts and CARB have met the ROP
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for the Sacramento Metro Area and
do not need to demonstrate another 15 percent reduction in VOC for this
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ 80 FR 4795 (January 29, 2015).
\118\ See 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 2-8, Figure 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the emissions inventory documentation in the
2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and 2018 SIP Update, we find that
CARB and the Districts have used the most recent planning and activity
assumptions, emissions models, and methodologies in developing the RFP
baseline and milestone year emissions inventories. Also, as presented
in Table 7, we have reviewed the calculations in Table V-3 of the 2018
SIP Update and related clarifications in CARB correspondence and find
that the Districts and CARB have used an appropriate calculation method
to
[[Page 68525]]
demonstrate RFP. Similarly, we find that the Districts' use of
NOX substitution is warranted and appropriately implemented
based on the NOX-limited conditions in the Sacramento Metro
Area, and the area's greater responsiveness to NOX emissions
reductions relative to VOC emissions reductions. For these reasons, we
have determined that the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP demonstrates
RFP in each milestone year and the attainment year, consistent with
applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Therefore, we propose to
approve the RFP demonstration for the Sacramento Metro Area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS under sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B)
of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii).
F. Transportation Control Strategies and Measures to Offset Emissions
Increases From Vehicle Miles Traveled
1. Stationary and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires, in relevant part, a state
to submit, for each area classified as Serious or above, a SIP revision
that ``identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation
control strategies and transportation control measures to offset any
growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or number of
vehicle trips in such area.'' \119\ Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to
vehicle miles traveled and refer to the related SIP requirement as the
``VMT emissions offset requirement.'' In addition, we refer to the SIP
revision intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions
offset requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements.
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt
transportation control strategies and measures to offset growth in
emissions from growth in VMT, and, as necessary, in combination with
other emission reduction requirements, to demonstrate RFP and
attainment. For more information on the EPA's interpretation of the
three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), refer to 77 FR 58067, 58068
(September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal of approval of South Coast
VMT emissions offset demonstrations). In section III.F of this
document, we are addressing the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement). In
sections III.E and III.D of this document, we are proposing to
approve the RFP and attainment demonstrations, respectively, for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area, and compliance with
the second and third elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) is predicated
on final approval of the RFP and attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Court'') ruled that
additional transportation control measures are required whenever
vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been
had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are
actually decreasing.\120\ In response to the Court's decision, in
August 2012, the EPA issued a memorandum titled ``Implementing Clean
Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and
Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled'' (herein referred to as the ``August
2012 Guidance'').\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d.
584, 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27,
2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (``Association
of Irritated Residents'').
\121\ Memorandum dated August 30, 2012, Karl Simon, Director,
Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, to Carl Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of ``transportation
control strategies'' (TCS) and ``transportation control measures''
(TCM) and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the
calculations made for the purpose of determining the degree to which
any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be
offset. Generally, TCS is a broad term that encompasses many types of
controls (including, for example, motor vehicle emission limitations,
I/M programs, alternative fuel programs, other technology-based
measures, and TCMs) that would fit within the regulatory definition of
``control strategy.'' \122\ TCM is defined at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as
meaning ``any measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air
pollutants from transportation sources,'' including, but not limited
to, those listed in section 108(f) of the CAA. Generally, TCMs refer to
programs intended to reduce VMT, number of vehicle trips, or traffic
congestion, such as programs for improved public transit, designation
of certain lanes for passenger buses and high-occupancy vehicles, and
trip reduction ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ E.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 Guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Court's ruling. Under the August 2012 Guidance, states would
develop one emissions inventory for the base year, and three different
emissions inventory scenarios for the attainment year. For the
attainment year, two of the scenarios would represent hypothetical
emissions that would provide the basis to identify the ``growth in
emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, and one would represent
projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully accounting for
projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions obtained by
all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 Guidance for specific
details on how states might conduct the calculations.
The base year on-road VOC emissions should be calculated using VMT
in that year, and it should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in
place in the base year. This would include vehicle emissions standards,
state and local control programs, such as I/M programs or fuel rules,
and any additional implemented TCSs and TCMs that were already required
by or credited in the SIP as of that base year.
The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year
would be based on the projected VMT and trips for that year and assume
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year
inventory have been put in place since the base year. This calculation
demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs
or TCMs were implemented while VMT and trips were allowed to grow at
the projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT and
trips. This represents a ``no action'' scenario. Emissions in the
attainment year in this scenario may be lower than those in the base
year due to the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually
being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided VMT and/or
numbers of vehicle trips will increase by the attainment year, they
would still likely be higher than they would have been assuming VMT had
held constant.
The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations would
assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been
put in place since the base year, but it would also assume that there
was no growth in VMT and trips between the base year and attainment
year. This estimate reflects the hypothetical emissions level that
would have occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs had been put in place
and if VMT and trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like
the ``no action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions
in the attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to
the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually being
replaced by cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this case
they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT or trips. This
emissions estimate would reflect a ceiling on the attainment emissions
that should be
[[Page 68526]]
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the Court because
it shows what would happen under a scenario in which no offsetting TCSs
or TCMs have yet been put in place and VMT and trips are held constant
during the period from the area's base year to its attainment year.
This represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. These two
hypothetical status quo estimates are necessary steps in identifying
the target level of emissions from which states would determine whether
further TCMs or TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and
implemented in reality, would need to be adopted and implemented in
order to fully offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and
trips identified in the ``no action'' scenario.
Finally, the state would present the emissions that are expected to
occur in the area's attainment year after taking into account
reductions from all enforceable TCSs and TCMs put in place after the
baseline year. This estimate would be based on the VMT and trip levels
expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT and trip levels
from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs expected to be in
place and for which the SIP will take credit in the area's attainment
year, including any TCMs and TCSs put in place since the base year.
This represents the ``projected actual'' attainment year scenario. If
this emissions estimate is less than or equal to the emissions ceiling
that was established in the second of the attainment year calculations,
the TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year would be enough to fully
offset the identified hypothetical growth in emissions.
Alternatively, if the estimated projected actual attainment year
emissions are still greater than the ceiling which was established in
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the
growth in emissions. The additional TCSs or TCMs would need to bring
the actual emissions down to at least the VMT offset ceiling estimated
in the second of the attainment year calculations, in order to meet the
VMT offset requirement of section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the
Court.
2. Summary of State's Submission
CARB prepared the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the
Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the Districts
included it in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as Appendix C
(``VMT Offset Demonstration''). In addition to the VMT emissions offset
demonstration, the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan includes a
discussion of the TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990, and a discussion of
the TCMs developed by SACOG for the Sacramento Metro Area region as
part of the 2016 MTP/SCS that are subject to timely implementation
reporting requirements.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, sections 7.2 and 7.6-
7.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the VMT emissions offset demonstration, CARB used EMFAC2014,
the latest EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions model for California at
the time the plan was produced. The EMFAC2014 model estimates the on-
road emissions from two combustion processes (i.e., running exhaust and
start exhaust) and four evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, running
losses, diurnal losses, and resting losses). The EMFAC2014 model
combines trip based VMT data from the regional transportation planning
agency (i.e., SACOG), starts data based on household travel surveys,
and vehicle population data from the California Department of Motor
Vehicles. These sets of data are combined with corresponding emission
rates to calculate emissions.
Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is driven.
Emissions from these processes are thus directly related to VMT and
vehicle trips, and CARB included emissions from them in the
calculations that provide the basis for the Sacramento Metro Area VMT
emissions offset demonstration. CARB did not include emissions from
resting loss and diurnal loss processes in the analysis because such
emissions are related to vehicle population, not to VMT or vehicle
trips, and thus are not part of ``any growth in emissions from growth
in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area''
under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
The Sacramento Metro Area VMT emissions offset demonstration uses
2012 as the ``base year.'' The base year for VMT emissions offset
demonstration purposes should generally be the same base year used for
nonattainment planning purposes. In section III.A of this document, the
EPA is proposing to approve the 2012 base year inventory for the
Sacramento Metro Area for the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and
thus, CARB's selection of 2012 as the base year for the Sacramento
Metro Area VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is appropriate.
The Sacramento Metro Area VMT emissions offset demonstration also
includes the previously described three different attainment year
scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset ceiling, and projected actual).
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan provides a demonstration of
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area by the
applicable attainment date, based on the controlled 2024 emissions
inventory. As described in section III.D of this document, the EPA is
proposing to approve the attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro Area, and thus, we find CARB's selection
of 2024 as the attainment year for the VMT emissions offset
demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to be acceptable.
Table 8 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates for the demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Table 8--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 2008 Ozone NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT Starts Controls VOC emissions
Scenario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1,000/day Year 1,000/day Year tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year.............................................. 2012 60,570 2012 11,739 2012 28
No Action.............................................. 2024 69,579 2024 11,965 2012 16
VMT Offset Ceiling..................................... 2012 60,570 2012 11,739 2012 15
Projected Actual....................................... 2024 69,579 2024 11,965 2024 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Appendix C.
[[Page 68527]]
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014 model for the
2012 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As
shown in Table 8, CARB estimates the Sacramento Metro Area VOC
emissions at 28 tpd in 2012.
For the ``no action'' scenario, CARB first identified the on-road
motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in place since
the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2014 and then ran EMFAC2014
with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2024 attainment year
without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control
programs put in place after the base year. Thus, the no action scenario
reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions that would occur in the
attainment year in the Sacramento Metro Area if CARB had not put in
place any additional TCSs or TCMs after 2012. As shown in Table 8, CARB
estimates the ``no action'' Sacramento Metro Area VOC emissions at 16
tpd in 2024.
For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2014
model for the attainment years but with VMT and starts data
corresponding to base year values. Like the no action scenario, the
EMFAC2014 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the
attainment years without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road
motor vehicle control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario
reflects hypothetical VOC emissions in the Sacramento Metro Area if
CARB had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if
there had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year
and the attainment year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the ``no action'' scenario and the corresponding
estimates under the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. Based on the
values in Table 8, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth
in VMT and trips in the Sacramento Metro Area would have been 1 tpd
(i.e., 16 tpd minus 15 tpd). This hypothetical difference establishes
the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the
combination of post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs and any necessary
additional TCMs and TCSs.
For the ``projected actual'' scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2014 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in place since
the base year. The most significant measures reducing VOC emissions
during the 2012 to 2024 timeframe include the ACC program, ZEV
requirements, and more stringent on-board diagnostics
requirements.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Section 7.2 of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
includes a discussion of the State's transportation control
strategies adopted by CARB since 1990. Also, refer to the EPA's
final actions on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424
(June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May
18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 8, the projected actual attainment-year VOC
emissions is 11 tpd. CARB then compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions are less than the corresponding VMT
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that there are
sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from
the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the Sacramento Metro Area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
Based on our review of revised Sacramento Metro Area VMT emissions
offset demonstration in Appendix C of the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan, we find CARB's analysis to be consistent with the August
2012 Guidance and consistent with the emissions and vehicle activity
estimates found elsewhere in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan.
We agree that CARB and SACOG have adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in
the Sacramento Metro Area for the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As
such, we propose to approve the Sacramento Metro Area VMT emissions
offset demonstration element of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
G. Contingency Measures
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2 as Moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency
measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency
measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the
event the area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the
contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and
indicate that the measure will be implemented without significant
further action by the state or the EPA.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). Also, see the 2008 Ozone
SRR, 80 FR 12264, 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a
specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR
reiterates the EPA's policy that contingency measures should generally
provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's
worth of progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\126\ Where a failure to
attain or meet RFP can be corrected in less than one year, the EPA may
accept a proportionally lesser amount sufficient to correct the
identified failure.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 80 FR 12264, 12285 (March 6, 2015).
\127\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13511 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of CAA section
172(c)(9) that states may meet the contingency measure requirement by
relying on federal measures (e.g., federal mobile source measures based
on the incremental turnover of the motor vehicle fleet each year) and
local measures already scheduled for implementation that provide
emissions reductions in excess of those needed to provide for RFP or
expeditious attainment. The key is that the Act requires that
contingency measures provide for additional emissions reductions that
are not relied on for RFP or attainment and that are not included in
the RFP or attainment demonstrations as meeting part of or all the
contingency measure requirements. The purpose of contingency measures
is to provide continued emissions reductions while a plan is being
revised to meet the missed milestone or attainment date.
The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation--i.e.,
SIPs that use as contingency measures one or more federal or local
measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess of
the reductions required by the attainment demonstration or RFP
plan,\128\ and there is case law
[[Page 68528]]
supporting the EPA's interpretation in this regard.\129\ However, in
Bahr v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA
section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early implementation of contingency
measures.\130\ The Ninth Circuit concluded that contingency measures
must take effect at the time the area fails to make RFP or attain by
the applicable attainment date, not before.\131\ Consequently, within
the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on
early-implemented measures to comply with the contingency measure
requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule
approving an Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
1997) (final rule approving an Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR
30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a Rhode Island
ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule
approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP
revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving a
Connecticut ozone SIP revision).
\129\ See, e.g., LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004)
(upholding contingency measures that were previously required and
implemented where they were in excess of the attainment
demonstration and RFP SIP).
\130\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
\131\ Id. at 1235-1237.
\132\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language
in section 172(c)(9) and the ozone-specific contingency measure
provision in section 182(c)(9), we find that the decision affects
how both sections of the Act must be interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The District and CARB had largely prepared the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan prior to the Bahr v. EPA decision; therefore, the
plan relies solely upon surplus emissions reductions from already
implemented control measures in the RFP milestone years to demonstrate
compliance with the RFP milestone contingency measure requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, 7-18, 8-5 and 12-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2018 SIP Update, CARB revised the RFP demonstration for the
2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro Area and recalculated the
extent of surplus emission reductions (i.e., surplus to meeting the RFP
milestone requirement for a given milestone year) in the milestone
years. In light of the Bahr v. EPA decision, the 2018 SIP Update,
however, does not rely on the surplus or incremental emissions
reductions to comply with the contingency measures requirements of
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) but, to provide context in which to
review contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2018 SIP
Update documents the extent to which future baseline emissions would
provide surplus emissions reductions beyond those required to meet
applicable RFP milestones. More specifically, the 2018 SIP Update
identifies one year's worth of RFP as approximately 3.3 tpd and
estimates surplus NOX reductions as ranging from
approximately 35.8 tpd to 38.1 tpd depending upon the given RFP
milestone year.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 2018 SIP Update, chapter V, tables V-5 and V-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To comply with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), as interpreted in
the Bahr v. EPA decision, a state must develop, adopt and submit a
contingency measure to be triggered upon a failure to meet RFP
milestones or failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date regardless of the extent to which already-implemented measures
would achieve surplus emissions reductions beyond those necessary to
meet RFP milestones and beyond those predicted to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS. Therefore, to fully address the contingency measure
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area, the
Districts have committed to develop, adopt and submit contingency
measures to CARB in sufficient time for CARB to submit the contingency
measures as a SIP revision to the EPA within 12 months of the EPA's
final conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the
Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Letter dated May 26, 2020, from the Districts respective
Executive Officer or Air Pollution Control Officer, Alberto Ayala-
SMAQMD, Dave Johnston-EDCAQMD, Christopher Brown-FRAQMD, Erik White-
PCAPCD, Mat Ehrhardt-YSAQMD to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Districts' commitment is to amend or adopt the rules listed
below, through the required public review and subsequent District board
approval processes, to apply more stringent requirements upon a
determination that the Sacramento Metro Area failed to meet an RFP
milestone or failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The Districts' specific commitments are described
below.
The Districts will amend their respective ``Architectural
Coatings'' rule (i.e., FRAQMD Rule 315, EDAQMD Rule 245, SMAQMD Rule
442, PCAPCD Rule 218, and YSAQMD Rule 2.14) to lower the VOC limit for
several coating categories, delete coating categories for non-flats,
stains, floor, and other specialty coatings, and establish new VOC
content limits for colorants.
The SMAQMD will adopt a new rule for reducing VOC
emissions from liquified petroleum gas transfer and dispensing
commensurate with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
1177.
CARB has committed to adopt and submit the revised rules to the EPA
within 12 months of the EPA's final conditional approval of the
contingency measure element of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone
SIP.\136\ Within its 2018 SIP Update, CARB estimated that nonattainment
area VOC and NOX emissions are expected to be approximately
0.5 and 1.8 tpd, respectively, or 2.3 tpd lower in 2025 than in 2024.
Also, in their commitment letter, the Districts estimated the potential
additional emission reductions from their contingency measure
commitments at 0.6 tpd of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Letter dated July 7, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require contingency measures to
address potential failure to achieve RFP milestones or failure to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. To evaluate the
contingency measure element of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP, we
find it useful to distinguish between contingency measures to address
potential failure to achieve RFP milestones (``RFP contingency
measures'') and contingency measures to address potential failure to
attain the NAAQS (``attainment contingency measures'').
With respect to the RFP contingency measure requirement, we have
reviewed the surplus emissions estimates in each of the RFP milestone
years, as shown in the 2018 SIP Update, and find that the calculations
are correct. Therefore, we agree that the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone
SIP provides surplus emissions reductions well beyond those necessary
to demonstrate RFP in all the RFP milestone years. While such surplus
emissions reductions in the RFP milestone years do not represent
contingency measures themselves, we believe they are relevant in
evaluating the adequacy of RFP contingency measures that are submitted
(or will be submitted) to meet the requirements of sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).
In this case, the Districts and CARB have committed to develop,
adopt, and submit revised and new rules as an RFP contingency measure
within 12 months of our final action on the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone
SIP. The specific
[[Page 68529]]
types of revisions the Districts have committed to make upon an RPF
milestone failure (i.e., increasing the stringency of existing
requirements and adopting a new rule) comply with the requirements in
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) because they would be undertaken
if the area fails to meet an RFP milestone and would take effect
without significant further action by the state or the EPA.
Next, we considered the adequacy of the RFP contingency measure
(once adopted and submitted) from the standpoint of the magnitude of
emissions reductions the measure would provide if triggered. Neither
the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations for the ozone NAAQS
establish a specific amount of emissions reductions that implementation
of contingency measures must achieve, but we generally expect that
contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions
approximately equivalent to one year's worth of RFP, which, for ozone,
amounts to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline emissions inventory
for the nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento
Metro Area, one year's worth of RFP is approximately 3.3 tpd of VOC or
NOX reductions.\137\ In their commitment letter, the
Districts estimated the potential additional emission reductions from
their contingency measure commitments at 0.6 tpd, an amount less than
one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ The 2011 baseline for VOC and NOX is 111.6 tpd
and 107.7 tpd, respectively, as shown in tables V-1 of the 2018 SIP
Update. Three percent of these baselines is 3.3 tpd of VOC and 3.2
tpd of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 SIP Update, however, provides the larger SIP planning
context with which to judge the adequacy of the to-be-submitted
District contingency measures by calculating the surplus emissions
reductions estimated to be achieved in the RFP milestone years and the
year after the attainment year. More specifically, the 2018 SIP Update
identified surplus NOX reductions in the various RFP
milestone years for the Sacramento Metro Area. The estimates of surplus
NOX reductions range from 33.9 to 38.1 tpd, depending on the
RFP year, and are ten or more times greater than one year's worth of
progress (3.2 tpd of NOX).\138\ The surplus reflects already
implemented regulations and is primarily the result of vehicle
turnover, which refers to the ongoing replacement by individuals,
companies, and government agencies of older, more polluting vehicles
and engines with newer vehicles and engines. In light of these surplus
NOX emissions reductions in the RFP milestone years, the
emissions reductions from the Districts' contingency measures are
adequate to meet the contingency measure requirements of the CAA with
respect to RFP milestones, even though the measures by themselves
produce fewer emission reductions than what the EPA normally recommends
for reductions from such contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 2018 SIP Update, Table V-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For attainment contingency measure purposes, we evaluate the
emissions reductions from the Districts' contingency measures in the
context of the expected reduction in emissions within the Sacramento
Metro Area in the year following the attainment year relative to those
occuring in the attainment year. Based on the emission inventories in
Appendix A to the 2018 SIP Update, we note that nonattainment area VOC
and NOX emissions are expected to be approximately 0.5 and
1.8 tpd, respectively, or 2.3 tpd lower in 2025 than in 2024. When
considered together, these baseline measures and the Districts'
contingency measures provide for an emissions reduction (2.9 tpd) that
is near to, but slightly below, one year's worth of progress (i.e., 3.3
tpd of VOC). Given that the attainment demonstration interpolates a
2024 design value (0.072 ppm) well below the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(0.075 ppm), we project that this amount will be sufficient to correct
any failure to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in less than one year
from the attainment date; therefore, these estimated emission
reductions represent continued progress for purposes of the attainment
contingency measure requirements.
For these reasons, we propose to conditionally approve the
contingency measures element of the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP, as
supplemented by the commitments from the Districts and CARB to adopt
and submit additional contingency measures, to meet the contingency
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Our
proposed approval is conditional because it relies upon commitments to
adopt and submit specific enforceable contingency measures (i.e.,
revised rules with contingent provisions). Conditional approvals are
authorized under CAA section 110(k)(4).
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local
air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA
to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally
established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors.
Ozone plans should identify budgets for on-road emissions of ozone
precursors (NOX and VOC) in the area for each RFP milestone
year and, if the plan demonstrates attainment, the attainment
year.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). To meet these
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and
RFP requirements and reflect all the motor vehicle control measures
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\140\ Budgets may
include a safety margin representing the difference between projected
emissions and the total amount of emissions estimated to satisfy any
requirements for attainment or RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation
conformity website at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a budget consists of
three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the
budget during a public
[[Page 68530]]
comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan includes budgets for the
2018 and 2021 RFP milestone years, and the 2024 attainment year. The
budgets for 2018, 2021, and 2024 were derived from the 2012 RFP
baseline year and the associated RFP milestone years. Consequently,
these budgets are affected by the South Coast II decision vacating the
alternative baseline year provision; therefore, the EPA has not acted
on the budgets.
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update, which
revises the RFP demonstration consistent with the South Coast II
decision (i.e., by using a 2011 RFP baseline year) and identifies new
VOC and NOX budgets for the Sacramento Metro Area for each
updated RFP milestone year, 2020 and 2023, and for the attainment year,
2024. The budgets in the 2018 SIP Update replace the budgets contained
in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. In the submittal letter for
the 2018 SIP Update, CARB requested that the EPA limit the duration of
our approval of the budgets in the 2018 SIP Update to last only until
the effective date of future EPA adequacy findings for replacement
budgets.\142\ Subsequent to this request, CARB has decided not to limit
the duration of the budgets submitted in the 2018 SIP Update.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Letter dated December 5, 2018, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\143\ Email dated September 9, 2020, from Nesamani Kalandiyur,
CARB, to Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the budgets in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, the
budgets in the 2018 SIP Update were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB's
latest approved version of the EMFAC model for estimating emissions
from on-road vehicles operating in California available at the time the
2018 SIP Update was developed. The 2018 SIP Update budgets are rounded
up to the nearest whole number, after adding safety margins in specific
years for specific pollutants. The following safety margins have been
added to the baseline budgets: 0.5 tpd of VOC in 2024; 0.41 tpd of
NOX in 2020; 0.92 tpd of NOX in 2020; and 1.17
tpd of NOX in 2024.\144\ These safety margins are included
to accommodate increased emissions seen in EMFAC2017, the EMFAC model
that will likely be used in future conformity determinations.\145\ The
conformity budgets for NOX and VOC in the 2018 SIP Update
for the Sacramento Metro Area are provided in Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ 2018 SIP Update, 31, Table V-4.
\145\ As previously noted, EMFAC2014 is CARB's model for
estimating emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California;
80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). We have recently announced the
availability of an updated version of EMFAC, referred to as
EMFAC2017; 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). For the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan and the 2018 SIP Update, EMFAC2014 was the
appropriate model to use for SIP development purposes at the time
the Plan and update were prepared.
Table 9--Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023.......................................... 15 22
2024.......................................... 15 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table V-4 of the 2018 SIP Update.
The budgets in the 2018 SIP Update reflect VMT estimates from
SACOG's long range 2016 MTP/SCS as updated in the 2017 MTIP-20
Metropolitan Transportation; \146\ SACOG also coordinated with the MTC
in obtaining and using transportation data for the eastern portion of
Solano County that is in the Sacramento Metro Area.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 2018 SIP Update, 31; 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan,
10-2--10-6.
\147\ 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan, Sections 10.4 and
10.5. 2018 SIP Update, 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets in the
Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP, we have evaluated the budgets using
our adequacy criteria specified in the transportation conformity
rule.\148\ We will complete the adequacy review concurrent with our
final action on the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP. The EPA is not
required under its transportation conformity rule to find budgets
adequate prior to our proposing approval of them.\149\ Today, the EPA
is announcing that the adequacy process for these budgets begins, and
the public has 30 days to comment on the budgets presented here and in
the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
\149\ Under the transportation conformity regulations, the EPA
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the
submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
\150\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As documented in a memorandum included in the docket for this
rulemaking, we provisionally conclude that the budgets in the
Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP meet each adequacy criterion.\151\ In
this memorandum, we evaluated the safety margins and rounding margins
that CARB added to the baseline budgets. Given the use of updated
travel data in the motor vehicle emissions estimates, the safety
margins, and CARB's convention of rounding emissions up to the nearest
whole number, there are small differences between the budgets and the
planning emissions inventories in the 2018 SIP Update and the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan. We examined the potential effect of
those differences and found that the inclusion of the small motor
vehicle emissions budget increases would still result in demonstrations
that show RFP and attainment are met.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Memorandum dated September 17, 2020, from Jerry Wamsley,
Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, titled ``Adequacy Review of
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in California's Sacramento Metro
Area Ozone SIP for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone.''
\152\ Id. In our Memorandum, we summarize and reference
``Assessment of Sacramento Metro NAA Conformity Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget Consistency with O3 NAAQS Attainment,''
September 14, 2020, EPA Region IX, which provides the EPA's more
detailed discussion and calculations concerning the 2018 SIP Update
effects, along with the companion Excel spreadsheet, (Copy of)
Sac_O3_scaling _for_Update_MVEB.xlsx; both are in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a finding of adequacy and approval are two separate actions,
reviewing the budgets for their adequacy against the criteria in the
transportation conformity rule informs the EPA's decision to propose
our approval of the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of
the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP and are proposing herein to approve
the attainment and RFP demonstrations in sections III.D and III.E,
respectively. We have also reviewed the budgets in the Sacramento Metro
Area Ozone SIP and found that they are consistent with the attainment
and RFP demonstrations for which we are proposing approval, are based
on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and
meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements
including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.1118(e)(4) and (5).
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2023 RFP budget and the 2024
RFP/attainment budget in the Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP. At the
time when we either finalize the adequacy process or approve the
budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area
[[Page 68531]]
Ozone SIP, as proposed (whichever occurs first; note that they could
also occur concurrently per 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii)), they will
replace the budgets that we previously found adequate for use in
transportation conformity determinations.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ On July 25, 2014, we found adequate the 2017 and 2018
budgets from the ``Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
and Reasonable Further Progress Plan,'' September 26, 2013; 79 FR
46436 (August 8, 2014). This plan and the budgets were approved in
January 2015; 80 FR 4795 (January 29, 2015). The budgets are as
follows: For VOC, 18 tpd for 2017 and 17 tpd for 2018; and for
NOX, 39 tpd for 2017 and 37 tpd for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
In addition to the SIP requirements discussed in the previous
sections, the CAA includes certain other SIP requirements applicable to
Severe ozone nonattainment areas, such as the Sacramento Metro Area. We
describe these provisions and their current status below.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to
implement an enhanced motor vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M)
program in those areas. The requirements for those programs are
provided in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
Consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR, no new I/M programs are
currently required for nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\154\ The EPA previously approved California's I/M program in the
Sacramento Metro Area as meeting the requirements of the CAA and
applicable EPA regulations for enhanced I/M programs.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264, 12283 (March 6, 2015).
\155\ 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. New Source Review Rules
Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires a state to develop SIP
revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone
nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for
permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the
construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary
source for VOC and NOX anywhere in the nonattainment area.
The EPA has previously approved the Districts' new source review (NSR)
rules into the SIP based on our conclusion that the rules adequately
addressed the NSR requirements.\156\ We will address the NSR
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento Metro Area in a
separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ The Districts' NSR rules were approved by the EPA as
follows: EDCAQMD Rule 523, 65 FR 4887 (February 5, 2000); FRAQMD
Rule 10.1, 80 FR 60047 (October 5, 2015); PCAPCD Rule 502, 79 FR
58264 (September 29, 2014); SMAQMD Rule 214, 78 FR 53271 (August 29,
2013); and YSAQMD Rule 3.4, 62 FR 36214 (July 7, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Clean Fuels Fleet Program
Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to
submit to the EPA for approval measures to implement a Clean Fuels
Fleet Program in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious and
above. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to opt out of the
federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a SIP revision
consisting of a program or programs that will result in at least
equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors and toxic air
emissions.
In 1994 CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of the
federal Clean Fuels Fleet Program. The submittal included a
demonstration that California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved
emissions reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the
federal program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt out of the
federal program on August 27, 1999.\157\ There have been no changes to
the federal Clean Fuels Fleet Program since the EPA approved the
California SIP revision to opt out of the federal program; therefore,
no corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Consequently, we find
that the California SIP revision to opt out of the federal program, as
approved in 1999, meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A)
and 246 for Sacramento Metro Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP
revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of
gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle
refueling vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone
nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the
passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13514 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate
standards requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first
set of ORVR system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on
vehicle manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new
gasoline-powered light and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.\159\
Section 202(a)(6) also authorizes the EPA to waive the SIP requirement
under CAA section 182(b)(3) for installation of Stage II vapor recovery
systems after such time as the EPA determines that ORVR systems are in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Effective May 16,
2012, the EPA waived the requirement of CAA section 182(b)(3) for Stage
II vapor recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification.\160\ Thus, a SIP submittal meeting CAA section
182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ 77 FR 28772, 28774 (May 16, 2012).
\160\ See 40 CFR 51.126(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, under California state law (i.e., Health and
Safety Code section 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and
performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline
marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State
law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with local air districts, to
certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective equipment and to
develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous revisions to its vapor
recovery program regulations and continues to rely on its vapor
recovery program to achieve emissions reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas in California.
In the Sacramento Metro Area, the installation and operation of
CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by the
respective rules for each of the Districts, which govern gasoline
transfer and dispensing, and organic liquid loading. Each of the
Districts have adopted such rules, and the EPA has approved these rules
into the SIP.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ EDCAQMD Rule 238, at 66 FR 44974 (August 27, 2001), and
Rule 244, at 67 FR 45066 (July 8, 2002); FRAQMD Rule 3.8, at 80 FR
38959 (July 8, 2015); PCAPCD Rule 214, at 80 FR 7345 (February 10,
2015) and Rule 215, at 76 FR 5277 (January 31, 2011); SMAQMD Rule
447, at 64 FR 66393 (November 26, 1999) and Rule 449, at 78 FR 897
(January 7, 2013); and YSAQMD Rule 2.21, at 71 FR 63694 (October 31,
2006), and Rule 2.22, at 81 FR 6763 (February 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Enhanced Ambient Air Monitoring
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and
[[Page 68532]]
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX,
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and
VOC. The enhanced monitoring network for ozone is referred to as the
photochemical assessment monitoring station (PAMS) network. The EPA
promulgated final PAMS regulations on February 12, 1993.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision
addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in
California, including the Sacramento Metro Area, to meet the enhanced
monitoring requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and the PAMS
regulations. The EPA determined that the PAMS SIP revision met all
applicable requirements for enhanced monitoring and approved the PAMS
submittal into the California SIP.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40
CFR part 58 (``Ambient Air Quality Surveillance'') set forth specific
SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA
significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.\164\ Under
revised 40 CFR part 58, SIP revisions are no longer required; rather,
compliance with EPA monitoring regulations is established through
review of required annual monitoring network plans.\165\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
\165\ 40 CFR 58.2(b) now provides that, ``The requirements
pertaining to provisions for an air quality surveillance system in
the SIP are contained in this part.''
\166\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at
80 FR 12264, 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Metro Area Ozone SIP does not address specifically
the enhanced ambient air monitoring requirement in CAA section
182(c)(1). We note, however, that the ambient monitoring network within
the Sacramento Metro Area is described in the SMAQMD's annual
monitoring network plan for sites in Sacramento County and in CARB's
annual monitoring network plan for sites outside Sacramento County,
including those sites within the other four Sacramento Metro Area
districts. These plans are submitted annually to the EPA, and we have
approved both the most recent annual monitoring network plan for the
SMAQMD (``2019 Annual Monitoring Network Plan''),\167\ as well as the
most recent annual monitoring network plan for CARB (``Annual Network
Plan Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts,
July 2019'') with respect to the other four district's elements.\168\
In addition, CARB has fulfilled the requirement under 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix D, section 5(h), to submit an Enhanced Monitoring Plan for the
Sacramento Metro Area.\169\ Based on our review and approval of the
SMAQMD and CARB annual monitoring network plans with respect to the
Districts and our earlier approval of the PAMS SIP revision, we propose
to find that CARB and the Districts meet the enhanced monitoring
requirements under CAA section 182(c)(1) for the Sacramento Metro Area
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Letter dated March 3, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager,
Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Alberto Ayala, Air
Pollution Control Officer, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District.
\168\ Letter dated November 26, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi
Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment
Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
\169\ Letter dated November 25, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Mr. Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
Sections 182(d)(3) and 185 of the CAA require that the SIP for each
Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area
fails to attain by its applicable attainment date, each major
stationary source of VOC and NOX located in the area shall
pay a fee to the state as a penalty for such failure for each calendar
year beginning after the attainment date, until the area is
redesignated as an attainment area for ozone. States are not yet
required to submit a SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAA
section 185 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ See 40 CFR 51.1117. For the Sacramento Metro Area, a
section 185 SIP revision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be due on
July 20, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this document, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the
California SIP the following portions of the Sacramento Metro Area
Ozone SIP, submitted by CARB on December 18, 2017 and December 5, 2018:
Base year emissions inventory element in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS;
RACM demonstration element in the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
ROP demonstration element in the 2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
RFP demonstration element in Section V--SIP Elements for
the Sacramento Metropolitan Area of the 2018 SIP Update (as clarified)
as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and
182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Motor vehicle emissions budgets in Section V--SIP Elements
for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area of the 2018 SIP Update for the RFP
milestone year of 2023, and the attainment year of 2024 (see Table 9)
because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS proposed for approval herein and meet the
other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).
We are also proposing to find that the:
Emissions statement element of the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan satisfies the requirements under CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) based on our prior approval of the Districts' emission
statement rules;
Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program in the
Sacramento Metro Area meets the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3)
and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
California SIP revision to opt out of the federal Clean
Fuels Fleet Program meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A)
and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with respect to the
Sacramento Metro Area; and
Enhanced monitoring in the Sacramento Metro Area meets the
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
Lastly, we are proposing, under CAA section 110(k)(4), to approve
conditionally the contingency measures element of the Sacramento Metro
Area Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements
[[Page 68533]]
of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP contingency measures.
Our proposed approval is based on commitments by the Districts and CARB
to supplement the element through submission, as a SIP revision (within
one year of final conditional approval action), of new or revised
Districts' rules that would amend or adopt specific rules with more
stringent requirements sufficient to produce near to one year's RFP if
an RFP milestone is not met.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposed rule. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking
final action.
V. 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, or
conditionally approve, state plans as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 10, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-23032 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P