Proposed Rule2024-14677
Clean Air Plans; 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or "Agency") is proposing to approve through parallel processing a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") requirements for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley "Serious" nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve through parallel processing the "Amendments to the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision and Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard" ("15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments"), which revises the State's aggregate tonnage commitment made for the purpose of attaining the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, amends an existing SIP measure related to certain state mobile source incentive funding programs, and demonstrates that those programs under the SIP-approved measure have achieved specified amounts of reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the San Joaquin Valley area in the year 2023. If finalized, the effect of this action would be to approve these amounts of emissions reductions for credit toward the emissions reduction commitment in the California SIP.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55896-55901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14677]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 55896]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301; FRL-12060-01-R9]
Clean Air Plans; 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') is
proposing to approve through parallel processing a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley ``Serious'' nonattainment
area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve through parallel
processing the ``Amendments to the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision and
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments''), which revises the
State's aggregate tonnage commitment made for the purpose of attaining
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, amends an existing SIP measure
related to certain state mobile source incentive funding programs, and
demonstrates that those programs under the SIP-approved measure have
achieved specified amounts of reductions in emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the San Joaquin Valley
area in the year 2023. If finalized, the effect of this action would be
to approve these amounts of emissions reductions for credit toward the
emissions reduction commitment in the California SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0301, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted
at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Geographic Strategies
and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, phone: (415) 972-3877; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b2a7b4bdb4b8fbb4a6bdb9b0aca795b0a5b4fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aacdd8cbc2cbc784cbd9c2c6cfd3d8eacfdacb84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
A. Revision of the Aggregate Tonnage Commitment for the 15
[mu]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
B. Revision to the State's Valley Incentive Measure
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal
A. Completeness Review of the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments
B. Review of the Revision to the Aggregate Tonnage Commitment
for the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
C. Review of the Revision to the State's Valley Incentive
Measure
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter
by establishing new NAAQS for particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>).\1\
The EPA established primary and secondary annual and 24-hour standards
for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\2\ The EPA set the annual primary and secondary
standards at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a
three-year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, and
set the 24-hour primary and secondary standards at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based
on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations at each monitoring site within an
area.\3\ This proposed action pertains only to the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; therefore, we discuss only those NAAQS in the
remainder of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 38652.
\2\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' NAAQS are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health,
allowing an adequate margin of safety, and ``secondary'' standards
are those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated
with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA
section 109(b).
\3\ 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2013, the EPA revised the level of the primary
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\,\4\ and on February 7,
2024, the EPA revised the level of the primary annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS once more to 9.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\5\ Even though the EPA lowered the
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 1997 primary annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS remains in effect in areas designated nonattainment for that
NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 78 FR 3086.
\5\ 89 FR 16202.
\6\ 40 CFR 50.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA established each of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS after
considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations above these levels. PM<INF>2.5</INF>
can be particles emitted by sources directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (``primary PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' or
[[Page 55897]]
``direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') or can be particles that form in the
atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions from
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions emitted by sources (``secondary
PM<INF>2.5</INF>''). The EPA has identified the precursors of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> to be oxides of nitrogen (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), sulfur
oxides (``SO<INF>X</INF>''), volatile organic compounds (``VOC''), and
ammonia.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, see 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
nation as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS.
Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA established the initial air quality
designations for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, using air
quality monitoring data for the three-year periods of 2001-2003 and
2002-2004.\8\ The EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (15.0
[micro]g/m\3\).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
\9\ 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San Joaquin Valley as a
``Moderate'' nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\10\ Effective May 7, 2015, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin
Valley as a ``Serious'' nonattainment area for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS based on our determination that the State could
not practicably attain these NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area by the latest statutory Moderate area attainment
date, i.e., April 5, 2015.\11\ Upon reclassification as a Serious area,
the State became subject to the requirement of CAA section 188(c)(2) to
attain the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than ten years after designation, i.e., by no
later than December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 79 FR 31566.
\11\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2016, the EPA determined that the San Joaquin
Valley had failed to attain the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by
the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date.\12\ This
determination triggered a requirement for California to submit a new
SIP submission for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the San
Joaquin Valley that satisfied the requirements of CAA section 189(d).
The statutory deadline for this additional SIP submission was December
31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 81 FR 84481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2018, the EPA determined that California had failed
to submit a complete section 189(d) attainment plan for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, among other required SIP submissions for the
San Joaquin Valley, by the statutory deadlines.\13\ This finding, which
became effective on January 7, 2019, triggered the requirement for a
new SIP submission addressing the identified failure to submit
deficiencies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 83 FR 62720.
\14\ Id. at 62723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Standards,'' adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) on November 15, 2018, and by CARB on
January 24, 2019 (``2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'').\15\ The 2018
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan addressed the Serious area nonattainment plan and
CAA section 189(d) requirements for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS, in addition to other requirements for the 1997 24-hour, 2006,
and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. CARB clarified in its submittal letter
that the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan superseded past submissions to the
EPA that the agency had not yet acted on for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\16\ Letter dated June 24, 2020, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ``RE: Completeness Finding
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions for San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Termination of Clean Air Act (CAA) Sanction Clocks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2021, the EPA proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove portions of the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that
addressed attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.\17\ The EPA proposed to approve
the 2013 base year emissions inventories and disapprove the attainment
demonstration and related elements because certified air quality data
were available that established that the San Joaquin Valley area did
not attain the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 2020,
as projected in the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. On November 26, 2021,
the EPA finalized the partial approval and partial disapproval of the
2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
as proposed.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 86 FR 38652.
\18\ 86 FR 67329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the November 26, 2021 disapprovals, California was
required to develop and submit a revised attainment plan for the San
Joaquin Valley area that addressed the applicable CAA requirements,
including the Serious area plan requirements and the requirements of
CAA section 189(d) for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The
revised plan was required to demonstrate attainment of these NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than 5 years from the date of
the EPA's prior determination that the area failed to attain (i.e., by
November 23, 2021), except that the EPA could extend the attainment
date to a date no later than 10 years from the failure to attain
determination (i.e., to November 23, 2026), ``considering the severity
of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution
control measures.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 81 FR 84481, 84482 (final EPA action determining that the
San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS by the December 31, 2015, Serious area attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2021, CARB submitted the ``Attainment Plan Revision
for the 1997 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision''), adopted by the SJVUAPCD on August 19, 2021, and adopted by
CARB on September 23, 2021.\20\ In the letter accompanying the
submission, CARB clarified that the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
amended the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter dated November 8, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9. The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision was
developed jointly by CARB and the District.
\21\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2023, the EPA approved the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision as a revision to the California SIP, establishing an
applicable attainment date of December 31, 2023, for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\22\ As a part of that
approval, the EPA approved CARB's commitment to achieve aggregate
emissions reductions of 3.0 tons per day (tpd) of NO<INF>X</INF> and
0.04 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> (referred to as an ``aggregate
tonnage commitment'') through adoption of CARB's ``Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' (``Heavy-Duty I/M'') (referred to
as a ``control measure commitment'') and/or substitute measures.\23\
The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision also included discussion of the
``Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment Incentive Projects''
(``Valley Incentive Measure''), which was expected to provide for
further emissions reductions by the 2023 attainment year. No specific
emissions
[[Page 55898]]
reductions were attributed to this measure.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 88 FR 86581. As discussed in the EPA's proposal to approve
the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, the attainment date for the
189(d) plan was established consistent with CAA sections 179(d)(3)
and 172(a)(2).
\23\ CARB Resolution 21-21, September 23, 2021, p. 6; and August
2021 Staff Report, pp. 4-5.
\24\ August 2021 Staff Report, pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB adopted the Valley Incentive Measure on December 12, 2019,\25\
and submitted the measure to the EPA on February 11, 2020.\26\ The EPA
approved portions of the Valley Incentive Measure into the California
SIP on December 27, 2021.\27\ The SIP-approved Valley Incentive Measure
contains a set of enforceable commitments by CARB to monitor, assess,
and regularly report on emissions reductions from off-road mobile,
diesel agricultural equipment replacement projects implemented through
CARB's Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program
(``Carl Moyer'') and CARB's Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures
for Emission Reductions (FARMER) Program, according to specific
guidelines and/or program criteria. These program requirements ensure,
among other things, that older, dirtier agricultural equipment
currently in operation in the San Joaquin Valley will be replaced with
less-polluting equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CARB Resolution 19-26, December 12, 2019.
\26\ Letter dated February 11, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Ms. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\27\ 86 FR 73106. The EPA approved the Carl Moyer Memorial Air
Quality Standards Attainment Program (``Carl Moyer Program'') and
Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions
Program'' (``FARMER Program''). The EPA deferred action on the
United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP) portion of the Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley Incentive Measure obligates CARB to achieve specific
amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions reductions
through implementation of these programs by specific years, to submit
annual reports to the EPA beginning on May 15, 2021, detailing the
implementation of specific projects and the projected emissions
reductions, and to adopt and submit substitute measures by specific
dates if the EPA determines that the identified projects will not
achieve the necessary emissions reductions by the applicable
implementation deadlines.
The Valley Incentive Measure included commitments by CARB to (1)
monitor, assess, and report on emissions reductions, and to (2) achieve
emissions reductions by 2024 of 4.83 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.24 tpd
of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and emissions reductions by 2025 of 4.46 tpd
of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.26 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\28\ The
EPA's final partial approval of this measure on December 27, 2021,
credited CARB's tonnage commitments for 2024 (for attaining the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS) and 2025 (for attaining the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS).\29\ While the State did not take credit for
any emissions reductions from this measure in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision, it asserted in its ``Staff Report, Proposed SIP Revision for
the 15 ug/m\3\ Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' release date August 13, 2021 (``August 2021 Staff
Report''),\30\ that a large portion of those emissions reductions would
in fact be achieved by 2023.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 73108-73109.
\29\ Id.
\30\ CARB's August 2021 Staff Report includes CARB's review of,
among other things, the control strategy in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision.
\31\ CARB's August 2021 Staff Report, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The State's Submittal
A. Revision of the Aggregate Tonnage Commitment for the 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ SIP Revision
The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments are included in the CARB Staff
Report, ``Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2024 Plan for the 2012 12
[micro]g/m\3\ Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard and Amendments to the
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure and the 1997 15 [micro]g/m\3\
State Implementation Plan Revision,'' which otherwise includes the CARB
staff assessment of the 2024 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\32\ In the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments,
CARB seeks to revise the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision commitment to
achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 3.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and
0.04 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> from CARB's Heavy-Duty I/M Program
by replacing it with a commitment to achieve the same reductions from
the Valley Incentive Measure.\33\ CARB states that, per its ``2022
Annual Demonstration Report, San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment
Incentive Measure, Covering Projects Completed Through 12/31/2022''
(``2022 Annual Demonstration Report''),\34\ ``the Carl Moyer and FARMER
agricultural equipment projects completed by December 31, 2022,
achieved reductions of 5.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.27 tpd
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions, well in excess of the 3.0 tpd of
NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.04 tpd aggregate commitment in the 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ SIP Revision.'' \35\ The 2022 Annual Demonstration Report includes
CARB's quantification of the emissions reductions from the Valley
Incentive Measure based on detailed information about each agricultural
equipment replacement project completed under the Carl Moyer and FARMER
programs leading up to the 2023 attainment year established in the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ CARB, ``Staff Report, Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2024
Plan for the 2012 12 [micro]g/m\3\ Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard
and Amendments to the Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure and
the 1997 15 [micro]g/m\3\ State Implementation Plan Revision'' (June
14, 2024).
\33\ 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, pp. 54-55.
\34\ CARB, ``2022 Annual Demonstration Report, San Joaquin
Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure, Covering Projects
Completed Through 12/31/2022,'' (May 15, 2023) (included as Appendix
B to the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments).
\35\ 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, 55.
\36\ 2022 Annual Demonstration Report, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Revision to the State's Valley Incentive Measure
The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments seek to amend the SIP-approved
Valley Incentive Measure to include a quantification of emissions
reductions for 2023 from existing Carl Moyer and FARMER agriculture
equipment projects and for the EPA to approve those emissions
reductions for SIP credit.\37\ CARB's submittal explains that the EPA
``approved the portions of the Valley Incentive Measure that were
attributed to projects funded through Carl Moyer and FARMER Programs,''
and that the emissions reductions resulting from the two projects were
specifically credited against CARB's 2024 and 2025 aggregate tonnage
emissions reduction commitment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
and 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in the Valley.\38\ CARB
asserts that because the Valley Incentive Measure included projects to
achieve SIP credit in 2024, the projects through December 31, 2022,
should also be SIP-creditable for 2023 and that they similarly meet the
EPA integrity elements: enforceable, quantifiable, surplus, and
permanent.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, p. 55.
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal
A. Completeness Review of the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments
On June 21, 2024, CARB submitted the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments for parallel processing.\40\ Parallel processing refers to a
process that utilizes concurrent state and federal proposed rulemaking
actions.\41\ Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed
regulation or other revisions to the EPA before conducting its public
hearing and completing its public comment process under state law. The
EPA reviews this proposed
[[Page 55899]]
state action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking under federal
law. In some cases, the EPA publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is
holding its own public hearing and public comment process. The state
and the EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both
the state action and federal action on the initial SIP submission from
the state. If, after completing its public comment process and after
the EPA's public comment process has run, the state materially changes
its final SIP submission to the EPA from the initial proposed
submission, the EPA evaluates those changes and decides whether to
publish another notice of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes
or to proceed to taking final action on its proposed action and
describe the state's changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final
rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the state formally
adopts and submits its final submission to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Letter dated June 21, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff, Executive
Office, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, with enclosure.
\41\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine
whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This
section also provides that if the EPA has not affirmatively determined
a SIP submission to be complete or incomplete, it will become complete
by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA's
SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The
EPA has reviewed the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments and finds that it
fulfills the completeness criteria of Appendix V, with the exception of
the requirements of paragraphs 2.1(e)-2.1(h), which do not apply to
plans submitted for parallel processing.
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP submission to the EPA. To
meet this requirement, a state's SIP submission must include evidence
that the state provided adequate public notice and an opportunity for a
public hearing, consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102. However, because CARB submitted the 15 [micro]g/m\3\
Plan Amendments for parallel processing, this initial submission is
exempt from this requirement pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
Section 2.3.1. CARB is required to meet these procedural criteria
during the parallel processing period and prior to adopting and
submitting the final SIP submission to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate
whether the final submission meets these requirements at the time of
any final action on the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments.
B. Review of the Revision to the Aggregate Tonnage Commitment for the
15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.\42\ In this instance,
the EPA-approved 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision includes an aggregate
tonnage commitment to achieve 3.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
reductions and 0.04 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions reductions
in 2023 through the implementation of CARB's Heavy-Duty I/M measure
and/or through SIP-approved substitute measures.\43\ In its 15
[micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments and 2022 Annual Demonstration Report,
CARB provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that its
aggregate tonnage commitment was achieved by implementation of the
Valley Incentive Measure, specifically that the implementation of the
Carl Moyer and FARMER programs completed by December 31, 2022, achieved
reductions of 5.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.27 tpd of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. For this reason, we propose to find that
the revision of this commitment to satisfy its terms through a
substitute measure would not interfere with any applicable requirement
of the CAA, and we are proposing to approve the revision to the State's
aggregate tonnage commitment into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
\43\ CARB's August 2021 Staff Report, pp. 4-5 (``[I]f a
particular measure does not get its expected emission reductions,
the State is still committed to achieving the total aggregate
emission reductions . . . The SIP revision would outline the changes
that have occurred and provide appropriate tracking to demonstrate
that aggregate emission reductions sufficient for attainment are
being achieved through enforceable emission reduction measures.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Review of the Revision to the State's Valley Incentive Measure
1. The EPA's Evaluation Criteria
Generally, SIP control measures must be enforceable (see CAA
section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP
control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent
or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentive
programs (EIPs) as one tool for states to use to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS. EIPs use market-based strategies to encourage the reduction
of emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources in an efficient
manner. The EPA has promulgated regulations for statutory EIPs required
under section 182(g) of the Act and has issued guidance for
discretionary EIPs.
The EPA has consistently stated that, where a state intends to rely
on a nontraditional program, such as an EIP, to satisfy CAA
requirements, the state must demonstrate that the program achieves
emissions reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and
permanent. In addition, where a State relies on a discretionary EIP or
other voluntary measure to satisfy an attainment planning requirement
under the CAA (e.g., to demonstrate that specific amounts of emissions
reductions will occur by a future milestone date), the State must take
responsibility for assuring that SIP emissions reduction requirements
are met through an enforceable commitment, which becomes federally
enforceable upon approval into the SIP. The purpose of the revision to
the Valley Incentive Measure in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments,
however, is to demonstrate that the emissions reductions required under
a previously-approved SIP commitment (i.e., the aggregate tonnage
commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan) have in fact been achieved,
not to satisfy a future emissions reduction requirement. Accordingly,
it is not necessary to require the State to submit additional
commitments for this purpose.
2. Does the measure meet the evaluation criteria?
In the EPA's December 2021 action partially approving the Valley
Incentive Measure into the SIP and crediting emissions reductions for
2024 and 2025, we evaluated the Valley Incentive Measure according to
the above criteria and found that portions of the submitted measure
satisfied CAA requirements for SIP approval.\44\ Specifically, we found
that CARB's Carl Moyer and FARMER agricultural equipment replacement
projects spanning a 2015-2024 timeframe satisfied the EPA integrity
elements (that the emissions reductions from the programs were
enforceable, permanent, quantifiable, and surplus), complied with
required procedures for public disclosure of information, and
adequately demonstrated State funding, resources, and legal authority
to
[[Page 55900]]
implement the programs.\45\ We also found that CARB had adequately
explained how the projects implemented under the Valley Incentive
Measure would achieve emissions reductions beyond those already
accounted for in the baseline inventories in the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 86 FR 73106.
\45\ Id. See also EPA Region IX, ``Technical Support Document
for EPA's Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan,
California Air Resources Board Resolution 19-26 San Joaquin Valley
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure,'' (February 2020).
\46\ Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the intervening years between the EPA's December 2021 partial
approval of the Valley Incentive Measure and the current action, CARB
has continued to implement the SIP-approved Valley Incentive Measure,
including the submittal of annual demonstration reports to the EPA,
e.g., the 2022 Annual Demonstration Report, which covered projects
completed through December 31, 2022 (i.e., prior to the 2023 attainment
year in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision).\47\ We also note that the
15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision relied on the same baseline inventories
in the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,\48\ and therefore the reductions
from projects implemented under the Valley Incentive Measure through
December 31, 2022, are surplus relative to the inventories in the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.\49\ Thus, the EPA finds that our December
2021 determination that the Carl Moyer and FARMER programs satisfied
the EPA's evaluation criteria extends to the emissions reductions from
projects completed under the Valley Incentive Measure by December 31,
2022. Specifically, we find that these reductions were enforceable,
permanent, quantifiable, and surplus with respect to the 2023 baseline
inventory in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, and they are therefore
creditable as a substitute measure to meet the aggregate tonnage
commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See CARB, ``2021 Annual Demonstration Report, San Joaquin
Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure, Covering Projects
Completed Through 3/31/2022,'' (May 15, 2022); CARB, 2022 Annual
Demonstration Report; CARB, ``2023 Annual Demonstration Report, San
Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure Covering
Projects Completed Through 12/31/2023,'' (May 15, 2024).
\48\ 88 FR 45276, 45279.
\49\ See 86 FR 73106, 73110 (``to satisfy the surplus (i.e.,
additionality) criterion in the EPA's longstanding guidance, the
Amended Valley Incentive Measure need only be surplus to the control
measures and programs that are accounted for in the attainment
plan(s) in which CARB relies upon this measure.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.\50\
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 directs federal government agencies
to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies
perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people
of color and other underserved groups,\51\ and Executive Order 14008
directs federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities
to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and
climate impacts on disadvantaged communities.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
\51\ 86 FR 7009 (January 25, 2021).
\52\ 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in
underserved communities in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area
and to better understand the context of our proposed action on these
communities, we rely on the EPA's August 2022 screening-level analysis
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the San Joaquin Valley using the EPA's
environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool
(``EJSCREEN'').<SUP>53 54</SUP> The results of this analysis are being
provided for informational and transparency purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen</a>.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing each of the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley. We note that the indicators for Kern County are for
the entire county. While the indicators might have slightly
different numbers for the San Joaquin Valley portion of the county,
most of the county's population is in the San Joaquin Valley
portion, and thus the differences would be small. These indicators
are included in EJSCREEN reports that are available in the
rulemaking docket for this action.
\54\ EPA Region IX, ``EJSCREEN Analysis for the Eight Counties
of the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area,'' August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our screening-level analysis indicates that the ``Demographic
Index'' for each of the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley is
above the national average, ranging from 48 percent in Stanislaus
County to 61 percent in Tulare County, compared to 36 percent
nationally. The Demographic Index is the average of an area's percent
minority and percent low income populations, i.e., the two populations
explicitly named in Executive Order 12898.\55\ All eight counties are
above the national average for demographic indices of ``Linguistically
Isolated Population'' and ``Population with Less than High School
Education.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics
cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and traffic proximity and volume)
and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). The value for a particular
indicator measures how the community of interest compares with the
state, the EPA region, or the national average. For example, if a
given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that
only 5 percent of the U.S. population has a higher value than the
average person in the location being analyzed. EJSCREEN also reports
EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental
indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional
information about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ
indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental
Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' Section 2 (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to pollution, all eight counties are at or above the
97th percentile nationally for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> index and seven of
the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley are at or above the 90th
percentile nationally for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> EJ index, which is a
combination of the Demographic Index and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> index.
Most counties are also above the 80th percentile for each of 11
additional EJ indices included in the EPA's EJSCREEN analysis. In
addition, several counties are above the 90th percentile for certain EJ
indices, including, for example, the Ozone EJ Index (Fresno, Kern,
Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties), the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) Respiratory Hazard EJ Index (Madera and Tulare
counties), and the Wastewater Discharge Indicator EJ Index (Merced, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Notably, Tulare County is above the 90th percentile for 6
of the 12 EJ indices in the EPA's EJSCREEN analysis, including the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> EJ Index, which is the highest value among all San
Joaquin Valley counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action would approve a State SIP revision related to
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS into the California SIP.
Information on the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and its
relationship to negative health impacts can be found at 62 FR 38652
(July 18, 1997). We expect that this action will generally have neutral
environmental and health impacts on all populations in the San Joaquin
Valley, including people of color and low-income populations. This
action would not worsen existing air quality and there is no
information in the record indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a particular group of people.
[[Page 55901]]
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California
SIP, the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, which amends the Valley
Incentive Measure for the purposes of emissions reductions in 2023 and
revises the aggregate tonnage commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision to reflect that it has been satisfied by the Valley Incentive
Measure. We also propose to approve the State's demonstration that the
Valley Incentive Measure has achieved emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd
of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.27 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the year
2023.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state plans as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this proposed action:
<bullet> 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state plan;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA;
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people
should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences
of industrial, governmental, and commercial operaions or programs and
policies.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an EJ
analysis, as is described above in the section titled, ``Environmental
Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was included in this document
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition,
there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 27, 2024.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-14677 Filed 7-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 8, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.