[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70109-70130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27545]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146; FRL-10003-39-Region 9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Ventura
County; 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 the State of
California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the Ventura County, California (``Ventura County'')
ozone nonattainment area. The two SIP revisions include the ``Final
2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan,'' and the Ventura
County portion of the ``2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan.'' In today's action, the EPA refers to these
submittals collectively as the ``2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.'' The
2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP addresses the nonattainment area
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the requirements for
an emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonable further
progress, reasonably available control measures, contingency measures,
among others; and establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA
is proposing to approve the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP as meeting
all the applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements except for the
contingency measure requirement, for which the EPA is proposing
conditional approval. In addition, the EPA is beginning the adequacy
process for the 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016
Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan through this proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before January 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0146 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
[[Page 70110]]
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-4151, 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 Ventura County 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
Requirements in Ventura County
A. Summary of Submissions
B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of
SIP Revisions
III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ventura County 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. Contingency Measures
G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
H. General Conformity Budgets
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for
pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS are concentration
levels that, the attainment and maintenance of which, the EPA has
determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In
1979, the EPA established the 1-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) (referred to herein as the ``1-hour ozone NAAQS'').\3\
Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit SIPs to
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, as amended in 1977, the EPA designated all areas of
the country as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or ``unclassifiable''
with respect to each NAAQS, and in so doing, designated Ventura County
(excluding the Channel Islands) as a nonattainment area for
photochemical oxidant (later ozone).\4\ States with nonattainment areas
are required to submit revisions to their SIPs that include a control
strategy and technical analysis to demonstrate how the area will attain
the NAAQS (referred to as an ``attainment demonstration''), and the EPA
took action on a number of related SIP revisions submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the late 1970s and 1980s for
Ventura County.\5\ Under the 1977 CAA Amendments, nonattainment areas
were to have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS no later than 1987. By
1990, however, like many other areas throughout the country, Ventura
County had not yet attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the CAA was
amended to include new SIP requirements and new attainment deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 43 FR 8962, at 8972 (March 3, 1978). Ventura County lies
within California's South Central Coast Air Basin, which includes
the counties of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo in addition to
Ventura County.
\5\ Under California law, CARB is the state agency that is
responsible for the adoption and submission to the EPA of California
SIPs and SIP revisions, and it has broad authority to establish
emissions standards and other requirements for mobile sources. Local
and regional air pollution control districts in California are
responsible for the regulation of stationary sources and are
generally responsible for the development of regional air quality
plans. In Ventura County, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District develops and adopts air quality management plans to address
CAA planning requirements applicable to that region. Such plans are
then submitted to CARB for adoption and submittal to the EPA as
revisions to the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Ventura County (excluding the
Channel Islands) was classified as a ``Severe-15'' nonattainment area
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on a 1-hour ozone design value of 0.17
parts per million (ppm).\6\ As a Severe-15 ozone nonattainment area,
Ventura County was required to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS no later
than November 15, 2005 and was subject to additional SIP planning
requirements, including a revised attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
the Channel Islands of Ventura County are part of the
unclassifiable/attainment area comprised by the Channel Islands
portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin. See 56 FR 56694, at
56732 (November 6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of the classification of Ventura County as a Severe-15
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, CARB submitted a number
of SIP revisions for Ventura County that contained an attainment
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and other SIP elements, and
that relied on a combination of mobile source control measures adopted
by CARB and stationary source control measures adopted by the Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD or ``District''). In
connection with these submittals, the EPA took the following actions:
1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County and
related State Strategy--The EPA approved the control measures, the 15
percent rate of progress demonstration and attainment demonstration,
among other elements, for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at 62 FR 1150 (January
8, 1997);
Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision--
The EPA approved the revised rule adoption and implementation schedule
at 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997);
Ventura County 1997 Air Quality Management Plan--The EPA
approved certain commitments to adopt and implement control measures at
63 FR 19659 (April 21, 1998).
As noted previously, Ventura County was required to attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS no later than 2005, and in 2009, the EPA determined
that Ventura County had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 2005
applicable attainment date.\7\ Since 2005, 1-hour
[[Page 70111]]
ozone design values in Ventura County have decreased from 0.12 ppm in
2005 (based on 2003-2005 data) to 0.10 ppm in 2018 (based on 2016-2018
data) and are consistent with continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 74 FR 25153 (May 27, 2009).
\8\ Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the expected number of
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations
above 0.12 ppm is equal to or less than 1. The design value for 1-
hour ozone is generally the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour
ozone concentration measured during a 3-year period at each site in
the area, assuming 3 complete years of data. The highest design
value among the various ozone monitoring sites represents the design
value for the area. The data for Ventura County is from CARB,
Aerometric Data Analysis System Air Quality Database, Ventura County
Ozone Trends Summary Report, September 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08
ppm averaged over an 8-hour timeframe (referred to herein as the ``1997
ozone NAAQS'') to replace the existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.12
ppm.\9\ In 2004, the EPA designated and classified Ventura County
(excluding the Channel Islands) as a ``Moderate'' nonattainment area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS but later granted CARB's request to reclassify
Ventura County to ``Serious'' nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\10\ Serious ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain
the 1997 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
June 15, 2013. In 2012, the EPA determined that Ventura County attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on the ambient data for years 2009-2011.\11\
Since 2011, the eight-hour ozone design values for Ventura County have
decreased from 0.083 ppm in 2011 (based on 2009-2011 data) to 0.078 ppm
in 2018 (based on 2016-2018 data) and are consistent with continued
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\10\ 69 FR 23857 at 23889 (April 30, 2004); 73 FR 29073 (May 20,
2008).
\11\ 77 FR 56775 (September 14, 2012).
\12\ Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I, the
1997 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. This 3-year average
is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less
than or equal to 0.084 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I) at each monitoring site within the area,
then the area is meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The highest design
value among the various ozone monitoring sites in the area
represents the design value for the area. The data for Ventura
County is from EPA, Design Value Report, dated July 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, the EPA lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm
(referred to herein as the ``2008 ozone NAAQS'') to replace the 1997
ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.\13\ In 2012, the EPA designated Ventura County
(excluding the Channel Islands) as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and classified the area as Serious.\14\ Areas classified as
Serious must attain the NAAQS within 9 years of the effective date of
the nonattainment designation.\15\ The SIP revisions that are the
subject of today's proposed action address the Serious nonattainment
area requirements that apply to Ventura County for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The EPA further tightened the
8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, but this proposed action
relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Information on
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
\14\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
\15\ CAA section 181(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.1102 and 51.1103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Ventura County Ozone Nonattainment Area
The Ventura County nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
consists of the Ventura County portion of California's South Central
Coast Air Basin, excluding the Channel Islands. Ventura County
encompasses approximately 2,200 square miles and has a population of
approximately 874,000 (in 2018); it is located west of Los Angeles
County and is bordered by Kern County to the north, Santa Barbara
County and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Pacific Ocean and Los
Angeles County to the south. Ozone in the Ventura County nonattainment
area is caused by both locally generated emissions and transport from
the South Coast Air Basin.\16\ Ocean-going vessels calling on Port
Hueneme or the ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach and transiting
vessels passing through southern California waters, but without calling
at the ports, also impact Ventura County's air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The South Coast Air Basin includes Orange County, the
southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San
Bernardino County, and western Riverside County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area
SIPs
States must implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS under title I, 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.\17\ The 2008 Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart AA. We discuss the CAA and regulatory requirements for
the elements of 2008 ozone plans relevant to this proposal in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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\18\ (``South Coast II'') \19\ 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. However,
the 2008 Ozone SRR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South Coast II'').
\19\ 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
Requirements in Ventura County
A. Summary of Submissions
In this document, we are proposing action on all or portions of two
SIP revisions, which are described in detail in the following
paragraphs. Collectively, we refer to the relevant portions of the two
SIP revisions as the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.
[[Page 70112]]
1. VCAPCD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
On April 11, 2017, CARB submitted the Final 2016 Ventura County Air
Quality Management Plan (February 14, 2017) (``2016 Ventura County
AQMP'') to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.\20\ The 2016
Ventura County AQMP addresses the nonattainment area requirements for
Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter dated April 11, 2017, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes a base
year emissions inventory,\21\ reasonably available control measure
(RACM) demonstration, RFP demonstration, attainment demonstration,
contingency measures, motor vehicle and general conformity emissions
budgets, and it also addresses the emissions statement requirement. The
appendices to the 2016 Ventura County AQMP provide documentation for
the emissions inventories, RACM demonstration, and the photochemical
modeling conducted in support of the attainment demonstration. Further
support for the attainment demonstration is provided in Appendix J
(``Ventura County Unmonitored Area Analysis'') and Appendix K
(``Ventura County Weight of Evidence Assessment''). The April 11, 2017
SIP submittal of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP was accompanied by public
process documentation at both the County and State levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The 2012 base year emissions inventory included in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP supersedes and replaces a previous submittal of
the 2012 base year emissions inventory for Ventura County in the
``8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Emission Inventory
Submittal'' (the ``Multi-Area Emission Inventory''). The Multi-Area
Emission Inventory was submitted by CARB on July 17, 2014, and
included 2012 base year emissions inventories for 16 nonattainment
areas, including Ventura County. Relative to the corresponding
inventory for Ventura County in the Multi-Area Emission Inventory,
the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP reflects updated stationary, area, and nonroad source
calculations as well as an updated version of the EMFAC model for
on-road motor vehicle estimates. In a letter dated November 15,
2019, CARB withdrew the earlier submitted 2012 base year emissions
inventory for Ventura County in light of the updated inventory in
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. Letter dated November 15, 2019, from
Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX. In section III.A of this document, we
are proposing approval of the superseding 2012 base year emissions
inventory in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since submittal of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, CARB has replaced
or supplemented certain elements of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP (such
as the RFP demonstration and contingency measure element) through a SIP
revision submittal dated December 5, 2018 and discussed in more detail
in the following subsection. In addition, by letter dated August 29,
2019, CARB has provided some additional information related to the
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin,
Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Amy
Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, including
attachments A and B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CARB's 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 Updates to the
California State Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update'') to the EPA
as a revision to the California SIP.\23\ CARB adopted the 2018 SIP
Update on October 25, 2018. 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 provide additional information pertaining to
the contingency measure requirement in the wake of the court decision
in Bahr v. EPA.\24\ The 2018 SIP Update includes an RFP demonstration
using the required 2011 baseline year for Ventura County for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update for Ventura
County supersedes and replaces the RFP demonstration in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter dated December 5, 2018, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
\24\ 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.
\25\ CARB withdrew the RFP demonstration from the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP in light of the revised RFP demonstration for Ventura
County in the 2018 SIP Update. Letter dated November 15, 2019, from
Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX. In section III.E of this document, we
are proposing approval of the superseding RFP demonstration for
Ventura County in the 2018 SIP Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 SIP Update includes updates for 8 different California
ozone nonattainment areas. We have already taken action to approve the
San Joaquin Valley and South Coast portions of the 2018 SIP Update.\26\
In today's document, we are proposing action on the Ventura County
portion of the 2018 SIP Update. Also, to supplement the contingency
measure element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, in a letter dated
August 30, 2019, CARB forwarded to the EPA an August 16, 2019 letter of
commitment from the District.\27\ In its letter, the District commits
to modify at least one of three existing rules to create a contingency
measure that will be triggered if the area fails to meet an RFP
milestone or to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and to transmit the rule,
as amended, to CARB for submittal to the EPA.\28\ In the August 30,
2019 letter, CARB commits to submit the revised District rule or rules
to the EPA as a SIP revision within 12 months of the effective date of
the EPA's final conditional approval of the contingency measure element
of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019) (final approval of the San
Joaquin Valley portion of the 2018 SIP Update) and 84 FR 52005
(October 1, 2019) (final approval of the South Coast portion of the
2018 SIP Update).
\27\ Letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
\28\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, VCAPCD
Air Pollution Control Officer, to Richard Corey, CARB Executive
Officer, provided as enclosure to August 30, 2019 CARB letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. CAA Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of SIP
Revisions
Sections 110(a) and 110(l) of the CAA 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.
Both the District 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 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP. With respect to the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP, the District provided two public review periods: One for
the initial draft 2016 Ventura County AQMP and a second for the final
draft 2016 Ventura County AQMP. Combined, the public review periods
lasted 43 days. The District published notices of the two public review
periods on its website and in a local newspaper. The District also
published notice of a public hearing to be held on February 14, 2017,
for the adoption of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. On February 14, 2017,
the District held the public hearing, and, through a minute order,
adopted the 2016 Ventura County AQMP and
[[Page 70113]]
directed staff to forward the plan to CARB for inclusion in the
California SIP.
CARB also provided public notice and opportunity for public comment
on the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. On February 17, 2017, CARB released
for public review its Staff Report for the 2016 Ventura County AQMP and
published a notice of public meeting to be held on March 23, 2017, to
consider adoption of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.\29\ On March 23,
2017, CARB held the hearing and adopted the 2016 Ventura County AQMP as
a revision to the California SIP, and directed the Executive Officer to
submit the 2016 Ventura County AQMP to the EPA for approval into the
California SIP.\30\ On April 11, 2017, the Executive Officer of CARB
submitted the 2016 Ventura County AQMP to the EPA and included a public
comments log entry indicating that there were no public comments during
the Board hearing held on March 23, 2017.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2016 Ozone SIP for
Ventura County, signed by Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB,
February 17, 2017.
\30\ CARB Resolution 17-5.
\31\ CARB ``Public Comment Log,'' dated March 30, 2017. See
also, Transcript of the March 23, 2017 Meeting of the State of
California Air Resources Board, 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 public meeting to be held on October 23, 2018, to consider adoption
of the 2018 SIP Update.\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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 2016
Ventura County AQMP 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.
III. Evaluation of the 2016 Ventura County 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.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 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 ozone and other pollutants.\34\
Emissions inventories for ozone must include emissions of VOC and
NOX and represent emissions for a typical ozone season
weekday.\35\ States should include documentation explaining how the
emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissions,
states should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions
available at the time the SIP is developed.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``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 2016 Ventura County AQMP 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.
\35\ 40 CFR 51.1115(a) and (c), and 40 CFR 51.1100(bb) and (cc).
\36\ 80 FR 12264, at 12290 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future baseline emissions inventories must reflect the most recent
population, employment, travel and congestion projections for the area.
In this context, future ``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 and that take
into account expected growth. 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 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes base year (2012) and future
year baseline inventories for NOX and VOC for the Ventura
County ozone nonattainment area. Documentation for the inventories is
found in Chapter 2 (``2012 Baseline Emissions Inventory'') and Appendix
A (``Ventura County Emissions Inventory Documentation'') of the 2016
Ventura County AQMP. Because ozone levels in Ventura County are
typically higher from May through October, these inventories represent
average summer day emissions. The 2012 base year and future year
inventories in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP reflect District rules
adopted prior to July 2015, and CARB rules adopted by November
2015.\37\ The mobile source portions of both base year and projected
future year inventories were developed using California's EPA-approved
mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2014, for estimating on-road motor
vehicle emissions.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The 2012 base year and future year baseline emissions
inventories in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP exclude non-
anthropogenic ``natural sources'' emissions such as biogenics,
geogenics, and wildfires. However, emissions from such natural
sources are included in the emissions inventories used for the
attainment demonstration because they affect ozone formation.
\38\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions estimates of VOC and NOX in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP are grouped into two general categories: (1) Stationary and
area-wide sources, and (2) mobile sources, which are comprised of on-
road motor vehicles and other mobile (off-road) sources. Stationary
sources refer to larger ``point'' sources that have a fixed geographic
location, such as power plants, industrial engines, and oil storage
tanks, and that are subject to District permits. Area-wide sources are
emissions sources occuring over a wide geographic area such as consumer
products and architectural coatings. The emissions inventories for the
2016 Ventura County AQMP account for smaller permitted stationary
sources in the area source categories. 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 and boats.
For the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, point source emissions for the
2012 base year emissions inventory are based on reported data from
facilities using the District's annual emissions reporting program,
which applies under District Rule 24 (``Source Recordkeeping, Reporting
and Emissions Statements'') to all stationary sources in Ventura County
that emit more than 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or
NOX. Area sources include smaller emissions sources
distributed across the nonattainment area. CARB and the
[[Page 70114]]
District estimate emissions for area sources using established
inventory methods, including publicly available emission factors and
activity information. Area source methodologies are described in
Appendix A of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. To improve and update the
emissions inventory, District staff evaluate the data and methods used
on an annual basis. CARB and District staff coordinate the update
process through the State's Emissions Inventory Technical Advisory
Committee.
On-road emissions inventories in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP are
calculated using CARB's EMFAC2014 model \39\ and the travel activity
data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) in ``The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy.'' \40\ 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 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.\41\ The District estimates
aircraft emissions based on information provided by the airport
operators in Ventura County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In December 2015, the EPA approved EMFAC2014 for SIP
development and transportation conformity purposes in California. 80
FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC2014 was the most recently
approved version of the EMFAC model that was available at the time
of preparation of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. 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).
\40\ See http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
\41\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP distinguishes between emission sources
within Ventura County, which includes coastal emissions (including
marine vessel emissions) within three miles of the coastline, and
emissions sources operating outside the county but within 100 nautical
miles of the coastline. The latter are included in the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) category. The base year emissions inventory
reflects only those emissions sources that operate within the
nonattainment area (i.e., within the three miles of the coastline), but
OCS emissions sources affect ozone concentrations in the nonattainment
area and thus are included in the emissions inventories used for the
attainment demonstration in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
Future emissions forecasts in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP are
primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections provided
by SCAG (i.e., the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Ventura
County), and control factors developed by the District in reference to
the 2012 base year. Growth factors used to project these baseline
inventories are derived mainly from data obtained from SCAG.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix A, tables A-4 and A-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA's SIP regulations for nonattainment new source review
(NSR) programs, a state may allow new major stationary sources or major
modifications to use emission reductions credits (ERCs) that were
generated through shutdown or curtailed emissions units occuring before
the base year of an attainment plan. However, to use such ERCs, the
projected emissions inventory used to develop the attainment
demonstration must explicitly include the emissions from such
previously shutdown or curtailed emissions units.\43\ The District has
elected to provide for use of pre-base year ERCs as offsets by
explicitly including such ERCs in the 2020 attainment year inventory.
The ERC set-aside in the attainment year (2020) amounts to 1.72 tons
per day (tpd) of VOC and 0.82 tpd of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides a summary of the District's 2012 base year and
future attainment year baseline emissions estimates in tpd (average
summer day) for VOC and NOX. These inventories provide the
basis for the control measure analysis and the attainment demonstration
in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. Based on the inventory for 2012,
stationary, area and mobile sources contribute roughly equally to
county-wide VOC emissions, whereas mobile sources are the predominant
sources of NOX emissions. The inventory for 2012 also shows
the extent (about 40 percent) to which OCS sources contribute to the
overall anthropogenic NOX emissions total used for
attainment modeling purposes.
Table 1--Ventura County 2012 Base Year and 2020 Attainment Year
Emissions Inventories
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2020
Category -------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.................. 8.55 2.08 8.67 1.87
Area Sources................ 11.57 0.95 10.91 0.62
On-Road Mobile Sources...... 8.54 12.62 4.21 6.01
Other (Off-Road) Mobile 8.14 8.78 6.63 7.25
Sources....................
ERCs........................ ......... ......... 1.72 0.82
-------------------------------------------
Total for Ventura County 36.81 24.44 32.14 16.57
Nonattainment Area.....
OCS Sources................. 0.96 16.11 1.37 15.49
-------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic 37.76 40.55 33.50 32.06
Emissions Used for
Attainment
Demonstration..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix A, tables A-7 and A-8. The
sum of the emissions values may not equal the total shown due to
rounding of the numbers.
Following the South Coast II decision, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP
Update to the EPA to, among other things, revise the RFP demonstration
in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP based on a 2011 RFP baseline year
(i.e., rather than 2012).\44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 2018 SIP Update, Section III (``SIP Elements for
Ventura County''), 15-20; and Appendix A, pp. A-7--A-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70115]]
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
We have reviewed the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP 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 for 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 2016 Ventura County AQMP
reflects appropriate emissions models and methodologies, and,
therefore, represents a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory
of actual emissions during that year in the Ventura County
nonattainment 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) because both
inventories are derived from a common set of models and methods.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2012 emissions inventory
in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP as meeting the requirements for a base
year inventory set forth in CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115.
In addition, although the requirement for a base year emissions
inventory applies to the nonattainment area, we find that the
District's estimates of OCS emissions out to 100 nautical miles (i.e.,
beyond the nonattainment area boundary that extends 3 miles offshore)
are reasonable and appropriate to include in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP given that such emissions must be accounted for in the ozone
attainment demonstration for this nonattainment area.
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 2016 Ventura
County AQMP reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest
planning assumptions.
Furthermore, we note that the future year baseline projections take
into account emissions reductions from adopted State and local rules
and regulations. As a general matter, the EPA will approve a SIP
revision that takes emissions reduction credit for such control
measures only where the EPA has approved the control measures as part
of the SIP. Table 1 in the EPA's memorandum dated September 11, 2019,
to the docket for this rulemaking lists District VOC and NOX
rules that the 2016 Ventura County AQMP relied upon in developing
future year baseline emissions projections. Table 1 also includes
information on EPA approval of these rules and shows that emissions
reductions for stationary sources assumed by the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP for future years are supported by rules approved as part of the
SIP.\45\ With respect to mobile sources, the EPA has taken action in
recent years to approve CARB mobile source regulations into the
California SIP.\46\ We therefore find that the future year baseline
projections in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP are properly supported by
SIP-approved stationary and mobile source control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The list of rules in Table 1 of our September 11, 2019
memorandum includes all the District rules for which specific future
year emissions reductions are assumed as shown in Table 3-1 of the
2016 Ventura County AQMP.
\46\ See 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21,
2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 2008 Ozone SRR provides that nonattainment areas are subject to
the requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA that
apply for that area's classification.\47\ For all areas classified
under subpart 2, the emissions statement requirement under CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(i) applies. 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.\48\ 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 SIP-
approved emissions statement rule is adequate to meet the requirements
of the 2008 Ozone SRR, states can provide the rationale for that
determination to the EPA in a written statement in their SIP submittal
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to meet this requirement. States should
identify the various requirements and how each is met by the existing
SIP-approved emissions statement program. Where an emissions statement
requirement is modified for any reason, the state must provide the
revision to the emissions statement rule as part of its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 40 CFR 51.1102.
\48\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP addresses compliance with the
emissions statement requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS by reference to District Rule 24 (``Source
Recordkeeping, Reporting and Emissions Statements'').\49\ District Rule
24 requires, among other things, emissions reporting from all Ventura
County stationary sources of NOX and VOC, but provides for
waiver of the requirement by the Air Pollution Control Officer for
sources that emit less than 25 tpy.\50\ The EPA approved District Rule
24 as a revision to the Ventura County portion of the California SIP in
2000.\51\ The District determined in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP that
the existing provisions of District Rule 24 meet the emissions
statement requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, 16-18.
\50\ District Rule 24 refers to ``reactive organic compounds,''
another term for ``volatile organic compounds.''
\51\ 65 FR 76567 (December 7, 2000).
\52\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
For this action, we have reviewed VCAPCD's evaluation of SIP-
approved District Rule 24 for compliance with the specific requirements
for emissions statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). We agree with
the District that District Rule 24 applies within the entire ozone
nonattainment area and that the nonattainment area is the same for both
the 1-hour and 2008 ozone NAAQS; applies to all stationary sources of
VOC and NOX, except those
[[Page 70116]]
emitting less than 25 tpy for which the District has waived the
requirement (consistent with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii)); and
requires reporting, on an annual basis, of total emissions of VOC and
NOX. Also, as required under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), we
note that District Rule 24 requires certification that the information
provided to the District is accurate to the best knowledge of the
individual certifying the emissions data.
Therefore, we propose to approve the emissions statement element of
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) and the 40 CFR 51.1102.
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), and also provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The
2008 Ozone SRR requires that, for each nonattainment area required to
submit an attainment demonstration, the state concurrently submit a SIP
revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any
RFP requirements.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has previously 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
titled ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure
Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas.'' \54\ 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.\55\ Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements
that are not already 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.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 1992)
and memorandum dated November 30, 1999, from John S. Seitz,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
to Regional Air Division Directors, titled ``Guidance on the
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas.''
\55\ Id. See also 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), and memorandum
dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, EPA OAQPS, to
Regional Air Division Directors (Regions I, II, III, V and VI),
titled ``Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe 1-
hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
\56\ For ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or
above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all major sources
of VOC and for each VOC source category for which the EPA has issued
a control techniques guideline. CAA section 182(f) requires that
RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources
of NOX. In Serious areas, a major source is a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of
VOC or NOX (see CAA section 182(c) and (f)). Under the
2008 Ozone SRR, states were required to submit SIP revisions meeting
the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later
than 24 months after the effective date of designation for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS and to implement the required RACT measures as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th
year after the effective date of designation (see 40 CFR
51.1112(a)). California submitted the CAA section 182 RACT SIP for
Ventura County on July 18, 2014, and the EPA fully approved this
submission at 80 FR 2016 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
For the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, the District, the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC) and CARB each undertook a process to
identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to
expeditious attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura County. We
describe these efforts in the three sections below. To determine what
RACM may be necessary, the District compares, in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP, the projected 2019 emissions inventory to the 2020
attainment year. Comparing the levels of VOC and NOX in
these two years, during which emissions are declining, allows a simple
subtraction to determine what amount of emissions reductions would
result in 2020 attainment year-level emissions in the year 2019. Since
levels of VOC are identical in both 2019 and 2020, no reduction was
necessary to achieve the attainment year VOC emissions level. However,
for NOX the difference was 2 tpd, so the RACM analyses of
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP appendices E, F and G focus on determining
whether one or more control measures would be potentially reasonable
and would result in a 2 tpd reduction of NOX emissions prior
to the 2020 attainment year.
a. District's RACM Analysis
The District's portion of the RACM demonstration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS focuses on stationary source controls and is described in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP on pages 54 and 55, and in Appendix E
(``Ventura County Stationary Source Reasonably Available Control
Measure Assessment''). Appendix E contains analyses of all potential
stationary source control measures in the District's jurisdiction.
As background, the District notes that Ventura County was
nonattainment for all prior ozone NAAQS, therefore the District's RACM
analysis builds upon a foundation of District rules developed for
earlier ozone plans. We provide a list of the District's NOX
and VOC rules approved into the California SIP in Table 1 of our
September 11, 2019 memorandum to the docket for this proposed
action.\57\ The 48 SIP-approved District VOC or NOX rules
listed in Table 1 of our September 11, 2019 memorandum establish
emission limits or other types of emissions controls for a wide range
of sources, including use of solvents, refineries, gasoline storage,
architectural coatings, oilfield drilling operations, various types of
commercial coatings, boilers, steam generators and process heaters,
marine coating operations, dry cleaning, and others. These rules have
already provided significant and ongoing reductions toward attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2020. In describing its stationary source
controls, the District also notes the EPA's 2015 approval of its
reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP and our finding in
that action that District rules that apply to ozone precursor emissions
fulfill RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Memorandum dated September 11, 2019, from John J. Kelly,
Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9 to ``Approval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; California; Ventura County; 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area Requirements; Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146,''
subject: District Rules Assumed for Purposes of Developing Baseline
Emissions Projections.
\58\ 80 FR 2016, January 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the stationary source RACM demonstration, the District
evaluated the VOC and NOX rules that were not fully
addressed in the District's 2014 RACT SIP for potential RACM emissions
reductions. The District compared that subset of District rules to
analogous rules adopted by other air districts having nonattainment
areas with higher ozone nonattainment classifications (i.e., South
Coast and San Joaquin Valley, which are both ``Extreme'' nonattainment
areas for the
[[Page 70117]]
2008 ozone NAAQS), as well as certain other air districts such as the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to evaluate whether control
technologies available and cost-effective within other areas would be
available and cost-effective for use in Ventura County. The District
also identified a few rules from other air districts that apply to
unregulated source categories in Ventura County. Tables E-2 and E-3 in
Appendix E of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP list the rules that the
District evaluated for the RACM demonstration. Table E-2 includes 13
rules that the District has previously adopted that were compared to
rules in other areas. Table E-3 includes five source categories the
District evaluated, where there is no corresponding rule for that
source category in Ventura County.
The District provides an evaluation of the controls it reviewed for
RACM purposes in Appendix E of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. The
evaluation includes the following: Description of the Ventura County
sources within the category or sources that would be subject to the
rule; potential NOX and VOC emissions reductions expected
from implementing the rule in Ventura County for the source category
affected by the rule; discussion of the current requirements of the
rule; and discussion of potential additional control measures. This
includes comparison of each District rule to analogous control measures
adopted by other agencies.
Among the 13 existing District NOX or VOC rules that the
District compared to rules in other areas, the District found that
eight of the VCAPCD rule emission limits were as stringent as those
found in analogous rules adopted by the other districts or were not
applicable for the purposes of comparison. The District estimated the
emissions reductions for the remaining five rules that could be made
more stringent to match the most stringent of the other district rules'
limits.\59\ Among the five source categories for which the District has
no current rules, the District identified four categories for which
other districts have adopted rules that could be adopted for Ventura
County.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The five District rules include Rule 74.2 (``Architectural
Coatings''), Rule 74.19.1 (``Screen Printing Operations''), Rule
74.21 (``Semiconductor Manufacturing''); Rule 74.22 (``Natural Gas-
Fired, Central Fan-Type Furnaces''), and Rule 74.34
(``NOX Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources'').
\60\ The four source categories include composting and organic
material conversion operations, vacuum truck operations, emissions
of oxides of nitrogen from commercial food ovens, and food products
manufacturing and processing operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District estimated the potential emissions reduction associated
with revisions to the five existing District rules and adoption of the
four new rules to be approximately 0.5 tpd of VOC and 0.01 tpd of
NOX. Based on the District's threshold of 2 tpd of
NOX as the minimum reduction necessary to advance attainment
by one year, the District concluded that its current set of VOC and
NOX rules represent all RACM within regulatory jurisdiction,
and that no further RACM are necessary to meet the RACM requirement for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We note that the new stationary source control
measures in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP include revisions to two
existing District rules, Rule 74.2 (``Architectural Coatings'') and
Rule 74.22 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Central Fan-Type Furnaces''), and
adoption of one new rule, proposed new Rule 74.32 (``Compostable
Material Handing and Conversion Operations''), that are part of the
RACM analysis. However, the purpose of these stationary source control
measures in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP was not to meet the RACM
requirement but to provide emissions reductions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and to fulfill State air quality requirements.
b. Local Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis and Transportation Control
Measures
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are projects that reduce air
pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use, traffic
congestion, or vehicle miles traveled. Appendix B (``Ventura County
Transportation Control Measure Commitments'') of the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP lists the current TCMs identified by SCAG and the District
as committed TCMs. ``Committed'' TCMs are subject to the timely
implementation requirement in CAA section 176(c)(2)(B). For the 2016
Ventura County AQMP, the District and VCTC worked together to determine
whether additional TCMs are necessary to meet the RACM requirement. The
TCM RACM component of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP is found on page 55
of the AQMP and in Appendix F (``Ventura County Transportation Control
Measures Reasonably Available Control Measure Assessment'').
First, the District prepared a list of candidate RACM using the
CAA's list of TCMs in section 108(f)(1)(A) by reviewing the TCMs in the
2008 Ventura County AQMP, and other air district and planning agency
plans, such as the 2012 South Coast AQMP, 2007 San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Plan, 2013 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable
Further Progress Plan, and the 2004/2007 Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments SIP. Second, the District, along with staff of
the VCTC, sorted the candidate TCMs based on their feasibility or
infeasibility for implementation in Ventura County.\61\ Table F-1 of
Appendix F of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP summarizes the results of
the sorting process. Justification is provided in Table F-1 for those
candidate TCMs deemed by the District and VCTC to be infeasible. All
candidate TCMs are organized in Table F-1 according to the sixteen
categories specified in section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix F, page F-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District found that the majority of TCMs that were deemed to be
feasible in Ventura County were already being implemented, or had been
implemented in the county, and that implementing all additional
feasible TCMs in the county would not advance attainment by a year.
Based on its comprehensive review of TCM projects in other
nonattainment areas or otherwise identified, the District determined
that the TCMs being implemented in Ventura County are inclusive of all
RACM.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix F, page F-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. CARB's RACM Analysis
Source categories for which CARB has primary jurisdiction for
reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer
products. CARB's RACM assessment is contained in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP, Appendix G (``Ventura County Mobile Source Reasonably
Available Control Measures Assessment''). In the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP, CARB has also provided a general description of CARB's key mobile
source regulations and programs and a comprehensive table listing on-
and off-road mobile source regulatory actions taken by CARB from 1985
through 2016.\63\ The RACM assessment contains CARB's evaluation of
mobile source and other statewide control measures that reduce
emissions of NOX and VOC in Ventura County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix C (``Key ARB Mobile
Source Regulations and Programs'') and Appendix D (``Air Resources
Board Control Measures, 1985-2016'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, CARB
established stringent control measures for on-road and off-road mobile
sources and the fuels that power them. California has unique authority
under CAA section 209 (subject to a waiver by the EPA) to adopt and
implement new
[[Page 70118]]
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 standards and other requirements to control emissions
from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel
specifications, and many other types of mobile sources. Generally,
these regulations have been submitted and approved as revisions to the
California SIP.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See, e.g., the EPA's approval of standards and other
requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-
powered trucks, at 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012), revisions to the
California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations
at 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010), and revisions to the California motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program at 75 FR 38023 (July 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the RACM assessment, CARB concludes that there are no additional
RACM that would advance attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura
County. As a result, CARB concludes that California's mobile source
programs fully meet the RACM requirement.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix G, page G-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As described above, the District already implements many rules to
reduce VOC and NOX emissions from stationary sources in
Ventura County. For the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, the District
evaluated a range of potentially available control measures. We find
that the process followed by the District in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP to identify additional RACM is generally consistent with the EPA's
recommendations in the General Preamble, the District's evaluation of
potential measures is appropriate, and the District has provided
reasoned justifications for rejection of measures deemed not reasonably
available.
With respect to mobile sources, CARB's current program addresses
the full range of mobile sources in Ventura County through regulatory
programs for both new and in-use vehicles. With respect to TCMs, we
find that the District's and VCTC's process for identifying additional
TCM RACM and the District's conclusion that the TCMs being implemented
in Ventura County (i.e., the TCMs listed in Table B-1 in Appendix B of
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP) are inclusive of all TCM RACM to be
reasonably justified and supported.
Based on our review of these RACM analyses, the District's and
CARB's adopted rules, and SCAG's committed TCMs, we propose to find
that there are, at this time, no additional RACM that would advance
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura County.\66\ For the
foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section
172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ We find that the District's identification of a 2-tpd
threshold for the minimum reduction necessary to advance attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura County by one year to be
reasonable. The nonattainment area relies on both VOC and
NOX controls, and the potential emissions reductions of
NOX and VOC (considered together) from potential RACM
(stationary source, TCM, and mobile) would not achieve the necessary
emissions reductions to advance attainment by one year, and
therefore, such additional measures are not required to meet the
RACM requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\67\ This
subsection of today's proposed rule addresses the first two components
of the attainment demonstration--the technical analyses and a list of
adopted measures. Section III.C, Reasonably Available Control Measures
Demonstration, of this document addresses the RACM component, and
section III.F, Contingency Measures, addresses the contingency measures
component of the attainment demonstration in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 78 FR 34178, at 34184 (June 6, 2013) (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 concentrations,
meteorology, and current and projected emissions inventories of ozone
precursors, including the effect of control measures in the plan.
Areas classified Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS must demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 9 years
after the effective date of designation to nonattainment. Ventura
County was designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, and the
area must demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20,
2021.\68\ An attainment demonstration must show attainment of the
standards for a full calendar year before the attainment date, so in
practice, Serious nonattainment areas must demonstrate attainment in
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 80 FR 12264, at 12268 (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'').\69\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Modeling Guidance, December 2014 Draft, EPA OAQPS;
available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. The 2014 modeling guidance
updates, but is largely consistent with, the earlier ``Guidance on
the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007. Additional EPA
modeling guidance can be found in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the model performance is determined to be acceptable, future
year
[[Page 70119]]
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.
The Modeling Guidance does not require a particular year to be used
as the base year for 2008 ozone NAAQS plans.\70\ 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.\71\ Therefore, the base year used for the attainment
demonstration need not be the same year used to meet the requirements
for RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Modeling Guidance at section 2.7.1.
\71\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\72\ 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.\73\ The attainment year
ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately preceding a
nonattainment area's maximum attainment date.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
\73\ 40 CFR 51.1108(d).
\74\ 40 CFR 51.1100(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
a. Photochemical Modeling
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes photochemical modeling for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) performed the air quality modeling for the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP. The modeling relies on a 2012 base year and demonstrates
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable Serious area
attainment year (i.e. 2020).
The modeling and modeled attainment demonstration are described in
Chapter 5 (``Attainment Demonstration'') of the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP and in four appendices. Appendix H (``Protocol for Photochemical
Modeling of Ozone in Ventura County'') of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
is the modeling protocol and contains all the elements recommended in
the Modeling Guidance. Those include: Selection of model, time period
to model, modeling domain, and model boundary conditions and
initialization procedures; a discussion of emissions inventory
development and other model input preparation procedures; model
performance evaluation procedures; selection of days; and other details
for calculating RRFs. Appendix H of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP also
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 5.0.2 of the Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical model, developed by the
EPA. To prepare meteorological input for CMAQ, the Weather and Research
Forecasting model version 3.6 (WRF) from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research was used. 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 ozone in the southern California
domain, including Ventura.
The performance of the WRF meteorological model was assessed
through a series of simulations, and the SCAQMD concluded that the
daily WRF simulation for 2012 provided representative meteorological
fields that well characterized the observed conditions. The SCAQMD's
conclusions were supported by hourly time series graphs of wind speed,
direction, and temperature.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ SCAQMD, 2016 South Coast AQMP (March 2017), Appendix V
(``Modeling and Attainment Demonstration''), Chapter 3
(``Meteorological Modeling and Sensitivity Analyses''), Attachment 1
(``WRF Model Performance Time Series'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone model performance statistics are described in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP Appendix I (``Ventura County Community Multiscale
Air Quality Model Performance Analysis''), which include tables of
statistics recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 8-hour daily
maximum ozone for Ventura County. Hourly time series are presented, as
well as density scatter plots and plots of bias against concentration.
Note that only relative changes are used from the modeling, therefore
the overprediction or underprediction of absolute ozone concentrations
does not mean that future concentrations will be overestimated or
underestimated.
After model performance for the 2012 base case was accepted, the
model was applied to develop RRFs for the attainment demonstration.
This entailed running the model with the same meteorological inputs as
before, but with adjusted emissions inventories to reflect the expected
changes between 2012 and the 2020 attainment year. The base year or
``reference year'' modeling inventory was the same as the inventory for
the modeling base case. The 2020 inventory projects the base year into
the future by including the effect of economic growth and emissions
control measures. The set of 153 days from May 1 through September 30,
2012, was simulated and analyzed to determine daily 8-hour average
maximum ozone concentrations for the 2020 emissions inventory. To
develop the RRFs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, only the top 10 days were
used.
The Modeling Guidance addresses attainment demonstrations with
ozone NAAQS based on 8-hour averages. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the
2016 Ventura County AQMP carried out the attainment test procedure
consistent with the Modeling Guidance. The RRFs were calculated as the
ratio of future to base year concentrations. The resulting RRFs were
then applied to 2012 weighted base year design values \76\ for each
monitor to arrive at a 2020 future year design value.\77\ The highest
2020 ozone design value is 0.072 ppm at the Simi Valley site; this
value demonstrates attainment of the
[[Page 70120]]
corresponding 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 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
2012-2014. 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.
\77\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix I, Table I-2 (``Base
Year and Future Year Ozone Design Values'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP modeling also includes a WOE
demonstration in Appendix K (Ventura County Weight of Evidence
Assessment) prepared by CARB. To complement regional photochemical
modeling analyses included in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, the WOE
demonstration includes detailed analyses of ambient ozone data, county
level precursor emissions trends, population exposure trends, and a
discussion of conditions that contribute to exceedances of the 0.075
ppm 2008 ozone NAAQS. Further, the rate of progress toward air quality
goals was evaluated by considering trends in ozone design values,
precursor emissions reductions, and the relationship between ozone air
quality and past emissions reductions.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix K, page K-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes an unmonitored area
analysis for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to assess the attainment status of
locations other than monitoring sites.\79\ The Modeling Guidance
describes a ``gradient adjusted spatial fields'' procedure along with
the EPA software (i.e., Modeled Attainment Test Software) used to carry
it out.\80\ The unmonitored area analysis in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP shows concentrations below the 2008 ozone NAAQS for all
locations.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix J (``Ventura County
Unmonitored Area Analysis''), prepared by the SCAQMD.
\80\ Modeling Guidance, section 4.7.
\81\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix J, Figure J-3 (``2020
Predicted 8-hr Ozone Design Values'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Control Strategy for Attainment
The control strategy for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP relies on emissions reductions from baseline
(i.e., already-adopted) measures. The baseline control measures include
the District's stationary source rules, including those specifically
included in the emissions inventories prepared for the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP,\82\ and CARB's mobile source and consumer product rules
adopted through 2016 as listed in Appendix D of the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix A, Table A-5
(``District Rules Included in the SIP Inventory'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Attainment Demonstration
Table 2 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 reductions that the
District and CARB estimate to achieve through baseline control measures
taking into account growth and the District's ERC balance. As shown in
Table 2, baseline measures are expected to reduce base year (2012)
emissions of NOX by 21 percent and VOC emissions by 11
percent by the 2020 attainment year, notwithstanding growth and the ERC
balance, and to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura County by that
year.
Table 2--Summary of Ventura County 2008 Ozone NAAQS Attainment
Demonstration
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2012 Base Year Emissions Level \a\.. 40.55 37.76.
B--2020 Modeled Attainment Emissions 32.06 33.50.
Level \a\.
C Total Reductions Needed from 2012 8.49 4.26.
Base Year Levels to Demonstrate
Attainment (A-B).
D Reductions from Baseline (i.e., 8.49 4.26.
adopted) Measures, net of growth and
ERC balance.
E 2020 Emissions with Reductions from 32.06 33.50.
Baseline Control Strategy (compare to
Row B).
Attainment demonstrated?.......... Yes Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes and sources:
\a\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix A, tables A-6 and A-7. Includes
emissions out to 100 nautical miles from the coast. Year 2020 Modeled
Attainment Emissions Level includes ERC balance.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
a. Photochemical Modeling
To approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, the EPA must make
several findings. First, we must find that the demonstration's
technical bases, including the emissions inventories and air quality
modeling, are adequate. As discussed above in section III.A of this
document, we are proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory
and to find that the future year emissions projections in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP reflect appropriate calculation methods and that
the latest planning assumptions are properly supported by SIP-approved
stationary and mobile source measures. These are the same inventories
used for the attainment demonstration, and thus, we find that the
emissions portion of the attainment demonstration is adequate.
With respect to the photochemical modeling in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP, based on our review of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, the
EPA finds that the modeling is adequate for purposes of supporting the
attainment demonstration. First, we note the extensive discussion of
modeling procedures, tests, and performance analyses called for in the
Modeling Protocol (i.e., Appendix H) and the good model performance.
Second, we find the WRF meteorological model results and performance
statistics, including hourly time series graphs of wind speed,
direction, and temperature for the southern California modeling domain,
to be satisfactory and consistent with our Modeling Guidance.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Modeling Guidance, 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model performance statistics for ozone are described in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP, Appendix I. The analysis evaluated how well
the photochemical model for the 2016 Ventura County AQMP was able to
predict 8-hour ozone concentrations at each monitoring site in the
county compared to observed 8-hour ozone concentrations at those same
monitoring sites and is based on the statistical evaluation recommended
in the Modeling Guidance. The base year average regional model
performance was evaluated for May through September 2012 for days when
maximum 8-hour ozone levels were at least 60 ppb.\84\ Ozone
measurements from air quality monitors in Thousand Oaks, Piru, Ojai,
Simi Valley, and El Rio were compiled for the analysis. To develop the
RRFs for the 2008 ozone
[[Page 70121]]
NAAQS, only the top 10 days were used. This is consistent with EPA
guidance, which recommends the use of only the top 10 days in the RRF
calculation because the modeling capability to predict high
concentrations is more important than the prediction of low
concentrations.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Only stations with more than 74.5% (the EPA's data
completeness requirement) of the hourly measurements during each
month of the ozone season were included in the analysis.
\85\ Modeling Guidance, 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP's unmonitored area analysis showed
concentrations below the 2008 ozone NAAQS for all locations. This
analysis adds assurance to the attainment demonstration that all
locations in Ventura County will attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
2020 attainment year. In addition, the WOE analyses presented in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP provide additional information with respect to
the sensitivity to emission changes and improve the understanding of
the model performance. We are proposing to find the air quality
modeling in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP adequate to support the
attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Ventura County,
based on reasonable meteorological and ozone modeling performance, and
further supported by the unmonitored area and WOE analyses.
b. Control Strategy for Attainment
Second, we must find that the emissions reductions that are relied
on for attainment are creditable and are sufficient to provide for
attainment. As shown in Table 2 above, the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
relies on baseline measures to achieve all the emissions reductions
needed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2020. The baseline measures
are approved into the SIP and, as such, are fully creditable.
c. Attainment Demonstration
Based on our proposed determinations that the photochemical
modeling and control strategy are acceptable, we propose to approve the
attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP 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 CAA part
D (``Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas'') or may reasonably be
required by the EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. CAA section 172(c)(2)
generally requires that a nonattainment plan include provisions for
RFP. 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 reductions averaged
over each consecutive 3-year period, beginning 6 years after the
baseline year until the attainment date, of at least 3 percent of
baseline emissions per year. The provisions in CAA section
182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allow 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.
In the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA provides that areas classified
Moderate or higher for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 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 ozone NAAQS, provided that
the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment areas are the same.\86\ 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 emission 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 emission reduction of 3 percent per year for
all remaining 3-year periods thereafter.\87\ To meet CAA sections
172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, the state may substitute
NOX emissions reductions for VOC reductions.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 70 FR 12264, at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
\87\ Id.
\88\ 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(C) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii)(B);
and 70 FR 12264, at 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.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 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 previously, the 2008 Ozone SRR
provided states with the opportunity to use an alternative baseline
year for RFP,\90\ but that provision of the 2008 Ozone SRR was vacated
by the D.C. Circuit in the South Coast II decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 40 CFR 51.1110(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP addresses both the ROP (VOC only)
demonstration requirement and the RFP demonstration requirement. With
respect to the former, the District cites the EPA's 1997 approval of
the ROP demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for Ventura County and
concludes that, based on the 1997 approval, the ROP requirement has
been met for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, 89, and 62 FR 1150 (January
8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the RFP demonstration requirement, the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP includes an RFP demonstration derived from a 2012 RFP
baseline year.\92\ In response to the South Coast II decision, CARB
developed the 2018 SIP Update, which includes a section that replaces
the RFP portion of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP and includes emissions
estimates for the RFP baseline year, subsequent milestone years, and
the attainment year, and an updated RFP demonstration based on
[[Page 70122]]
the 2011 RFP baseline year.\93\ To develop the 2011 RFP baseline
inventory, CARB relied on actual emissions reported from industrial
point sources for year 2011. For emissions from smaller stationary
sources and area sources, CARB backcast emissions from 2012 to 2011
using the same growth and control factors as were used for the 2016
Ventura County AQMP. To develop the emissions inventories for the 2017
RFP milestone year and 2020 RFP milestone/attainment year, CARB also
relied upon the same growth and control factors as the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 2016 Ventura County AQMP, chapter 6 (``Reasonable
Further Progress'').
\93\ 2018 SIP Update, RFP demonstration, chapter III (``SIP
Elements for Ventura County''), section III-B (``Reasonable Further
Progress'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation for the Ventura County RFP baseline and milestone
emissions inventories is found in the 2018 SIP Update on pages 15-18
and Appendix A on pages A-7 through A-10. For both sets of baseline
emissions inventories (those in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP and those
in the 2018 SIP Update), emissions estimates reflect District rules
adopted through July 2015 and CARB rules adopted through November 2015.
Unlike the emissions inventories for the attainment demonstration in
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, the RFP baseline and milestone emissions
inventories only include emissions within the Ventura County ozone
nonattainment area and do not include marine emissions (e.g., emissions
from ocean-going vessels) beyond three nautical miles from the
coastline. In contrast, the attainment demonstration inventories
include emissions from marine vessels out to 100 nautical miles from
the coastline.
Table 3 provides a summary of CARB's 2011 RFP baseline year, 2017
RFP milestone year, and 2020 RFP milestone/attainment year emissions
estimates in tpd for VOC and NOX.
Table 3--Ventura County 2011 Base Year, 2017 RFP Milestone Year and 2020 Attainment Year Emissions Inventories
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2020
Category -----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.................................... 8.4 2.0 8.4 1.9 8.6 1.9
Area Sources.................................. 11.7 1.0 10.8 0.7 11.0 0.6
On-Road Mobile Sources........................ 9.2 13.9 5.4 8.0 4.2 6.0
Other (Off-Road) Mobile Sources............... 8.7 9.2 7.2 7.9 6.6 7.3
Total (not including ERC balance)............. 38.1 26.0 31.7 18.5 30.4 15.8
ERC Balance................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.7 0.8
Total (including ERC balance)............. 38.1 26.0 31.7 18.5 32.1 16.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 SIP Update, pp. 15-18 and Appendix A, pp. A-7--A-10. The sum of the emissions values may not equal
the total shown due to rounding of the numbers.
In August 2019, CARB provided a technical clarification of the RFP
demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update for Ventura County.\94\
Specifically, CARB revised the RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update
to include the safety margin included in the 2020 motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. Table 4 presents the
updated RFP demonstration for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as clarified by CARB in August 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin,
Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Amy
Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
Table 4--RFP Demonstration for Ventura County for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
[Summer planning inventory, tpd or percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline VOC \a\.................. 38.1.................... 31.7.................... 32.1
2020 Transportation Conformity ........................ ........................ 0.7
Rounding Margin \b\.
Baseline VOC + Rounding Margin.... ........................ 31.7.................... 32.8
Required change since 2011 (VOC or ........................ 18%..................... 27%
NOX), %.
Target VOC level.................. ........................ 31.2.................... 27.8
Apparent shortfall (-)/surplus (+) ........................ -0.5.................... -5.0
in VOC.
Apparent shortfall (-)/surplus (+) ........................ -1.4%................... -13.2%
in VOC, %.
VOC shortfall previously provided ........................ 0.0%.................... 1.4%
by NOX substitution, %.
Actual VOC shortfall (-)/surplus ........................ -1.4%................... -11.7%
(+), %.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NOX \a\.................. 26.0.................... 18.5.................... 16.6
2020 Transportation Conformity ........................ ........................ 0.9
Rounding Margin \b\.
Baseline NOX + Rounding Margin.... ........................ 18.5.................... 17.5
Change in NOX since 2011.......... ........................ 7.5..................... 8.5
Change in NOX since 2011, %....... ........................ 28.8%................... 32.8%
NOX reductions used for VOC ........................ 0%...................... 1.4%
substitution through last
milestone year, %.
NOX reductions since 2011 ........................ 28.8%................... 31.4%
available for VOC substitution in
this milestone year, %.
[[Page 70123]]
NOX reductions since 2011 used for ........................ 1.4%.................... 11.7%
VOC substitution in this
milestone year, %.
NOX reductions since 2011 surplus ........................ 27.4%................... 19.6%
after meeting VOC substitution
needs in this milestone year, %.
Total shortfall for RFP........... ........................ 0%...................... 0%
RFP met?.......................... ........................ Yes..................... Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science
Division, CARB, to Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, Attachment A.
\a\ 2020 projections include addition of ERC balance as of January 1, 2012.
\b\ Transportation conformity rounding margin is referred to herein as a ``safety margin.''
The revised RFP 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 2017 to meet VOC emission targets.\95\ For
Ventura County, CARB concludes that the revised RFP demonstration meets
the applicable requirements for each milestone year as well as the
attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 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 70 FR 12264, at 12271 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
In 1997, the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the Ventura
County ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
Ventura County nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the same
as the Ventura County nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.\96\ As a result, we agree with the District that the District
and CARB have met the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for
Ventura County with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 62 FR 1150, at 1183 (January 8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the RFP demonstration requirement, based on our
review of the emissions inventory documentation in the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP, we find that CARB and the District have used the most
recent planning and activity assumptions, emissions models, and
methodologies in developing the RFP baseline and milestone year
emissions inventories. We have also reviewed the calculations in Table
III-3 of the 2018 SIP Update, as clarified by CARB in August 2019, and
find that CARB has used an appropriate calculation method to
demonstrate RFP.\97\ For these reasons, we have determined that the
2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, as clarified by CARB in August 2019,
demonstrates RFP in the 2017 milestone year and the 2020 milestone/
attainment year, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA
guidance. Therefore, we propose to approve the RFP demonstration for
Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under sections 172(c)(2) and
182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ We note a minor discrepancy between the safety margins
included in the revised RFP demonstration for the 2020 attainment
year and the safety margins included in the motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2020 in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP. The safety margins
for the RFP demonstration, as shown in Table 4 of this document, are
0.7 tpd for VOC and 0.9 tpd for NOX. The safety margins
for the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP are 0.79 tpd for VOC (0.8 tpd, if rounded to one significant
figure) and 0.99 tpd (1.0 tpd, if rounded). Given the substantial
extent to which the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP provides emissions
reductions in excess of the RFP milestones, this minor discrepancy
does not change our proposed finding that the 2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP meets the RFP demonstration requirement for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. 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 reasonable further progress 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.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 2008 Ozone SRR,
80 FR 12264, at 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 provide
for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth
of progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the RFP baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 80 FR 12264, at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
172(c)(9) that states may rely 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 statute 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. The
purpose of contingency measures is to provide continued emissions
reductions while the 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,\100\ and there is case law supporting the EPA's interpretation in
this regard.\101\ 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
[[Page 70124]]
contingency measures.\102\ 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.\103\ Thus, 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).\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 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).
\101\ 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).
\102\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
\103\ Id. at 1235-1237.
\104\ 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 2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP prior to the Bahr v. EPA decision, and thus, consistent with
contingency measure elements of previous ozone plans, it relies solely
upon surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented control
measures to demonstrate compliance with the contingency measure
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 2016 Ventura County AQMP, chapter 7 (``Contingency
Measures''), 91 and 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2018 SIP Update, CARB revises the RFP demonstration for the
2008 ozone NAAQS for Ventura County and recalculates the extent of
surplus emission reductions (i.e., surplus to meeting the RFP milestone
requirement for a given milestone year) in the milestone years and
estimates the incremental emissions reductions in the year following
the attainment year. In light of the Bahr v. EPA decision, however, the
2018 SIP Update 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, rather, to provide context in
which to evaluate the adequacy of Bahr-compliant (i.e., to take effect
if triggered) contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 2018 SIP Update, chapter III (``SIP Elements for Ventura
County''), 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), as interpreted
in the Bahr v. EPA decision, the state must develop, adopt, and submit
a contingency measure to be triggered upon a failure to meet an RFP
milestone or attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
regardless of the extent to which already-implemented measures would
achieve surplus or incremental emissions reductions beyond those
necessary for RFP or attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, to fully
address the contingency measure requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
Ventura County, the District has committed to supplement the
contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP by
developing, adopting and submitting a contingency measure to CARB in
sufficient time to allow CARB to submit the contingency measure as a
SIP revision to the EPA within 12 months of the EPA's conditional
approval of the contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, Air
Pollution Control Officer, VCAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's specific commitment is to amend at least one of the
following existing VCAPCD rules, through the required public review and
subsequent VCAPCD board approval processes, to apply more stringent
requirements upon a determination that the Ventura County nonattainment
area failed to meet an RFP milestone or failed to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
Amendments to Rule 74.26 (``Crude Oil Storage Tank
Degassing Operations'') to add, if triggered by an RFP milestone
failure or a failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, requirements for
reducing VOC emissions from certain operations not covered by the
existing rule, including cleaning, removing, repair and depressurizing
of pipelines;
Amendments to Rule 74.14 (``Polyester Resin Material
Operations'') to add a non-monomer content VOC limit of no more than 5
percent by weight, if triggered; or
Amendments to Rule 74.2 (``Architectural Coatings'') to
lower the VOC limit for coating categories; delete the Specialty
Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater categories and regulate them as just
primers, sealers and undercoaters; add the specialty coating categories
(Interior Stains, and Tile and Stone Sealers); and lower certain VOC
content limits for colorants, once again, if triggered.
CARB attached the District's commitment to revise a rule to include
contingency provisions to a letter committing CARB to adopt and submit
the revised VCAPCD rule or rules to the EPA within one year of the
effective date of the EPA's final conditional approval of the
contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, 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. For the purposes of
evaluating the contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County
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 clarified in August 2019),
and find that the calculations are correct. Therefore, we agree that
the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP provides surplus emissions reductions
well beyond those necessary to demonstrate RFP in 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 District and CARB have committed to develop,
adopt, and submit a revised District rule or rules as a contingency
measure within one year of the effective date of our final conditional
approval action. The specific types of revisions the District has
committed to make, such as adding new limits or other requirements,
upon a failure to achieve a milestone or a failure to attain would
comply with the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
because they would be undertaken if the area fails to attain 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
[[Page 70125]]
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 RFP baseline year emissions
inventory for the nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
Ventura County, one year's worth of RFP is approximately 1.1 tpd of VOC
or 0.8 tpd of NOX reductions.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ One year's worth of RFP for Ventura County corresponds to
3 percent of the RFP baseline year inventories for VOC (38.1 tpd)
and NOX (26.0 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District did not quantify the potential additional emission
reductions from its contingency measure commitment, but we believe that
it is unlikely that the attainment contingency measure, once adopted
and submitted, will achieve one year's worth of RFP (i.e., 1.1 tpd of
VOC or 0.8 tpd of NOX) given the types of rule revisions
under consideration and the magnitude of emissions reductions
constituting one year's worth of RFP. However, the 2018 SIP Update
provides the larger SIP planning context in which to judge the adequacy
of the to-be-submitted District contingency measure 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, as clarified by CARB in August 2019,
identified surplus NOX reductions in the various RFP
milestone years. For Ventura County, the estimates of surplus
NOX reductions are 7.1 tpd in 2017 and 6.5 tpd in 2020 and
are 8 or 9 times greater than one year's worth of progress (0.8 tpd of
NOX).\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ For the 2017 and 2020 RFP milestone years, surplus
NOX reductions correspond to 27.4 percent and 24.9
percent, respectively, of the 26.0 tpd 2011 RFP milestone inventory.
See Table 4 in section III.E of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the extent of surplus NOX emissions
reductions in the RFP milestone years, the emissions reductions from
the District contingency measure would be sufficient to meet the
contingency measure requirements of the CAA with respect to RFP
milestones, even though the measure would likely achieve emissions
reductions lower than the EPA normally recommends for reductions from
such a measure.
For attainment contingency measure purposes, we view the emissions
reductions from the contingency measure in the context of the expected
reduction in emissions within Ventura County 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 overall county-wide emissions are expected to be
approximately 0.9 tpd of NOX lower in 2021 than in 2020.
Thus, baseline measures are expected to provide for continued progress
(i.e., incremental reduction in ozone precursors) greater than one
year's worth of progress (i.e., 0.8 tpd of NOX). In light of
these incremental year-over-year NOX emissions reductions,
we find that the emissions reductions from the District contingency
measure would also be sufficient to meet the attainment contingency
measure requirement of the CAA, even though the measure would likely
achieve emissions reductions lower than the EPA normally recommends for
reductions from such a measure.
For these reasons, we propose to approve conditionally the
contingency measure element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, as
supplemented by commitments from the District and CARB to adopt and
submit an additional contingency measure, 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 a specific enforceable contingency measure (i.e., a
revised District rule or rules with contingent provisions). Conditional
approvals are authorized under CAA section 110(k)(4).
G. 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, 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 (``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.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these
requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and
RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures
contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirements and
applicable policies on budgets, 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 comment period; and, (3) making a finding of
adequacy or inadequacy.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP includes budgets for the 2018 RFP
milestone year and the 2020 attainment year.\114\ The budgets for 2018
were derived from the 2012 RFP baseline year and the associated 2018
RFP milestone year. As such, the budgets are affected by the South
Coast II decision vacating
[[Page 70126]]
the alternative baseline year provision, and therefore, the EPA has not
previously acted on the budgets. In the submittal letter for the 2016
Ventura County AQMP, CARB requested that the EPA limit the duration of
our approval of the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP to last
only until the effective date of future EPA adequacy findings for
replacement budgets.\115\ In August 2019, CARB provided further
explanation in connection with its request to limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ When the 2016 Ventura County AQMP was developed, 2012 was
used as the RFP baseline year, and 2020 was not considered an RFP
milestone year because it was not one of the years that follow in
the three-year cycle after the initial six-year period after the RFP
baseline year. However, in the wake of the South Coast II decision,
2011 became the required RFP baseline year and year 2020 became an
RFP milestone year because it is three years after the initial six-
year period from the 2011 RFP baseline year. Thus, the 2020 budgets
from the 2016 Ventura County AQMP now serve as both the RFP
milestone and attainment budgets.
\115\ Letter dated April 11, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, transmitting the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
\116\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update, which
revised the RFP demonstration consistent with the South Coast II
decision (i.e., by using a 2011 RFP baseline year). The 2018 SIP Update
does not identify new budgets for Ventura County for VOC and
NOX for the 2017 RFP milestone year because budgets for the
2017 milestone year would never be used for conformity determinations
given that milestone/attainment budgets for the immediate near-term
year of 2020 have also been submitted. Today, we are proposing action
only on the 2020 RFP milestone/attainment budgets from the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP.
The budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP were derived from motor
vehicle emissions estimates prepared using EMFAC2014,\117\ and the
travel activity data provided by SCAG. The conformity budgets for
NOX and VOC in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP for Ventura
County in 2020 are provided in Table 5 below. To develop the budgets,
the District rounded up the motor vehicle emissions estimates for 2020
to the nearest ton. Thus, the motor vehicle emissions estimates for
Ventura County for VOC and NOX in 2020, i.e., 4.21 tpd and
6.01 tpd, respectively, were rounded up to become budgets for VOC and
NOX of 5 tpd and 7 tpd, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ As previously noted, EMFAC2014 is CARB's model for
estimating emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California.
See 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). We have recently announced the
availability of an updated version of EMFAC, referred to as
EMFAC2017. See 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019). For the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP, EMFAC2014 was the appropriate model to use for SIP
development purposes at the time it was prepared.
Table 5--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in
Ventura County
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................ 5 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ventura County AQMP, Table 3-7, 52.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP, we have evaluated the budgets using our
adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). We will complete the
adequacy review concurrent with our final action on the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP. The EPA is not required under its transportation
conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of
them.\118\ Today, the EPA is announcing that the adequacy process for
these budgets begins, and the public has 30 days to comment on their
adequacy, per the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As documented in a separate memorandum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP meet each adequacy criterion.\119\ While adequacy
and approval are two separate actions, reviewing the budgets in terms
of the adequacy criteria informs the EPA's decision to propose to
approve the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of the 2016
Ventura County AQMP and are proposing herein to approve the attainment
and RFP demonstrations. We have also reviewed the budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP 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 2020 budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP. At the point when we either finalize the
adequacy process or approve the budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP 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.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Memorandum dated September 5, 2019, from John J. Kelly,
Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, to docket for this proposed
rulemaking, titled ``Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets in 2016 Ventura County Ozone Plan.''
\120\ In May 2008, we found adequate the 2009 budgets from the
Ventura County 2008 8-hour Ozone Early Progress Plan (February
2008). 73 FR 24595 (May 5, 2008). The 2009 budgets are 13 tpd for
VOC and 19 tpd for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under our transportation conformity rule, as a general matter, once
budgets are approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets
submitted for the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by
the previously approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets
as a SIP revision. In other words, as a general matter, such approved
budgets cannot be superseded by revised budgets found adequate, but
rather only through approval of the revised budgets, unless the EPA
specifies otherwise in its approval of a SIP by limiting the duration
of the approval to last only until subsequently submitted budgets are
found adequate.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, as noted above, in its submittal letter, CARB
requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in
the 2016 Ventura County AQMP only until the effective date of the EPA's
adequacy finding for subsequently submitted budgets, and in August
2019, CARB provided further explanation for its request. Generally, we
will consider a state's request to limit an approval of a budget only
if the request includes the following elements: \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002) (final action limiting our
prior approval of budgets in certain California SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB requested
that
[[Page 70127]]
we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in light of the
EPA's recent approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of the model
(EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP.
EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the previously
approved version of the model, EMFAC2014.
Preliminary calculations by CARB indicate that EMFAC2017-derived
motor vehicle emissions estimates for Ventura County will exceed the
corresponding EMFAC2014-derived budgets in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP. In light of the approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets from the 2016 Ventura County AQMP, for which we are proposing
approval in today's action, will become outdated and will need to be
revised using EMFAC2017. In addition, CARB states that, without the
ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or
more after the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017-derived budgets) is
submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process. We find that
CARB's explanation for limiting the duration of the approval of the
budgets is appropriate and provides us with a reasonable basis on which
to limit the duration of the approval of the budgets.
We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must
submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as
the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4); \123\ and thus, we do not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons provided above, and in light
of CARB's explanation for why the budgets will become outdated and
should be replaced upon an adequacy finding for updated budgets, we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2016 Ventura County AQMP until we find revised budgets based on
EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not find a budget
in a submitted SIP to be adequate unless, among other criteria, the
budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP and attainment.
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. General Conformity Budgets
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving 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.
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA establishes the framework for general
conformity. The EPA first promulgated general conformity regulations in
November 1993.\124\ On April 5, 2010, the EPA revised the general
conformity regulations.\125\ The general conformity regulations ensure
that federal actions not covered by the transportation conformity rule
will not interfere with the SIP and encourage consultation between the
federal agency and the state or local air pollution control agencies
before or during the environmental review process, as well as public
participation (e.g., notification of and access to federal agency
conformity determinations and review of individual federal actions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
\125\ 75 FR 17254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general conformity regulations provide three phases:
Applicability analysis, conformity determination, and review process.
The applicability analysis phase under 40 CFR 93.153 is used to find if
a federal action requires a conformity determination for a specific
pollutant. If a conformity determination is needed, federal agencies
can use one of several methods to show that the federal action conforms
to the SIP. In an area without a SIP, a federal action may be shown to
``conform'' by demonstrating there will be no net increase in emissions
in the nonattainment or maintenance area from the federal action. In an
area with a SIP, conformity to the applicable SIP can be demonstrated
in one of several ways. For actions where the direct and indirect
emissions exceed the rates in 40 CFR 93.153(b), the federal action can
include mitigation measures to offset the emission increases from the
federal action or can show that the action will conform by meeting any
of the following requirements:
Showing that the net emission increases caused by an
action are included in the SIP,
documenting that the state agrees to include the emission
increases in the SIP,
offsetting the action's emissions in the same or nearby
area of equal or greater classification, or
providing an air quality modeling demonstration in some
circumstances.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 40 CFR 93.158; and VCAPCD Rule 220 (``General
Conformity''), approved at 64 FR 19916 (April 23, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.161 allow state and
local air quality agencies working with federal agencies with large
facilities (e.g., commercial airports, ports, and large military bases)
that are subject to the general conformity regulations to develop and
adopt an emissions budget for those facilities in order to facilitate
future conformity determinations. Such a budget, referred to as a
facility-wide emissions budget, may be used by federal agencies to
demonstrate conformity as long as the total facility-wide budget level
identified in the SIP is not exceeded.
According to 40 CFR 93.161, the state or local agency responsible
for implementing and enforcing the SIP can develop and adopt an
emissions budget to be used for demonstrating conformity under 40 CFR
93.158(a)(1). The requirements include the following: (1) The facility-
wide budget must be for a set time period; (2) the budget must cover
the pollutants or precursors of the pollutants for which the area is
designated nonattainment or maintenance; (3) the budgets must be
specific about what can be emitted on an annual or seasonal basis; (4)
the emissions from the facility along with all other emissions in the
area must not exceed the total SIP emissions budget for the
nonattainment or maintenance area; (5) specific measures must be
included to ensure compliance with the facility-wide budget, such as
periodic reporting requirements or compliance demonstrations when the
federal agency is taking an action that would otherwise require a
conformity determination; (6) the budget must be submitted to the EPA
as a SIP revision; and (7) the SIP revision must be approved by the
EPA. Having or using a facility-wide emissions budget does not preclude
a federal agency from demonstrating conformity in any other manner
allowed by the conformity rule.
2. Summary of the State's Submission
The 2016 Ventura County AQMP establishes VOC and NOX
general conformity budgets for the Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) for
each year from 2017 through 2020 as shown in Table 6 below. The budgets
are intended to reflect aircraft and missile operations associated with
NBVC Point Mugu and ship operations at Port Hueneme occuring within the
Ventura County
[[Page 70128]]
ozone nonattainment area. The budgets include a 4 percent growth
allowance to account for uncertainties in potential projects resulting
from future actions and unknown projects. As shown in Table 6, the
budgets for NBVC in the attainment year (2020) are 198.0 tpy of VOC and
475.9 tpy of NOX, which is equivalent to 0.54 tpd of VOC and
1.30 tpd of NOX on an annual average daily basis.
Table 6--NBVC General Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in
Ventura County
[summer planning inventory, tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.............................................. 178.6 434.2
2018.............................................. 184.8 447.6
2019.............................................. 191.3 461.5
2020.............................................. 198.0 475.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Ventura County Ozone AQMP, Table 4-9.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
We propose to approve the general conformity budgets in the 2016
Ventura County AQMP for NBVC shown in Table 6, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161. We find that the
general conformity budgets in the 2016 AQMP: are established for a set
time period; cover both precursors of ozone; are precisely quantified
in terms of tons per year; and, along with all other emissions in
Ventura County, are consistent with the RFP and attainment
demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
If we finalize our approval of these budgets, NBVC can use these
budgets to demonstrate that their projects conform to the SIP through a
letter from the State and District confirming that the project
emissions are accounted for in the SIP's general conformity budgets.
I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
In addition to the SIP requirements discussed in the previous
sections, the CAA includes certain other SIP requirements applicable to
Serious ozone nonattainment areas, such as Ventura County. 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 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.\127\ The EPA previously approved California's I/M program in
Ventura County as meeting the requirements of the CAA and applicable
EPA regulations for enhanced I/M programs.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264, at 12283 (March 6, 2015).
\128\ 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. New Source Review Rules
Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states 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 2008 Ozone SRR includes provisions and guidance for nonattainment
NSR programs.\129\ Earlier this year, the EPA proposed to approve the
nonattainment NSR SIP submitted for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The nonattainment NSR SIP includes a certification letter
documenting how the VCAPCD's SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program,
established in VCAPCD Rules 26 through 26.11, meets the applicable NSR
requirements for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\130\ We
expect to take final action on the nonattainment NSR SIP for Ventura
County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the near future in a separate
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\130\ 84 FR 20604 (May 10, 2019); reproposed at 84 FR 43738
(August 22, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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-fuel 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.\131\ 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, and no
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. Thus, 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 Ventura for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ 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.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 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.\133\ 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.\134\ Thus, a SIP submittal meeting
CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 77 FR 28772, at 28774 (May 16, 2012).
\134\ 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
[[Page 70129]]
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 Ventura County, the installation and operation of CARB-certified
vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced through VCAPCD Rule
70 (``Storage And Transfer Of Gasoline''), which was most recently
approved into the SIP on January 31, 2011.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 76 FR 5277 (January 31, 2011). See also, 69 FR 29451 (May
24, 2004) (The EPA's approval of an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule
70 as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ 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 Ventura County, 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.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 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.\138\ 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.\139\ The 2008 Ozone
SRR made no changes to these requirements.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
\139\ 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.''
\140\ The 2008 ozone SRR addresses PAMS-related requirements at
80 FR 12264, at 12291 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP does not specifically address the
enhanced ambient air monitoring requirement in CAA section 182(c)(1).
However, we note that CARB includes the ambient monitoring network
within Ventura County in its annual monitoring network plan that is
submitted to the EPA, and that we have approved the most recent annual
monitoring network plan (``Annual Network Plan Covering Monitoring
Operations in 25 California Air Districts (June 2018)'' or ``2018
ANP'') with respect to the Ventura County element.\141\ Based on our
review and approval of the 2018 ANP with respect to Ventura County and
our earlier approval of the PAMS SIP revision, we propose to find that
CARB and VCAPCD meet the enhanced monitoring requirements under CAA
section 182(c)(1) for Ventura County with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Letter dated November 26, 2018, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the
California SIP the following portions of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone
SIP submitted by CARB on April 11, 2017 and December 5, 2018:
Base year emissions inventory element in the 2016 Ventura
County AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Emissions statement element in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
RACM demonstration element in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
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 2016 Ventura County AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
ROP demonstration element in the 2016 Ventura County AQMP
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 the 2018 SIP Update, as
clarified in August 2019,\142\ as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Letter dated August 29, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016 Ventura County
AQMP for the RFP milestone/attainment year of 2020 (as shown in Table
5) 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); and
General conformity budgets of VOC and NOX (as
shown in Table 6) for Naval Base Ventura County, as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161.
We are also proposing to find that the:
Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program in
Ventura County 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
Ventura County; and
Enhanced monitoring in Ventura County meets the
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in Ventura County, the EPA has previously approved SIP
revisions that address the nonattainment area requirements for
implementation of RACT for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
See 80 FR 2016 (January 15, 2015) (approval of Ventura County RACT
SIP). With respect to the Nonattainment NSR SIP for Ventura County
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed approval at 84 FR 20604
(May 10, 2019) and is expected to take final action in the near
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are
proposing to limit the duration of the approval of the budgets to last
only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets. We are doing so at CARB's request and
in light of the benefits of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets prior to
our taking final action on the future SIP revision that includes the
updated budgets.
In addition, we are proposing, under CAA section 110(k)(4), to
approve conditionally the contingency measure element of the 2016
Ventura County Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements
[[Page 70130]]
of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP and attainment
contingency measures. Our proposed approval is based on commitments by
the District and CARB to supplement the element through submission, as
a SIP revision (within one year of the effective date of our final
conditional approval action), of a revised District rule or rules that
would add new limits or other requirements if an RFP milestone is not
met or if Ventura County fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, Air
Pollution Control Officer, VCAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB; and letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days 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: December 5, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-27545 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P