Vol. 81 Tuesday, 

No. 26 February 9, 2016 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

Approval and Disapproval of California Air Plan; San Joaquin Valley 

Serious Area Plan and Attainment Date Extension for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6936 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 

mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 

50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened 

the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the 

level to 12.0 mg/m3 while retaining the secondary 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the level of 15.0 mg/m3. 78 

FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In 

this preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 

standards (65 mg/m3) and annual standards (15.0 mg/ 

m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 

No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/

002bF, October 2004. 

3 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). 

4 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 

5 Id. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0432; FRL–9942–00– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Disapproval of California 

Air Plan; San Joaquin Valley Serious 

Area Plan and Attainment Date 

Extension for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

conditionally approve, and disapprove 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by California to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements for the 1997 24-hour and 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

As part of this action, the EPA is 

proposing to grant extensions of the 

Serious area attainment dates for the 

1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV to December 31, 2018 and 

December 31, 2020, respectively, based 

on a conclusion that the State has 

satisfied the statutory criteria for these 

extensions of the Serious area 

attainment date. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve inter-pollutant 

trading ratios for use in transportation 

conformity analyses. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0432 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

mays.rory@epa.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. For either manner of 

submission, 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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region 9, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 

PM2.5 Plan 

III. Completeness Review of the San Joaquin 

Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5

Serious Area Plans 

A. PM2.5 Serious Area Plan Requirements 

B. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures 

C. Implementation of Reasonably Available 

Control Measures 

D. Extension of the Serious Area 

Attainment Date Beyond 2015 

V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

Serious Area Plan and Extension 

Application 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Adequate Monitoring Network 

C. PM2.5 Precursors 

D. Best Available Control Measures and 

Most Stringent Measures 

E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment 

Date Under CAA Section 188(e) 

1. Application for an Attainment Date 

Extension 

2. Demonstration That Attainment by 

Serious Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

3. Compliance With All Requirements and 

Commitments in the Implementation 

Plan 

4. Demonstration That the Implementation 

Plan Includes the Most Stringent 

Measures 

5. Demonstration of Attainment by the 

Most Expeditious Alternative Date 

Practicable 

F. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

G. Contingency Measures 

H. Major Stationary Source Control 

Requirements Under CAA Section 189(e) 

I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and 

Request for Public Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particles less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5), including an annual 

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations.1 The EPA established 

these standards after considering 

substantial evidence from numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations 

above these levels. 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms, as well as new evidence for 

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular 

health. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children.2

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(primary PM2.5 or direct PM2.5) or can be 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5).3

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

107(d) to designate areas throughout the 

nation as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, the EPA 

published initial air quality 

designations for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality 

monitoring data for the three-year 

periods of 2001–2003 and 2002–2004.4

These designations became effective 

April 5, 2005.5 The EPA designated the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6937 

6 40 CFR 81.305. The 2001–2003 design values for 

the San Joaquin Valley were 21.8 mg/m3 for the 

annual standard and 82 mg/m3 for the 24-hour 

standard. See EPA design value workbook dated 

August 12, 2014, worksheets ‘‘Table 3a’’ and ‘‘Table 

3b.’’ 

7For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

8 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 

9 Id. at 69924. 

10 Id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the 

attainment date for a nonattainment area is ‘‘the 

date by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five 

years from the date such area was designated 

nonattainment,’’ except that EPA may extend the 

attainment date as appropriate for a period no 

greater than ten years from the date of designation 

as nonattainment, considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 

pollution control measures. CAA section 

172(a)(2)(A); see also 40 CFR 51.1004(a) and (b). 

11 72 FR 20583 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 

CFR part 51, subpart Z. This rule was premised on 

EPA’s prior interpretation of the Act as allowing for 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS solely 

pursuant to the general nonattainment area 

provisions of subpart 1 and not the more specific 

provisions for particulate matter nonattainment 

areas in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. 

12 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 

13Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘NRDC’’). 

14 Id. 

15 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). As part of this 

rulemaking, EPA established a December 31, 2014 

deadline for states to submit attainment-related and 

nonattainment new source review (NNSR) SIP 

elements required for PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

pursuant to subpart 4. Id. 

16 Id. at 31569. 

17 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). 

18 Id. at 18529; see also proposed rule, 80 FR 1482 

(January 12, 2015). Air quality data for 2012–2014 

indicated that the highest monitors in the SJV area 

had design values of 19.7 mg/m3 for the annual 

standard and 71 mg/m3 for the 24-hour standard. 

19 80 FR 18258 at 18530–18532. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. at 18531. 

San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area as 

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard (15.0 mg/m3) and the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard (65 mg/

m3).6

The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles 

and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern.7 The 

area is home to 4 million people and is 

the nation’s leading agricultural region. 

Stretching over 250 miles from north to 

south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is 

partially enclosed by the Coast 

Mountain range to the west, the 

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and 

the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or District) has primary responsibility 

for developing plans to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS in this area. 

The District works cooperatively with 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) in preparing attainment plans. 

Authority for regulating sources under 

State jurisdiction in the SJV is split 

between the District, which has 

responsibility for regulating stationary 

and most area sources, and CARB, 

which has responsibility for regulating 

most mobile sources. 

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submissions to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV.8 We refer to these 

submissions collectively as the ‘‘2008 

PM2.5 Plan.’’ On November 9, 2011, the 

EPA approved all elements of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan except for the contingency 

measures, which the EPA disapproved.9

As part of that action and pursuant to 

CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the EPA 

granted California’s request for an 

extension of the attainment date for the 

SJV area to April 5, 2015.10 The EPA 

took these actions in accordance with 

the ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule,’’ which the EPA 

issued in April 2007 to assist states in 

their development of SIPs to meet the 

Act’s attainment planning requirements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (hereafter 

‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’).11

In July 2013, the State submitted a 

revised PM2.5 contingency measure plan 

for the SJV, which the EPA fully 

approved in May 2014.12

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (‘‘D.C. 

Circuit’’) issued its decision in a 

challenge by the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) to the EPA’s 

2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.13 In 

NRDC, the court held that the EPA erred 

in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

standards solely pursuant to the general 

implementation requirements of subpart 

1, without also considering the 

requirements specific to nonattainment 

areas for particles less than or equal to 

10 mm in diameter (PM10) in subpart 4, 

part D of title I of the CAA. The court 

reasoned that the plain meaning of the 

CAA requires implementation of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards under subpart 4 

because PM2.5 particles fall within the 

statutory definition of PM10 and are thus 

subject to the same statutory 

requirements as PM10. The court 

remanded the rule, without vacatur, and 

instructed the EPA ‘‘to repromulgate 

these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 

consistent with this opinion.’’ 14

Consistent with the NRDC decision, 

on June 2, 2014, the EPA published a 

final rule classifying all areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment under subpart 4.15

Because this rulemaking did not affect 

any action that the EPA had previously 

taken under section 110(k) of the Act on 

a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the 

April 5, 2015 attainment date that the 

EPA had approved for the SJV area in 

November 2011 remained in effect.16 On 

April 7, 2015, the EPA published a final 

rule reclassifying the SJV area as 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment under subpart 

4, based on the EPA’s determination 

that the area could not practicably attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards by the April 5, 

2015 attainment date.17 This 

reclassification was based upon the 

EPA’s evaluation of ambient air quality 

data from the 2003–2014 period, 

including the 2012–2014 design value, 

indicating that it was not practicable for 

certain monitoring sites within the SJV 

area to show PM2.5 design values at or 

below the level of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by April 5, 2015.18

As a consequence of its 

reclassification as a Serious PM2.5

nonattainment area, the SJV area 

became subject to a new attainment date 

under CAA section 188(c)(2) and the 

requirement to submit a Serious area 

plan that satisfies the requirements of 

part D of title I of the Act, including the 

requirements of subpart 4, for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.19 Under subpart 4, the 

attainment date for an area classified as 

Serious is as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the end of 

the tenth calendar year following 

designation. As explained in the EPA’s 

final reclassification action, the Serious 

area plan for SJV must include 

provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM) for 

the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors shall be implemented no 

later than 4 years after the area is 

reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)), 

and a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015, which is the latest permissible 

attainment date under CAA section 

188(c)(2).20

Given the December 31, 2015 

outermost attainment deadline for the 

SJV area under section 188(c)(2), the 

EPA noted its expectation that the State 

would adopt and submit a Serious area 

plan for the SJV well before the 

statutory SIP submission deadlines in 

CAA section 189(b)(2).21 The EPA also 

noted that, in light of the available 

ambient air quality data and the short 

amount of time available before the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date, 

California may choose to submit a 

request for an extension of the Serious 

area attainment date pursuant to CAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6938 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22 Id. 

23Letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, 

Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, with enclosures. 

24Letter dated August 13, 2015, from Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures. 

25See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, regarding 

trends. 

26See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B and 

Appendix G (‘‘New Source Review (NSR) and 

Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs)’’). 

27See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E 

(‘‘Incentive and Other Non-regulatory Strategies’’). 

28 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ‘‘Staff Report, ARB Review of 

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan,’’ release date April 20, 2015, pp. 9, 17–22, 25– 

26, and 26–27, respectively. 

29 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ‘‘Attainment Demonstration 

for the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the 

Annual (15 mg/m3) and 24-hour (65 mg/m3) 

Standards.’’ 

30 2015 PM2.5 Plan, ‘‘Technical Clarifications to 

the 2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan.’’ 

section 188(e) simultaneously with its 

submission of a Serious area plan for the 

area.22

II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 

2015 PM2.5 Plan 

We are proposing action on two 

California SIP submissions that address 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

first submission is the ‘‘2015 Plan for 

the 1997 PM2.5 Standard,’’ which the 

State submitted to the EPA on June 25, 

2015.23 The second submission is the 

‘‘2018 Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement,’’ which the 

State submitted to the EPA on August 

13, 2015.24 We refer to these SIP 

submissions collectively herein as the 

‘‘2015 PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘the Plan.’’ The 

2015 PM2.5 Plan is a PM2.5 Serious area 

plan for the SJV and includes a request 

to extend the applicable attainment 

dates for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards by five and three years, 

respectively, on the basis that 

attainment by December 31, 2015 is 

impracticable, in accordance with CAA 

section 188(e). 

The first submission includes two sets 

of documents: The ‘‘2015 Plan for the 

PM2.5 Standard,’’ adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board on April 

16, 2015 and the ‘‘Staff Report, ARB 

Review of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

State Implementation Plan,’’ adopted by 

CARB on May 21, 2015 (‘‘CARB Staff 

Report’’). Both sets of documents 

include Appendices A and B. To 

distinguish between the two sets of 

appendices, we refer to those adopted 

by the SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

simply as ‘‘Appendix A’’ (‘‘Ambient 

PM2.5 Data Analysis’’) and ‘‘Appendix 

B’’ (‘‘Emission Inventory Tables’’), and 

we refer to the additional appendices 

that accompany CARB’s Staff Report as 

‘‘WOEA’’ for Appendix A (‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Weight of Evidence 

Analysis’’) and ‘‘CARB Staff Report, 

Appendix B’’ for Appendix B (‘‘San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP Additional 

Emission Reductions Towards Meeting 

Aggregate Commitment’’). 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes an 

Executive Summary and a description of 

air quality standards and requirements 

applicable to the SJV (Chapter 1), PM2.5

challenges and trends (Chapter 2, 

including a summary of the District’s 

determination regarding air pollutant 

precursors to PM2.5), and health impacts 

and risk reduction strategy (Chapter 

3).25 Chapter 4 presents the 

SJVUAPCD’s request for an extension of 

the PM2.5 Serious area attainment date; 

summary arguments for how the 

SJVUAPCD claims it has met the 

extension requirements of CAA section 

188(e), including a demonstration that 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2015 is impracticable; a 

demonstration, as detailed in Appendix 

F (‘‘Attainment Demonstration 

(Provided by ARB)’’), of attainment by 

the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable; and financial commitments 

to achieve further emission reductions 

by replacing heavy duty trucks and 

residential wood burning devices 

through the District’s truck replacement 

incentive program and Burn Cleaner 

Incentive Program, respectively. 

Chapter 5, Appendix C (‘‘BACM and 

MSM for Stationary and Area Sources’’), 

and Appendix D (‘‘BACM and MSM for 

Mobile Sources (Provided by ARB)’’) 

provide analyses of District and State 

rules to address the statutory 

requirements for Best Available Control 

Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent 

Measures (MSM) and the District’s 

calculation of de minimis thresholds for 

directly emitted PM2.5 (direct PM2.5), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur 

oxides (SOX). 

Chapters 6 and 7 present the District’s 

summary analysis to address the 

planning requirements for PM2.5 Serious 

nonattainment areas under subparts 1 

and 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, 

including the statutory requirements for 

extension requests under CAA section 

188(e). These include the District’s 

analysis and demonstration, in Chapter 

6, of its compliance with the 

requirements and commitments in the 

implementation plan for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and quantitative 

milestones, contingency measures, 

transportation conformity budgets for 

2014, 2017, and 2020, and permitting of 

new and modified major stationary 

sources (i.e., nonattainment new source 

review (NSR)).26 Chapter 7 describes the 

State’s and District’s regulatory control 

strategy, incentive programs, technology 

advancement program, legislative 

strategy, and public outreach.27 Finally, 

Chapter 8 presents the District’s 

commitments to evaluate opportunities 

for additional emission reductions in 

general, and specifically from three 

source categories: Flares, asphalt, and 

conservation management practices. 

The additional documents adopted by 

CARB on May 21, 2015 supplement the 

analysis and demonstrations of those 

adopted by SJVUAPCD. In particular, 

the CARB Staff Report presents 

estimated emission reductions by 2018 

and 2020 from specific District control 

measures; an accounting of how the 

State has complied with its control 

measure and emission reduction 

commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; 

analysis of ammonia effects on 

reasonable further progress planning; 

and 2021 attainment year contingency 

reductions from specific measures.28

These additional documents also 

include the methodology and results for 

the attainment demonstration,29 a 

weight of evidence analysis for the 

attainment demonstration (WOEA), a 

discussion of additional emission 

reductions achieved towards the 

aggregate tonnage commitments of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan (CARB Staff Report, 

Appendix B), and technical 

clarifications for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan as 

a whole (Technical Clarifications).30

Finally, transportation conformity 

budgets for 2018 are presented in a 

supplemental SIP revision adopted July 

23, 2015 and entitled ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 SIP Plan Supplement.’’ 

We present our evaluation of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan in section V of this proposed 

rule. Given the overlap of some control 

and planning requirements between a 

PM2.5 Serious area plan and a request for 

extension of the PM2.5 Serious area 

attainment date, we generally address 

these requirements together rather than 

separately. For example, we address the 

BACM requirement for Serious area 

plans and the MSM requirement for 

extension requests together in section 

V.D. of this proposed rule. Similarly, we 

address the requirement for a Serious 

area attainment demonstration and the 

requirement to demonstrate attainment 

by the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable, for purposes of requesting 

an extension of the attainment date, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6939 

31SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Notice of Public Workshop [on] 

Draft Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard,’’ March 2, 

2015; SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Notice of Public Hearing [to] 

Adopt Proposed 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5

Standard,’’ March 17, 2015; and SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution 15–4–7A, ‘‘In the 

Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 2015 Plan for the 

1997 PM2.5 Standard,’’ April 16, 2015. 

32CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 

Approval of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan,’’ April 20, 2015; and CARB 

Board Resolution 15–9, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

State Implementation Plan,’’ May 21, 2015. 

33CARB, ‘‘Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 

the Approval of Transportation Conformity Budgets 

for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan,’’ June 19, 2015; and CARB 

Board Resolution 15–39, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

State Implementation Plan,’’ July 23, 2015. 34 80 FR 18528, 18531 (April 7, 2015). 

35For any Serious area, the terms ‘‘major source’’ 

and ‘‘major stationary source’’ include any 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to 

emit at least 70 tons per year of PM10 (CAA section 

189(b)(3)). 

together in section V.E.5 of this 

proposed rule. 

III. Completeness Review of the San 

Joaquin Valley 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

110(l) require each state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submission of a SIP or 

SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this 

requirement, every SIP submission 

should include evidence that adequate 

public notice was given and 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 satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and 

submission of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. The 

District conducted a public workshop, 

provided a public comment period, and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the main SIP submission on 

April 16, 2015.31 CARB provided the 

required public notice and opportunity 

for public comment prior to its May 21, 

2015 public hearing and adoption of the 

main SIP submission.32 CARB then 

adopted its supplemental SIP 

submission pertaining to 2018 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emission budgets at its July 23, 2015 

Board meeting after reasonable public 

notice.33 Each submission includes 

proof of publication of notices for the 

respective public hearings. We find, 

therefore, that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

meets the procedural requirements for 

public notice and hearing in CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submission is complete within 60 days 

of receipt. This section also provides 

that any plan that the EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

date of submission. The EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. The initial 

SIP submission, dated June 25, 2015, 

became complete by operation of law on 

December 25, 2015 and we find that the 

SIP submission pertaining to 2018 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emission budgets, dated August 13, 

2015, satisfies the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

PM2.5 Serious Area Plans 

A. PM2.5 Serious Area Plan 

Requirements 

Upon reclassification of a Moderate 

nonattainment area as a Serious 

nonattainment area under subpart 4, the 

CAA requires the State to submit the 

following Serious area SIP elements: 34

1. A comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 

the area (CAA section 172(c)(3)); 

2. Provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM), 

including best available control 

technology (BACT), for the control of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall 

be implemented no later than 4 years 

after the area is reclassified (CAA 

section 189(b)(1)(B)); 

3. A demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015, or where the State is seeking 

an extension of the attainment date 

under section 188(e), a demonstration 

that attainment by December 31, 2015 is 

impracticable and that the plan provides 

for attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable (CAA 

sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A)); 

4. Plan provisions that require 

reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA 

section 172(c)(2)); 

5. Quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every 3 years until the 

area is redesignated attainment and 

which demonstrate RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable date (CAA 

section 189(c)); 

6. Provisions to assure that control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to 

major stationary sources of PM2.5

precursors, except where the State 

demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction 

that such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed 

the standard in the area (CAA section 

189(e)); 

7. Contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to meet 

RFP or to attain by the applicable 

attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); 

and 

8. A revision to the nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) program to 

lower the applicable ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ 35 thresholds from 100 tons per 

year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 

189(b)(3)). 

Serious area PM2.5 plans must also 

satisfy the requirements for Moderate 

area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the 

extent those requirements have not 

already been satisfied in the Moderate 

area plan submitted for the area; the 

general requirements applicable to all 

SIP submissions under section 110 of 

the CAA; the requirement to provide 

necessary assurances that the 

implementing agencies have adequate 

personnel, funding and authority under 

section 110(a)(2)(E); and the 

requirements concerning enforcement 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C). 

The EPA provided its preliminary 

views on the CAA’s requirements for 

particulate matter plans under part D, 

title I of the Act in the following 

guidance documents: (1) ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(hereafter ‘‘General Preamble’’); (2) 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990; Supplemental,’’ 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992) (hereafter 

‘‘Supplement’’); and (3) ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans for Serious PM– 

10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (hereafter 

‘‘Addendum’’). Additionally, in a 

proposed rule published March 23, 2015 

(80 FR 15340), the EPA provided further 

interpretive guidance on the statutory 

SIP requirements that apply to areas 

designated nonattainment for the PM2.5

standards (hereafter ‘‘Proposed PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). We discuss 

these preliminary interpretations of the 

Act as appropriate in our evaluation of 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in section V of this 

proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

36Addendum at 42010, 42013. 

37 Id. at 42011, 42013. 

38 Id. at 42009–42010. 

39 Id. at 42012–42014. 

40EPA previously approved California’s RACM 

demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011). On May 20, 

2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded 

this final rule to EPA on the grounds that the 

California mobile source ‘‘waiver measures’’ upon 

which the plan relied were not federally 

enforceable components of the approved SIP. 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 

(9th Cir. 2015). On November 12, 2015, the EPA 

proposed to approve the relevant waiver measures 

into the SIP and to thereby make them federally 

enforceable under the CAA. 80 FR 69915 

(November 12, 2015). Final approval of these 

waiver measures would cure the deficiency in 

California’s RACM demonstration for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

41Addendum at 42010. 

42For a discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the 

requirements of section 188(e), see Addendum at 

42002 (August 16, 1994); 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 

2000) (proposed action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa 

County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) 

(proposed action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa 

County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002) (final 

action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 

and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 

F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding EPA action on 

PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but 

generally upholding EPA’s interpretation of CAA 

section 188(e)). 

43CAA section 188(e). 

44See 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed 

action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan, 

annual PM10 standard); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 

2001) (proposed action on Maricopa County Serious 

Area Plan, 24-hour PM10 standard); and 67 FR 

48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa 

County Serious Area Plan). 

B. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures 

Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act 

requires for any serious PM2.5

nonattainment area that the State submit 

provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM) for 

the control of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors shall be implemented no 

later than four years after the date the 

area is reclassified as a serious area. The 

EPA defines BACM as, among other 

things, the maximum degree of 

emissions reduction achievable for a 

source or source category, which is 

determined on a case-by-case basis 

considering energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts.36 We generally 

consider BACM a control level that goes 

beyond existing RACM-level controls, 

for example by expanding the use of 

RACM controls or by requiring 

preventative measures instead of 

remediation.37 Indeed, as 

implementation of BACM and BACT is 

required when a Moderate 

nonattainment area is reclassified as 

Serious due to its inability to attain the 

NAAQS through implementation of 

‘‘reasonable’’ measures, it is logical that 

‘‘best’’ control measures should 

represent a more stringent and 

potentially more costly level of 

control.38

The EPA has historically provided an 

exemption from BACM and BACT for 

source categories that contribute only de 

minimis levels to ambient PM10

concentrations in a Serious 

nonattainment area. The Addendum 

discusses the following steps for 

determining BACM: 

1. Develop a detailed emission 

inventory of the sources of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors; 

2. Evaluate source category impacts; 

3. Evaluate alternative control 

techniques and their technological 

feasibility; and 

4. Evaluate the costs of control (i.e., 

economic feasibility).39

Once these analyses are complete, the 

State must use this information to 

develop enforceable control measures 

and submit them to the EPA for 

evaluation under CAA section 110. We 

use these steps as guidelines in our 

evaluation of the BACM measures and 

related analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

C. Implementation of Reasonably 

Available Control Measures 

When the EPA reclassifies a Moderate 

area to Serious under subpart 4, the 

requirement to implement reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) in 

section 189(a)(1)(C) remains. Thus, a 

Serious area PM2.5 plan must also 

provide for the implementation of 

RACM as expeditiously as practicable, 

to the extent that the RACM 

requirement has not been satisfied in 

the area’s Moderate area plan.40

However, the EPA does not normally 

conduct a separate evaluation to 

determine whether a Serious area plan’s 

measures also meet the RACM 

requirements. As explained in the 

Addendum, we interpret the BACM 

requirement as generally subsuming the 

RACM requirement—i.e., if we 

determine that the measures are indeed 

the ‘‘best available,’’ we have 

necessarily concluded that they are 

‘‘reasonably available.’’41 Therefore, a 

separate analysis to determine if the 

measures represent a RACM level of 

control is not necessary. A proposed 

approval of a Plan’s provisions 

concerning implementation of BACM is 

also a proposed finding that the Plan 

provides for the implementation of 

RACM. 

D. Extension of the Serious Area 

Attainment Date Beyond 2015 

Under section 188(e) of the Act, a 

state may apply to the EPA for a single 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

date by up to 5 years, which the EPA 

may grant if the State satisfies certain 

conditions. Before the EPA may extend 

the attainment date for a Serious area 

under section 188(e), the State must: (1) 

Apply for an extension of the attainment 

date beyond the statutory attainment 

date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by 

the statutory attainment date is 

impracticable; (3) have complied with 

all requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the plan for the area includes the ‘‘most 

stringent measures’’ that are included in 

the implementation plan of any State or 

are achieved in practice in any State, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area; and (5) submit a demonstration of 

attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable.42

In addition to establishing these 

preconditions for an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date, section 

188(e) provides that the EPA may 

consider a number of factors in 

determining whether to grant an 

extension and the appropriate length of 

time for any such extension. These 

factors are: (1) The nature and extent of 

nonattainment in the area, (2) the types 

and numbers of sources or other 

emitting activities in the area (including 

the influence of uncontrollable natural 

sources and trans-boundary emissions 

from foreign countries), (3) the 

population exposed to concentrations in 

excess of the standard in the area, (4) 

the presence and concentrations of 

potentially toxic substances in the mix 

of particulate emissions in the area, and 

(5) the technological and economic 

feasibility of various control measures.43

Notably, neither the statutory 

requirements nor the discretionary 

factors identified in section 188(e) 

include the specific ambient air quality 

conditions in section 188(d)(2), which 

must be met for an area to qualify for an 

extension of a Moderate area attainment 

date. 

The EPA has previously interpreted 

section 188(e) in approving an extension 

of the PM10 Serious area attainment date 

for the Phoenix Metropolitan area in 

Maricopa County, Arizona.44 We 

propose to generally follow the steps 

provided in that rulemaking action for 

addressing the statutory requirements 

for an extension of the Serious area 

attainment date under section 188(e) as 

described below. 

Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment 

by the statutory Serious area attainment 

date is impracticable. 

Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to 

grant a state request for an extension of 

the Serious area attainment date if, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6941 

45Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment 

date for a Serious area ‘‘shall be as expeditiously 

as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth 

calendar year beginning after the area’s designation 

as nonattainment . . . .’’ EPA designated the SJV 

area as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

effective April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 956–957, January 

5, 2005). Therefore, the latest permissible 

attainment date under section 188(c)(2), for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in this area, 

is December 31, 2015. 

46CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). 

47 General Preamble at 13544; see also 65 FR 

19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000). 

48The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this 

interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 

366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

49 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also 

Addendum at 42010. 

50 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also 

Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 15420 

(March 23, 2015). 51 Id. 52 65 FR 19964, 19968–19969. 

among other things, attainment by the 

date established under section 188(c) 

would be impracticable. In order to 

demonstrate impracticability, the plan 

must show that the implementation of 

BACM and BACT on relevant source 

categories will not bring the area into 

attainment by the statutory Serious area 

attainment date. For the SJV, the Serious 

area attainment date under section 

188(c)(2) is December 31, 2015.45

BACM, including BACT, is the required 

level of control for serious areas that 

must be in place before the Serious area 

attainment date. Therefore, we interpret 

the Act as requiring that a state provide 

for at least the implementation of 

BACM, including BACT, before it can 

claim impracticability of attainment by 

the statutory deadline. The statutory 

provision for demonstrating 

impracticability requires that the 

demonstration be based on air quality 

modeling.46

This interpretation parallels our 

interpretation of the impracticability 

option for Moderate PM10

nonattainment areas in section 

189(a)(1)(B), under which 

implementation of a RACM/RACT 

control strategy, at a minimum, is a 

prerequisite for approval of a Moderate 

area plan demonstrating 

impracticability of attainment by the 

Moderate area attainment date.47

Step 2: Comply with all requirements 

and commitments in the applicable 

implementation plan. 

A second precondition for an 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

under section 188(e) is a showing that 

the State has complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to that area in the 

implementation plan. We interpret this 

criterion to mean that the State has 

implemented the control measures and 

commitments in the SIP revisions it has 

submitted to address the applicable 

requirements in CAA sections 172 and 

189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For 

a Serious area attainment date extension 

request being submitted simultaneously 

with the initial Serious area attainment 

plan for the area, the EPA proposes to 

read section 188(e) not to require the 

area to have a fully approved Moderate 

area attainment plan and to allow for 

extension of the attainment date if the 

area has complied with all Moderate 

area requirements and commitments 

pertaining to that area in the State’s 

submitted Moderate area 

implementation plan. This 

interpretation is based on the plain 

language of section 188(e), which 

requires the State to comply with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan.48

Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of 

the most stringent measures. 

A third precondition for an extension 

of the Serious area attainment under 

section 188(e) is for the State to 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator that the plan for the area 

includes the most stringent measures 

that are included in the implementation 

plan of any state, or are achieved in 

practice in any state, and can feasibly be 

implemented in the area. The EPA has 

interpreted the term ‘‘most stringent 

measure’’ (MSM) to mean the maximum 

degree of emission reduction that has 

been required or achieved from a source 

or source category in any other 

attainment plan or in practice in any 

other state and that can feasibly be 

implemented in the area seeking the 

extension.49 The Act does not specify an 

implementation deadline for MSM. 

Because the clear intent of section 

188(e) is to minimize the length of any 

attainment date extension, we propose 

that the implementation of MSM should 

be as expeditiously as practicable. 

An MSM demonstration should 

follow a process similar to a BACM 

demonstration, but with one additional 

step, as follows: 

1. Develop a detailed emission 

inventory of the sources of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors; 

2. Evaluate source category impacts; 

3. Identify the potentially most 

stringent measures in other 

implementation plans or used in 

practice in other states for each relevant 

source category and, for each measure, 

determine their technological and 

economic feasibility in the 

nonattainment area; 

4. Compare the potential MSM for 

each relevant source category to the 

measures, if any, already adopted for 

that source category in the Serious 

nonattainment area to determine 

whether such potential MSM would 

further reduce emissions; and 

5. Provide for the adoption and 

expeditious implementation of any 

MSM that is more stringent than 

existing measures or, in lieu of 

adoption, provide a reasoned 

justification for rejecting the potential 

MSM (i.e., provide an explanation as to 

why such measures cannot feasibly be 

implemented in the area).50

The level of control required under 

the MSM standard may depend on how 

well other areas have chosen to control 

their sources. If a source category has 

not been well controlled in other areas 

then MSM could theoretically result in 

a low level of control. This contrasts 

with BACM which is determined 

independently of what other areas have 

done and depends only on what is the 

best level of control feasible for an 

area.51 On the other hand, given the 

strategy in the nonattainment provisions 

of the Act to offset longer attainment 

timeframes with more stringent 

emission control requirements, we 

interpret the MSM provision to assure 

that it results in additional controls 

beyond the set of measures adopted as 

BACM. Two ways to do this are (1) to 

require that more sources and source 

categories be subject to MSM analysis 

than to BACM analysis, that is, by 

expanding the applicability provisions 

in the MSM control requirements to 

cover more sources, and (2) to require 

reanalysis of any measures adopted in 

other areas that were rejected during the 

BACM analysis because they could not 

be implemented by the BACM 

implementation deadline to see if they 

are now feasible for the area given the 

longer attainment timeframe.52

Notably, the ‘‘to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator’’ qualifier on the MSM 

requirement indicates that Congress 

granted the EPA considerable discretion 

in determining whether a plan in fact 

includes MSM, recognizing that the 

overall intent of section 188(e) is that 

we grant as short an extension as 

practicable. For this reason, the EPA 

will apply greater scrutiny to the 

evaluation of MSM for source categories 

that contribute the most to the PM2.5

problem in the SJV and less scrutiny to 

source categories that contribute little to 

the PM2.5 problem. 

Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the 

most expeditious alternative date 

practicable. 

Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the 

Serious area plan for the SJV area 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6942 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

53Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting 

that the CAA requires independent treatment of the 

annual and 24-hour PM10 standards in an 

implementation plan). 

54EPA released an update to AP–42 in January 

2011, which revised the equation for estimating 

paved road dust emissions based on an updated 

data regression that included new emission tests 

results. 

55 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). 

56 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). 

57 40 CFR 51.1007(a), 51.1008(b), and 51.1009(f); 

see also U.S. EPA, ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance 

for Implementation of Ozone [and Particulate 

Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ 

available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2014-10/documents/2014revisedeiguidance_

0.pdf. 

58 2015 PM2.5 Plan, SJV Appendix B, pp. B–23 to 

B–29. 

59 Id. at B–31. 

60 Id. at B–27. 

61 Id. At B–20, B–21. 

demonstrate attainment, using air 

quality modeling, by the most 

expeditious date practicable after 

December 31, 2015. Because the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards are 

independent standards, section 

189(b)(1)(A) requires a demonstration of 

attainment by the most expeditious date 

practicable for each standard.53

Evaluation of a modeled attainment 

demonstration consists of two parts: 

Evaluation of the technical adequacy of 

the modeling itself and evaluation of the 

control measures that are relied on to 

demonstrate attainment. The EPA’s 

determination of whether the plan 

provides for attainment by the most 

expeditious date practicable depends on 

whether the plan provides for 

implementation of BACM and BACT no 

later than the statutory implementation 

deadline, MSM as expeditiously as 

practicable, and any other 

technologically and economically 

feasible measures that will result in 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Step 5: Apply for an attainment date 

extension. 

Finally, the State must apply in 

writing to the EPA for an extension of 

a Serious area attainment date, and this 

request must accompany the modeled 

attainment demonstration showing 

attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable. 

Additionally, the State must provide the 

public reasonable notice and 

opportunity for a public hearing on the 

attainment date extension request before 

submitting it to the EPA, in accordance 

with the requirements for SIP revisions 

in CAA section 110. 

V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 Serious Area Plan and Extension 

Application 

A. Emissions Inventory 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that 

each SIP include a ‘‘comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of the 

relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] 

area . . . .’’ By requiring an accounting 

of actual emissions from all sources of 

the relevant pollutants in the area, this 

section provides for the base year 

inventory to include all emissions that 

contribute to the formation of a 

particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 

1997 PM2.5 standards, this includes 

direct PM2.5 as well as the main 

chemical precursors to the formation of 

secondary PM2.5: NOX, sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), and ammonia (NH3). Primary 

PM2.5 includes condensable and 

filterable particulate matter. 

A state must include in its SIP 

submission documentation explaining 

how the emissions data were calculated. 

In estimating mobile source emissions, 

a state should use the latest emissions 

models and planning assumptions 

available at the time the SIP is 

developed. States are also required to 

use the EPA’s Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors (AP–42) 54

road dust method for calculating reentrained road dust emissions from 

paved roads.55 The latest EPA-approved 

version of California’s mobile source 

emission factor model is EMFAC2014.56

In addition to the base year inventory 

submitted to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must 

also submit future ‘‘baseline 

inventories’’ for the projected 

attainment year and each reasonable 

further progress (RFP) milestone year, 

and any other year of significance for 

meeting applicable CAA 

requirements.57 By ‘‘baseline 

inventories’’ (also referred to as 

‘‘projected baseline inventories’’), we 

mean projected emissions inventories 

for future years that account for, among 

other things, the ongoing effects of 

economic growth and adopted 

emissions control requirements. The SIP 

should include documentation to 

explain how the emissions projections 

were calculated. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan 

The planning inventories for direct 

PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors (NOX, 

SOX, VOC, and ammonia) for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area together with 

documentation for the inventories are 

found in SJV Appendix B of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan. Annual average inventories 

and winter daily average inventories, 

representing conditions in the period 

November through April, are provided 

for the base year of 2012 and each 

baseline year from 2013 to 2020. The 

winter daily average inventory is useful 

to evaluate sources of emissions during 

the portion of the year when the vast 

majority of exceedances of the 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS occur. Baseline 

inventories reflect all control measures 

adopted prior to January 2012. Growth 

factors used to project these baseline 

inventories are derived from data 

obtained from a number of sources such 

as the California Energy Commission 

(CEC), the Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and 

the California Department of Finance, as 

well as studies commissioned by the 

SJV’s metropolitan planning 

organizations.58

Each inventory includes emissions 

from point, area, on-road, and non-road 

sources. The inventories use 

EMFAC2014 for estimating on-road 

motor vehicle emissions.59 Re-entrained 

paved road dust emissions were 

calculated using the EPA’s AP–42 road 

dust methodology.60

Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of 

the annual average and winter daily 

average inventories of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors for the base year of 

2012. The District provides its reasons 

for selecting 2012 as the base year in 

Appendix B of the Plan.61 These 

inventories provide the basis for the 

control measure analysis and the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6943 

62CARB submitted the EMFAC2014 model to the 

EPA on May 21, 2015 and EPA recently approved 

that model for use in California SIPs. 80 FR 77337 

(December 14, 2015). 

63SJVAPCD, ‘‘2014 Air Monitoring Network 

Plan,’’ January 28, 2015. 

64 Id., Table 17, p. 25 and Table 19, p. 27. 

65Letter dated June 16, 2015, from Meredith 

Kurpius, Manager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director of 

Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD. 

66SJVAPCD, ‘‘Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan,’’ June 25, 2013. 

67SJVAPCD, ‘‘Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan,’’ June 25, 2013, Tables 15–17, pp. 25–32. 

68Letter dated May 8, 2014, from Meredith 

Kurpius, Manager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director of 

Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ANNUAL AVERAGE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS

FOR THE 2012 BASE YEAR

[Tons/day] 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC Ammonia 

Stationary Sources ............................................................... 8.8 38.3 6.9 99.2 13.6 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 44.1 8.2 0.3 152.1 311.2 

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 7.3 198.0 0.6 54.0 4.7 

Off-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 5.9 87.7 0.2 35.3 0.0 

Total .............................................................................. 66.0 332.2 8.1 340.7 329.5 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 to B–5. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WINTER DAILY AVERAGE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND PM2.5

PRECURSORS FOR THE 2012 BASE YEAR

[Tons/day] 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC Ammonia 

Stationary Sources ............................................................... 8.5 34.6 6.6 98.7 13.5 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 40.7 11.7 0.5 156.5 291.8 

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 7.3 204.1 0.6 55.6 4.7 

Off-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 4.6 68.0 0.2 26.8 0.0 

Total .............................................................................. 61.0 318.5 7.9 337.5 310.0 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 to B–5. 

3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

The inventories in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan are based on the most current and 

accurate information available to the 

State and District at the time the Plan 

and its inventories were being 

developed in 2014 and 2015, including 

the latest version of California’s mobile 

source emissions model, EMFAC2014.62

The inventories comprehensively 

address all source categories in the SJV 

and were developed consistent with the 

EPA’s inventory guidance. For these 

reasons, we are proposing to approve 

the 2012 base year emissions inventory 

in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

We are also proposing to find that the 

baseline inventories in the Plan provide 

an adequate basis for the BACM, MSM, 

impracticability, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

B. Adequate Monitoring Network 

We discuss the adequacy of the 

monitoring network in this preamble to 

support our finding that the plan 

appropriately evaluates the PM2.5

challenges in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Reliable ambient data is necessary to 

validate the base year air quality 

modeling which in turn is necessary to 

assure sound attainment 

demonstrations. 

Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA 

requires states to establish and operate 

air monitoring networks to compile data 

on ambient air quality for all criteria 

pollutants. Our regulations in 40 CFR 

part 58 establish specific requirements 

for operating air quality surveillance 

networks to measure ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5, including 

requirements for measurement methods, 

network design, quality assurance 

procedures, and in the case of large 

urban areas, the minimum number of 

monitoring sites designated as State and 

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). 

A good spatial distribution of sites, 

correct siting, and quality-assured and 

quality-controlled data are the most 

important factors we consider when 

evaluating the monitoring network for 

air quality modeling. 

Under 40 CFR part 58, states are 

required to submit Annual Network 

Plans (ANPs) for ambient air monitoring 

networks for approval by the EPA. The 

most recent ANP, entitled ‘‘2014 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan,’’ summarizes 

the state of the ambient air monitoring 

network in the San Joaquin Valley as it 

operated from January 2013 through 

May 2014.63 During this time, there 

were 20 monitoring sites operated by 

either the District or CARB that 

collected PM2.5 data, including 14 

monitors designated as SLAMS, ten 

monitors designated as special purpose 

monitors (SPMs), four supplemental 

speciation monitors, and eight nonregulatory monitors.64 On June 16, 2015, 

the EPA approved those portions of the 

State’s and District’s 2014 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to 

the adequacy of the network for PM2.5

monitoring purposes.65

Similarly, the District’s previous ANP, 

entitled ‘‘Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan, June 25, 2013,’’ 

summarizes the state of the ambient air 

monitoring network in the San Joaquin 

Valley as it operated from January 2012 

through March 2013.66 During this time, 

there were 21 monitoring sites operated 

by either the District or CARB that 

collected PM2.5 data, including 14 

monitors designated as SLAMS, 12 

monitors designated as special purpose 

monitors (SPMs), two supplemental 

speciation monitors, and eight nonregulatory monitors.67 On May 8, 2014, 

the EPA approved those portions of the 

State’s and District’s 2014 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to 

the adequacy of the network for PM2.5

monitoring purposes.68

In sum, the PM2.5 monitoring network 

operated by the District and CARB from 

January 2012 through May 2014 is 

adequate to support the air quality 

modeling in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

69EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter 

(EPA/600/P–99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3. 

70EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA/452/R–12– 

005, December 2012), p. 2–1. 

71 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3), (4). See also 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 at 20589–97 

(April 25, 2007). 

72NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

73 Id. at 437, n. 10. 

74Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ‘‘[t]he 

control requirements applicable under plans in 

effect under this part for major stationary sources 

of PM10 shall also apply to major stationary sources 

of PM10 precursors, except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the 

standard in the area.’’ 

75 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

76 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539–42 

(April 16, 1992). 77Courts have upheld this approach to the 

requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. 

of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 

(9th Cir. 2005). 78This identification is made in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan, WOEA, p. A–3. See also Chapter 2 (‘‘PM2.5

Trends and Challenges in the San Joaquin Valley’’), 

for more regarding the State and District’s analysis 

that NOX is a significant precursor (p. 2–8), and that 

VOC and ammonia are insignificant precursors (pp. 

2–19 and 2–27, respectively). 

79 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–24 and Figure 

2–19, p. 2–26 (for NOX) and SJV Appendix A, p. 

A–47 (for SOX). 

C. PM2.5 Precursors 

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The composition of PM2.5 is complex 

and highly variable due in part to the 

large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to 

total fine particle mass in most 

locations, and to the complexity of 

secondary particle formation processes. 

A large number of possible chemical 

reactions, often non-linear in nature, 

can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOC, 

and ammonia to PM2.5, making them 

precursors to PM2.5.69 Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 may also depend on 

atmospheric conditions, including solar 

radiation, temperature, and relative 

humidity, and the interactions of 

precursors with preexisting particles 

and with cloud or fog droplets.70

The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning the four PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

See 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Although the 

rule included presumptions that states 

should address SO2 and NOX emissions 

in their attainment plans, it also 

included presumptions that regulation 

of VOCs and ammonia was not 

necessary. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002(c), the EPA provided, among 

other things, that a state was ‘‘not 

required to address VOC [and ammonia] 

as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of 

VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the 

state for control measures,’’ unless the 

state or the EPA provided an 

appropriate technical demonstration 

showing that emissions from sources of 

these pollutants ‘‘significantly 

contribute’’ to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the nonattainment area.71

In NRDC, however, the DC Circuit 

remanded the EPA’s 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule in its entirety, 

including the presumptions concerning 

VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002.72

Although the court expressly declined 

to decide the specific challenge to these 

presumptions concerning precursors,73

the court cited CAA section 189(e) 74 to 

support its observation that ‘‘[a]mmonia 

is a precursor to fine particulate matter, 

making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and 

PM10’’ and that ‘‘[f]or a PM10

nonattainment area governed by subpart 

4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated.’’ 75 Consistent with the NRDC 

decision, the EPA now interprets the 

Act to require that under subpart 4, a 

state must evaluate all PM2.5 precursors 

for regulation unless, for any given 

PM2.5 precursor, it demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that such 

precursor does not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels which 

exceed the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment area. 

The provisions of subpart 4 do not 

define the term ‘‘precursor’’ for 

purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly 

require the control of any specifically 

identified particulate matter (PM) 

precursor. The statutory definition of 

‘‘air pollutant,’’ however, provides that 

the term ‘‘includes any precursors to the 

formation of any air pollutant, to the 

extent the Administrator has identified 

such precursor or precursors for the 

particular purpose for which the term 

‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ CAA section 

302(g). The EPA has identified SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and ammonia as precursors 

to the formation of PM2.5. Accordingly, 

the attainment plan requirements of 

subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four 

precursor pollutants and direct PM2.5

from all types of stationary, area, and 

mobile sources, except as otherwise 

provided in the Act (e.g., CAA section 

189(e)). 

Section 189(e) of the Act requires that 

the control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area. Section 189(e) contains the 

only express exception to the control 

requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., 

requirements for reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), best available control measures 

(BACM) and best available control 

technology (BACT), most stringent 

measures (MSM), and new source 

review (NSR)) for sources of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursor emissions. 

Although section 189(e) explicitly 

addresses only major stationary sources, 

the EPA interprets the Act as 

authorizing it also to determine, under 

appropriate circumstances, that 

regulation of specific PM2.5 precursors 

from other source categories in a given 

nonattainment area is not necessary. For 

example, under the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the control 

requirements that apply to stationary, 

area, and mobile sources of PM10

precursors area-wide under CAA section 

172(c)(1) and subpart 4,76 a state may 

demonstrate in a SIP submission that 

control of a certain precursor pollutant 

is not necessary in light of its 

insignificant contribution to ambient 

PM10 levels in the nonattainment area.77

We are evaluating the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

in accordance with the presumption 

embodied within subpart 4 that all 

PM2.5 precursors must be addressed in 

the State’s evaluation of potential 

control measures, unless the State 

adequately demonstrates that emissions 

of a particular precursor or precursors 

do not contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment 

area. In reviewing any determination by 

the State to exclude a PM2.5 precursor 

from the required evaluation of 

potential control measures, we consider 

both the magnitude of the precursor’s 

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the area to reductions 

in emissions of that precursor. 

2. Evaluation of Precursors in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan 

In the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the State and 

District identify NOX and SOX as the 

precursors that are the focus of its 

control strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the San Joaquin Valley.78

Although no technical demonstration is 

necessary to support a conclusion 

consistent with the statutory 

requirement to regulate specific PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4, the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan nevertheless provides 

supporting evidence describing the 

effectiveness of NOX and SOX emission 

controls.79 By contrast, the 2015 PM2.5

Plan includes statements that further 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6945 

80 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–19. 

81 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, 

respectively, p. A–16. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix F, Figure F–2, pp. F–8 to F–9, which 

shows how ammonium sulfate has decreased 

slightly at three of the four monitoring sites from 

the 2004–2006 period to the 2011–2013 period. 

82 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A–41. This is on 

a molar or mass-equivalent basis: there are 80 times 

as many ammonia molecules emitted as would be 

required to combine with all the emitted SO2

molecules to form ammonium sulfate, accounting 

for the emissions in tons per day, the molecular 

masses, and the chemical formula for ammonium 

sulfate. 

83 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A–27. 

84 Id. See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. 

B–8 and B–11. 

85 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. A– 

16. 

86 Id. 

87 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A–9. The 

design value for the Bakersfield-Planz site for 2011– 

2013 is given as a rounded value of 17.0 mg/m3 in 

Table A–6 in Appendix A of the Plan. For greater 

precision in estimating species contributions, we 

have used the unrounded value of 17.3 mg/m3, 

which we calculated as the average of the 98th 

percentiles values for each year (14.5, 14.7, and 

22.8) as listed in Appendix A, Table A–5. We used 

the Bakersfield-Planz site (the second highest 2011– 

2013 annual average) in lieu of the Madera-City site 

(highest average), consistent with the Plan’s weight 

of evidence for the attainment demonstration. 

Similarly consistent with the attainment 

demonstration, this 17.3 mg/m3 value excludes the 

data from May 5, 2013 for Bakersfield-Planz. 

Section V.E.5 of this proposed rule has further 

discussion of these matters. For calculating the 

ammonium nitrate concentration, we used the 41% 

value from the Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, p. A–16. 

88The nitrate fraction of ammonia nitrate (5.5 mg/ 

m3) is calculated as molecular weight of nitrate (62) 

divided by the molecular weight of ammonium 

nitrate (80) and equals 77.5 percent. 

89 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A–8. The 

design value for Bakersfield-California (the high site 

for monitors with complete data for the three years) 

for 2011–2013 is given as a rounded value of 65 mg/ 

m3 in Table A–4 in Appendix A of the Plan. For 

greater precision in estimating species 

contributions, we have used the unrounded value 

of 64.6 mg/m3, which we calculated as the average 

of the 98th percentiles values for each year (65.5, 

56.4, and 71.8) as listed in Table A–3. For 

calculating the ammonium nitrate concentration, 

we used the 64% value from the Bakersfield pie 

chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 7, p. 

A–16. 

reductions in VOC and ammonia 

emissions would not contribute to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the area 80 and provides CARB’s and 

SJVUAPCD‘s analyses to support these 

positions. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD base these 

conclusions on various air quality 

monitoring and modeling studies, 

modeling done by CARB for the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and for the 2012 plan for 

attaining the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the 

SJV (‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’), and other 

technical information. We discuss 

below the technical bases provided in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan to support these 

positions with respect to SO2, NOX, 

VOC, and ammonia, as well as EPA’s 

analyses of this information. For more 

detail on EPA’s analyses, please refer to 

section II of our ‘‘General Technical 

Support Document for EPA’s Proposed 

Rule on the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the San 

Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS,’’ January 2016 (‘‘General 

TSD’’). 

a. SO2

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that 

emissions of SO2 contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the San Joaquin Valley, and that 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 

sensitive to reductions in SO2. It shows 

the measured contribution of SO2

emissions to ambient PM2.5

concentrations in pie charts portraying 

the contribution of various pollutant 

species. For 2010–2012, depending on 

location, the three-year annual average 

PM2.5 chemical composition was 11– 

14% ammonium sulfate, while for 

2011–2013, the three-year average high 

day PM2.5 chemical composition was 4– 

6% ammonium sulfate.81 The Plan 

further describes the formation of 

ammonium sulfate as SOX-limited, 

given that ammonia is about 80 times 

more abundant than SOX for both 

annual and winter average emission 

inventories.82 The ammonium sulfate 

contribution levels are substantial, 

particularly with respect to the annual 

average concentration, although smaller 

than the contributions of some other 

PM2.5 components (i.e., ammonium 

nitrate and organic matter). 

Ambient PM2.5 sensitivity to 

reductions of SO2 emissions is also 

presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in the 

form of modeling results. The results 

from the sensitivity modeling are cited 

and discussed below in the NOX

subsection. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan infers 

from the modeling that there is an 

ambient PM2.5 concentration decrease of 

0.08 mg/m3 at the projected design value 

monitoring site in 2019 (BakersfieldCalifornia) per ton of SO2 reduction in 

the SJV area.83 While the 2019 winter 

average emissions inventory for SOX

(7.6 tpd) is much smaller than that for 

NOX (208.0 tpd) in the SJV, the 0.08 mg/ 

m3 PM2.5 decrease per ton of emissions 

reduction is the same for SO2 as it is for 

NOX.84 Even though the relatively small 

SO2 contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations may leave less scope for 

reductions, the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 to SO2 emission reductions 

indicates that SO2 emissions contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels above the 

standards in the SJV area. 

Based on the technical analyses 

provided in the Plan, the EPA agrees 

with the State’s and District’s 

conclusion that SO2 controls must be 

included in the evaluation of potential 

control measures for the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV, consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. 

b. NOX

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that 

emissions of NOX contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the San Joaquin Valley, and that 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 

sensitive to reductions in NOX. The Plan 

discusses NOX in conjunction with 

ammonia, because these precursors 

react together to create ammonium 

nitrate, the largest component of 

ambient PM2.5 particles by species in the 

SJV.85 The chemical products of 

ammonia and NOX (ammonium and 

nitrate) combine in a 1:1 molecular 

ratio, but as discussed below, this ratio 

does not mean that emissions controls 

for the two precursor pollutants would 

be equally effective at reducing ambient 

PM2.5. The Plan provides several forms 

of evidence to indicate that reductions 

in NOX emissions are effective in 

reducing PM2.5 concentrations 

exceeding the standard, and also that 

they are more effective than reductions 

in ammonia emissions. The evidence 

includes speciated data from ambient 

PM2.5 monitors, model simulations of 

NOX emission reductions, historical 

trends, and the relative amounts of NOX

and ammonia. 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan indicates that the 

ambient contribution of NOX to PM2.5

levels in the SJV is substantial. 

According to available speciation data, 

ammonium nitrate is the largest 

chemical component of ambient PM2.5

in the SJV, as measured in the southern 

(Bakersfield), central (Fresno), and 

northern (Modesto) portions of San 

Joaquin Valley. It comprises 38–41% of 

the 2010–2012 average annual PM2.5

concentrations and 53–64% of the 

2011–2013 average peak 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations, the highest percentages 

being observed in Bakersfield.86 Using 

the 2011–2013 annual average PM2.5

design value of 17.3 mg/m3 at the 

Bakersfield-Planz site,87 the ammonium 

nitrate concentration is approximately 

7.1 mg/m3. If only nitrate itself is 

considered (i.e., the nitrate part of the 

ammonium nitrate molecules), the 

contribution of NOX represents 5.5 mg/ 

m3, which is approximately 31.8% of 

the annual average PM2.5

concentration.88

Similarly, using the 2011–2013 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value of 64.6 mg/m3

at the Bakersfield-California site,89 the 

24-hour average ammonium nitrate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6946 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

90The academic journal papers are described in 

2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Section 5 (‘‘Secondary 

Ammonium Nitrate Formation’’), pp. A–23–A–29. 

91Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., 

Kleeman, M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal 

Modeling of PM2.5 in California’s San Joaquin 

Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 92, 182–190, 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.030. Kleeman, M.J., 

Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., Control strategies for 

the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in 

California’s San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric 

Environment, 2005, 39, 5325–5341. Liang, J., Gu ̈rer, 

K., Allen, P.D., Zhang, K.M., Ying, Q., Kleeman, M., 

Wexler, A., and Kaduwela, A., 2006, A 

photochemical model investigation of an extended 

winter PM episode observed in Central California: 

Model Performance Evaluation, Proceedings of the 

5th Annual CMAQ Models-3 User’s Conference, 

Chapel Hill, NC. Livingstone, P.L. et. al., 2009, 

‘‘Simulating PM Concentrations During a Winter 

Episode in a Subtropical Valley and Sensitivity 

Simulations and Evaluation methods’’, 

Atmospheric Environment, 43: 5971–5977. 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.033. Pun, B.K., 

Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, Modeling 

wintertime particulate matter formation in Central 

California, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 402–409. 

Different models and emission inventories in these 

studies conducted over the years also contribute to 

the variation in results. 

92 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B–2 (‘‘Modeled 

PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide 

precursor emission reductions’’), p. A–27. 

93 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2–8 and 2–9; 

and CARB’s Staff Report, Appendix A (i.e., WOEA), 

pp. A–60 to A–61. 

94 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Figure 2–19, p. 2– 

26; 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 5–6; 

and WOEA, Figure 44, p. A–60. 

95 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–24. 

96 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, section 5.b, pp. A–18 

to A–19. See also 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, 

section 2.6, pp. 2–18 to 2–27. 

97As noted below in the ammonia subsection, the 

‘‘limiting precursor’’ concept is not absolute, and 

must be used with caution. However, for NOX it 

does support evidence from the modeling results 

that NOX significantly contributes to exceedances of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

98 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 11 and 12, pp. 

A–21 to A–22. 

99CRPAQS is the California Regional Particulate 

Air Quality Study. More information is available 

about CRPAQS at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/

ccaqs.htm. 

100Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., 

and Roberts, P.T., December 2006, Processes 

Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the 

San Joaquin Valley during Winter, Journal of Air 

and Waste Management Association, 56, 1679– 

1693. 

101WOEA, Table 1, p. A–20. 

102 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–19. 

concentration on peak PM2.5 days is 

approximately 41.3 mg/m3. If only 

nitrate itself is considered (i.e., the 

nitrate part of the ammonium nitrate 

molecules), the contribution of NOX

represents 32.0 mg/m3, which is 

approximately 49.6% of the average 

peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentration. 

Whether considered as ammonium 

nitrate or simply as nitrate, NOX is 

clearly a significant contributor to 

ambient PM2.5 levels above the standard 

in the SJV. 

In addition to this evidence 

concerning the contribution of NOX to 

PM2.5 concentrations, the 2015 PM2.5

Plan provides evidence that ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations are sensitive to 

NOX reductions (i.e., nitrate PM2.5

concentrations decrease when NOX

emissions are reduced). The evidence is 

from modeling, historical trends, and 

relative proportions of NOX and 

ammonia. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides 

evidence from past and current 

photochemical modeling simulations 

that ambient ammonium nitrate is 

sensitive to NOX reductions. The Plan 

describes past modeling studies that 

were documented in academic 

journals.90 In the various studies, when 

NOX emissions were reduced by 50%, 

ambient ammonium nitrate decreased 

by 25–50%, depending on the episode 

modeled and the geographic location.91

In addition, modeling for the 2012 PM2.5

Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, whose results were relied on 

for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, also shows 

substantial sensitivity of ambient PM2.5

concentrations to reductions in NOX

emissions. The State modeled the effect 

of a 25% reduction in NOX emissions on 

ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

in 2019 and combined this with the 

emission mass (tons per day) to 

determine that the PM2.5 concentrations 

would be reduced by 0.08 mg/m3 at the 

Bakersfield-California site (the design 

value site for 2019) and decreases of a 

similar order of magnitude (i.e., 0.03 to 

0.09 mg/m3) at other monitors in the 

SJV.92

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides 

additional (non-modeling) evidence on 

the effectiveness of NOX reductions. The 

historical downward trends of NOX

emissions and of ambient nitrate 

concentrations are discussed in Chapter 

2 and the weight of evidence analysis 

(WOEA) of the Plan.93 Annual average 

NOX emissions levels are plotted against 

ammonium nitrate concentrations at 

Bakersfield and Fresno, and in each case 

have decreased by about 35–40% from 

2004 to 2012.94 This shows that NOX

emissions and ammonium nitrate 

concentrations are correlated with one 

another. The conclusion that PM2.5

nitrate concentrations are more limited 

by NOX emissions than by ammonia 

emissions is strengthened by the fact 

that this reduction in ambient 

ammonium nitrate occurred despite an 

increase in emissions of ammonia, the 

other precursor to ammonium nitrate, 

during the same period.95

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan further describes 

the effectiveness of NOX controls by 

characterizing it as the ‘‘limiting 

precursor’’ in ammonium nitrate 

formation, based on the relative 

amounts of NOX and ammonia. Based 

on monitored concentrations and the 

emissions inventory, CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD conclude that NOX is the 

limiting precursor and briefly illustrates 

this concept in its WOEA.96 One 

molecule each of NOX and ammonia is 

required to form each molecule of 

ammonium nitrate. If NOX is in short 

supply relative to ammonia, then NOX

is the limiting factor in ammonium 

nitrate formation.97

The WOEA analysis includes plots 98

of ammonia and nitric acid (which 

contains nitrate) concentrations at two 

monitoring sites in the SJV (Angiola, a 

rural site, and Fresno, an urban site) that 

were measured during the winter 2000– 

2001 CRPAQS 99 study and reported in 

Lurmann et al. (2006).100 CARB notes 

that in this study, ammonia 

concentrations are at least an order of 

magnitude larger than those of nitrate 

and notes Lurmann et al.’s conclusion 

that NOX is the limiting precursor. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD did not, 

however, present more current 

information about ammonia 

concentrations. 

The WOEA also considers emissions 

inventories to support the argument that 

NOX is the limiting precursor. The 

WOEA normalized NOX emissions using 

the relative molecular weights of NOX

and ammonia, in order to reflect the 

number of molecules of each available 

to react with each other.101 In 2012, the 

normalized amount of NOX available 

was 37–38% of the amount of ammonia 

for both annual and winter averages, 

while it is projected to be 21% of the 

amount of ammonia in 2020. This 

shows the scarcity of NOX relative to 

ammonia and implies that NOX is the 

limiting precursor in the formation of 

ammonium nitrate. 

Based on the range of technical 

analyses provided in the Plan and other 

information available to the EPA, we 

agree with the State’s and District’s 

conclusion that NOX controls must be 

included in the evaluation of potential 

control measures for the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV, consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. 

c. Ammonia 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that, based 

on modeling, emissions inventory, and 

monitoring studies, ‘‘[b]ecause of [the] 

regional surplus in ammonia, even 

substantial ammonia emissions 

reductions yield a relatively small 

reduction in nitrate’’ 102 and 

‘‘[a]mmonia emission reductions are 

approximately an order of magnitude 

less effective’’ than NOX emission 

reductions in reducing ambient PM2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6947 

103WOEA, p. A–29. 

104 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. 

A–16. 

105 Id. 

106See n. 87 supra. In addition, for calculating 

the ammonium sulfate concentration, we used the 

14% ammonium sulfate values from the Bakersfield 

pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, 

p. A–16. 

107The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate 

(1.6 mg/m3) is calculated as the molecular weight of 

ammonium (18) divided by the molecular weight of 

ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5 percent of the 

mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium 

sulfate (0.7 mg/m3) is calculated as the molecular 

weight of the two ammonium molecules (36) 

divided by the molecular weight of ammonium 

sulfate (132), which is 27.3 percent of the mass. 

108See n. 89 supra. In addition, for calculating 

the ammonium sulfate concentration, we used the 

6% ammonium sulfate values from the Bakersfield 

pie chart in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, 

p. A–16. 

109The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate 

(9.3 mg/m3) is calculated as the molecular weight of 

ammonium (18) divided by the molecular weight of 

ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5 percent of the 

mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium 

sulfate (1.1 mg/m3) is calculated as the molecular 

weight of the two ammonium molecules (36) 

divided by the molecular weight of ammonium 

sulfate (132), which is 27.3 percent of the mass. 

110 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2, pp. 

2–21 to 2–27 and WOEA, pp. A–23 to A–29. 

111WOEA, pp. A–18 to A–22. 

112WOEA, pp. A–22 and Figure 13, p. A–23. 

113As noted above, NOX emissions have been 

decreasing and ammonia emissions increasing, so 

under the State’s reasoning, this relationship would 

be expected to continue. 

114WOEA, Table 2, p. A–27. 

115 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 27. 

116 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–27. 

concentrations.103 To support this 

finding, CARB and the SJVUAPCD 

discuss the ambient contribution of 

ammonia to measured PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV and the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 to ammonia reductions. The latter 

includes discussion of the relative 

abundance of NOX and ammonia, and of 

modeled simulations of further 

reductions in ammonia emissions. 

The Plan indicates that ammonia 

contributes to ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5, in the form of ammonium nitrate 

and ammonium sulfate. As noted above 

in our discussion of NOX, ammonium 

nitrate comprises 38–41% of the 2010– 

2012 average annual PM2.5

concentrations and 53–64% of the 

2011–2013 average peak 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations, the highest percentages 

being observed in Bakersfield.104

Ammonium sulfate contributes an 

additional 11–14% of the 2010–2012 

average annual PM2.5 concentrations 

and 4–6% of the 2011–2013 average 

peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, with 

the highest percentages similarly being 

observed in Bakersfield.105

Using the highest 2011–2013 annual 

average PM2.5 design value of 17.3 mg/ 

m3 at the Bakersfield-Planz site, the 

ammonium nitrate concentration is 

approximately 7.1 mg/m3 and the 

ammonium sulfate concentration is 

approximately 2.4 mg/m3.106 If only 

ammonium is considered (i.e., the 

ammonium part of the ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate 

molecules), the contribution of 

ammonium represents 2.3 mg/m3, or 

13.0% of the annual average PM2.5

concentration.107

Similarly, using the 2011–2013 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value of 64.6 mg/m3

at the Bakersfield-California site, the 24- 

hour average ammonium nitrate 

concentration on peak PM2.5 days is 

approximately 41.3 mg/m3 and the 

ammonium sulfate concentration is 

approximately 3.9 mg/m3.108 If only 

ammonium itself is considered (i.e., the 

ammonium part of the ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate 

molecules), the contribution of 

ammonium represents 10.4 mg/m3, 

which is approximately 16.0% of the 

average peak 24-hour PM2.5

concentration.109

Ammonia emissions are essential to 

the formation of both of these 

components of the ambient particulate 

matter, and the EPA finds that these 

levels of contribution are a substantial 

fraction of the SJV’s 2011–2013 annual 

average design value of 17.3 mg/m3, as 

measured at the Bakersfield-Planz site, 

and the 24-hour design value of 64.6 mg/ 

m3, as measured at the BakersfieldCalifornia site. This is evidence that 

emissions of ammonia contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5

concentrations that exceed the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Next we examined information in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan regarding the 

sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 levels in the 

SJV to potential ammonia emission 

control. On this issue there is 

conflicting evidence. Based on evidence 

that ammonia appears not to be the 

limiting precursor for ammonium 

nitrate formation and that modeled 

ammonia reductions are ineffective 

relative to NOX reductions,110 CARB 

and the SJVUAPCD conclude that 

controls for ammonia are not warranted. 

However, the EPA’s own evaluation of 

the modeling indicates that ammonia 

controls can be effective at reducing 

ambient PM2.5 in some locations and 

can be more effective at certain times of 

year. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD ’s evidence 

discussed above to support the 

argument that NOX is the limiting 

precursor for ammonia nitrate formation 

is also presented as evidence that 

ammonia is not the limiting precursor, 

and thus to argue that ambient PM2.5

levels would not be sensitive to 

ammonia reductions.111 In the Plan, 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD state that 

there is both an abundance of ambient 

ammonia relative to ambient nitrate, 

and an abundance of ammonia 

emissions relative to NOX emissions. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD also indicate 

that there is an abundance of gaseous 

ammonia relative to particulate 

ammonium at multiple locations during 

the 2000–2001 winter episode in the 

CRPAQS study,112 so that even under 

conditions favorable to ammonium 

nitrate formation, a substantial amount 

of unreacted ammonia remains.113

Based on these multiple pieces of 

evidence on the abundance of ammonia, 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that 

ammonia is not the limiting factor for 

ammonium nitrate formation and, thus, 

that reducing ammonia emissions 

would not reduce ambient PM2.5 in the 

SJV. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD also 

considered air quality modeling 

analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of 

reducing ammonia as compared to other 

precursors, and to PM2.5 decreases 

needed for attainment. Based on 

modeling a 25% reduction in ammonia 

emissions, holding direct PM2.5 and 

other precursor emissions constant, the 

Plan states that per ton per day of 

ammonia emissions reduction, there 

would be a 0.005 to 0.010 mg/m3

decrease in ambient PM2.5

concentrations across the Valley, 

including a 0.008 mg/m3 effect at the 

Bakersfield-California site.114 By 

comparing these sensitivities to the 

effect of a 25% reduction of NOX

emissions, the Plan states that, on a per 

ton basis, reducing ammonia is only 

about 10% as effective as reducing 

NOX.115 Thus, based on this air quality 

modeling, CARB and the SJVUAPCD 

conclude that additional ammonia 

control is considerably less effective 

than NOX control. 

The State and District assume in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan that additional 

ammonia control, as modeled, would 

provide limited benefit for attainment 

planning purposes. They also conclude, 

based upon the various forms of 

information and analyses described 

above, that ammonia emission 

reductions are much less effective than 

direct PM2.5 or NOX emission 

reductions, and thus argue that 

‘‘[a]mmonia is not a significant 

precursor to PM2.5 values in the 

Valley.’’ 116

The EPA finds the modeling and other 

analyses presented and referred to in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan to be credible, but the 

modeling analyses nonetheless show 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6948 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

117WOEA, pp. A–24 to A–25. 

118WOEA, p. A–29. 

119 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2–20 to 2–21. 

120WOEA, section 5.d (‘‘Role of VOC in 

ammonium nitrate formation’’), pp. A–30 to A–39, 

and section 6 (‘‘Secondary Organic Aerosol 

Formation’’), pp. A–39 to A–40. 

121 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–20. 

that additional reductions in ammonia 

may reduce ambient PM2.5 levels to 

varying degrees. In the various studies, 

when ammonia emissions were reduced 

by up to 50%, ambient ammonium 

nitrate decreased by a range of 

approximately 5–25%, depending on 

the episode modeled and the geographic 

location evaluated.117 Modeling 

conducted by ARB staff for the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan for attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS indicated that for 

emissions reduction within Kern 

County, a one ton per day decrease in 

ammonia would lead to a 0.02 mg/m3

improvement in the PM2.5 24-hour 

design value.118 If this rate were to 

remain constant as ammonia emissions 

decrease, and if this same sensitivity 

applied to valley-wide reductions, it 

would mean that a 50% reduction in the 

ammonia emissions inventory 

(estimated in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan at 

329.5 tpd annual average in 2012) 

would be expected to reduce 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations by more than 3 mg/ 

m3, an amount that the EPA would not 

consider insignificant. 

The percentages for ammonia benefits 

are generally smaller than those for NOX

reductions, but a range of modeling 

results show that reductions in 

ammonia emissions under certain 

circumstances can effectively help to 

reduce ambient PM2.5. The fact that all 

the modeling studies find at least some 

benefit from ammonia control shows 

that the concept of NOX as a ‘‘limiting 

precursor’’ in the formation of 

ammonium nitrate particles discussed 

above is not absolute. In addition, the 

test for determining whether emission 

reduction measures for a particular 

precursor must be evaluated for 

purposes of timely attainment should 

not be based exclusively on the control 

effectiveness of the precursor relative to 

other precursors, but must also consider 

whether emissions of the precursor 

‘‘contribute significantly’’ to ambient 

PM2.5 levels which exceed the PM2.5

standards in the nonattainment area. In 

other words, the fact that control of NOX

may be more important than the control 

of ammonia in relative terms does not 

mean that a state should not evaluate 

regulations for both as part of a 

comprehensive plan to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS, and to do so expeditiously as 

required by the CAA. 

Taking into consideration a number of 

factors, the EPA does not agree with the 

conclusion in the Plan that the more 

than 100,000 annual tons of ammonia 

emissions from sources in the SJV area 

do not contribute significantly to PM2.5

levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. First, the information provided 

by the State and District in the Plan 

shows that ammonia contributes to a 

large fraction of measured PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV area, in the 

form of ammonium nitrate and, to a 

lesser extent, ammonium sulfate. Based 

on data presented in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan, ammonia emissions, in the form of 

ammonium, are responsible for 

approximately 13% of the annual 

average concentration and 16% of the 

24-hour average at the design value site 

for the San Joaquin Valley. 

Second, modeled evidence submitted 

by the State and studies available to the 

EPA indicate that although ammonia 

control is less effective at reducing 

PM2.5 concentrations compared to NOX

control, reducing ammonia emissions in 

the SJV would reduce PM2.5 by varying 

amounts throughout the nonattainment 

area. Studies indicate that reducing 

ammonia does not have a uniform effect 

across a large nonattainment area during 

all times of the year; ammonia 

reductions can be more effective at 

reducing PM2.5 concentrations in 

specific locations during certain times 

of the year. Reductions in ammonia in 

conjunction with reductions of direct 

PM2.5, SO2, and NOX would help to 

provide for attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV area. 

Finally, despite the fact that a broad 

range of emission reduction measures 

have been implemented to reduce 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors, the Plan also indicates that 

attainment by the statutory attainment 

date is impracticable. This underscores 

the continuing severity of the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the SJV and 

the need for a robust assessment of 

potential control measures (e.g., BACM 

and MSM) for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors, including potential 

ammonia control measures which may 

be effective in reducing ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

Given the severity of the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the SJV, the 

high degree to which controls have 

already been applied to the emission of 

PM2.5 and its precursor pollutants, the 

demonstration that attainment in the 

SJV by 2015 is impracticable, and the 

documentation in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

showing that ammonia emissions are 

responsible for more than 2 mg/m3 of the 

annual average PM2.5 concentration at 

the Bakersfield-Planz site, and for more 

than 10 mg/m3 of the peak day 24-hour 

average PM2.5 concentration at the 

Bakersfield-California site, the EPA does 

not agree at this time with the 

conclusion in the Plan that ammonia 

emissions do not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding 

the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. 

Although the Plan states that 

ammonia is not a significant precursor 

to ambient PM2.5 levels, and that 

additional controls for ammonia are not 

necessary to attain the PM2.5 standards 

in the SJV, the Plan nonetheless 

provides an evaluation of control 

measures currently implemented in the 

SJV that reduce ammonia emissions and 

other potential ammonia control 

measures. We discuss the State’s 

ammonia control evaluation in section 

V.D. of this proposed rule. 

d. VOC 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that VOCs 

are not a significant precursor to 

ambient PM2.5 levels in the San Joaquin 

Valley and that further reductions in 

VOC emissions would not contribute to 

PM2.5 attainment. To support this 

finding, CARB and the SJVUAPCD 

discuss the ambient contribution of 

VOC to measured PM2.5 levels in the 

SJV, the indirect role of VOC in 

ammonium nitrate formation, and 

modeled simulations of further 

reductions in VOC emissions. 

There are two routes by which VOC 

can contribute to ambient PM2.5. The 

first is through various chemical 

reactions leading to the formation of 

Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA). The 

second is through photochemical 

reactions that create oxidants such as 

ozone and the hydroxyl radical (OH), 

which in turn oxidize NOX emissions to 

nitrate or SOX emissions to sulfate, 

leading to the formation of particulate 

ammonium nitrate or particulate 

ammonium sulfate. Chapter 2 of the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan discusses both roles of 

VOC in PM2.5 formation,119 as does the 

Plan’s weight of evidence analysis.120

For the direct contribution of VOC to 

PM2.5, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that 

modeling for annual average PM2.5 for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan found that 

anthropogenic SOA were about 3–5% of 

total organic aerosol, and that SOA were 

mainly formed during the summer from 

non-anthropogenic sources.121 The 

SJVUAPCD states that the winter 

anthropogenic contribution that is of 

interest for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS would necessarily be lower 

because less SOA forms at winter 

temperatures, which are lower than 

temperatures for the annual average. 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD also cite a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6949 

122Chen, J., Ying, Q., and Kleeman, M.J., 2010, 

Source apportionment of wintertime secondary 

organic aerosol during the California regional PM10/ 

PM2.5 air quality study, Atmospheric Environment, 

44(10), 1331–1340. 123The contribution of Organic Matter to 2011– 

2013 peak day 24-hour PM2.5 levels was 18 percent 

at Bakersfield and 30 percent at Fresno (see WOEA, 

Figure 7, p. A–16). Five percent of these 

proportions gives 0.90 percent SOA at Bakersfield 

and 1.5 percent SOA at Fresno. As a fraction of the 

2013 design values of 64.6 mg/m3 at BakersfieldCalifornia and 63.5 mg/m3 at Fresno-Winery, these 

percentages give SOA contributions of 0.58 mg/m3

at Bakersfield-California and 0.95 mg/m3 at FresnoWinery. 

124Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 

2009, Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter 

Formation in Central California, Atmospheric 

Environment, 43: 402–409. doi: 10.1016/

j.atmosenv.2008.08.040. 

125 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2–20 to 2–21; 

WOEA, p. A–3, and section 5.d, pp. A–30 to A–39. 

126Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., 

Kleeman, M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal 

Modeling of PM2.5 in California’s San Joaquin 

Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 92, 182–190, 

doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.030. 

127EPA Region 9, ‘‘Technical Support Document 

and Responses to Comments Final Rule on the San 

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan,’’ September 30, 2011, section II.C. 

128WOEA, p. A–37 to A–38, Figs. 23 and 24. 

PM2.5 increases when VOC decreases, for any given 

level of NOX. 

129WOEA, p. A–3, and section 5.d, pp. A–30 to 

A–39. 

130WOEA, p. A–38. See also, Kleeman, M.K., 

Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, Control strategies 

for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in 

California’s San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric 

Environment, 39: 5325–5341 September 2005. doi: 

10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044; cited in Plan 

Modeling Protocol.p.F–36). A similar statement is 

made in the 2014 Chen et al. paper, citing Qi Ying, 

Jin Lu, Michael Kleeman, Modeling air quality 

during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air 

Quality Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT 

source-oriented air quality model—Part III. Regional 

source apportionment of secondary and total 

airborne particulate matter, Atmospheric 

Environment, Volume 43, Issue 2, January 2009, 

Pages 419–430, ISSN 1352–2310, DOI: 10.1016/

j.atmosenv.2008.08.033. The Chen paper actually 

cites ‘‘Part I’’ of the Ying paper, not this Part III. 

However, none of these papers gives the basis for 

the statement that background ozone is the 

dominant nitrate oxidant. 

131WOEA, Table 2, p. A–27 (see VOC columns for 

Bakersfield, Visalia, and Corcoran). 

132WOEA, Figure 18, p. A–28. This diagram 

shows the model PM2.5 response at the BakersfieldCalifornia site to reductions in various 

combinations of precursors. Subfigure ‘‘b)’’ shows 

NOX reductions plotted against VOC reductions. 

For a given level of NOX, in decreasing VOC by 

moving leftward along a horizontal line 

(representing constant NOX), one crosses the lines 

of constant PM2.5 (isopleths) into regions of 

increased PM2.5. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan presents 

similar diagrams for the various monitoring sites. 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Figures 4–15 through 

4–2334, pp. 4–31 to 4–40. 

133 Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 

2005, ‘‘Control strategies for the reduction of 

airborne particulate nitrate in California’s San 

Joaquin Valley’’, Atmospheric Environment, 39: 

5325–5341 September 2005. doi: 10.1016/

j.atmosenv.2005.05.044. This paper was discussed 

in our TSD for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, though the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan did not include the diagrams. 

study by Chen et al.122 for the winter 

2000–2001 CRPAQS episode. This study 

found that the SOA portion of total 

organic aerosol had a maximum value of 

4.26 mg/m3 with concentrations at 

Bakersfield of 2.28 mg/m3 and at Fresno 

of 2.46 mg/m3, which represent 4% and 

6% of the total organic aerosol at those 

locations. These locations typically 

represent the highest PM2.5

concentrations for the southern and 

central portions of the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

Applying this roughly 5% SOA 

proportion to the organic carbon portion 

of the measured 2011–2013 peak day 

24-hour average PM2.5 composition 

shows that, by mass, SOA is about 0.9% 

of total ambient PM2.5 at BakersfieldCalifornia and 1.5% of ambient PM2.5 at 

Fresno.123 The EPA notes that because 

anthropogenic SOA is only a portion of 

the total SOA, the portion due to 

controllable anthropogenic sources 

would be even less. CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD conclude that these 

modeling studies show that SOA is not 

a substantial component of peak day 

(i.e., winter) 24-hour ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV and that the 

potential for reducing ambient PM2.5

through VOC emission reductions is 

very limited. We do not have 

comparable information at this time to 

evaluate whether or not SOA is a 

substantial component of annual 

average PM2.5 concentrations. 

For the indirect contribution of VOC 

to PM2.5, nitrate formation via daytime 

photochemistry, CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD assert that this route is also 

not a substantial contributor, based on 

modeled sensitivity to VOC reductions. 

For one such study there were relatively 

low modeled concentrations of ozone, 

which did not appear consistent with 

nitrate formation via daytime oxidant 

(ozone) photochemistry, which would 

be expected to have elevated ozone 

levels.124 The Plan reviews essentially 

the same studies that the State relied on 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards,125 except for 

one additional 2014 study by Chen et. 

al.126 The EPA’s review of these studies 

and of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 

examination of the studies is covered in 

the technical support document (TSD) 

for the EPA’s final action on the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan (‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD’’).127

The 2014 Chen et. al. paper presented 

results of modeling the 1st and 4th 

quarters of 2007 using the CMAQ model 

(the same period and model that was 

used for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan), and also 

of modeling the winter 2000 CRPAQS 

episode using the UCD/CIT (University 

of California, Davis/California Institute 

of Technology) model. The paper 

explored the sensitivity of PM2.5 to 

reductions of the various precursors. 

The CMAQ modeling showed that 

reducing anthropogenic VOC actually 

increases PM2.5 design values, while the 

UCD/CIT modeling showed that it has a 

negligible effect. NOX vs. VOC isopleth 

diagrams from the paper are reproduced 

in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, and illustrate 

these effects.128

The findings from those reviews 

remain the same for the current Plan: 

Past modeling studies vary on whether 

controlling VOC reduces PM2.5, but the 

most reliable ones show VOC control 

has little benefit, or even a disbenefit. 

As detailed in the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5

Plan TSD and in the Plan’s WOEA,129

the studies for which VOC control 

showed a benefit at some times and 

places are less reliable because they 

used unrealistic emissions levels, 

unrealistic control scenarios, or the 

effect occurred at PM2.5 concentrations 

no longer reached in the SJV. The 

WOEA also suggests that, in this context 

of indirect PM2.5 formation from VOC, 

the model boundary conditions have 

sufficient ozone flowing in from outside 

the SJV area,130 implying that VOC 

reductions would have little effect on 

ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the 

standard in the SJV. 

The overall conclusion is that the 

effect of reducing VOC emissions is 

somewhat uncertain, but in general 

produces little benefit or even a 

disbenefit in PM2.5 concentrations. 

The modeling for the prior 2012 PM2.5

Plan, which indicates a disbenefit from 

controlling VOC at important 

geographic locations, adds to the 

evidence from past studies, and is 

incorporated into the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

This is shown by negative PM2.5

sensitivities (that is, decreased VOC 

emissions result in increased PM2.5

levels) for multiple locations.131 In 

addition, a diagram of model PM2.5

response at the Bakersfield-California 

site to various combinations of NOX and 

VOC reductions show graphically that 

VOC reductions increase PM2.5, for any 

given level of NOX.132 For other 

monitoring sites, such as Fresno and 

Angiola, these NOX vs. VOC diagrams 

show mixed effects on PM2.5, albeit 

generally of small magnitude, 

depending on the level of ambient PM2.5

as VOC emissions are reduced. 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes 

additional VOC vs. NOX isopleth 

diagrams from a 2005 Kleeman et al. 

paper.133 The key ones show that the 

effect of reducing VOC for all sources 

increases total PM2.5 nitrate for any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6950 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

134WOEA, upper left quadrant of Figures 19 to 

21, pp. A–32 to A–34. 

135WOEA, pp. A–31, citing. Z. Meng, D. Dabdub, 

and J. H. Seinfeld, ‘‘Chemical Coupling Between 

Atmospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter’’, 

Science 277, 116 (1997); DOI: 10.1126/

science.277.5322.116. The Meng paper cites the 

organic nitrate sink as a possibility in PM 

chemistry. The Plan provides no direct evidence 

that this reaction is important in the SJV, though 

it is plausible. 

136EPA Region 9, ‘‘Technical Support Document, 

Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2012 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan and 2014 

Supplemental Document and Proposed 

Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley as 

Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

Standard,’’ December 2014. 

137WOEA, p. A–38. 

138Synthesis of Policy Relevant Findings from the 

CalNex 2010 Field Study (California Research at the 

Nexus of Air Quality and Climate Change): Final 

Report to the Research Division of the California Air 

Resources Board, David D. Parrish, NOAA Earth 

System Research Laboratory, March 27, 2014. 

Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/ 

calnex/. 

given level of NOX emissions.134 The 

Plan states that the VOC disbenefit 

occurs because reducing VOCs can 

reduce the organic nitrate ‘‘sink’’ that 

makes nitrate unavailable, thus freeing 

it for ammonium nitrate formation.135

In sum, the information provided by 

the State and District in the Plan 

indicates that: (a) Wintertime levels of 

secondary organic aerosol measured in 

the SJV are low and therefore the direct 

products of VOC emissions do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 

above the standard in the SJV; and (b) 

wintertime reductions in VOC 

emissions in the SJV, when PM2.5

concentrations are high, would not 

reduce ambient PM2.5 levels, and 

therefore the indirect products of VOC 

emissions also do not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels above the 

standard in the SJV. Based on this 

information, we propose to determine 

that, at this time, VOC emissions do not 

contribute significantly to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area. 

e. Recommendations for Further 

Analyses 

The EPA believes that several 

precursor issues warrant further 

explanation and exploration in future 

PM2.5 plans. For ammonia, an 

explanation should be provided for the 

apparent conflict between NOX as a 

‘‘limiting’’ precursor for ammonium 

nitrate formation and modeling that 

nevertheless shows some benefits from 

ammonia emission reductions. In the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, ammonia reductions 

for Kern County alone were simulated 

along with reductions for the area as a 

whole. Further exploration of the effect 

of more specific localized controls 

would inform decisions on whether 

ammonia controls should be part of the 

control strategy in the next PM2.5 plan. 

For VOC, the apparent conflict 

between different past modeling studies 

on whether VOC emission reductions 

are beneficial or not also should be more 

fully explained. As mentioned above, 

and discussed further in the EPA’s TSD 

for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,136 those studies 

showing a VOC benefit can be 

discounted on various grounds, but 

there does not appear to be a full 

explanation of the chemistry differences 

seen. Differences between the models 

used, their chemical mechanisms, their 

emissions and meteorological inputs, 

and the episodes they are applied to all 

cause differences in study results. 

Without a fuller reconciliation of those 

results, it is difficult to know whether 

or not chemistry sensitive to VOC 

reductions could still be operating today 

in the SJV. Also mentioned above, the 

Plan’s WOEA asserts that background 

ozone levels are sufficient to provide the 

oxidants needed for nitrate formation, 

even without the VOC-mediated 

generation of ozone within the SJV.137

But little support has been provided for 

this assertion, other than similar 

assertions in a few journal papers. More 

concrete evidence on this issue should 

be provided in future plans. 

A related issue is why a VOC 

disbenefit occurs. One explanation is 

that VOC can remove nitrate via a 

‘‘sink’’ reaction to organic nitrates, so 

reducing VOC frees nitrate to form 

PM2.5. This explanation is provided in a 

journal paper posing the nitrate sink as 

a possibility in PM chemistry. While 

this is plausible, no evidence has been 

provided from any studies during the 

ten years since the paper was published 

that this particular phenomenon is 

actually occurring in the SJV modeling 

or atmosphere. Some of these issues 

may be resolved through better 

documentation and explanation in the 

SIP submission of what is already 

known; others may require quantitative 

examination of particular chemical 

pathways in the modeling or ambient 

measurements. 

Evaluation of the available research 

and its implications for the effectiveness 

of various precursor emissions controls 

would also be useful as part of the next 

plan. This research includes projects 

funded by the San Joaquin Valley-wide 

Air Pollution Study Agency, including 

‘‘Improve emission estimates for urban 

ammonia sources,’’ ‘‘Update of CRPAQS 

conceptual model and synthesis of 

results,’’ and ‘‘Develop Improvements to 

the PM2.5 Inventory to Better Reconcile 

with Ambient Measurements.’’ The 

CARB Staff Report refers to several 

recent field studies relevant for the SJV, 

including ARCTAS–CARB, CalNex2010, 

and DISCOVER–AQ, all of which 

should be examined for their 

implications for the SJV’s atmospheric 

chemistry and the effectiveness of 

various precursor emissions controls. 

Some results from the CalNex study 

are already available in a Synthesis 

document.138 While CalNex was 

conducted during the summer of 2010, 

some of its findings may be relevant for 

PM2.5 formation in the SJV, even though 

such formation is greatest in winter. 

Finding I2b (pp. 63–64) suggests that the 

SJV ammonia inventory is 

underestimated by a factor of three; if 

confirmed, this may have implications 

for modeling, the effectiveness of 

ammonia controls, and the amount of 

NOX used in the Plan to offset the 

ammonia inventory increases. Finding 

I3 (p. 65) highlights ammonia reactions 

with carboxylic acids and the resulting 

enhancement of secondary organic 

aerosol (SOA); the importance of this 

pathway in modeling winter PM2.5 may 

need to be explored. Several other 

findings relate to SOA. Finding L2 (p. 

75) stated significant SOA formation at 

night at Bakersfield. Finding N2 (p. 86) 

stated SOA as 72% of Bakersfield ultrafine particulate matter (i.e., PM less than 

1 micrometer in diameter) (this 

contrasts with the 5% of PM2.5 used in 

the Plan), and also stated that SOA 

dominated daytime particle growth. 

Findings W3a and W3b (p. 129) stated 

the importance of anthropogenic VOC as 

the main SOA precursor, and nitrate as 

a VOC oxidant. While many of these 

findings may be relevant mostly for 

summer conditions, their implications 

for chemical pathways and controls in 

winter should be examined. 

3. Proposed Action 

Based on a review of the information 

provided in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and 

other information available to the EPA, 

we propose to determine that at this 

time VOC emissions do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels 

which exceed the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and, 

therefore, that VOCs may be excluded 

from the State’s evaluation of potential 

control measures for purposes of these 

standards in this area. Consistent with 

the statutory requirements under 

subpart 4, all other PM2.5 precursors 

(i.e., NOX, SO2, and ammonia) must be 

included in the State’s evaluation of 

potential control measures for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, including 

nonattainment NSR provisions to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6951 

139Absent a demonstration to EPA’s satisfaction 

that major stationary sources of ammonia emissions 

do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5

levels that exceed the NAAQS in the SJV area, 

under CAA section 189(e) major stationary sources 

of ammonia are subject to the control requirements 

that apply to major stationary sources of direct 

PM2.5, including nonattainment NSR requirements. 

We intend to evaluate the adequacy of the District’s 

nonattainment NSR program for PM2.5 upon 

submission of the NSR SIP revision due May 7, 

2016, which is the date 12 months after EPA’s 

reclassification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective. 80 FR 

18528 (April 7, 2015). 

140CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an 

outermost deadline (‘‘no later than four years after 

the date the area is reclassified’’) and does not 

preclude an earlier implementation deadline for 

BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment 

requirements of the Act. 

141Addendum at 42012. 

142 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4 (‘‘De 

Minimis Thresholds for Determining Significant 

Source Categories’’). 

143 Id. at Table 5–2 (‘‘Valley Source Category De 

Minimis Determinations (using 2012 data)’’). 

144 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix D. 

implement the requirements of subpart 

4.139 We discuss the State’s evaluation 

of potential control measures for NOX, 

SO2, and ammonia, as well as direct 

PM2.5, in section V.D. of this proposed 

rule. 

D. Best Available Control Measures and 

Most Stringent Measures 

As discussed in section IV.B of this 

proposed rule, section 189(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act requires for any serious PM2.5

nonattainment area that the State submit 

provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM) for 

reducing emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors will be implemented no later 

than four years after the date the area is 

reclassified as a serious area. Because 

the EPA reclassified the SJV area as 

Serious nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS effective May 7, 2015, the 

date four years after reclassification is 

May 7, 2019. In this case, however, the 

Serious area attainment date for the SJV 

area under section 188(c) is no later 

than December 31, 2015, and to qualify 

for an extension of this date under 

section 188(e) the State must, among 

other things, demonstrate attainment by 

the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable. Given these circumstances, 

we are evaluating the Plan’s control 

strategy for implementation of BACM as 

expeditiously as practicable.140

In addition, before the EPA may 

extend the attainment date for a Serious 

nonattainment area under CAA section 

188(e), the State must, among other 

things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the Administrator that the plan for the 

area includes the most stringent 

measures that are included in the 

implementation plan of any State or are 

achieved in practice in any State, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the area 

(MSM). As discussed above, we have 

established a process for evaluating 

BACM in serious area plans and a 

similar process for evaluating MSM. 

Because of the substantial overlap in the 

source categories and controls evaluated 

for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, 

we present our evaluation of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan’s provisions for including 

MSM alongside our evaluation of the 

Plan’s provisions for implementing 

BACM for each identified source 

category. We provide a more detailed 

evaluation of many of the District’s 

control measures for stationary and area 

sources in our ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for the EPA’s Evaluation of 

Fine Particulate Matter Best Available 

Control Measures and Most Stringent 

Measures for the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District,’’ January 

2016 (‘‘SJV Rules TSD’’). 

1. Identifying the Sources of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 Precursors 

The first step in determining BACM 

and MSM is to develop a detailed 

emissions inventory of the sources of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that 

can be used with modeling to determine 

the effects of these sources on ambient 

PM2.5 levels. The EPA’s past guidance 

on Serious area plans in the Addendum 

suggested that the second step is to use 

modeling to identify those source 

categories that have a greater than de 

minimis impact on ambient PM2.5

concentrations.141

As discussed in section V.A of this 

proposed rule, Appendix B of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan contains the planning 

inventories for direct PM2.5 and all 

PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SO2, VOC, and 

ammonia) for the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area together with 

documentation to support these 

inventories. The District used available 

speciation data to identify de minimis 

thresholds, also referred to in the Plan 

as ‘‘significant emission levels,’’ for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX.142 Based on 

these thresholds, which are described in 

Chapter 5 of the Plan, the District 

identified the following six source 

categories as emission sources in the 

SJV that emit pollutants at levels 

exceeding its selected de minimis 

thresholds (i.e., ‘‘significant’’ source 

categories): 

1. Open Burning; 

2. Glass Melting Furnaces; 

3. Agricultural Conservation 

Management Practices; 

4. Commercial Charbroiling; 

5. Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters; and 

6. Paved and Unpaved Roads.143

CARB identified most mobile source 

categories as ‘‘significant’’ and 

identified only several (e.g., cargo 

handling equipment, motorcycles, 

recreational boats, off-road recreational 

vehicles and commercial harbor craft) as 

de minimis source categories.144

Separately in Appendix C and 

Appendix D of the Plan, however, both 

CARB and the District identified all of 

the sources of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX

and ammonia in the SJV that are subject 

to State or District emission control 

measures and provided their 

evaluations of these regulations for 

compliance with BACM and MSM 

requirements. Table 3 identifies the 

source categories in SJV that are under 

State and District jurisdiction, each 

source category’s 2012 emissions of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX in tons per 

day (tpd), and, for each source category, 

the regulations that the State and 

District have relied on in the Plan to 

satisfy BACM and MSM requirements. 

TABLE 3—2015 PM2.5 PLAN—SOURCE CATEGORIES EVALUATED FOR BACM AND MSM 

Source category Rule No. 

(if any) * 

2012 PM2.5

(tpd) 

2012 NOX

(tpd) 

2012 SOX

(tpd) 

Stationary and Area Source Categories under District Jurisdiction 

Open Burning ................................................................................................................... 4103 2.27 1.61 0.05 

Reduction of Animal Matter ............................................................................................. 4104 0.03 0.00 0.00 

Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning ....................................................... 4106 0.76 0.07 0.03 

Particulate Matter Emissions from the Incineration of Combustible Refuse ................... 4203 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cotton Gins ...................................................................................................................... 4204 0.22 0.00 0.00 

Fuel Burning Equipment .................................................................................................. 4301 N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

145 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C–239 to 

C–280. 

TABLE 3—2015 PM2.5 PLAN—SOURCE CATEGORIES EVALUATED FOR BACM AND MSM—Continued 

Source category Rule No. 

(if any) * 

2012 PM2.5

(tpd) 

2012 NOX

(tpd) 

2012 SOX

(tpd) 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr .............. 4306/4320 1.27 1.93 0.60 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 to 5.0 MMBtu .......................... 4307 0.32 0.49 0.15 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—0.075 to less than 2.0 MMBtu ....... 4308 0.61 0.92 0.28 

Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens ..................................................................................... 4309 0.85 0.20 0.47 

Flares ............................................................................................................................... 4311 0.16 0.56 0.33 

Lime Kilns ........................................................................................................................ 4313 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters ............................... 4352 0.62 2.69 0.56 

Glass Melting Furnaces ................................................................................................... 4354 0.33 6.04 1.96 

Conservation Management Practices .............................................................................. 4550 

• Tilling Dust ............................................................................................................ .................... 5.17 0.00 0.00 

• Harvest Operations Dust ...................................................................................... .................... 7.28 0.00 0.00 

• Dust from Ag Lands (non-pasture) ....................................................................... .................... 6.15 0.00 0.00 

• Dust from Pasture Lands ...................................................................................... .................... 1.09 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Charbroiling ................................................................................................. 4692 2.84 0.00 0.00 

Internal Combustion Engines .......................................................................................... 4702 0.49 13.06 0.12 

Stationary Gas Turbines .................................................................................................. 4703 1.22 3.09 0.22 

Sulfuric Acid Mist ............................................................................................................. 4802 0.00 0.00 0.75 

Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters ................................................... 4901 4.48 0.50 0.08 

Residential Water Heaters ............................................................................................... 4902 0.21 2.21 0.06 

Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces .............................................................. 4905 0.20 2.46 0.06 

General Requirements ..................................................................................................... 8011 N/A N/A N/A 

Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities ..... 8021 1.46 0.00 0.00 

Bulk Materials .................................................................................................................. 8031 0.04 0.00 0.00 

Carryout and Trackout (emission included in Paved and Unpaved Roads, Rule 8061, 

below) ........................................................................................................................... 8041 N/A N/A N/A 

Open Areas ...................................................................................................................... 8051 0.34 0.00 0.00 

Paved and Unpaved Roads ............................................................................................ 8061 7.59 0.00 0.00 

Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas ...................................................................... 8071 0.59 0.00 0.00 

Agricultural Sources ......................................................................................................... 8081 1.21 0.00 0.00 

Lawn and Garden Equipment .......................................................................................... SC 001 0.04 0.58 0.00 

Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................. SC 002 N/A N/A N/A 

Fireworks ......................................................................................................................... SC 003 N/A N/A N/A 

Sand and Gravel Operations ........................................................................................... SC 004 0.09 0.00 0.00 

Asphalt/Concrete Operations (Mineral Processes) ......................................................... SC 005 0.82 0.20 0.36 

Almond Hulling/Shelling Operations ................................................................................ SC 006 0.38 0.00 0.00 

Pistachio Hulling/Shelling Operations (emissions included in Almond Hulling/Shelling 

above) .......................................................................................................................... SC 007 N/A N/A N/A 

Agricultural Material Screening/Shaking Operations (emissions included in other control categories) ............................................................................................................. SC 008 N/A N/A N/A 

Tub Grinding (emissions included in IC engines, Rule 4702, fugitive emissions accounted for in stationary and area inventory) .............................................................. SC 009 N/A N/A N/A 

Abrasive Blasting ............................................................................................................. SC 010 0.33 0.00 0.00 

Mobile Source Categories under State Jurisdiction 

Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles ................................................................................... (**) 1.9 32.2 (***) 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles ....................................................................................................... (**) 4.8 138.6 (***) 

Off-Road Vehicles and Engines (excludes Cargo Handling Equipment) ........................ (**) 1.1 19.2 (***) 

Farm Equipment .............................................................................................................. (**) 2.9 50.4 (***) 

Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................................................. (**) 0.0 0.1 (***) 

Other Mobile Sources ...................................................................................................... (**) .................... .................... (***) 

• Motorcycles ........................................................................................................... .................... 0.0 1.0 

• Recreational Boats ................................................................................................ .................... 0.4 1.6 

• Off-Road Recreational Vehicles ........................................................................... .................... 0.0 0.1 

• Commercial Harbor Craft ...................................................................................... .................... 0.0 0.7 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5–2; Appendix C (‘‘BACM and MSM for Stationary Sources’’); and Appendix D (‘‘BACM and MSM 

for Mobile Sources’’), except as otherwise noted. 

* ‘‘SC’’ refers to a source category that is subject to either several District rules or none. 

**See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D for a discussion of the State measures that cover these mobile source categories. 

***See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B (Emissions Inventory) for SOX emission levels. 

With respect to ammonia, the District 

states in Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5

Plan that ammonia is an ‘‘insignificant’’ 

PM2.5 precursor in the SJV but also 

provides an analysis of several SIPapproved District regulations that 

control ammonia emissions.145 We 

provide our evaluation of these 

regulations below and further in the 

EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 

Because the State and District have 

evaluated a much larger set of emission 

sources than those identified as 

‘‘significant’’ sources in the Plan, and 

because the District’s evaluation of de 

minimis thresholds entirely excludes 

consideration of ammonia emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6953 

146 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action 

on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan); 66 FR 

50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on 

Maricopa County Serious Area Plan); and 67 FR 

48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa 

County Serious Area Plan). 

147 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5; and Appendix C, 

pp. C–4 to C–6. 

148 Id. 

149See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as 

amended April 15, 2010; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C at pp. C–14 to C–15. 

150 Id. 

151 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012). 

152 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–8 to C– 

10. 

153California Health & Safety Code, sections 

41855.5 and 41855.6. 

154 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–8 to C– 

15. 

155See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as 

amended October 16, 2008; see also 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix C, p. C–35. 

156 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). 

sources, the EPA is not proposing any 

action with respect to the District’s 

selected de minimis thresholds for 

BACM and MSM purposes. Instead, 

based on the Plan’s more 

comprehensive evaluation of State and 

District regulations that apply to 

stationary, area, and mobile sources of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia in 

the SJV, we propose to find that the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan appropriately identifies 

all emission sources and source 

categories that must be subject to 

evaluation for potential control 

measures consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. 

2. Identification and Implementation of 

BACM and MSM 

As part of its process for identifying 

candidate BACM and MSM and 

considering the technical and economic 

feasibility of additional control 

measures, CARB and the District 

reviewed the EPA’s guidance 

documents on BACM, guidance 

documents on control measures for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission 

sources, and control measures 

implemented in other ozone and PM2.5

nonattainment areas in California and 

other states. The State’s and District’s 

evaluations of potential BACM and 

MSM for each source category identified 

in Table 3 above is found in Appendix 

C and Appendix D of the 2015 PM2.5

Plan. In the following sections, we 

review key components of the State’s 

and District’s demonstrations 

concerning BACM and MSM for sources 

of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia 

emissions in the SJV. We provide a 

more detailed evaluation of the 

District’s regulations in the EPA’s SJV 

Rules TSD, together with 

recommendations for improvements to 

these rules. 

Based on our evaluation of these State 

and District demonstrations, we propose 

to determine that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

provides for the implementation of 

BACM and MSM for sources of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as 

expeditiously as practicable, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). 

a. District Measures for Stationary and 

Area Sources 

The District’s BACM and MSM 

process is described in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.3 (‘‘BACM/

MSM Evaluation Process’’) and in 

Appendix C. The District followed a 

process similar to that used by Arizona 

in the Maricopa County PM10 Serious 

Area Plan, the only other air quality 

plan in the nation that includes a BACM 

and MSM demonstration for purposes of 

requesting an attainment date extension 

under CAA section 188(e).146

For each identified source category, 

the District first identified potential 

control measures included in SIPs for 

other areas, addressed in federal 

regulations or guidance (e.g., control 

technique guidelines (CTGs), alternative 

control techniques (ACTs), or new 

source performance standards (NSPSs)), 

or addressed in state or local regulations 

or guidance (e.g., Air Toxic Control 

Measures (ATCMs).147 The District 

evaluated these identified potential 

control measures to determine whether 

implementation of the measures would 

be technologically and economically 

feasible in the SJV.148 In addition, the 

District considered other available 

control options (beyond those included 

in other SIPs or identified in federal/

state regulations or guidance), such as 

measures that the State or District have 

previously considered ‘‘beyond RACT’’ 

and measures that have been 

implemented in practice in other areas. 

The District also evaluated these 

potential control measures to determine 

whether their implementation would be 

technologically and economically 

feasible in the SJV. The EPA’s SJV Rules 

TSD provides a more detailed 

evaluation of many of these District 

regulations and our recommendations 

for rule improvements. 

Open Burning 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (‘‘Open 

Burning’’), as amended April 15, 2010, 

is designed to minimize impacts of 

smoke and other air pollutants from 

open burning of agricultural waste and 

other materials.149 The rule restricts the 

type of materials that may be burned 

and establishes other conditions and 

procedures for open burning in 

conjunction with the District’s Smoke 

Management Program.150 The EPA 

approved this rule into the California 

SIP on January 4, 2012.151

The District compared Rule 4103 to 

several other open burning rules 

implemented in other parts of California 

and found no other rules more stringent 

as a whole than those in Rule 4103. 

According to the District, although the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) implements a rule 

that restricts burning on residential 

wood combustion (RWC) curtailment 

days (Rule 444) and District Rule 4103 

does not contain the same restriction, in 

practice the District currently bans all 

burning on RWC curtailment days 

through implementation of its Smoke 

Management Program, which 

specifically allocates allowable burn 

acreage for 103 geographic zones based 

on local meteorology.152 We note that a 

restriction on burning on RWC 

curtailment days by itself may not 

consistently reduce wintertime PM2.5

emission levels as it could shift more 

waste burning activity to days with 

more favorable meteorology. 

Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the 

California Health and Safety Code 

require the District to prohibit open 

burning of specific crop categories 

unless the District determines either 

that there is no economically feasible 

alternative means of eliminating the 

waste or that there is no long-term 

federal or state funding commitment for 

the continued operation of biomass 

facilities in the SJV or for the 

development of alternatives to 

burning.153 The District has considered 

the technical and economic feasibility of 

alternatives to burning several times in 

the last several years and concluded that 

such alternatives are not feasible for 

selected crop categories at this time.154

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 

Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (‘‘Boilers, 

Steam Generators, and Process 

Heaters—Phase 3’’), as amended 

October 16, 2008, establishes NOX

emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 

ppm and related operational 

requirements for gaseous fuel- or liquid 

fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters with total rated heat 

input greater than 5 million Btu per 

hour (MMBtu/hr).155 The EPA approved 

Rule 4306 into the California SIP on 

January 13, 2010.156 SJVUAPCD Rule 

4320 (‘‘Advanced Emission Reduction 

Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 

MMBtu/hr’’), as adopted October 16, 

2008, establishes more stringent NOX

emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

157See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as 

adopted October 16, 2008; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C, p. C–35. 

158 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 

159 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–38. 

160 Id. 

161Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended 

November 1, 2013) at section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2015 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–38. 

162RECLAIM is a market incentive program 

designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving 

emission reduction requirements for NOX and SOX

through, among other things, add-on controls, 

equipment modifications, reformulated products, 

operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase 

of excess emission reductions. See SCAQMD Rule 

2000, section (a). 

163 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–39. 

164 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–42. 

165See section 3.b.5 of the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 

166See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as 

amended June 18, 2009; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C, p. C–63. 

167 Id. 

168 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011). 

169 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–73. 

170 Id. 

171 Id. 

172 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–82. 

173 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–84. 

174 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.1 (pg. 8–2). 

175SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Draft Further Study, Rule 4311 

Flare Minimization Plans, 2015,’’ December 3, 2015. 

176See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as 

amended December 15, 2011; see also 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix C, p. C–87. 

177 Id. 

178 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012). 

related operational requirements for 

these units but allows sources to pay an 

emission fee in lieu of compliance with 

the NOX emission limits.157 The EPA 

approved Rule 4320 into the California 

SIP on March 25, 2011 but determined 

that this rule, as approved, may not be 

credited for attainment planning 

purposes because the fee provision 

renders the NOX emission limits 

unenforceable.158

The District compared both Rule 4306 

and Rule 4320 to several other 

analogous rules implemented in other 

parts of California, including the 

Sacramento metropolitan area, the 

South Coast, and the Bay Area.159

According to the District, the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4306 are 

generally within the same range as, and 

in some cases are more stringent than, 

those contained in analogous rules 

implemented by these other California 

agencies, except that the SCAQMD 

implements a rule containing NOX

emission limits that are potentially more 

stringent for units of certain sizes 

(SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended 

November 1, 2013).160

SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 

ppm NOX emission limit for larger units 

(i.e., those with heated rate inputs above 

75 MMBtu/hr), whereas Rule 4320 

establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306 

establishes a 9 ppm limit for such 

units.161 SCAQMD Regulation XX 

(‘‘Regional Clean Air Incentives Market’’ 

or ‘‘RECLAIM’’) also applies to units 

within the same range of sizes as Rule 

4320 but allows sources to comply with 

emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM 

Trading Credits.162 We do not have 

information about the rated heat input 

of the units subject to RECLAIM in the 

South Coast area and therefore cannot 

conclude that the lower NOX emission 

limits for larger boilers in SCAQMD 

Rule 1146 are technically and 

economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV at this time. 

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative NOX and PM2.5 control 

techniques for this source category, such 

as low temperature oxidation and EMX

system for NOX control, and alternative 

fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) 

and wet scrubbers for direct PM2.5

control.163 Based on its consideration of 

the technical constraints and costs 

associated with each of these control 

options, the District concluded that 

these additional controls are not feasible 

for implementation in the SJV at this 

time.164

Although the NOX emission limits in 

Rule 4320 do not satisfy the Act’s 

enforceability requirements because of 

the option to pay an emission fee, we 

note that the requirement to pay the 

emission fee itself is an enforceable 

requirement and that the fee provision 

appears to function effectively as a 

pollution deterrent.165

Flares 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (‘‘Flares’’), as 

amended June 18, 2009, establishes 

specific operational and administrative 

requirements to limit emissions of NOX, 

SOX, and VOCs from the operation of 

flares.166 Under Rule 4311, for each 

refinery flare and other flare with a 

capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the 

operator must submit a flare 

minimization plan (FMP) to the District 

describing relevant equipment and 

preventative measures and 

demonstrating that the operator 

appropriately minimized flaring 

activity.167 The EPA approved Rule 

4311 into the California SIP on 

November 3, 2011.168

The District compared Rule 4311 with 

several other analogous rules 

implemented in other parts of 

California, including the South Coast, 

Bay Area, Ventura County, and Santa 

Barbara, all of which require regulated 

sources to submit FMPs to the local 

districts.169 According to the District, 

most flares in the SJV occur in the oil 

and gas production industry and operate 

as emergency control devices, unlike 

many flares in the South Coast area and 

the Bay Area, which are significantly 

larger and operate as part of the refinery 

process.170 Because of wide variation in 

flaring operations in the SJV, the District 

concludes that requirements to submit 

details FMPs, as in Rule 4311, are the 

most effective means of reducing NOX

and SOX emissions from flaring.171

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative control techniques for flares, 

such as maximum monthly flared gas 

targets and requirements to capture gas 

before it is flared.172 Based on its 

consideration of the technical 

constraints and costs associated with 

these control options, the District 

concluded that these additional controls 

are not feasible for implementation in 

the SJV at this time.173

Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

includes a commitment by the District 

to conduct a comprehensive review of 

submitted FMPs to identify effective 

flare minimization practices; to evaluate 

the technical and economic feasibility of 

implementing new and additional flare 

minimization practices at affected 

facilities; to have a draft report available 

for public review and comment by 

December 1, 2015; to develop a final 

report by March 31, 2016 after 

addressing public comments on these 

evaluations; and upon completion of 

these analyses, to work closely with 

affected operators to ‘‘evaluate and 

implement, when feasible, the most 

effective flare minimization practices 

through the FMP submittal and 

approval process under Rule 4311.’’ 174

The District issued its draft report of 

FMPs on December 3, 2015, starting a 

30-day public comment period.175

Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (‘‘Solid FuelFired Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters’’), as amended 

December 15, 2011, establishes NOX

emission limits and related operational 

requirements for boilers, steam 

generators, and process heaters that 

burn municipal solid waste (MSW), 

biomass, and other solid fuels.176

Specifically, the rule establishes NOX

emission limits of 165 ppmv for units 

burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units 

burning biomass, and 65 ppmv for units 

burning other solid fuels.177 The EPA 

approved this rule into the California 

SIP on November 6, 2012.178

According to the District, the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4352 have been 

lowered significantly over time and are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6955 

179 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C–89. 

180SJV Rules TSD at Section 3.d.2. See also 77 

FR 66548 (November 6, 2012). 

181 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–91 to 

C–101. 

182 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–95—C– 

96 and C–98. 

183 Id. 

184See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as 

amended May 19, 2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C at pp. C–102. 

185SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 

2011, at pp. 5 and 7. 

186 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013). 

187 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–102. 

188See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as 

adopted August 19, 2004; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C at pp. C–106. 

189 Id. 

190 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006). 

191 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–114. 

192 Id. 

193 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–111. 

194 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–112. 

195 Id. 

196 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–110. 

197 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.3 (pg. 8–3). 

at least as stringent as analogous 

requirements implemented in other 

parts of California. The District 

compared the provisions of Rule 4352 to 

potentially more stringent requirements 

implemented in Sacramento County, the 

South Coast area, and the Bay Area, but 

these comparisons are of limited value 

because no affected facilities are subject 

to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District’s 

(SMAQMD) rule, and no sources are 

currently complying with the 40 ppmv 

limit in the SCAQMD’s or Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District’s 

(BAAQMD’s) rules.179 Nonetheless, we 

note that three other air districts in 

California implement regulations that 

apply to active biomass-fueled units: 

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 

District (YSAQMD), El Dorado County 

Air Quality Management District 

(EDAQMD) and Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). 

The NOX emission limits in these 

regulations are all within the same range 

as SJVAPCD’s limit of 90 ppm corrected 

to 3% O2 on a 24-hour block average.180

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative control techniques for this 

source category, such as selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOX

control and ESPs or baghouses for direct 

PM2.5 control.181 Based on its 

consideration of the costs associated 

with SCR retrofits at units burning 

biomass, MSW, or other solid fuels, the 

District concluded that SCR for these 

units is not economically feasible for 

sources in the SJV at this time.182 With 

respect to direct PM2.5 control, the 

District states that sources subject to 

Rule 4352 are subject to permit limits 

that require the best feasible controls.183

We note that biomass- and MSW-fired 

units provide an environmental benefit 

by diverting these wastes from landfills 

and reducing open burning. 

Glass Melting Furnaces 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting 

Furnaces’’), as amended May 19, 2011, 

establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and PM10

emission limits and related operational 

requirements for glass melting 

furnaces.184 Specifically, the rule 

establishes NOX emission limits of 1.5 

to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton glass, depending on 

glass product and averaging time, and 

SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. 

SOX/ton glass.185 The EPA approved 

Rule 4354 into the California SIP on 

January 31, 2013.186

According to the District, the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4354 require 

implementation of oxy-fuel firing or 

SCR systems, which are the best 

available NOX control techniques, and 

are at least as stringent as analogous 

requirements implemented in the South 

Coast and Bay Area.187

We are not aware of prohibitory rules 

for glass melting furnaces in other areas 

that are more stringent than Rule 4354. 

We note that the SCAQMD has found a 

1.2 lb./ton NOX emission limit feasible 

through a Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT) 

determination under its RECLAIM 

program, but absent information about 

how affected sources in the South Coast 

area have complied with the available 

compliance options under RECLAIM, it 

is not clear that these lower NOX

emission levels are technically and 

economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV. 

Conservation Management Practices 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation 

Management Practices’’), as adopted 

August 19, 2004, establishes 

requirements for owners and operators 

of agricultural sites to implement 

conservation management practices 

(CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from 

on-field crop and animal feeding 

operations.188 Under the rule, each 

owner/operator of an agricultural site 

must select and implement a CMP for 

each category of operations, including 

unpaved roads and unpaved vehicle/

equipment traffic areas, and submit a 

CMP application to the District for its 

review and approval.189 The EPA 

approved this rule into the California 

SIP on February 14, 2006.190

According to the District, Rule 4550 is 

the most stringent rule of its kind.191

The District compared the provisions of 

Rule 4550 to analogous requirements 

implemented by air agencies in other 

parts of California (Imperial County, 

South Coast, and Sacramento County) 

and in Arizona, and found no 

requirements more stringent than those 

in Rule 4550.192 We note that it is 

difficult to directly compare the 

requirements among these rules because 

of the widely varying rule structures 

and operations of the affected 

agricultural sites. 

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

additional control options for this 

source category, such as misting to 

reduce PM10 emissions from disking 

activity and the use of new almond 

harvesting equipment.193 As to misting, 

the District found that the available 

information was not sufficient to 

demonstrate that this control technique 

would achieve its minimum standard of 

a 10% reduction in PM10 emissions, so 

the District did not add this measure to 

the CMP list.194 As to the use of newer 

almond harvesting equipment, the 

District noted, based on a 2010–2011 

study, that newer equipment would 

achieve significant PM10 emission 

reductions but found it was not 

necessary to revise the CMP list given 

use of newer almond harvesting 

equipment is already listed under an 

existing CMP category.195 Finally, the 

District considered adding windblown 

dust controls to Rule 4550 but 

determined that such controls would 

not substantially impact PM2.5 design 

values in the SJV because windblown 

dust events typically occur during the 

spring and fall seasons whereas the 

District asserts that PM2.5 values are 

driven by winter-time concentrations; 

PM2.5 values recorded during winter 

stagnation periods are usually much 

higher than those recorded during wind 

events; and the geologic component of 

peak PM2.5 concentration is a fraction of 

the mass formed by secondary processes 

and other sources.196

Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

includes a commitment by the District 

to reevaluate Rule 4550, in close 

coordination with stakeholders 

(including agricultural industry 

representatives, CARB, and the EPA), 

for additional feasible control options; 

to have a draft report available for 

public review and comment by May 31, 

2016; and to develop a final report by 

October 15, 2016 after addressing public 

comments on these evaluations.197

Commercial Charbroiling 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial 

Charbroiling’’), as amended September 

17, 2009, establishes control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6956 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

198See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as 

amended September 17, 2009; see also 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix C, p. C–115. 

199 Id. 

200 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011). 

201 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–116 to C– 

117. 

202 Id. 

203 Id. 

204 Id. at p. C–116. 

205 Id. at pp. C–117, C–118. 

206 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–117 to C– 

119. 

207SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Meeting 

Minutes of June 18, 2015 Governing Board Meeting, 

pp. 7–8. 

208 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C–119 and 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15–4–7A 

(April 16, 2015) at paragraph 7. 

209 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9. See 

also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 

7–6, and Appendix C, section C.16, pp. C–115 to 

C–119, which describe the charbroiling rule 

revision commitment in the context of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan. 

210See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as 

amended November 14, 2013; see also 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix C at p. C–120. 

211 Id. 

212 80 FR 75442 (December 2, 2015). 

213 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008). 

214SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 

14, 2013, at Table 1. 

215 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–122 to 

C–123. 

216Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County 

APCD Rule 242; Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; 

and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1. 

217SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 

1, 2008. 

218El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as 

amended June 2, 2006. 

219Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as 

amended January 21, 2003. 

220See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) 

of the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD, which provides a more 

detailed discussion of the District’s technical and 

economic feasibility analyses. 

221SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 

14, 2013, at Table 3. 

222SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; 

Placer County APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 

2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as 

amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD 

Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21, 2003; and 

Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as adopted 

January 23, 2012. 

223SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 

1, 2008. 

224Bay Area AQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8, as 

amended July 25, 2007. 

requirements to reduce PM10 (of which 

PM2.5 is a component) and VOC 

emissions from chain-driven 

charbroilers.198 Specifically, the rule 

requires that chain-driven charbroilers 

be equipped and operated with a 

catalytic oxidizer with a control 

efficiency of at least 83% for PM10

emissions and 86% for VOC 

emissions.199 The EPA approved Rule 

4692 into the California SIP on 

November 3, 2011.200

The District compared the 

requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous 

requirements for chain-driven 

charbroilers implemented by the 

SCAQMD, Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District (VCAPCD), and 

BAAQMD and found no requirements in 

these rules more stringent than those 

contained in Rule 4692, with one 

exception in the BAAQMD rule.201 With 

respect to under-fired charbroilers 

(UFCs), the District found that no costeffective control techniques have been 

demonstrated to date given technical 

challenges associated with controlling 

emissions from UFCs, which operate 

differently from chain-driven 

charbroilers.202 Although the BAAQMD 

has adopted a rule that establishes 

control requirements for both chaindriven and under-fired charbroilers, 

according to the District, a significant 

portion of the UFCs in the BAAQMD are 

not subject to the rule’s requirements for 

UFCs because they fall below the rule’s 

applicability thresholds.203 The District 

also stated that the BAAQMD has been 

unable to enforce its UFC requirements 

because no control technologies have 

been certified.204

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative control techniques for UFCs, 

such as catalytic oxidizers, high 

efficiency particulate-arresting filtration 

system, ESPs, and wet scrubbers.205

Based on its consideration of the 

technical difficulties and costs 

associated with installing these control 

devices at UFCs, the District concluded 

that these control techniques are not 

technically and economically feasible 

for sources in the SJV at this time.206

The District also stated, however, that it 

expects to begin testing some of these 

additional control options in mid-2015. 

The District’s Governing Board 

approved $750,000 for its Restaurant 

Charbroiler Technology Partnership 

program, which would fund particulate 

emission control technology 

demonstration projects for under-fired 

charbroilers at restaurants in the SJV.207

As part of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the 

SJVUAPCD submitted a commitment to 

amend Rule 4692 in 2016 to add 

requirements for UFCs, with an 

anticipated compliance date of 2017.208

The Plan relies on this commitment for 

a portion of the direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions needed to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.209

Internal Combustion Engines 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal 

Combustion Engines’’), as amended 

November 14, 2013, establishes NOX, 

CO, VOC, and SOX emission limits and 

related operational requirements for 

internal combustion (IC) engines.210 The 

rule contains separate emission limits 

for spark-ignited IC engines used in 

agricultural operations (SI AO engines), 

spark-ignited IC engines used in nonagricultural operations (SI non-AO 

engines), and compression-ignited IC 

engines.211 The EPA proposed to 

approve this rule into the California SIP 

on December 2, 2015.212 The EPA 

approved a previous version of this rule 

into the California SIP on January 10, 

2008.213

For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 

establishes NOX emission limits ranging 

from 25 to 75 ppmv.214 According to the 

District, these NOX emission limits are 

at least as stringent as many analogous 

control requirements implemented in 

the Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, and 

Ventura County areas.215 We also note 

that Rule 4702 limits are at least as 

stringent as analogous requirements in 

the Feather River, Placer County, 

Mojave Desert, and San Diego areas.216

Some of the emission limits for SI 

non-AO engines in Rule 4702 are, 

however, less stringent than those 

implemented in the South Coast, El 

Dorado, and Antelope Valley areas for 

similar engines. Specifically, the 

SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv limit 

for all IC engines; 217 El Dorado has 

adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ‘‘richburn’’ engines and a 65 ppmv limit for 

SI ‘‘lean-burn’’ engines (except those 

used exclusively in agricultural 

operations); 218 and Antelope Valley has 

adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines 

(except those used exclusively in 

agricultural operations).219 The District 

considered the technical and economic 

feasibility of alternative control 

techniques for SI non-AO engines that 

would lower the emission levels for 

certain engines to 11, 25, and 65 ppmv, 

but found that for reasons of both 

technical and economic feasibility, NOX

emission limits lower than those in Rule 

4702 are generally not feasible for 

implementation in the SJV at this 

time.220

For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 

establishes NOX emission limits ranging 

from 90 to 150 ppmv.221 These NOX

emission limits are more stringent than 

analogous control requirements 

implemented in the Sacramento Metro, 

Placer County, El Dorado, and Antelope 

Valley areas, which exempt AO engines 

from control requirements altogether, 

and are equivalent to analogous control 

requirements implemented in the 

Mojave Desert area.222 The SCAQMD, 

however, has adopted an 11 ppmv limit 

for all IC engines,223 and the BAAQMD 

has adopted NOX emission limits 

ranging from 25–70 ppmv for all sparkignited IC engines.224 Thus, Rule 4702’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6957 

225See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) 

of the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 

226SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, 

May 2005, Appendix B: Incentive Funding 

Available for Agricultural Engine Emission 

Reductions. 

227SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 

14, 2013, at Table 4. 

228SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 

20, 2007, at Table 5–3. 

229 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C–142. 

230 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009). 

231 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C–144. 

232 Id. 

233 Id. 

234See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as 

amended September 18, 2014. 

235 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). Also, EPA 

approved a previous version of Rule 4901, as 

adopted October 16, 2008, into the SIP on 

November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907). 

236SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 

18, 2014, at paragraph 5.6. 

237 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–156. 

238Rule 4901 Staff Report, p. 19. 

239 ‘‘Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood 

Smoke,’’ EPA–456/B–13–001, March 2013. 

240U.S. EPA Region 9, ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking for the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP), San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters,’’ August 2015. See also 

section 3.f (Conservation Management Practices) of 

the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 

241SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 

2004, at section 5.2.1. 

242 71 FR 8461 (February 17, 2006). 

requirements for SI AO engines are at 

least as stringent as most but not all 

analogous requirements implemented in 

other parts of California. 

The District considered the technical 

and economic feasibility of alternative 

control techniques for SI AO engines 

that would lower their emission levels 

and found that for reasons of both 

technical and economic feasibility, NOX

emission limits lower than those in Rule 

4702 are generally not feasible for 

implementation within SJV’s 

agricultural industry at this time.225 We 

note that the SCAQMD, like SJVUAPCD, 

has provided economic incentive grants 

for agricultural engine retrofits and 

replacement in recognition of unique 

economic and technical circumstances 

in the agricultural industry.226

Finally, for compression-ignited IC 

engines (both those used in agricultural 

operations and those used in nonagricultural operations), Rule 4702 

requires that all certified engines meet 

the EPA’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission 

standards for nonroad diesel engines 

and that non-certified engines meet the 

same standards or a numerical NOX

emission limit based on engine size.227

Stationary Gas Turbines 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (‘‘Stationary 

Gas Turbines’’), as amended September 

20, 2007, establishes NOX emission 

limits ranging from 5 to 25 ppm and 

related operational requirements for all 

stationary gas turbines with greater than 

0.3 MW capacity.228 These units operate 

primarily in the oil and gas production 

and utility industries, with some also 

operating in manufacturing and 

government facilities.229 The EPA 

approved this rule into the California 

SIP on October 21, 2009.230

According to the District, the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4703 are more 

stringent than analogous control 

requirements implemented in many 

other parts of California, including the 

Sacramento Metro area, South Coast, 

and Ventura County.231 The District 

considered the technical and economic 

feasibility of alternative control 

techniques to reduce emissions further, 

such as the installation of SCR or 

installation of entirely new turbine 

systems, and concluded that these 

options are extremely expensive and not 

economically feasible.232 The District 

also considered the potential for 

installation of EMx system for NOX

control and concluded that this 

technology requires further testing 

before it will be generally available for 

implementation in the SJV.233

Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Burning Heaters 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters’’), as amended September 18, 

2014, is designed to limit emissions of 

PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, and 

other pollutants generated by the use of 

wood burning fireplaces, wood burning 

heaters, and outdoor wood burning 

devices. The rule establishes 

requirements for the sale/transfer, 

operation, and installation of wood 

burning devices and on the advertising 

of wood for sale within the SJV.234 The 

EPA proposed to approve this rule into 

the SIP on September 30, 2015.235

Rule 4901 includes a mandatory twotiered curtailment program. During a 

Level One Episodic Wood Burning 

Curtailment, which is declared when 

the PM2.5 concentration is forecasted to 

be between 20–65 mg/m3, operation of 

wood burning fireplaces and 

unregistered wood burning heaters is 

prohibited, but properly operated wood 

burning heaters that meet certification 

requirements and have a current 

registration with the District may be 

used. During a Level Two Episodic 

Wood Burning Curtailment, which is 

declared when the PM2.5 concentration 

is forecasted to be above 65 mg/m3 or the 

PM10 concentration is forecasted to be 

above 135 mg/m3, operation of any wood 

burning device is prohibited.236

According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4901 is 

at least as stringent as analogous rules 

in other areas, including the South 

Coast, Bay Area, Sacramento Metro area, 

Washoe County, Nevada, and 

Washington State.237 We note that 

SCAQMD Rule 445 includes a 

mandatory curtailment of all devices 

when the 24-hour average PM2.5

concentration is forecasted above 30 mg/ 

m3, and SMAQMD Rule 421 bans 

operation of all wood burning devices 

when ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 

above 35 mg/m3. According to the 

District, however, the small increase in 

emissions from registered clean burning 

devices when concentrations are 

between 20–65 mg/m3 in the SJV will be 

more than offset by the decrease in 

emissions from dirty devices when 

concentrations are between 20–30 mg/

m3, which will reduce the build-up of 

emissions during long periods of 

stagnation experienced in the 

wintertime in the Valley.238

Rule 4901 incorporates all elements 

outlined in the EPA’s Strategies for 

Reducing Wood Smoke 239 and includes 

comparable provisions available in 

other analogous rules. We are not aware 

of more stringent measures for reducing 

residential wood smoke that are 

technically and economically feasible 

for implementation in the SJV. Our 

Technical Support Document to support 

our separate proposal on Rule 4901 

contains a more detailed discussion of 

this rule in comparison to analogous 

rules implemented elsewhere.240

Paved and Unpaved Roads 

SJVUAPCD Rule 8061 (‘‘Paved and 

Unpaved Roads’’), as amended August 

19, 2004, is designed to limit fugitive 

dust emissions generated from paved 

and unpaved roads. The rule establishes 

control measures and design criteria for 

existing public and private paved or 

unpaved roads, road construction 

projects, and road modification projects, 

such as requirements to stabilize 

unpaved roads by applying water, a 

uniform layer of washed gravel, 

chemical/organic dust stabilizers/

suppressants, paving, or any other 

method demonstrated to effectively 

limit visible dust to 20% opacity.241 The 

EPA approved this rule into the SIP on 

February 17, 2006.242

The District compared Rule 8061 to 

SCAQMD Rule 1156 (‘‘Further 

Reductions of Particulate Emissions 

from Cement Manufacturing Facilities’’); 

SCAQMD Rule 1157 (‘‘PM–10 Emission 

Reductions from Aggregate and Related 

Operations’’); SMAQMD Rule 403 

(‘‘Fugitive Dust’’); VCAPCD Rule 55 

(‘‘Fugitive Dust’’); Clark County 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

243 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–194 to C– 

197. 244 Id. at p. C–196. 245SJVUAPCD Rule 4309, as adopted December 

15, 2005, at p. 5. 

246 70 FR 46770 (August 11, 2005). 

247 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007). 

248 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C–219, C– 

220. 

249 Id. (citing SCAQMD Rule 1157 and Rule 403). 

250 Id. at pp. C–221, C–225. 

251 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p. 8–3. 

252SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Draft Further Study, Warm Mix 

Asphalt,’’ December 1, 2015. 

253See generally Rule 4570, as amended October 

21, 2010; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. 

C–240. 254 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, p. C–241. 255 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012). 256 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C–236 to 

C–267. 257 Id. 

258 Id. at pg. C–267. 

259 Id. 

Department of Air Quality Section 91 

(‘‘Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads, 

Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved 

Easement Roads’’), and Section 93 

(‘‘Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and 

Street Sweeping Equipment’’).243 Based 

on these evaluations, SJVUAPCD 

concluded that no other areas 

implemented requirements more 

stringent than those already in Rule 

8061. 

The District also considered the 

feasibility of requiring control measures 

on paved and unpaved roads with less 

than 26 annual average daily trips 

(AADT). Such a measure would require 

more road owners/operators to 

implement control measures to reduce 

fugitive emissions from paved and 

unpaved roads. SJVUAPCD’s analysis of 

the emission inventory indicates that 

the majority of the particulate emissions 

attributable to unpaved roads are from 

roads with more than 26 AADT. 

Because these roads are already subject 

to the mitigation requirements of Rule 

8061, the District concluded that the 

remaining emissions from unpaved 

roads with less than 26 AADT provide 

very little opportunity for additional 

emissions reductions. Additionally, the 

District noted that emissions from 

unpaved roads are lowest in the winter 

months, when exceedances of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard tend to occur. For 

these reasons, SJVUAPCD concluded 

that additional control measures for 

paved and unpaved road with less than 

26 AADT would not achieve emission 

reductions.244

Asphalt/Concrete Operations 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 (‘‘Visible 

Emissions’’), as amended February 17, 

2005, establishes limits on opacity, 

which is often used as an indicator of 

PM emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4309 

(‘‘Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens’’), as 

amended December 15, 2005, 

establishes NOX and CO emission limits 

for dryers, dehydrators and ovens firing 

gaseous or liquid fuel with a total rated 

heat input of at least 5.0 MMBtu/hr. 

Under Rule 4309, asphalt/concrete 

manufacturing plants that operate 

equipment of this size are subject to 

NOX emission limits of 4.3 ppm 

(gaseous fuel) and 12.0 ppm (liquid 

fuel).245 The EPA approved Rule 4101 

into the California SIP on August 11, 

2005 246 and approved Rule 4309 into 

the California SIP on May 30, 2007.247

According to the District, there are no 

state regulations that apply to this 

source category and no analogous rules 

in the Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, or 

Ventura County areas.248 The District 

evaluated analogous rules implemented 

in the South Coast and found no 

requirements more stringent than those 

in SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 and Rule 

4309.249 We are not aware of more 

stringent control requirements for 

visible emissions or NOX emissions in 

other California districts for asphalt 

plants. 

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

using warm mix asphalt (WMA), a 

newer substance which is produced at 

temperatures 25 to 90 degrees 

(Fahrenheit) lower than hot mix asphalt 

(HMA) and which results in lower 

emissions because it requires less fuel to 

heat the asphalt. Although the use of 

WMA has grown steadily in the U.S., 

the District concluded that use of WMA 

at asphalt production facilities in the 

SJV is not technically and economically 

feasible at this time given the high costs 

of, and technical difficulties associated 

with, converting equipment.250

Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

includes a commitment by the District 

to evaluate and promote the use of 

WMA in the SJV, in close coordination 

with stakeholders (including asphalt 

plant operators, Caltrans, city and 

county planning agencies, CARB, and 

the EPA); to have a draft report available 

for public review and comment by 

December 1, 2015; and to develop a 

final report by March 31, 2016, after 

addressing public comments. As part of 

this evaluation, the District committed 

to (1) evaluate opportunities to further 

encourage transportation and county 

agencies to continue transitioning from 

HMA to WMA as feasible, (2) to explore 

the potential feasibility of additional 

control measures and the granting of 

mitigation credits for WMA usage 

through the District’s Indirect Source 

Review (ISR) program, and (3) to 

consider outreach and education 

opportunities for encouraging project 

developers and construction managers 

to increase the use of WMA.251 The 

District issued its draft report on WMA 

on December 1, 2015, starting a 30-day 

public comment period.252

Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs) 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (‘‘Confined 

Animal Facilities’’), as amended 

October 21, 2010, applies to large dairy, 

poultry, beef cattle feeding and swine 

CAFs and requires operators of such 

facilities to implement measures to 

control VOC emissions for each major 

stage of operation, e.g., feeding, silage, 

milking (dairy), housing, waste 

management, and waste storage/

application.253 According to the District, 

although Rule 4570 was developed to 

limit VOC emissions, the work practice 

standards contained in the rule also 

reduce ammonia emissions—for 

example through mitigation measures 

for nutritional management, increased 

cleaning and removal of manure and 

litter from housing areas, and land 

incorporation of manure and litter.254

The EPA approved Rule 4570 into the 

California SIP on January 17, 2012.255

The District compared the 

requirements of Rule 4570 with those in 

analogous prohibitory rules 

implemented in other areas, including 

the South Coast, Bay Area, Sacramento 

Metro, Ventura County, Imperial 

County, and the State of Idaho, and 

concluded that Rule 4570 is more 

stringent than all of these rules.256 For 

example, Rule 4570 contains 

applicability thresholds that are more 

stringent than those in analogous rules 

implemented in the South Coast (Rule 

233) and Idaho (Rule 58.01.01).257 We 

note that it is difficult to directly 

compare the requirements among these 

rules because of the widely varying rule 

structures and operations of confined 

animal facilities. 

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative control techniques for CAFs, 

including episodic application of 

sodium bisulfate (SBS) on manure at 

dairies, which converts a greater 

fraction of ammonia to non-volatile 

ammonium.258 Given the costs of SBS 

application and its potential adverse 

impacts on worker safety and health, 

cattle health, and water quality, the 

District concluded that SBS application 

this control option is not technically 

and economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV at this 

time.259 The District also evaluated the 

use of covers to reduce ammonia from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6959 

260Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill, 

SJVUAPCD to Andy Steckel, EPA, re: Requested 

Information, and attachments. 

261See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as 

adopted March 15, 2007; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C, pp. C–276. 

262See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as 

adopted August 18, 2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C, pp. C–272. 

263 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–272 and 

C–276. 

264 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012). 

265 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012). 

266 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–272, C– 

273. 

267 Id. 

268 Id. 

269 Id. at pp. C–275 to C–276 and C–279. 

270 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E, p. E–15. 

271 Id. 

272The Plan does not address CARB’s consumer 

products program because it is primarily designed 

to reduce emissions of VOCs, which the State has 

excluded from its control strategy for attaining the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

273California regulations use the term ‘‘off-road’’ 

to refer to ‘‘nonroad’’ vehicles and engines. 

274The Clean Air Act assigns mobile source 

regulation to EPA through title II of the Act and 

assigns stationary source regulation and SIP 

development responsibilities to the states. In so 

doing, the CAA preempts various types of state 

regulation of mobile sources as set forth in section 

209(a) (preemption of state emissions standards for 

new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) 

(preemption of state emissions standards for 

nonroad vehicles and engines), and section 

211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements 

for motor vehicles, i.e., other than California’s 

motor vehicle fuel requirements—see section 

211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile source 

standards, the State of California may request a 

waiver or authorization for state emission 

standards. 

CAA section 209(b)(1) and (e)(2) give California 

unique authority under the CAA to regulate 

emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad 

engines, except for locomotives and engines used in 

farm and construction equipment less than 175 

horsepower. To exercise its authority, California 

must obtain a waiver from EPA demonstrating that 

the standards, in the aggregate, are at least as 

protective of public health and welfare as 

applicable federal standards. Additionally, EPA 

must grant a waiver unless California’s 

‘‘protectiveness determination’’ is arbitrary and 

capricious; California does not need the standards 

to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or 

California’s standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not consistent with 

CAA § 202(a). EPA has previously stated that 

consistency with section 202(a) requires that 

California’s standards must be technologically 

feasible within the lead time provided, giving due 

consideration of costs. See, e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 

8, 2009) regarding the greenhouse gas waiver. Once 

a waiver is granted, compliance with California’s 

new motor vehicle or engine standards is treated as 

compliance with applicable federal standards. In 

the absence of a waiver, the applicable federal 

mobile source standards apply. 

lagoons and solid manure storage piles 

and found no definitive evidence that 

such techniques would reduce ammonia 

emissions. To the contrary, the District 

stated, several studies indicated that 

anaerobic lagoon covers might increase 

ammonia emissions.260

Compost Operations 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (‘‘Biosolids, 

Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter 

Operations’’), as adopted March 15, 

2007, establishes requirements for 

facilities that landfill, land apply, 

compost, or co-compost biosolids, 

animal manure, or poultry litter.261

SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (‘‘Organic 

Material Composting’’), as adopted 

August 18, 2011, establishes 

requirements for facilities that stockpile 

and compost greenwaste and foodwaste 

materials.262 According to the District, 

although both of these rules were 

designed to control VOC emissions, 

both rules establish work practice 

standards that have the co-benefit of 

reducing ammonia emissions.263 The 

EPA approved Rules 4565 and 4566 into 

the California SIP on January 17, 

2012 264 and November 29, 2012,265

respectively. 

The District compared the 

requirements of Rule 4565 and Rule 

4566 with those in an analogous 

prohibitory rule implemented in the 

South Coast area (Rule 1133.2) and 

found that the SCAQMD rule requires 

in-vessel composting with 70% to 80% 

control efficiency for existing and new 

facilities, respectively, while 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 requires 10% to 

80% control efficiency based on annual 

throughput.266 According to the District, 

however, the lower control efficiencies 

required by SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 are 

appropriate because in-vessel 

composting is not cost-effective for 

smaller or medium-sized facilities, and 

SCAQMD does not regulate any 

facilities of the size that is subject to the 

80% control requirement.267 Moreover, 

the District states that Rule 4565 

contains a more stringent applicability 

threshold (100 tpy of biosolids, animal 

manure or poultry litter) compared to 

the applicability threshold in SCAQMD 

Rule 1133.2 (1,000 tpy VOC).268

The District also considered the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternative control techniques for 

compost operations, including finished 

compost covers and water systems, but 

found that these control techniques are 

not technically and economically 

feasible for compost operations in the 

SJV at this time.269 The District also 

noted that it has funded a project 

through its Technology Advancement 

Program that could potentially reduce 

ammonia and other emissions at large 

greenwaste and/or foodwaste 

composting facilities—specifically, an 

‘‘extended aerated stack pile (eASP) 

method’’ which substitutes dieselpowered loaders with electronic 

conveyor systems to build piles, uses 

solar-powered blowers to replace dieselpowered windrow turners, and uses 

finished compost biofilter covers.270

According to the District, the study 

authors note that this demonstration 

project is the first test of this technology 

and recommend further testing and 

evaluation to assure results on an 

industry-wide basis.271 We note that 

there are other environmental benefits 

associated with composting operations, 

including diversion of material from 

landfills, which should be considered in 

evaluating the feasibility of additional 

controls for this source category. 

b. State Measures for Mobile Sources 

CARB’s BACM and MSM 

demonstration for mobile sources is in 

Appendix D of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

CARB has primary responsibility for 

reducing emissions in California from 

new and existing on-road and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. Given the 

need for significant emissions 

reductions from mobile sources to meet 

the NAAQS in California nonattainment 

areas, CARB has been a leader in the 

development of stringent control 

measures for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources, fuels and consumer 

products.272

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is 

charged with establishing national 

emission limits for mobile sources. 

States are generally preempted from 

establishing such limits except for 

California, which can establish these 

limits subject to EPA waiver or 

authorization under CAA section 209 

(referred to herein as ‘‘waiver 

measures’’). Over the years, the EPA has 

issued waivers (for on-road vehicles and 

engines measures) or authorizations (for 

non-road vehicle and engine 

measures) 273 for many mobile source 

regulations adopted by CARB.274

California attainment and maintenance 

plans, including the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for 

the SJV, rely on emissions reductions 

from implementation of the waiver 

measures through the use of emissions 

models such as EMFAC2014. 

Historically, California has not 

submitted, and the EPA has not required 

that California submit, its mobile source 

rules that have been granted a waiver or 

authorization by the EPA for inclusion 

in the California SIP. However, a recent 

decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals held that the EPA’s 

longstanding practice in this regard was 

at odds with the CAA requirement that 

state and local emissions limits relied 

upon to meet the NAAQS be enforceable 

by the EPA or private citizens through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

275Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 

1169 (9th Cir. 2015). 

276 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). 

277 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D–9 to D– 

11. 

278 69 FR 5412 at 5419 (February 4, 2004). 

279 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pages D–4 to D– 

19. 

280 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D–5. 

281 78 FR 2112 at 2119 (January 9, 2013). 

282 74 FR 33196 (July 10, 2009). 

283 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D–8. 

284 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D–8 to D–12. 

See also 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). 

285 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012. 

287 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D–12 to D– 

14. 

288 Id. 

289 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D–15. 

adoption and approval of such limits in 

the SIP.275

In response to the Court’s ruling, 

CARB has submitted its mobile source 

control rules that have been granted 

waivers or authorizations but have not 

been included in the SIP, and, in a 

separate rulemaking, the EPA has 

proposed to approve these rules into the 

SIP.276 Upon the EPA’s final approval of 

these rules into the SIP, which the EPA 

intends to complete before or 

concurrent with final action on the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan, the measures will be 

enforceable by the EPA or private 

citizens under the CAA. 

In addition to waiver measures, CARB 

has adopted operational requirements 

for in-use vehicles, rules that limit the 

amounts of pollutants allowed in 

transportation fuels, and incentive 

programs that provide funding to 

replace or retrofit older, dirtier vehicles 

and equipment with cleaner 

technologies.277

The EPA previously determined that 

California’s mobile source control 

programs constituted BACM for PM10

purposes in the San Joaquin Valley.278

Since then, the State has adopted 

additional mobile source control 

measures including the Advanced Clean 

Cars program, heavy-duty vehicle idling 

rules, revisions to the State’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, in-use rules for on-road and 

non-road diesel vehicles, and emissions 

standards for non-road equipment, farm 

and cargo handling equipment, and 

recreational vehicles.279

CARB’s BACM and MSM analysis 

provides a discussion of the measures 

adopted and implemented for each of 

the identified source categories. We 

discuss each of these mobile source 

categories below. 

Light and Medium Duty Vehicles 

This category includes light-duty 

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty trucks. The source 

category’s emissions are 32.2 tpd NOX

and 1.9 tpd direct PM2.5.280

CARB has a long history of adopting 

programs for reducing emissions from 

this source category. Light-duty and 

medium-duty motor vehicles are 

currently subject to California’s ‘‘LowEmission Vehicle III’’ (LEV III) 

standards as well as a ‘‘Zero Emission 

Vehicle’’ (ZEV) requirement. The LEV 

III standards are consistent, or 

harmonized, with the subsequently 

adopted national Tier 3 standards for 

the same vehicles. California’s ZEV 

program, however, does not have a 

national counterpart and results in 

additional emissions reductions as it 

phases in a requirement that 15% of 

new light-duty vehicle sales consist of 

ZEV or partial ZEV.281 Taken as a 

whole, California’s standards for light 

and medium-duty vehicles are more 

stringent than the federal standards. 

California has also adopted 

regulations for gasoline fuel (California 

Reformulated Gasoline or CaRFG) which 

reduce emissions from light-duty and 

medium-duty vehicles. On July 10, 

2009, the EPA approved the CaRFG 

regulations into the California SIP.282

Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

This category includes heavy-duty gas 

and diesel trucks, heavy-duty gas and 

diesel urban buses, school buses and 

motor homes. The emissions from this 

category are 130.6 tpd NOX and 4.8 tpd 

direct PM2.5.283

California has the most stringent 

heavy-duty vehicle emissions control 

measures in the nation, including 

engine standards for diesel and gasoline 

vehicles, idling requirements, 

certification procedures, on-board 

diagnostic requirements, and 

verification measures for emissions 

control devices. Many of these control 

measures are subject to the CAA waiver 

process and have also been submitted 

for inclusion in the SIP.284

California has also adopted many inuse requirements to help reduce 

emissions from the vehicles already on 

the road, which may remain in use for 

many years. The most recently adopted 

in-use requirement is the Cleaner In-Use 

Heavy-Duty Trucks measure (‘‘Truck 

and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation’’), which became effective in 

2011 and the EPA approved into the SIP 

in 2012.285 The Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation are designed to reduce 

emissions of diesel particulate matter, 

NOX, and other pollutants from in-use 

trucks and buses and establish, among 

other things, phased-in PM control 

requirements from 2014 through 2023. 

Finally, California has adopted 

regulations for diesel fuel that further 

reduce emissions from heavy-duty 

trucks. The EPA approved these diesel 

fuel regulations into the California SIP 

on July 10, 2009.286

Off-Road Vehicles and Engines 

This category includes off-road 

compression ignition (diesel) engines 

and equipment, small spark ignition 

(gasoline) off-road engines and 

equipment less than 25 horsepower (hp) 

(e.g., lawn and garden equipment), offroad large gasoline engines and 

equipment greater than 25 hp (e.g., 

forklifts, portable generators), and 

airport ground service equipment. The 

emissions from this category total 19.2 

tpd NOX and 1.1 tpd direct PM2.5.287

As it has done for the on-road 

categories discussed above, CARB has 

adopted stringent new emissions 

standards subject to EPA authorization 

under CAA section 209(e) and in-use 

measures or requirements for this source 

category (e.g., incentives for early 

introduction of cleaner engines and 

equipment and requirements to limit 

vehicle idling). CARB has been 

regulating off-road equipment since the 

1990s and its new engine standards for 

off-road vehicles and engines are 

generally as stringent as the 

corresponding federal standards. For 

larger off-road equipment, which can 

have a slow turnover rate, CARB 

adopted an in-use off-road regulation in 

2007 that requires owners of off-road 

equipment in the construction and other 

industries to retrofit or replace older 

engines/equipment with newer, cleaner 

models. The off-road regulation also 

imposes idling limitations.288

Farm Equipment 

The farm equipment category 

includes agricultural equipment such as 

tractors, harvesting equipment and 

sprayers. The category’s emissions are 

50.4 tpd NOX and 2.9 tpd PM2.5. CARB 

has adopted standards identical to the 

EPA’s standards for this off-road engine 

category. CARB notes also that State, 

District, and federal incentive funds 

have resulted in the replacement of over 

3,000 pieces of agricultural equipment 

earlier than required by state and federal 

regulations.289

Other Mobile Source Categories 

Other mobile source categories 

identified by CARB in the Plan include 

cargo handling equipment, motorcycles, 

recreational boats, off-road recreational 

vehicles and commercial harbor craft. 

The emissions from all of these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6961 

290 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D–15 to D– 

18. 291Addendum at 42013. 292These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: The San Joaquin 

Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of 

Governments, the Merced County Association of 

Governments, the Madera County Transportation 

Commission, the Council of Fresno County 

Governments, Kings County Association of 

Governments, the Tulare County Association of 

Governments and Kern Council of Governments. 

293 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6.5.6, p. 6–19. 

294For an example of the CMAQ funding policy 

implemented by the eight SJV MPOs, see 

‘‘Resolution To Adopt The Local Cost-Effectiveness 

Congestion Mitigation And Air Quality (CMAQ) 

Program Policy,’’ San Joaquin Council Of 

Governments (SJCOG), R–08–03, July 26, 2007,’’ 

and ‘‘Exhibit A, Local Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ 

Policy,’’ SJCOG. 

295 23 CFR 450.322(c) 

296See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government’s 

Conformity Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable 

Community Strategy, adopted June 26, 2014, 

Appendix D, Timely Implementation 

Documentation for Transportation Control 

Measures. The 2014 RTP is combined with the 

Sustainable Communities Strategy to integrate land 

use and transportation planning to achieve, where 

feasible, regional greenhouse gas (GHG) targets set 

by the CARB pursuant to Senate Bill 375, which 

identifies specific GHG reduction goals for each of 

California’s MPOs in 2020 and 2035. 

297 Id. 

298EPA, Final rule, ‘‘Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; 

Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs,’’ prepublication notice signed December 11, 2015; see 

also 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015) (proposed rule). 

299SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for 

Particulate Matter of 10 Microns and Smaller,’’ 

submitted August 19, 2003 as amended by 

subsequent submission of December 30, 2003. 

300SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Regional Transportation 

Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation 

Document,’’ April 2002. 

301 69 FR 30006 at 30020, 30035 (May 26, 2004). 

302SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation,’’ submitted 

November 16, 2007. Chapter 7, p. 21. 

303PM10 Plans reviewed included: Puerto Rico, 

Municipality of Guaynabo, PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan; Nogales, AZ, PM10 Attainment 

Demonstration; Coso Junction, CA, PM10

Maintenance Plan, May 17, 2010; Sacramento, CA, 

PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan, October 

28, 2010; Truckee Meadows, NV, PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, May 2009; and Eagle River, AK, PM10

Maintenance Plan, adopted August 2010. 

304See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government’s 

Conformity Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable 

Community Strategy, adopted June 26, 2014, 

Chapter 4, Section E, p. 42. 

categories total 3.5 tpd NOX and 0.5 tpd 

direct PM2.5. Although CARB considers 

these categories ‘‘insignificant’’ for 

BACM purposes in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

CARB provided a discussion of the 

emission standards and other measures 

it has adopted to control emissions from 

these categories.290

c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation 

Control Measures (TCMs) 

TCMs are, in general, measures 

designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions 

in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 

congestion. TCMs can reduce PM2.5

emissions in both the on-road motor 

vehicle exhaust and paved road dust 

source categories by reducing vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. 

They can also reduce vehicle exhaust 

emissions by relieving congestion. EPA 

guidance states that where mobile 

sources contribute significantly to PM2.5

violations, ‘‘the state must, at a 

minimum, address the transportation 

control measures listed in CAA section 

108(f) to determine whether such 

measures are achievable in the area 

considering energy, environmental and 

economic impacts and other costs.’’ 291

The current efforts by the SJV’s eight 

local jurisdiction metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO) 292 to implement 

cost-effect transportation control 

measures (TCM) are described in 

Chapter 6.5.6 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.293

The Plan includes a discussion of the 

on-going implementation of a broad 

range of TCMs in the Valley. There is 

also a discussion of the MPOs’ 

Congestion Management and Air 

Quality (CMAQ) funding policy, which 

is a standardized process across the 

Valley for distributing 20% of the 

CMAQ funds to projects that meet a 

minimum cost-effectiveness.294

Each Valley MPO is required to 

update its Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP) at least once every four years.295

The RTP is a long-term regional 

transportation plan that provides a 

vision for transportation investments 

throughout the Valley. To further 

illustrate the eight SJV MPOs’ 

commitment to the implementation of 

TCMs, the RTPs contain a host of 

improvements to the regional 

multimodal transportation system 

including: Active transportation (e.g., 

biking and walking), transportation 

demand management, transportation 

system management, transit, passenger 

rail, goods movement, aviation and 

airport ground access, highways, 

arterials, and operations and 

maintenance. Included within these 

transportation system improvements are 

TCM projects that reduce vehicle use or 

change traffic flow or congestion 

conditions, such as: Improved transit, 

high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic 

flow improvements, park and ride lots, 

ridesharing/trip reduction programs, 

and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.296

These projects are listed in each MPO’s 

conformity analysis for the 2014 RTP 

and 2015 Federal Transportation 

Improvement Program (FTIP).297 The 

FTIP is a four-year spending plan that 

lists every transportation project that 

will receive federal funds or that is 

subject to a federally required action, 

such as a review and approval of 

environmental documents. 

The SJV has a long history of adopting 

and then enhancing programs to reduce 

emissions from on-road motor vehicles 

by reducing vehicle miles traveled, 

vehicle trips, and/or congestion. For 

example, Rule 9410 (‘‘Employer Based 

Trip Reduction’’ or ‘‘eTRIP’’), requires 

larger employers to establish an 

Employer Trip Reduction 

Implementation Plan to encourage 

employees to reduce single-occupancy 

vehicle trips, thus reducing emissions, 

including PM2.5 and NOX, associated 

with work commutes.298 The MPOs 

implement public outreach programs to 

encourage people to reduce driving, 

programs to improve bicycling and 

pedestrian travel, and an extensive 

program to synchronize traffic lights. 

In our approval of California’s Serious 

area plan for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS in 

the SJV 299 (‘‘2003 PM10 Plan’’), we 

determined that the measures in the 

‘‘Regional Transportation Planning 

Agency Commitments for 

Implementation Document’’ (April 

2002) 300 satisfied the PM10 BACM 

requirement for TCMs.301 In May 2003, 

the San Joaquin Valley MPO Executive 

Directors committed to conduct 

feasibility analyses as part of each 

successive RTP in support of the 2003 

PM10 Plan. The MPOs retained this 

commitment in the PM10 maintenance 

plan for the SJV area adopted September 

20, 2007.302 In accordance with their 

commitment and in preparation for their 

2014 RTPs, the MPOs reviewed several 

PM10 Plans adopted in other areas since 

2009.303 From their reviews, the MPOs 

concluded no additional on-road 

fugitive dust controls measures were 

available for consideration. In 

consultation with CARB and the 

District, however, the MPOs considered 

priority funding allocations in the 2014 

RTPs for PM10 and NOX emission 

reduction projects for the measures 

listed below. 

• Paving or Stabilizing Unpaved Roads 

and Alleys 

• Curbing, Paving, or Stabilizing 

Shoulders on Paved Roads 

• Frequent Routine Sweeping or 

Cleaning of Paved Roads (i.e., funding 

allocation for the purchase of PM10

efficient street sweepers for member 

jurisdictions); and 

• Repave or Overlay Paved Roads with 

Rubberized Asphalt.304

In their implementation of the 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

(CMAQ) Improvement Program, the SJV 

MPOs evaluate and prioritize the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6962 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

305SJVUAPCD, ‘‘2007 Ozone Plan,’’ April 30, 

2007, which EPA approved on March 1, 2012. (78 

FR 12652). 

306Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Figure 6– 

2 Illustration of Valley MPO Funding for Sample 

TCM Categories, p. 6–20. The funding in the 2015 

FTIPs covers the federal fiscal years (i.e., October 

1–September 30) 2014/2015 through 2017/2018. An 

example 2015 FTIP, the 2015 Federal 

Transportation Improvement Program, Fresno 

Council of Governments, is included in the docket 

for today’s action and available at http://

www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/

FTIP/2015_FTIP/FINAL_2015_FTIP_8-13-14.pdf. 

307 2015 PM2.5 Plan: CARB Resolution 15–9, May 

21, 2015 (submitting the Plan to EPA as a SIP 

revision); SJVAPCD, Governing Board Resolution 

15–4–7A, paragraph 1 (adopting the 2015 PM2.5

Plan); and Chapter 4, p. 4–1. 

308 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4–1 to 4–5. 

309 Id. at pp. 4–3 to 4–5. 

310 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, sections 4.4 and 4.5, 

respectively. 

311 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–1, p. 4– 

4. 

312 Id. 

313 Id. at p. 4–4. 

reduction of PM10 emissions in the 

CMAQ scoring criteria. The MPOs 

continue to implement the adopted San 

Joaquin Valley CMAQ Policy, which 

was included in the District’s plan for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS 305 and the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. The CMAQ policy includes 

a standardized process for distributing 

20% of the CMAQ funds to projects that 

meet a minimum cost effectiveness 

beginning in fiscal year 2011. This 

policy focuses on achieving the most 

cost effective emissions reductions, 

while maintaining flexibility to meet 

local needs. The 2015 FTIP includes a 

listing of all transportation-related 

projects requiring federal funding or 

other approval by the federal 

transportation agencies. The aggregate 

funding allocated 306 for TCMs in the 

eight SJV 2015 FTIPs includes: 

• Improved transit; ($928,000,000) 

• traffic flow improvements 

($499,381,000) 

• park and ride lots; ($2,666,346) 

• ridesharing/trip reduction programs; 

($7,630,000) 

• bicycle/pedestrian facilities 

($6,650,000) 

3. Conclusion 

Based on all of these evaluations, we 

propose to find that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

provides for the implementation of 

BACM and MSM for sources of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as 

expeditiously as practicable, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). 

E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment 

Date Under CAA Section 188(e) 

Section 188(e) of the Act allows the 

EPA to extend the attainment date for a 

serious area for up to five years if 

attainment by the applicable date is 

impracticable. However, before we may 

grant an extension of the attainment 

date, the State must first: 

(1) Apply to the EPA for an extension 

of the PM2.5 attainment date beyond 

2015, 

(2) demonstrate that attainment by 

2015 is impracticable, 

(3) have complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

applying to the area in its 

implementation plan, 

(4) demonstrate to our satisfaction 

that its serious area plan includes the 

most stringent measures that are 

achieved in practice in any state and are 

feasible for the area, and 

(5) submit SIP revisions containing a 

demonstration of attainment by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable. 

We evaluate the 2015 PM2.5 Plan’s 

compliance with each of these 

requirements below. 

1. Application for an Attainment Date 

Extension 

As discussed in section IV.D of this 

proposed rule, for the SJV, the Serious 

area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is 

December 31, 2015. The first criterion of 

an extension of the attainment date 

beyond this statutory attainment date is 

that the State must apply for such 

extension. In the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB 

and SJVUAPCD submit a complete 

application for an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date for the SJV 

to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard and to December 

31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

standard.307

2. Demonstration That Attainment by 

Serious Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

Despite the implementation of BACM 

as expeditiously as practicable, as 

discussed in section V.D. above, the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan shows that attainment 

by the Serious area attainment date is 

impracticable. We discuss below the air 

quality data that support the State’s and 

District’s demonstration of 

impracticability. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan presents data showing that 

the SJV area cannot attain the 1997 

PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards by 

December 31, 2015.308 Specifically, the 

District provided ambient PM2.5 air 

quality data from monitoring sites in the 

SJV, including 2013 measured 

concentrations and 2014 measured and 

estimated concentrations, and then 

calculated the maximum 2015 annual 

average and 24-hour concentrations for 

each monitoring site that would result 

in a 3-year average PM2.5 concentration 

of 15.0 mg/m3 (i.e., annual design value), 

and 3-year average 98th percentile 

concentration of 65 mg/m3 (i.e., 24-hour 

design value), at each monitoring site. 

The District states that several of the 

maximum allowable 2015 

concentrations are so low, and in one 

instance a negative number, that 

attaining the standards by December 31, 

2015 is impracticable.309 A separate 

analysis is presented for the annual and 

24-hour standards and we have 

evaluated each with respect to 

demonstrating impracticability of 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The annual average value for a given 

year is calculated using the quarterly 

average concentrations for that year, 

while the 24-hour value for a given year 

is calculated using the 98th percentile of 

24-hour average concentrations for that 

year.310 At the time the District 

compiled monitoring data for this 

purpose in January 2015, actual PM2.5

measurements were available for 2013 

and most of 2014 from the EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database. For the 

remainder of the 2014 data, preliminary 

monitoring measurements were used for 

the latter portion of 2014 and, for four 

of the 16 monitors used in the analysis, 

the District used 2013 4th quarter data 

for the 2014 4th quarter data, since the 

2014 filter data from those monitors 

were not yet available.311

Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 Standard by December 31, 

2015 

According to the District, the 

maximum 2015 annual average 

concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz 

site (which recorded the area’s highest 

annual average in 2013, and is estimated 

to have the highest annual average in 

2014) that will enable the site to show 

a design value at or below 15.0 mg/m3

for 2015 is negative 2.4 mg/m3.312 In 

addition, the District calculates that the 

Hanford, Visalia-Church, and 

Bakersfield-California monitoring sites 

(which are in the three southern-most 

counties in the SJV) would have to each 

average under 10 mg/m3, and states that 

such concentrations are unlikely given 

historical PM2.5 concentrations in the 

SJV.313 Based on these preliminary data 

and analyses, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

concludes that it is impracticable for the 

Hanford, Visalia-Church, BakersfieldCalifornia, and Bakersfield-Planz 

monitoring sites, to show an annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 

15.0 mg/m3 by December 31, 2015. 

The EPA independently evaluated 

2013 and 2014 PM2.5 air quality data 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6963 

314See Section III (‘‘Analysis of Practicability of 

Attainment’’) and Appendix A (‘‘Data Worksheets 

for Analysis of Practicability of Attainment’’) of the 

EPA’s General TSD. 315The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions 

associated with the extreme drought in California, 

including low precipitation, high stagnation, and 

strong inversions, among the reasons for the high 

PM2.5 concentrations observed in the winter of 

2013–2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4– 

2 to 4–3 and 4–5. 316The small differences between the District’s 

and EPA’s calculations of ‘‘maximum 2015’’ values 

are due to EPA’s use of certified, rather than 

preliminary, 2014 data and different rounding 

conventions. EPA’s calculations of maximum 2015 

values are based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, which provides that 

intermediate calculations are not rounded, and that 

a design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 mg/ 

m3 is rounded down to 15.0 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, section 4.3. In computing the 

maximum 2015 concentration consistent with 

attainment and consistent with 2013 and 2014 

annual mean concentrations, EPA did not round the 

2013 and 2014 means in the intermediate steps of 

the calculation, and used 15.04 mg/m3 as the highest 

design value consistent with the standard. In 

contrast, the calculations presented in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan rounded the 2013 and 2014 means to 

one decimal place initially, and used 15.00 mg/m3

as the highest attaining design value. 

317See section III and Appendix A of the EPA’s 

General TSD. 

318 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–2, p. 4– 

5. 

319 Id. 

320See section III and Appendix A of the EPA’s 

General TSD. 

321The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions 

associated with the extreme drought in California, 

including low precipitation, high stagnation, and 

strong inversions, among the reasons for the high 

PM2.5 concentrations observed in the winter of 

2013–2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4– 

2 to 4–3 and 4–5. 

that had been uploaded to AQS as of 

June 30, 2015, and as of January 20, 

2016, to assess the District’s 

representations.314 Table 4 shows the 

annual average PM2.5 concentrations 

that were recorded in 2013 and 2014 

and that the EPA estimated for 2015 at 

selected monitoring sites. The average 

annual concentrations in 2013 and 2014 

were higher than in 2012, and in several 

cases the 2013 and 2014 values were 

significantly higher than the 2012 value, 

especially at the Bakersfield-Planz 

monitoring site, whose annual average 

concentrations for 2013 and 2014 were 

each over 20 mg/m3.315 Based on the 

annual average concentrations observed 

in 2013 and 2014, the EPA calculated 

the maximum annual average 

concentration for seven monitoring sites 

that would enable each site to show a 

2015 annual average PM2.5 design value 

at or below 15.04 mg/m3.316

The EPA found that four monitoring 

sites located in the three southern-most 

counties of the SJV would have to have 

2015 annual mean concentrations 35% 

or more below their corresponding 

historical lows in order to attain by the 

end of 2015.317 The most extreme 

example is the Bakersfield-Planz Rd. 

monitoring site, which would require 

approximately 95% below the 

previously recorded low. 

TABLE 4—2013 AND 2014 ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN μg/m3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN SJV AND

CALCULATION OF ANNUAL AVERAGE MAXIMUM TO ATTAIN IN 2015 

Annual 

average 

in 2013 a

Annual 

average 

in 2014 a

EPA Estimate for 

max. 2015 annual 

average allowed 

to attain b

Lowest recorded 

annual average 

1999–2014 

(year) b

Max. 2015% 

below lowest 

recorded annual 

average 

Hanford .............................................................. 18.18 17.47 9.47 14.79 (2012) 36 

Visalia ................................................................. 18.90 17.88 8.34 13.58 (2010) 39 

Bakersfield–California ........................................ 19.95 18.55 6.62 13.03 (2012) 49 

Bakersfield–Planz .............................................. 22.79 21.61 0.72 14.45 (2011) 95 

a 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480. b See Appendix A of the EPA’s General TSD. 

In sum, air quality data for the 2013– 

2014 period indicate that it is not 

practicable for the Hanford, VisaliaChurch, Bakersfield-California, and 

Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites to 

show an annual PM2.5 NAAQS design 

value at or below 15.0 mg/m3 by 

December 31, 2015. While our analyses 

resulted in slightly different numbers 

for the maximum annual average 

concentrations allowed to attain for 

2015, they are consistent with the 

analysis and conclusion in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan that attainment is 

impracticable at these sites. As such, we 

propose to determine that the SJV area 

cannot practicably attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard by December 

31, 2015 

According to the District, the 

maximum 2015 24-hour average PM2.5

concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz 

site (which recorded the area’s highest 

24-hour average in 2013 and was 

estimated to have recorded the highest 

24-hour average concentration in 2014) 

that will enable the site to show a 

design value at or below 65 mg/m3 for 

2015 is 15.9 mg/m3.318 In addition, the 

District states that other monitoring sites 

in the southern portion of the SJV 

would have to record improbably low 

2015 average concentrations, of which 

the lowest are the Hanford and 

Bakersfield-California sites at 44.6 mg/

m3 and 44.4 mg/m3, respectively.319

Based on these preliminary data and 

analyses, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan concludes 

that it is not possible for the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site, and extremely 

unlikely for the Hanford and 

Bakersfield-California sites, to show a 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value at 

or below 65 mg/m3 by December 31, 

2015. 

As with the annual standard, the EPA 

independently evaluated 2013 and 2014 

PM2.5 air quality data available in AQS 

as of June 30, 2015, and as of January 

20, 2016, to assess the District’s 

representations.320 Table 5 shows the 

98th percentile 24-hour average PM2.5

concentrations that were recorded in 

2013 and 2014 and the maximum 

concentrations allowed to attain that the 

EPA estimated for 2015 at selected 

monitoring sites. The 98th percentile 

24-hour concentrations in 2013 and 

2014 were higher than in 2012, and in 

some cases the 2013 and 2014 values 

were significantly higher than the 2012 

value, especially at the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site, whose 98th 

percentile concentration for 2013 was 

over 95 mg/m3.321 Based on the 98th 

percentile values observed in 2013 and 

2014, the EPA calculated the maximum 

98th percentile 24-hour concentration 

for six monitoring sites that would 

enable the site to show a 2015 24-hour 

PM2.5 design value at or below 65.4 mg/ 

m3. 

The EPA found that the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site would have to 

have a 2015 annual mean concentration 

recorded at 44% below its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6964 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

322See Appendix A of the EPA’s General TSD. 

323The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 

this interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. 

Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 

(9th Cir. 2004). 

324 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 

325 Id. at 69924. 

326 Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2), 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and 

52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2)). 

327 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 

328Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA, 786 

F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). 

329 Id. 

330 Id. 

331As a consequence of the CBA decision, EPA 

recently proposed to withdraw its May 2014 

approval of the District’s PM2.5 contingency 

measure submission and to disapprove this 

submission in its entirety. 80 FR 49190 (August 17, 

2015). Upon EPA’s final withdrawal of this action 

and disapproval of the PM2.5 contingency measure 

submission, the measures and commitments in this 

submission will no longer be required components 

of the California SIP. 

corresponding historical low in order to 

attain by the end of 2015.322

TABLE 5—2013 AND 2014 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN μg/m3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN SJV AND CALCULATION

OF MAXIMUM 98TH PERCENTILE CONCENTRATIONS FOR 2015 

98th Percentile 

in 2013 a

98th Percentile 

in 2014 a

EPA estimate for 

max. 2015 

98th percentile 

allowed to attain b

Lowest recorded 

98th percentile 

1999–2014 

(year) b

Max. 2015% 

below lowest 

recorded annual 

average 

Hanford .............................................................. 67.6 81.9 46.7 48.3 (2012) 3 

Bakersfield–California ........................................ 71.8 79.9 44.5 53.3 (2010) 17 

Bakersfield–Planz .............................................. 96.7 76.7 22.8 40.6 (2012) 44 

a 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480. 

bAppendix A of the EPA’s General TSD. 

For these three sites, the EPA’s 

analysis largely confirms the analysis 

presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan of the 

maximum 98th percentile concentration 

allowed for the SJV to attain the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 

2015 (e.g., EPA estimated maximum is 

22.8 mg/m3 at Bakersfield-Planz 

compared to District estimated 

maximum of 15.9 mg/m3, both of which 

are well below the historic low). For the 

Bakersfield-California site, the estimated 

maximum 98th percentile 

concentrations are 17% below the 

historic low, which is quite low, while 

the estimated maximum 98th percentile 

concentration at Hanford site is not 

drastically different than its historic 

low. However, such values would 

appear very unlikely given the 98th 

percentile values in 2013 and 2014 and 

do not alter the clear impracticability of 

attaining the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

standard at the Bakersfield-Planz site. 

In sum, air quality data for the 2013– 

2014 period indicate that it is not 

practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz 

monitoring site to show an annual PM2.5

NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 

mg/m3 by December 31, 2015. While our 

analysis resulted in slightly different 

numbers for the maximum annual 

average concentrations for 2015, they 

are consistent with the Plan’s analysis 

and conclusion that attainment is 

impracticable at this site. As such, we 

propose to determine that the SJV area 

cannot practicably attain the 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

3. Compliance With All Requirements 

and Commitments in the 

Implementation Plan 

We interpret this criterion to mean 

that the State has implemented the 

control measures and commitments in 

the plan revisions it has submitted to 

address the applicable requirements in 

CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. For a Serious area 

attainment date extension request being 

submitted simultaneously with the 

initial Serious area attainment plan for 

the area, the EPA proposes to read 

section 188(e) not to require the area to 

have a fully approved Moderate area 

attainment plan and to allow for 

extension of the attainment date if the 

area has complied with all Moderate 

area requirements and commitments 

pertaining to that area in the State’s 

submitted Moderate area 

implementation plan. This 

interpretation is based on the plain 

language of section 188(e), which 

requires the State to comply with ‘‘all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to [the] area in the 

implementation plan.’’ 323

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submissions to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV,324 which we refer to 

collectively as the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

On November 9, 2011, the EPA 

approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan except for the contingency 

measures, which the EPA 

disapproved.325 As part of this action, 

the EPA approved, among other things, 

commitments by CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD to take specific actions with 

respect to identified control measures 

and to achieve specific amounts of NOX, 

SOX, and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions by 2014.326 In July 2013, the 

State submitted a revised PM2.5

contingency measure plan for the SJV, 

which the EPA fully approved in May 

2014.327

On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals issued its decision in 

a challenge to the EPA’s November 9, 

2011 action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.328

In Committee for a Better Arvin et. al v. 

EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(CBA), the court held that the EPA 

violated the CAA by approving the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan even though the plan did not 

include certain state-adopted mobile 

source emission standards on which the 

plan relied to achieve its emission 

reduction goals.329 The CBA court 

remanded the EPA’s action on the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan for further proceedings 

consistent with the decision but did not 

vacate the EPA’s action.330 Thus, absent 

an EPA rulemaking to withdraw or 

revise the EPA’s November 2011 

approval of the control measure and 

emission reduction commitments in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, all of these 

commitments remain enforceable 

components of the California SIP.331

The specific State and District 

commitments that the EPA approved 

into the California SIP as part of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan are as follows: 

(1) A commitment by the District to 

‘‘adopt and implement the rules and 

measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’’ in 

accordance with the timetable specified 

in Table 6–2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6965 

332 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 08–04–10 (April 

30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution No. 10–06–18 (June 17, 2010); see also 

76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). 

333 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB 

Resolution No. 07–28, Attachment B (September 27, 

2007), CARB Resolution No. 09–34 (April 24, 2009), 

and CARB Resolution No. 11–24 (April 28, 2011); 

see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921–69922, Table 2 

(November 9, 2011). 

334 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2). 

335 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5

Plan Specific Rule Commitments’’). 

336 76 FR 69896 at 69922, Table 2 (November 9, 

2011) (‘‘2007 State Strategy Defined Measures 

Schedule for Consideration and Current Status’’). 

337 Id. at 69923, Table 4 (‘‘Reductions Needed for 

Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on 

SIP-Creditable Measures’’). 

338 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 17– 

22 and Appendix B. 

339CARB Staff Report, Table 7, p. 19 and letter 

dated April 7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 (transmitting air 

district regulations to EPA as California SIP 

revisions). 

340CARB Staff Report, Table 8, p. 20; see also 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/

simw2015.htm. 

amended June 17, 2010, and to submit 

these rules and measures to CARB for 

transmittal to the EPA as SIP 

revisions; 332

(2) A commitment by CARB to 

propose specific measures identified in 

Appendix B of the ‘‘Progress Report on 

Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,’’ 

dated April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress 

Report), in accordance with the 

timetable specified therein; 333

(3) A commitment by the District to 

achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of NOX

emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd 

of SOX emission reductions by 2014 as 

described in Table 6–3a, Table 6–3b, 

and Table 6–3c, respectively, of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan; and 

(4) A commitment by CARB to 

achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day (tpd) 

of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd 

of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by 

2014 as described in CARB Resolution 

No. 07–28, Attachment B, as amended 

in 2009 and 2011.334

As of November 9, 2011, the date of 

the EPA’s final action on the 2008 PM2.5

Plan, CARB and the District had each 

satisfied substantial portions of these 

control measure and emission reduction 

commitments. Specifically, the District 

had adopted 12 of the 13 measures that 

it had committed to adopt and 

implement as part of its control strategy 

for attaining the PM2.5 standards, 

leaving one additional measure that was 

scheduled for adoption in 2014 (Rule 

4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type 

Residential Central Furnaces’’).335

CARB had proposed action on six of the 

seven measures that it had committed to 

propose for Board consideration as part 

of its PM2.5 control strategy for the SJV, 

leaving one additional measure that was 

scheduled for proposal in 2013 (‘‘New 

Emissions Standards for Recreational 

Boats’’).336 Finally, together CARB and 

the District had achieved all of the SOX

emission reduction commitments and 

substantial portions of the direct PM2.5

and NOX emission reduction 

commitments through implementation 

of State and District control strategy 

measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of 

NOX emission reductions yet to be 

achieved by the beginning of 2014.337

The CARB Staff Report for the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan 338 contains the State’s 

demonstration that both CARB and the 

District have satisfied the commitments 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained 

outstanding as of November 9, 2011, as 

follows. First, on January 22, 2015, the 

District adopted Rule 4905 and on April 

7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule to the 

EPA as a revision to the California 

SIP.339 Second, on February 19, 2015, 

CARB proposed for Board 

consideration, and the Board adopted, 

new emission standards for recreational 

boats entitled ‘‘Evaporative Emissions 

Control Requirements for Spark-Ignited 

Watercraft.’’ 340 These State and District 

rulemaking actions satisfied the last 

remaining commitments concerning 

specific control measures in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. 

With respect to the outstanding 

emission reduction commitments (also 

called ‘‘aggregate commitments’’), 

Tables 9 and 10 of the CARB Staff 

Report, as amended by CARB’s 

Technical Clarifications, identify nine 

specific State and District control 

measures that, according to CARB, 

achieved emission reductions beyond 

those already credited toward the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and that satisfy the State’s 

remaining 2014 emission reduction 

obligations. These measures are 

identified in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—2008 PM2.5 PLAN AGGREGATE COMMITMENT—STATE AND DISTRICT-IDENTIFIED MEASURES

Measure 

2014 Emission reductions 

(annual average tpd) 

NOX Direct PM2.5

Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr) .......................................................................................................................................... 1.8 0.0 

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) ....................................................................................................................... 1.0 0.1 

Woodstove Replacements ....................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 

District Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures ........................................................................... 1.5 0.1 

Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) ......................................................................................................... 0.3 0.0 

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) ....................................................................... 0.0 1.3 

State Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures .............................................................................. 7.8 0.2 

CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks Measure .............................................................................................. 11.5 0.1 

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM ........................................ 2.5 0.2 

Total Emission Reductions ............................................................................................................................... 26.4 2.1 

Source: CARB Staff Report, pp. 21, 22 and Technical Clarifications, pp. 2 to 4. 

We have reviewed the State’s 

demonstration with respect to each of 

these nine measures and, for the reasons 

provided below, we propose to find that 

all but one may be credited toward the 

State’s outstanding 2014 emission 

reduction obligations. 

First, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s 

Rule 4320 (‘‘Advanced Emission 

Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters Greater 

than 5.0 MMBtu/hr’’), also called the 

‘‘AERO Rule,’’ the EPA approved this 

rule as adopted October 2008 into the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6966 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

341 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 

342 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 93–94, Table F– 

4 (September 30, 2011); see also CARB Staff Report, 

Appendix B at p. B–7 and Table B–8. 

343 75 FR 68294 at 68295 (November 5, 2010). 

344CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B–7. 

345 Id. at p. B–8, Table B–8. 

346 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 

347 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 100–101; see also 

CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at pp. B–6 and B– 

7. 

348 76 FR 26609 at 26612–26613 (May 9, 2011). 

349CARB Staff Report at p. B–6, B–7 (referencing 

list of projects in Appendix B–2). 350 Id. at pp. B–5. 351 Id. at pp. B–5, B–6 and Appendix B–1. 

352See SJVAPCD Burn Cleaner Voucher 

Guidelines, dated December 2014, available at: 

http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/burncleaner/

2014/BC_Guidelines.pdf; and SJVAPCD Burn 

Cleaner Voucher Application—Phase 1, dated 

December 2014, available at: http://valleyair.org/

grants/documents/burncleaner/2014/BC_

VoucherApp.pdf. 

353CARB Staff Report, pp. B–9 to B–12; Technical 

Clarifications at 2–4; and Revised Appendix B–3. 

354The specified portions of the guidelines that 

apply to the identified projects are contained in The 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 

2005; The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Approved Revision 2008; and The Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2011. See 

CARB Staff Report at Table B–10. EPA has reviewed 

these portions of the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines and found that they adequately address 

EPA’s recommended integrity elements for 

economic incentive programs. 79 FR 29327 (May 

22, 2014); see also 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015). 

355EPA, Final rule, ‘‘Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; 

Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs,’’ prepublication notice signed December 11, 2015. 

California SIP on March 25, 2011 341 but 

did not credit the rule with any 

emission reductions as part of the 

attainment demonstration in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan.342 In the proposal to 

approve this rule into the SIP, the EPA 

stated that because this rule allows 

regulated entities to pay a fee in lieu of 

meeting NOX emission limits, the State 

would need to demonstrate that the fee 

provisions achieve emission reductions 

that are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, and permanent consistent 

with EPA guidance before relying on 

this rule for credit in an attainment 

plan.343

In the CARB Staff Report, the State 

explained that it now has 

documentation showing that operators 

of 472 of the units subject to Rule 4320 

chose to pay fees and that operators of 

the remaining 692 units subject to the 

rule chose to retrofit their equipment to 

comply with the NOX emission limits in 

the rule.344 CARB also explained that, 

based on these enforceable emission 

limits, the District estimated that the 

operators of the 692 units that did not 

pay fees had achieved 1.8 tpd of actual 

NOX emission reductions by the 

beginning of 2014, based on an 

operating capacity of 50% or 75%.345

We find this documentation adequate to 

credit Rule 4320 with 1.8 tpd of NOX

emission reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. 

Second, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s 

Rule 9510 (‘‘Indirect Source Review’’), 

the EPA approved this rule as adopted 

December 2005 into the California SIP 

on May 9, 2011 346 but did not credit the 

rule with any emission reductions as 

part of the attainment demonstration in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.347 In the final rule 

to approve Rule 9510 into the SIP, the 

EPA identified a number of concerns 

about the enforceability of the rule’s 

provisions, e.g., provisions that allow 

project developers to pay a fee instead 

of implementing on-site pollution 

mitigation plans, and noted that the 

State would need to resolve these 

enforceability issues before relying on 

this rule for credit in an attainment 

plan.348

In the CARB Staff Report, the State 

explained that it now has 

documentation of the number of 

projects that have complied with the 

rule through on-site mitigation (instead 

of payment of a fee) and the associated 

reductions in on-site emissions of NOX

and PM10.349 The project information 

provided in Appendix B–2 of the CARB 

Staff Report, however, is not adequate 

for the EPA to determine what types of 

mitigation plans were implemented, to 

verify that those plans were 

implemented as proposed, or to estimate 

the associated emission reductions. 

Furthermore, it is unclear whether the 

District or any other state or local 

agency is authorized to enforce these 

mitigation plans. We find this 

documentation insufficient to credit 

Rule 9510 with any emission reductions 

toward the State’s outstanding 2014 

emission reduction obligation. 

Third, with respect to wood stove 

replacements, the CARB Staff Report 

explains that the District implements a 

voluntary wood stove replacement 

program that provides funding for 

residents to replace less efficient wood 

stoves with more efficient gas-burning 

devices.350 CARB also notes that the 

District has provided a list of wood 

stoves replaced through this program as 

of December 31, 2013, together with 

documentation of the calculation 

methodologies and related emission 

factors that it used to calculate the 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

achieved by these wood stove 

replacements.351 All wood stoves are 

installed by a District contracted 

retailer, with pre- and post-installation 

photographs provided to the District. 

Old wood or pellet inserts/stoves are 

removed and surrendered to a licensed 

recycling/dismantling facility within 60 

days of installation.352 We find this 

documentation adequate to credit the 

District’s wood stove replacement 

program with 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. 

Fourth, with respect to Districtfunded incentive programs, CARB 

provided a list of stationary and 

portable agricultural engines and offroad agricultural equipment that were 

repowered, retrofitted with controls, or 

replaced with newer equipment through 

incentive funds disbursed by the 

District pursuant to the Carl Moyer 

Memorial Air Quality Standards 

Attainment Program (Carl Moyer 

Program). Specifically, the CARB Staff 

Report documents the State’s bases for 

concluding that a total of 824 incentive 

projects implemented in the SJV 

between January 2009 and December 

2013 in accordance with specified 

portions of the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines have achieved a total of 1.8 

tons per day (tpd) of NOX emission 

reductions and 0.1 tpd of PM2.5

emission reductions in the SJV, which 

may be credited toward the State’s 2014 

emission reduction commitment.353 The 

EPA previously reviewed the identified 

portions of the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines and found that they 

adequately address the EPA’s 

recommended integrity elements for 

economic incentive programs.354 We 

find this documentation sufficient to 

credit these District-funded projects 

with 1.8 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. 

Fifth, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s 

Rule 9410 (‘‘Employer Based Trip 

Reduction’’), CARB submitted this rule 

as adopted December 2009 to the EPA 

as a revision to the California SIP on 

May 17, 2010, and on December 11, 

2015, the EPA fully approved the rule 

into the SIP.355 Accordingly, the 

emission reductions that the State and 

District have attributed to this rule (0.3 

tpd of NOX emission reductions) are 

creditable toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. As part of the EPA’s 

proposed action on Rule 9410, the EPA 

evaluated the District’s estimates of 

emission reductions achieved by the 

rule and found the District’s 

calculations to be technically sound and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6967 

356 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015). 

357 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). 

358 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD at p. 93, Table F–4 

(September 30, 2011); see also 76 FR 69896 at 

69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). 

359 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Technical Clarifications, p. 1; 

and CARB Staff Report, Appendix B, p. B–7. 

360CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B–2. 

361 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015). 

362 Id. 

363 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012). 

364 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD, Table F–8, p. 99 

(September 30, 2011). 

365CARB Staff Report, Appendix B, pp. B–2 to B– 

4. 

366 Id. at pp. B–4, B–5 and Technical 

Clarifications, p. 3. 

367 2008 PM2.5 Plan TSD, Table F–8, p. 99 

(September 30, 2011). 

368 77 FR 72846 and 77 FR 72851 (December 6, 

2012). 

369Letter dated August 14, 2015, from Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments. 80 

FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). 

370CARB Staff Report at pp. 21, 22. 

371 Id. 

372We use ‘‘trading ratio’’ in this action to refer 

to the extent to which reductions of one pollutant 

are substituted for necessary reductions of another 

pollutant. 

generally consistent with the planning 

assumptions in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.356

Sixth, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s 

Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters’’), the EPA 

approved this rule as adopted October 

2008 into the California SIP on 

November 10, 2009 357 and credited the 

rule with 1.08 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions in 2014 as part of 

the attainment demonstration in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan.358 In the CARB Staff 

Report, the State explained that it now 

has documentation of additional direct 

PM2.5 emission reductions achieved by 

this rule based on an updated 

methodology for calculating emission 

reductions from its curtailment 

program. Specifically, the District 

reviewed ambient air quality data for a 

more recent period (2009–2013) to 

determine the number of ‘‘No Burn’’ 

days that would have been required 

under the mandatory curtailment level 

(30 mg/m3) in the October 2008 version 

of Rule 4901. This updated air quality 

data resulted in a larger number of ‘‘No 

Burn’’ days compared to the District’s 

prior calculation, which was based on 

2006 air quality data.359 We find this 

documentation adequate to credit Rule 

4901 with 1.3 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. 

Seventh, with respect to State Funded 

Incentive-Based Emission Reduction 

Measures, CARB submitted the ‘‘Report 

on Reductions Achieved from Incentivebased Emission Reduction Measures in 

the San Joaquin Valley’’ (Emission 

Reduction Report) to the EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP on 

November 17, 2014,360 and on August 

24, 2015, the EPA proposed to fully 

approve this report into the SIP.361 As 

part of this proposal, the EPA evaluated 

the State’s demonstration that specified 

portions of the Carl Moyer Program and 

Prop 1B Program guidelines adequately 

address the EPA’s recommended 

integrity elements for economic 

incentive programs and that the 

identified projects funded pursuant to 

these guidelines achieved 7.8 tpd of 

NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the 

beginning of 2014.362 Upon final 

approval of this demonstration into the 

California SIP, these emission 

reductions would be creditable toward 

the State’s 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. Thus, final action by the EPA 

to fully approve the Emission Reduction 

Report before or concurrent with our 

final action on the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

would suffice to credit these statefunded projects with 7.8 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions toward 

the State’s outstanding 2014 emission 

reduction obligation. 

Eighth, with respect to CARB’s 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 

measure (also called the Truck and Bus 

Regulation and Drayage Truck 

Regulation), the EPA approved these 

rules as adopted September 2011 into 

the California SIP on April 4, 2012 363

and credited the rules with 1.1 tpd of 

NOX emission reductions and 1.7 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions in 

2014 as part of the attainment 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan.364 In the CARB Staff Report, the 

State explained that it now has 

documentation of additional NOX and 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

achieved by these rules by the beginning 

of 2014, based on current compliance 

reports indicating that diesel particulate 

filters (DPFs) are more efficient than 

original estimates and that a larger than 

expected number of truck and bus 

owners had purchased new vehicles 

(which are cleaner than retrofits) rather 

than installing retrofit DPFs.365 We find 

this documentation adequate to credit 

CARB’s Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty 

Trucks measure with 11.5 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions toward 

the State’s outstanding 2014 emission 

reduction obligation. 

Finally, with respect to CARB’s 

Portable Equipment Registration 

Program (PERP) and Portable Engine 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

(Portable Engine ATCM), CARB adopted 

these programs in 1997 and 2004, 

respectively, to reduce pollution by 

requiring the removal of uncertified 

engines from the registered fleet of 

nonroad engines operating in 

California.366 The EPA did not credit 

either of these programs with emission 

reductions as part of the attainment 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan.367 On December 6, 2012, the EPA 

granted California’s request for 

authorization under CAA section 

209(e)(2) to implement both the PERP 

and the Portable Engine ATCM.368 On 

August 14, 2015, CARB submitted these 

measures to the EPA for SIP approval 

and on November 12, 2015, the EPA 

proposed to approve both measures as 

revisions to the California SIP.369 Upon 

final approval of these measures into the 

SIP, their requirements will be federally 

enforceable and the associated emission 

reductions will be creditable for 

attainment planning purposes in the 

SJV. Thus, final action by the EPA to 

fully approve the PERP and the Portable 

Engine ATCM before or concurrent with 

our final action on the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

would suffice to credit these measures 

with 2.5 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5

reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligation. 

According to the CARB Staff Report, 

implementation of these control 

measures resulted in NOX emission 

reductions that exceeded the State’s 

outstanding NOX commitment by 13.9 

tpd by the beginning of 2014.370 Citing 

air quality modeling conducted as part 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB stated that 

a reduction of 9 tpd of NOX emissions 

provides an air quality improvement 

equivalent to a 1 tpd reduction in 

directly emitted PM2.5. On this basis, 

CARB concluded that an 8.1 tpd portion 

of the 13.9 tpd of surplus NOX

reductions achieved through 

implementation of the identified State 

and District measures adequately 

covered the small shortfall (0.9 tpd) in 

required reductions of direct PM2.5.371

Table 7 identifies the State and 

District measures that the EPA is 

proposing to credit toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction 

obligations, the amount of SIPcreditable emission reductions for each 

measure, and the 9:1 NOX for PM2.5

trading ratio 372 calculation that the EPA 

is proposing to accept for this purpose. 

The total amount of SIP-creditable NOX

emission reductions associated with the 

identified control measures (25.4 tpd) 

exceeds the State’s outstanding NOX

emission reduction commitment (12.9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6968 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

373As explained in this section, we find CARB’s 

documentation insufficient to credit Rule 9510 with 

any emission reductions toward the State’s 

outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation 

and, therefore, do not entirely agree with CARB’s 

conclusion that it achieved 13.9 tpd of NOX

emission reductions in excess of its outstanding 

commitments. The difference between the 25.4 tpd 

of NOX emission reductions achieved by the control 

measures identified in Table 7 and the State’s 

outstanding 12.9 tpd NOX emission reduction 

commitment is 12.5 tpd of ‘‘excess’’ NOX emission 

reductions. 

374 ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

tpd) by 12.5 tpd.373 We believe the 

technical bases for a 9:1 NOX for PM2.5

trading ratio are generally sound and 

have therefore used this trading ratio to 

credit the State with 1 additional tpd of 

PM2.5 emission reduction (based on 9 

tpd of ‘‘excess’’ NOX emission 

reductions) toward its outstanding 2014 

commitment. In evaluating the 

interpollutant trading used for the 

aggregate commitments (as well as for 

Reasonable Further Progress and for 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

conformity), the EPA considered the 

regulatory basis for allowing 

interpollutant trading, 24-hour and 

annual averaging times, the pollutant 

trading direction, the geographical 

extent of emissions, the 

conservativeness and the numerical 

stability of the ratio, and the 

geographical variation of the trading 

ratio. For further discussion of our 

evaluation of the 9:1 NOX to PM2.5

trading ratio for purposes of the 

aggregate commitment, please see 

section IV.C of the EPA’s ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for EPA’s Evaluation 

of Interpollutant Trading Ratios For 

Fine Particulate Matter Emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District,’’ January 2016 

(‘‘Interpollutant Trading Ratios TSD’’). 

TABLE 7—2008 PM2.5 PLAN AGGREGATE COMMITMENT—EPA PROPOSED EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS FOR

MEASURES IN CARB COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION

Measure 

2014 emission reductions 

(annual average tpd) 

NOX Direct PM2.5

Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr) .......................................................................................................................................... 1.8 0.0 

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) ....................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

Woodstove Replacements ....................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 

District Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures ........................................................................... 1.5 0.1 

Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) ......................................................................................................... 0.3 0.0 

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) ....................................................................... 0.0 1.3 

State Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures .............................................................................. 7.8 0.2 

CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks Measure .............................................................................................. 11.5 0.1 

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM ........................................ 2.5 0.2 

Total SIP-Creditable Emission Reductions from State and District Measures ................................................ 25.4 2.0 

NOX to PM2.5 Emissions Equivalence (9:1) ............................................................................................................ ¥9.0 1.0 

Total Emission Reductions Achieved ............................................................................................................... 16.4 3.0 

In sum, the CARB Staff Report 

demonstrates that implementation of 

State and District measures achieved a 

total of 16.4 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions that have not 

previously been credited as part of the 

attainment demonstration in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and that may, therefore, be 

credited toward the State’s outstanding 

obligation to achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions by the 

beginning of 2014. 

Based on these evaluations, we 

propose to determine that California has 

complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the SJV area 

in the implementation plan. 

4. Demonstration That the 

Implementation Plan Includes the Most 

Stringent Measures 

We interpret this criterion to mean 

that the State must demonstrate to the 

EPA’s satisfaction that its serious area 

plan includes the most stringent 

measures that are included in the 

implementation plan of any state, or 

achieved in practice in any state, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the area. 

As discussed above in section V.D, 

because of the substantial overlap in the 

source categories and controls evaluated 

for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, 

we present our evaluation of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan’s provisions for including 

MSM alongside our evaluation of the 

Plan’s provisions for implementing 

BACM for each identified source 

category. For the reasons provided in 

section V.D and further in the EPA’s SJV 

Rules TSD, we propose to determine 

that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides for the 

implementation of MSM for sources of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as 

expeditiously as practicable, in 

accordance with the requirement in 

CAA section 188(e). 

5. Demonstration of Attainment by the 

Most Expeditious Alternative Date 

Practicable 

Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA 

requires that each Serious area plan 

include a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date or, where 

the State is seeking an extension of the 

attainment date under section 188(e), a 

demonstration that attainment by that 

date is impracticable and that the plan 

provides for attainment by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable. 

We discuss below our evaluation of the 

modeling approach in the Plan, the 

State’s basis for excluding one 24-hour 

data point from the modeling analysis, 

and the control strategy in the Plan for 

attaining the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious 

alternative dates practicable. 

Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling 

Approach and Results 

The EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance 374 (‘‘Modeling Guidance’’ and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6969 

Haze,’’ EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007 (‘‘Modeling 

Guidance’’); and ‘‘Update to the 24 Hour PM2.5

NAAQS Modeled Attainment Test,’’ Memorandum 

from Tyler Fox, Air Quality Modeling Group, 

OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air Program Managers, 

EPA, June 28, 2011 (‘‘Modeling Guidance Update’’). 375 In this section, we use the terms ‘‘base case,’’ 

‘‘base year’’ or ‘‘baseline,’’ and ‘‘future year’’ as 

described in section 3.5 of the EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance. The ‘‘base case’’ modeling simulates 

measured concentrations for a given time period, 

using emissions and meteorology for that same year. 

The modeling ‘‘base year’’ (which can be the same 

as the base case year) is the emissions starting point 

for the plan and for projections to the future year, 

both of which are modeled for the attainment 

demonstration. See Modeling Guidance at pp. 33– 

34. Note that CARB sometimes uses ‘‘base year’’ 

synonymously with ‘‘base case’’ and ‘‘reference 

year’’ instead of ‘‘base year.’’ 

376Modeling Guidance Update at 43 ff. 

377 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4–8, and 

Appendix F, p. F–4. 

378 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F–4. 

379Modeling the ambient PM2.5 components of 

elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) and 

geological material requires emissions for those, 

derived from speciation profiles of the various 

emission source categories. The RRF scaling also 

requires separate EC and OC emissions. But 

planning inventories, such as that available for the 

2008 plan, generally report only direct PM2.5

emissions, the total of these species. 

380 2000 California Regional Particulate Air 

Quality Study (CRPAQS); descriptive documents 

available on CARB’s ‘‘Central California Air Quality 

Studies’’ Web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways. 

‘‘Modeling Guidance Update’’) 

recommends that a photochemical 

model, such as CAMx or CMAQ, be 

used to simulate a base case, with 

meteorological and emissions inputs 

reflecting a base case year, to replicate 

concentrations monitored in that year. 

The model application to the base case 

year undergoes a performance 

evaluation to ensure that it satisfactorily 

agrees with concentrations monitored in 

that year. The model may then be used 

to simulate emissions occurring in other 

years required for a plan, namely the 

base year (which may differ from the 

base case year) and future year.375 The 

modeled response to the emission 

changes between those years is used to 

calculate Relative Response Factors 

(RRFs), which are applied to the design 

value in the base year to estimate the 

projected design value in the future year 

for comparison against the NAAQS. 

Separate RRFs are estimated for each 

chemical species component of PM2.5, 

and for each quarter of the year, to 

reflect their differing responses to 

seasonal meteorological conditions and 

emissions. Since each species is 

handled separately, before applying an 

RRF the base year design value must be 

speciated using available chemical 

species measurements, that is, each 

day’s measured PM2.5 comprising the 

design value must be split into its 

species components. The Modeling 

Guidance provides additional detail on 

the recommended approach.376

The attainment demonstration in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan is based on modeling 

performed for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, but 

that modeling is used in a streamlined 

way, by employing scaling. The 

attainment demonstration approach in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan is covered in its 

Chapter 4 (‘‘Classification and 

Attainment’’) and Appendix F 

(‘‘Attainment Demonstration’’), with 

several further details in Appendix A 

(‘‘Weight of Evidence Analysis’’) of the 

CARB Staff Report. For the modeling 

used in this Plan, the base case year was 

2000, the base year was 2012, and the 

future years were 2018 and 2020 for the 

24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, 

respectively. CARB scaled the results 

from modeling performed for the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, assuming the same relative 

response to emission changes applies in 

the time frame for the current Plan. 

Starting from the RRFs from the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, which reflect the emission 

changes from the base year to the future 

year in that plan (2005 to 2014), CARB 

scaled those RRFs to reflect the current 

2015 PM2.5 Plan’s base year to future 

year emission changes (2012 to 2020 for 

the annual standard, and 2012 to 2018 

for the 24-hour standard). 

The formula in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan 377 for scaling an RRF is based on 

the definition of an RRF as (modeled 

future concentration)/(modeled base 

year concentration), and on the 

assumption that the modeled percent 

change in concentration per percent 

change in emissions is the same for the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan as it was for the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. As shown in section IV.A of 

the EPA’s General TSD for this action, 

these assumptions lead to the Plan 

formula. Since the RRF includes the 

modeled effect of emission changes, 

accounting for their temporal and 

spatial distribution and their chemistry, 

the scaling approach used in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan differs from a simple 

‘‘rollback’’ scaling (which would merely 

assume that the percent concentration 

change is identical to the percent 

emissions change). 

CARB’s procedure for using emissions 

from the two plans in the RRF scaling 

formula differed to some extent between 

the two plans due to data availability, 

even though ideally they would be 

treated in the same way. The reason the 

scaling is being done rather than new 

modeling is that modeling inventories 

were not available for the base and 

future years of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

Only the planning inventories are 

available; they cover all the source 

categories, but do not reflect the 

allocation of the emissions to all the 

grid squares in the modeling domain 

and to all the hours of the year, a 

considerable undertaking necessary for 

input to the model. Absent the future 

modeling inventories, the most 

consistent way to perform the scaling 

would be to use planning inventories 

from both the new and old plans. 

Because the scaling is done for each 

chemical species, the inventories used 

should also be speciated using the same 

procedure, by applying speciation 

profiles for the various emission source 

categories. Unfortunately, the old 

speciation profiles for the 2008 PM2.5

Plan were not available, so the planning 

inventory from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

could not be speciated in the same way 

as the 2015 PM2.5 Plan planning 

inventory could. Therefore, CARB used 

the modeling inventory from the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, which did have a speciation 

procedure comparable to that available 

for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan planning 

inventory. In sum, in calculating the 

RRF scaling factors, CARB used the 

modeling inventory to compute percent 

emission changes for the 2008 PM2.5

Plan and used the planning inventory 

for emission changes for the 2015 PM2.5

Plan.378 379

CARB’s modeling domain is 

somewhat larger than the SJV 

nonattainment area, so emission totals 

differ between the modeling inventory 

and the planning inventory. But we 

expect that percent changes are 

comparable because both the modeling 

inventories and planning inventories 

reflect emissions from the same types of 

sources and in similar proportions. The 

inventories also reflect similar controls, 

for example statewide motor vehicle 

emissions controls, where motor 

vehicles are the main source of NOX. We 

also expect the ratios of the percent 

changes, i.e., the RRF scaling factors 

themselves, to be comparable given 

discrepancies between the modeling 

and planning inventories would 

typically be similar for the two plans 

used in the ratio, and hence canceled 

out to an extent. 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan provided several 

bases to support the use of a scaling 

approach premised on the 2008 PM2.5

Plan model response. The base case in 

the previous modeling was based on 

extensive measurements during the 

2000 CRPAQS study,380 and the 

underlying meteorological conditions 

leading to high PM2.5 concentrations in 

the 2000–2001 winter were similar to 

those in the 2013–2014 winter, 

including persistent pressure ridges, 

surface inversions, cool temperatures, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6970 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

381 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F–4, and 

WOEA, p. A–5. 

382 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment A, 

p. F–8 to F–10. 

383 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F–5. 

384Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, 

Inferred Carbonaceous mass material balance 

approach: Modeling Guidance, p. 47; Frank, N., 

2006: ‘‘Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Sulfates, and 

Carbonaceous Mass in Federal Reference Method 

Fine Particulate Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities,’’ 

J. Air Waste Management Assoc., 56, 500–511. 

385Modeling Guidance, p. 58 and Modeling 

Guidance Update, p. B–2 (Steps 1, 4, and 5). 

386Modeling Guidance, p. 22; and Modeling 

Guidance Update, p. B–1. 

387 80 FR 18528 at 18530 (April 7, 2015) (noting 

unusually short timeframe for State’s development 

and submission of a plan to provide for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the Serious area 

attainment date, which is December 31, 2015). 

388 ‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy,’’ EPA Region 9, 

November 8, 2010, for proposed approval in 75 FR 

74518 (November 30, 2010); final approval was in 

76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). 

389 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, 

and Regional Haze’’, DRAFT December 2014, EPA 

OAQPS, p. 99. 

and low winds.381 Also, the 2004–2006 

PM2.5 species composition data that 

CARB used for speciating PM2.5

concentrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

show a similar composition to 2011– 

2013 speciation measurements that 

CARB used in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan to 

speciate design values prior to applying 

RRFs, as seen in composition pie charts 

for Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and 

Visalia.382

These observations indicate that the 

2013 PM2.5 design values for the current 

2015 PM2.5 Plan would respond in a 

way similar to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

modeling. An alternative would have 

been to use modeling from the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan, which had a 2007 

meteorology and emissions base case, 

which is more recent than that in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. However, it modeled 

only the first and fourth quarters, the 

only quarters needed to address the 24- 

hour NAAQS; the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

modeled the entire year, and so was 

suitable for assessing both the 24-hour 

and the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

CARB calculated an RRF from the 

scaling formula using the concentration 

of each PM2.5 chemical species, with 

emissions from the corresponding 

precursor. CARB used percent changes 

in emissions of NOX, SOX, Organic 

Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), 

and other (direct PM2.5 less OC and EC), 

to scale the RRF for the corresponding 

ambient PM2.5 component: Nitrate 

(NO3

¥), sulfate (SO4¥2), OC, EC, and 

geological material (also called ‘‘other’’ 

or ‘‘dust’’). For the ammonium 

component, which is present in 

ammonium nitrate and ammonium 

sulfate, a choice must be made as to 

which precursor emissions, either NOX

or SO2, should be used in scaling 

ammonia; CARB used NOX. 

This is in line with information in the 

Plan indicating that ammonium nitrate 

formation responds far more to NOX

emission changes than to ammonia 

changes. The Plan also noted that 

sulfate is a much smaller ambient 

component than nitrate, so that 

ammonium scales more with NOX than 

with SO2.383 Conceivably some 

combination of precursor emissions 

could have been used for scaling 

ammonium, but that would require a 

plausibility argument about how to 

reflect the actual chemistry involved, a 

complication that would obscure both 

the relative simplicity of direct scaling 

and the more comprehensive 

consideration of chemistry already 

present in the modeling being scaled. 

Another point about the choice of NOX

is that ammonium concentrations were 

independent of ammonia emissions, 

since the latter was not used, and so 

inherently cannot respond to increases 

or decreases of ammonia that occur 

during the planning period. 

As discussed in section V.C of this 

notice, modeling for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

showed that there is a small ambient 

response to ammonia changes. 

Additionally, annual average ammonia 

emissions in the planning inventory 

increase by 8.6% from 2012 to 2020, 

which suggests that the ammonium 

contribution to projected design values 

may be higher than stated in the Plan. 

However, this is of little concern since 

the pre-scaled RRFs for ammonium, 

nitrate, and sulfate were based on actual 

modeling for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; they 

take into account the atmospheric 

chemistry and the ambient effects due to 

ammonia changes during 2005–2014, 

when the annual average ammonia 

emissions increased by 18.1%. 

Aside from the RRFs themselves, the 

procedure that CARB followed in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan for projecting design 

values is consistent with the 

recommendations in the Modeling 

Guidance. The steps included using 

daily speciation data and the 

SANDWICH approach 384 to split daily 

measured PM2.5 concentrations into 

their chemical components, taking 

quarterly averages (of all days for the 

annual standard, and of the highest 10% 

or so of days for the 24-hour standard), 

applying RRFs to get future component 

concentrations, summing to total PM2.5, 

and finally averaging over quarters and 

years to estimate the future design 

value. 

Two aspects of the Plan’s approach to 

modeling differ from the Modeling 

Guidance recommendations. First, for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the RRFs 

were applied to a single high value per 

quarter to represent the potential 98th 

percentile, as opposed to applying RRFs 

to multiple high individual days in each 

quarter, and then choosing the 98th 

percentile. The former approach is 

consistent with the original Modeling 

Guidance, before it was updated to the 

latter approach by the June 28, 2011 

Modeling Guidance Update.385 The 

latter approach is intended to allow for 

the shifting of high days between 

quarters as emission controls are 

applied: a day that has a concentration 

in the top 10% in the autumn may more 

strongly respond to controls and no 

longer be in the top 10%, while a 

summer day may respond less to 

controls and end up being in the postcontrol top 10%. Because winter PM2.5

concentrations are significantly higher 

than those in the other seasons, such 

shifting is very unlikely to be an issue 

in the SJV. 

Second, the Modeling Guidance 

recommends that RRFs be applied to the 

average of three three-year design 

values 386 (e.g. using data in 2010–2012, 

2011–2013, and 2012–2014), whereas 

the Plan used just the single 2013 design 

value (2011–2013 data). The 2011–2013 

period for the 2013 design value is 

centered on the Plan’s 2012 base year, 

as the Modeling Guidance recommends. 

One reason for the longer period in 

EPA’s recommendation is that the 

additional averaging provides some 

stability in the estimate. 

Although the Plan’s procedure is not 

entirely consistent with EPA guidance, 

we find it acceptable in this context 

given the time constraints imposed by 

EPA’s April 2015 reclassification of the 

SJV area 387 and the available modeling 

analyses. Despite the presence of scaling 

at a key step, CARB’s approach remains 

a modeled attainment demonstration as 

required by section 189(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act. It relies on photochemical 

modeling that EPA reviewed and 

approved 388 for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

and which remains sufficiently 

representative of PM2.5 formation in the 

SJV. 

Three other considerations give some 

reassurance of the acceptability of a 

scaling approach. First, EPA’s 2014 draft 

modeling guidance explicitly recognizes 

that ‘‘there may be plausible alternative 

means of calculating the relative 

response factors [RRFs] that can differ 

from the approaches recommended.’’ 389

While this 2014 draft guidance does not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6971 

390Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to K. Drake, 

EPA Region 9, August 12, 2015. See also, Memo to 

file, ‘‘Call with California Air Resources Board 

regarding letter about reversal of elemental and 

organic carbon,’’ S. Bohning, EPA Region 9, 

September 18, 2015. 

391 Id., Attachment A (‘‘Revised San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Design Values’’). 

392 40 CFR parts 53 and 58. 

393 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–3 

(‘‘Projected 2020 Annual and 2018 24-hour Design 

Values’’), p.4–9. 

394S.R. App. A2, Figures 3 and 4, and Tables 1 

and 2. 

395S.R. App. A2, Figure 2. 

396S.R. App. A2, Figure 3. 

397 ‘‘BAM 1020 Particulate Monitor Operation 

Manual, BAM–1020–9800 Rev K’’, Met One 

Instruments, Inc. 2008; Memorandum from Tim 

Hanley, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, EPA to Met One BAM Users, ‘‘RE: Zero 

Tests on the Met One BAM 1020,’’ October 5, 2012. 

398S.R. App. A2, Figure 8. 

399S.R. App. A2, Figure 9. 

400Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, 

EPA Region 9, August 12, 2015, Attachment B, p. 

2. 

401S.R. App. A2, Figures 12 and 13. 

402S.R. App. A2, p.A2–9. 

specifically address the alternative of 

scaled RRFs, it indicates, as does the 

Modeling Guidance, that alternatives to 

the recommended procedures are 

acceptable where adequately supported. 

Second, even the recommended RRF 

procedure involves model sensitivity 

derived from one period being applied 

to another: RRFs are computed using a 

single year’s modeled response to 

emissions changes, but are assumed to 

be applicable to all five years composing 

the average over three design values. 

This consideration makes the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan’s application of the model 

response from one period to another 

analogous to the application more 

broadly envisioned by the Modeling 

Guidance. 

Finally, while scaling itself is 

relatively crude, the scaling of RRFs is 

less so. The procedure is not a simple 

scaling of an emission total, but reflects 

the geographic and temporal 

distribution of the emissions sources 

and the emission changes, since it is 

based on modeling. The pattern of 

emission changes during the span of the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan does not exactly match 

the changes modeled for the span of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, but many of the 

emission reductions continue the effect 

of existing controls on the same types of 

sources, so the patterns of the emissions 

changes are unlikely to be very 

different. For example, continued 

vehicle NOX emission reductions occur 

over much the same roadway network 

and direct PM2.5 reductions from 

controls on wood burning are largely 

achieved from the same residential 

areas. 

Late in EPA’s review process, EPA 

and CARB found that the scaling factor 

for EC had been applied to the RRF for 

OC and the product used as the RRF for 

EC, and vice versa.390 Because the 

original RRFs for OC were larger than 

those for EC, and remained so after 

scaling, applying the smaller EC scaled 

RRFs to OC made the projected OC 

concentration smaller than it should 

have been. Conversely, projected EC 

was larger than it should have been. 

Because OC has a larger ambient 

contribution than EC, the OC effect 

dominates. The net result of the EC–OC 

reversal is that the projected design 

values for the attainment demonstration 

were underestimated. CARB estimates 

that the 2020 annual design value for 

Madera increased from the 2015 PM2.5

Plan’s original 15.0 mg/m3 to a corrected 

value of 16.2 mg/m3,391 which is above 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

However, CARB presents compelling 

reasons for discounting this high 

Madera projected 2020 annual design 

value. The starting point for the scaled 

modeling projection is the 2013 design 

value—the average of annual means 

during 2011–2013. The 2011 monitoring 

data included within that 2013 design 

value appears anomalous, as 

documented in the WOEA at Appendix 

A2 (‘‘Assessment of the 

Representativeness of 2011 PM2.5 Beta 

Attenuation Monitor Data from 

Madera’’) and Attachment B to CARB’s 

Technical Clarifications of August 12, 

2015 (‘‘Attachment B’’). We refer herein 

to figures and tables in Appendix A2 of 

the WOEA as ‘‘S.R. App. A2, Figure 2.’’ 

EPA’s regulations require that 

monitoring data for comparison to the 

NAAQS be collected using specific 

equipment and procedures to ensure 

accuracy and reliability.392 For each 

NAAQS, the default monitoring 

equipment and the procedures for 

operating it are termed the Federal 

Reference Method (FRM); an alternative 

approach, termed a Federal Equivalent 

Method (FEM) may also be used if it is 

demonstrated to give results comparable 

to an FRM monitor. The Met One Beta 

Attenuation Monitor (BAM) 1020 is an 

example of an FEM that provides 

continuous hourly PM2.5 concentrations 

compared to the FRM’s 24-hour average 

PM2.5 concentrations. This is useful for 

a number of purposes, including realtime forecasting for deciding when to 

issue public advisories and wood 

burning restrictions, as well as for 

evaluating air quality model 

performance. BAMs are deployed at 

multiple sites in the SJV, including 

Madera (the ‘‘Madera-City’’ site, AQS ID 

06–039–2010).393

As described in the S.R. App. A2, 

2011 was the first full year of data 

collected by the Madera BAM, and the 

concentrations were unexpectedly high 

in comparison with other monitoring 

sites, including both BAMs and FRM 

monitor sites. During 2011–2013, 

annual concentrations at Madera were 

some 30% higher than at Fresno, and as 

much as 100% higher during the 

summer, historically the season with the 

lowest PM2.5.394 This was unexpected 

because historically there has been a 

north-to-south increasing gradient of 

concentrations, with northern sites like 

Stockton and Merced at the low end, 

and southern sites like those in 

Bakersfield at the high end, and with 

central sites like Fresno somewhere in 

between.395 This gradient is consistent 

with the greater potential for ventilation 

at the northern end of the SJV, nearest 

the opening to the ocean at the Golden 

Gate, and the lower ventilation at the 

southern end, surrounded by 

mountains. Madera and Fresno 

concentrations are highly correlated,396

suggesting common meteorological 

influences at the two sites, as opposed 

to additional emission sources 

contributing at Madera. 

Various checks on the monitor and its 

operation were made over time without 

affecting the high readings, but in April 

2014, adjustments were made as a result 

of checking the zero point of the 

instrument using outdoor air, rather 

than indoor air (both are permissible; 

outdoor air could be more 

representative of the conditions the 

instrument normally operates under).397

After that time, Madera concentrations 

shifted to lower values,398 conformed 

better to the known north-south 

gradient,399 and tracked closely with the 

monitored data from the Merced-Coffee 

Road site about 30 miles to the North, 

which is expected given the two 

monitors’ proximity to one another and 

similar geographic conditions.400 They 

also agreed better with measurements at 

a new FRM installed in July 2014 at the 

Madera site.401 ARB concluded that the 

2011 ‘‘BAM data at Madera appear to be 

biased high due to sampling artifacts 

. . . not representative of air quality in 

the central portion of the Valley’’.402

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan nevertheless 

included the 2011 Madera data and 

2013 design value in the attainment 

demonstration, because up until 

recently the issue appeared to be moot, 

as despite the high starting point 

concentration the modeling predicted a 

2020 annual concentration of 15.0 mg/

m3, which attains the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The discovery of the EC–OC 

reversal described above brings the 

issue to the fore because there is no 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6972 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

403Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, 

EPA Region 9, August 12, 2015, Attachment B, pp. 

3–4. 

404Note that if the unexpectedly high 

concentrations seen in 2011–2013 are due to real 

phenomena affecting air quality, then they would 

be expected to occur again at some point in the 

intervening years between now and the projected 

attainment year of 2020. If they do occur again, then 

they would influence the monitored attainment 

status at that time, and hence any request for SJV 

to be designated attainment. 

405 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p F–4. 

406 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F–1. 

407 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B: 

Assessment of the Representativeness of the PM2.5

Value Recorded at the Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring 

Site on May 5, 2013. 

408 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B. 

409 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, 

Section B. 

410 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, 

Section C. 

411 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, 

Section D. 

412 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, pp. F–11 to F– 

13. 

413 Id., pp. F–13 to F–14. 

414 Id., pp. F–12 to F–13. 

415 Id., pp. F–14 to F–16. 

416 Id., pp. F–17 to F–18. 

room for the increase it causes in the 

2020 Madera design value. 

The fact that 2011–2013 Madera BAM 

concentrations are higher than values at 

the Fresno FRM and other sites does not 

in itself prove they are incorrect; it is 

conceivable that unknown sources were 

contributing there. Also, the later 

agreement between the lower Madera 

BAM and FRM concentrations could be 

explained as sources that are now 

emitting less, or that are contributing 

less at the monitor due to different wind 

patterns. Nevertheless, the mismatch 

with the historical gradient pattern, the 

unexpectedly but only temporarily high 

readings that declined after an 

adjustment in operation, and the current 

lower FRM readings do suggest that the 

2011 Madera concentrations were 

anomalous. EPA believes that the 2011– 

2013 readings at the Madera site are not 

known to be representative of air quality 

for Madera and not sufficiently certain 

to drive the SJV control strategy, or to 

invalidate the conclusion of the 

attainment demonstration that the SJV 

will attain the 1997 annual NAAQS in 

2020. 

CARB explored two alternative 

scenarios to estimate annual average, 

ambient PM2.5 values in 2020 for the 

Madera site.403 Under the first scenario, 

CARB substituted the 2014 design value 

of 15.8 mg/m3 at the Madera site for its 

2013 design value and estimated that 

the 2020 Madera design value would be 

14.1 mg/m3. For the second scenario, 

CARB substituted the annual 2011 data 

from the Merced-Coffee Road site, 

adjusted upward to reflect the typically 

slightly higher values at Madera, 

resulting in an estimated 2020 Madera 

design value of 14.9 mg/m3. Both 

scenarios are reasonable alternatives to 

estimating the 2020 Madera design 

value for the SJV attainment planning 

purposes for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the BakersfieldPlanz site, which would have a 

corrected 2020 design value of 15.0 mg/ 

m3, would become the design value 

monitor for the SJV, as would be 

expected under the historic observation 

of a north-to-south increasing gradient 

of concentrations.404

EPA accepts the scaled modeling 

approach of the attainment 

demonstration in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

which was the product of extended 

discussion between EPA, ARB, and 

SJVUAPCD. Based on our review of the 

modeling approach and results, we 

propose to conclude that the 2015 PM2.5

Plan adequately demonstrates that the 

SJV area will attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2020 

and attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by December 31, 2018. We 

recommend that CARB reassess the 

status of the modeled attainment of the 

1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

as part of the new modeling required for 

SIP revisions addressing the 2006 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Evaluation of Bakersfield-Planz Data 

Exclusion for May 5, 2013 

As described in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

the State and District based the 

attainment demonstration on ambient 

measurements during 2011–2013.405

The 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 

167.3 mg/m3 measured at the 

Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site (AQS 

ID: 06–029–0016) on May 5, 2013 was 

not included in the attainment 

demonstration analyses due to its 

unrepresentativeness for purposes of 

attainment planning for the SJV as a 

whole. Therefore, the modeled 

projections for the 2020 annual PM2.5

design values and 2018 24-hour design 

values 406 and the discussion of the 

modeling results in Appendix F, section 

F.4 of the Plan are based on data that 

exclude the May 5, 2013 24-hour data 

point from the Bakersfield-Planz 

monitoring site. 

The Plan provides an assessment of 

the representativeness of this data for 

purposes of inclusion in the attainment 

demonstration analyses 407 and 

concludes that: 

‘‘In summary, comparison of the 167.3 

mg/m3 concentration measured on May 

5, 2013, to values typical for this season 

as well as comparison to values 

measured throughout the Valley on the 

same day, combined with the record 

high fugitive dust and elemental species 

concentrations, indicate that the 

monitor was impacted by microscale 

sources that are not representative of the 

neighborhood spatial scale the monitor 

is intended to represent. Therefore, this 

value is not included in modeling 

analysis for the San Joaquin Valley 2015 

PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

The assessment provided in the 

Plan 408 based this conclusion on: (1) 

Representativeness of Bakersfield-Planz 

PM2.5 data; 409 (2) potential fugitive dust 

sources affecting the Bakersfield-Planz 

site; 410 and (3) meteorology at the 

Bakersfield-Planz site.411

Information provided regarding the 

representativeness of Bakersfield-Planz 

data included analyses of San Joaquin 

Valley seasonal PM2.5 concentrations 412

and elemental species composition.413

The assessment provided PM2.5 data on 

the highest concentrations throughout 

the Valley since 2000 and shows that 

the May 5, 2013 Bakersfield-Planz value 

was unusually high compared to 

historical trends since 2000. Further, 

this data point was also unusually high 

compared to other sites in the San 

Joaquin Valley on the same day.414 The 

species composition analyses show that 

the primary content of the particulate 

matter was fugitive dust and that the 

level of the dust was over four times 

higher than the next highest value 

observed in the entire California 

network based on 14 years of available 

data. In addition, total elemental species 

and other chemical species were found 

to be unusually high. 

The State and District’s assessment of 

potential fugitive dust sources affecting 

the Bakersfield-Planz site was based on 

an evaluation of aerial photos to identify 

sources and field investigation by 

District enforcement staff.415 The 

assessment found no documented dust 

violations at any nearby sources and 

identify the likely source of the dust 

was from the open areas immediately 

adjacent to the monitor, suggesting a 

localized microscale impact. 

The third part of the assessment 

evaluated meteorology at the 

Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site.416

Wind speeds on May 5, 2013 were 

compared to other days in May 2013 

and also to other high wind days at the 

Bakersfield-Planz site. The wind speeds 

were in excess of 25 mph for over eight 

hours on May 5, 2013. The meteorology 

indicates that Bakersfield-Planz 

experienced a high wind event on May 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6973 

417Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Directors, I–X, ‘‘Interim Guidance to 

Implement Requirements for the Treatment of Air 

Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional 

Events,’’ May 10, 2013 (‘‘2013 Exceptional Events 

Guidance’’). 418 Id. 419EPA also reviewed PM10 data in AQS for the 

SJV since 2010 and identified eight days flagged 

with high wind exceptional event request for 

exclusion, which indicate that PM10 high wind dust 

events recur and should be subject to reasonable 

controls in accordance with the 2013 Exceptional 

Events Guidance. 420 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B–23 to B– 

31. See also, within this section, Table B–8 

(‘‘District Rules Included in the SIP Inventory’’). 421See EPA Region 9’s Web site for information 

on District control measures that have been 

approved into the California SIP, available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?Read

Form&count=500&state=California&cat=San+

Joaquin+Valley+Unified+APCD-Agency-Wide+

Provisions. Of the District measures identified in 

Appendix B of the Plan, only Rule 4691 (‘‘Vegetable 

Oil Processing Operations’’), which limits VOC 

emissions from vegetable oil processing operations, 

is not currently approved into the California SIP. 

EPA approved a previous version of this rule (Rule 

461.2) into the SIP on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 

2535). 

422 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B–31 to B– 

35. 

5, 2013 that was unusual in terms of 

wind speed and duration. 

Overall, EPA agrees with the evidence 

provided that the Bakersfield-Planz 

monitor was affected by an unusual 

high wind dust event on May 5, 2013 

that resulted in anomalous PM2.5

concentrations on that day. EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to omit 

this data point from the attainment 

demonstration based on EPA’s 2013 

guidance on exceptional events.417

Regarding the inclusion of eventaffected data for attainment 

demonstrations, EPA’s 2013 guidance 

says: 

‘‘An air agency incorporating the 

event-related concentration in a design 

value used for a prospective attainment 

demonstration might seem to need more 

emission reductions to attain the 

NAAQS by its attainment deadline than 

is actually the case. The EPA plans to 

more formally address this topic on a 

pollutant/NAAQS basis, the first of 

which will be ozone guidance in the 

preamble of a soon-to-be-proposed 

rulemaking on SIP requirements for 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Until the planned 

guidance for a pollutant and NAAQS of 

interest is issued, air agencies should 

consult with their EPA regional office if 

they face this situation.’’ 418

EPA reviewed PM2.5 data in AQS for 

the SJV since 2010 and identified four 

days flagged with high wind exceptional 

event requests for exclusion. These 

PM2.5 high wind dust events do not 

appear to be recurring events and their 

inclusion in the attainment 

demonstration therefore would not 

accurately reflect the effect of controls 

during more typical conditions at the 

Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site.419

Based on these reviews, EPA agrees 

with the State’s and District’s assertion 

that the May 5, 2013 concentrations at 

Bakersfield-Planz were due to an 

unusual PM2.5 high wind dust event that 

would not be appropriate to include in 

the attainment demonstration. 

In addition to EPA’s 2013 guidance on 

exceptional events, EPA also considered 

the monitoring requirements for PM2.5. 

In particular, 40 CFR part 58, Appendix 

D, section 4.71(b) specifies for PM2.5: 

‘‘The required monitoring stations or 

sites must be sited to represent areawide air quality. These sites can include 

sites collocated at PAMS. These 

monitoring stations will typically be at 

neighborhood or urban-scale; however, 

micro-or middle-scale PM2.5 monitoring 

sites that represent many such locations 

throughout a metropolitan area are 

considered to represent area-wide air 

quality.’’ 

Based on the information provided in 

the Plan, EPA agrees that the 

Bakersfield-Planz concentrations on 

May 5, 2013 appear to have been 

affected by a localized event; therefore, 

it was neither representative of 

neighborhood scale concentrations, nor 

occurring at many locations. EPA agrees 

with the State and District that the May 

5, 2013 concentrations at BakersfieldPlanz were not representative of areawide, typical PM2.5 concentrations in 

San Joaquin Valley. 

Based on the technical analyses 

provided in the Plan and EPA guidance 

and requirements as cited in this 

section, EPA agrees with the State and 

District that the May 5, 2013 

Bakersfield-Planz 24-hour PM2.5 data 

point resulted from a localized, 

anomalous event that can be omitted 

from the attainment demonstration 

analyses. 

Evaluation of Control Strategy 

The attainment control strategy in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan consists of State and 

District baseline measures that continue 

to achieve emission reductions and four 

additional control measures that the 

District either recently revised or, in one 

case, has committed to revise in 2016. 

With respect to baseline measures for 

stationary and area sources, the District 

identified the source categories under 

its jurisdiction and their projected 

emission levels in Appendix B, section 

B.2.2 (‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Documentation’’) and described each of 

the District measures that apply to these 

source categories in section B.2.2.3 of 

the Plan (‘‘Control Profiles’’).420 All but 

one of the 55 District control measures 

listed in section B.2.2.3 of the Plan have 

been approved into the California 

SIP.421

With respect to mobile sources, the 

State identified the source categories 

and described the EMFAC2014 emission 

factor model used to project their future 

emission levels in Appendix B, sections 

B.2.2.4 through B.2.2.7 of the Plan.422

As explained in section V.D of this 

proposed rule, in a separate rulemaking, 

EPA is proposing to approve CARB’s 

submitted waiver measures into the SIP 

and intends to finalize that rulemaking 

before taking final action on the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan. 

Table 8 below summarizes the 

emission reductions needed in the SJV 

to attain the 1997 24-hour and annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2018 and 

2020, respectively. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF DIRECT PM2.5 AND NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR THE 2015 PM2.5 PLAN

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

24-hour Standard Attainment by 

2018 (tpd annual average) 

Annual Standard Attainment by 

2020 (tpd winter average) 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

A 2012 emissions inventory a ....................................................................... 61.0 318.5 66.0 332.2 

B Emissions inventory after baseline measures ........................................... 57.7 213.9 62.8 206.9 

C Emissions inventory needed to attain ....................................................... 54.4 213.7 60.8 206.5 

D Total emission reductions needed by attainment year (A—C) ................. 6.6 104.8 5.2 125.7 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9, except as otherwise noted. a 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 and B–2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6974 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

423 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 

and 2, p. 9. 424 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–3 and CARB 

Staff Report at p. 9. 425 80 FR 7803 (February 12, 2015). 426 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 

7–6 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

15–4–7A (April 16, 2015) at paragraph 7. 427 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011). 428 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7 at p. 7–6. 429 80 FR 1816 at 1833 and 1844 (January 13, 

2015). 430 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 

1 and 2, p. 9, and Appendix B (‘‘Emissions 

Inventory’’), Tables B–1 and B–2. 

431The District calculated these estimates using 

its estimates of direct PM2.5 emission reductions for 

the 120-day wood burning season covered by the 

rule and ratios of 120/365 days and 120/180 days 

for the annual average and winter (24-hour) average 

emission reductions, respectively. See SJVUAPCD, 

‘‘Final Staff Report for Amendments to the District’s 

Residential Wood Burning Program,’’ Appendix B, 

(‘‘Emission Reduction Analysis Amendments to 

Residential Wood Burning Program’’) at B–12, 

September 18, 2014. 

432The 0.7 tpd and 0.5 tpd emission reduction 

estimates assume that 14% of devices subject to 

Rule 4901 will be replaced by 2018 and that 20% 

of such devices will be replaced by 2020, 

respectively. For a more detailed discussion of 

these emission reduction estimates, see the EPA’s 

SJV Rules TSD. 

433 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). 

434 2015 p.m.2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 

1 and 2, p. 9. 

435SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Final Staff Report Amendments 

to Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central 

Furnaces,’’ January 22, 2015, p. 9. See also EPA’s 

proposed rule on Rule 4905. 80 FR 68484 

(November 5, 2015). 

436SJVUAPCD Rule 4905 as amended January 22, 

2015, Table 1 (‘‘NOX Emission Limits and 

Compliance Schedule’’). See also, SJVUAPCD, 

‘‘Final Staff Report Amendments to Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces,’’ 

January 22, 2015, Appendix B, pp. B–9. 

437 80 FR 68484 (November 5, 2015). 

438Percent of total winter average NOX emission 

reductions = 0.16 tpd/104.8 tpd = 0.2%. 

439 2015 PM2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B–2 (‘‘Modeled 

PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide 

precursor emission reductions’’), p. A–27. 

440 Increase in ambient 24-hour PM2.5

concentration = (0.08 mg/m3/ton of NOX emission 

reduction) * (0.16 tpd) = 0.013 mg/m3. 

The Plan identifies four District 

measures that will achieve additional 

emission reductions beyond baseline 

measures and contribute to expeditious 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS.423 First, Rule 4308 (‘‘Boilers, 

Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr’’), as amended 

November 14, 2013, limits NOX

emissions from boilers, steam 

generators, and process heaters sized 

between 0.075 and 2 MMBtu/hr and is 

projected to achieve 0.0007 tpd of NOX

emission reductions by 2018 and 0.0011 

tpd of NOX emission reductions by 

2020.424 EPA approved this rule into the 

California SIP on February 12, 2015.425

Second, the District has committed to 

amend Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial 

Charbroiling’’) in 2016 to add 

requirements for under-fired 

charbroilers, with an anticipated 

compliance date in 2017.426 Rule 4692, 

as approved into the SIP on November 

3, 2011, regulates emissions from chaindriven charbroilers but does not regulate 

under-fired charbroilers.427 The District 

projects that its anticipated revisions to 

Rule 4692 to regulate under-fired 

charbroilers will achieve an additional 

0.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions in 2018 and 2020.428 EPA 

recently proposed to approve this 

commitment into the California SIP.429

Emission reductions of 0.4 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 represent 6.1% of the total 

PM2.5 emission reductions needed to 

attain the 1997 24-hour standard by 

2018 and 7.7% of the total PM2.5

emission reductions needed to attain the 

1997 annual standard by 2020.430 These 

are limited portions of the total PM2.5

emission reductions needed for 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV. Based on the 

District’s history of timely meeting 

similar rule commitments (see section 

V.E.3 of this preamble), we find that the 

District is capable of fulfilling this 

commitment. We also find that the 

commitment to adopt the amended rule 

by 2016 is for a reasonable and 

appropriate timeframe given the need 

for PM2.5 emission reductions to attain 

by 2018 and 2020. Accordingly, we 

propose to approve this rule 

commitment as part of the control 

strategy in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. For a 

more detailed discussion of this 

commitment and the District’s 

evaluations to date, see the EPA’s SJV 

Rules TSD. 

Third, the District projects that Rule 

4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters’’), as amended 

September 18, 2014, will achieve 2.9 

tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

by 2018 and 1.6 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions by 2020. 

Specifically, the District’s 2014 rule 

amendment to lower the rule’s ‘‘no burn 

threshold’’ from 30 mg/m3 to 20 mg/m3

(24-hour average ambient PM2.5

concentration) for non-EPA certified, 

non-District registered wood burning 

devices is projected to achieve a winter 

24-hour average of 2.2 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and 

an annual average of 1.1 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 emission reductions by 2020.431

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan relies on Rule 4901 

for an additional 0.7 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions (winter 24-hour 

average) by 2018 and an additional 0.5 

tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

(annual average) by 2020 resulting from 

homeowners replacing high-emitting 

fireplaces and stoves with low-emitting, 

EPA-certified devices.432 The EPA 

recently proposed to approve Rule 4901 

into the California SIP.433

Finally, the District projects that Rule 

4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 

Residential Central Furnaces’’), as 

amended January 22, 2015, will achieve 

0.2 tpd of NOX emission reductions by 

2018 and 0.4 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions by 2020.434 This rule 

includes a mitigation fee option that 

allows manufacturers to sell noncompliant furnaces for 36-month 

transition periods ranging from 2015 to 

2021, depending on unit type.435 Based 

on information in the District’s staff 

report on Rule 4905, the District 

estimates emission reductions of 0.105 

tpd of NOX per year from three of the 

four types of units, which have 

compliance dates ranging from April 1, 

2015 through October 1, 2016.436

The EPA recently proposed to 

approve Rule 4905 into the California 

SIP.437 Because the sale of noncompliant units is allowed to varying 

degrees in 2018 by manufacturers 

paying mitigation fees, we propose to 

credit Rule 4905 with 0.035 tpd of NOX

emission reductions in 2018 rather than 

the 0.105 tpd of emission reductions 

identified in the District’s staff report for 

the rule. The amount we propose to not 

credit (i.e., 0.16 tpd of NOX) represents 

only 0.2% of the total winter average 

NOX reduction from 2012 to 2018.438

Using the 24-hour PM2.5 sensitivity of 

0.08 mg/m3 per ton of NOX emission 

reduction at the projected 2018 design 

value site of Bakersfield-California St., 

as modeled for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan,439

this would result in an ambient 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration increase of about 

0.013 mg/m3.440 This represents a 

minimal effect on ambient PM2.5 levels 

and, therefore, does not undermine the 

Plan’s demonstration of attainment of 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 

December 31, 2018. 

In sum, the attainment demonstration 

in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan relies on 

numerous State and District baseline 

regulations and four additional District 

measures that EPA has either approved 

or proposed to approve into the 

California SIP, all of which collectively 

are projected to achieve emission 

reductions sufficient for the SJV area to 

attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

by 2018 and the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard by 2020. Table 9 provides a 

summary of the emission reductions 

from the four additional District 

measures that we propose to credit 

toward the Plan’s attainment control 

strategy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6975 

441Addendum at 42015. 

442 Id. 

443Addendum at 42015. 

444Addendum at 42016. 

445 Id. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF EPA PROPOSED EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS FOR ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONTROL MEASURES

NEEDED FOR THE 2015 PM2.5 PLAN ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

District control measure 

Annual Standard Attainment by 

2020 (tpd annual average) 

24-hour Standard Attainment 

by 2018 (tpd winter average) 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Rule 4308 ........................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0011 0.0 0.0007 

Rule 4692 ........................................................................................................ 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 

Rule 4901 ........................................................................................................ 1.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 

Rule 4905 ........................................................................................................ 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.035 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9. 

Conclusion 

As discussed above, the 2015 PM2.5

Plan’s air quality modeling 

demonstrates that the SJV will attain the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 by December 31, 2018 and the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0 mg/m3 by 

December 31, 2020. This demonstration 

is based on expeditious implementation 

of the State’s and District’s BACM and 

MSM control strategy for stationary, 

area, and mobile sources in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan, together with the District’s 

commitment to achieve additional PM2.5

emission reductions from under-fired 

charbroilers through amendments to 

Rule 4692. Based on these evaluations, 

we propose to determine that the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan provides for attainment of 

the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5

standards by the most expeditious 

alternatives dates practicable, consistent 

with the requirements of CAA sections 

189(b)(1)(A). 

F. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further 

Progress and Quantitative Milestones 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP). In 

addition, CAA section 189(c) requires 

PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs to 

include quantitative milestones to be 

achieved every three years until the area 

is redesignated to attainment and which 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

(RFP), as defined in CAA section 171(1). 

Section 171(1) defines RFP as ‘‘such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by [Part D] or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part 

D, title I of the Act requires that a set 

percentage of emissions reductions be 

achieved in any given year for purposes 

of satisfying the RFP requirement. 

RFP has historically been met by 

showing annual incremental emission 

reductions sufficient generally to 

maintain at least linear progress toward 

attainment by the applicable 

deadline.441 As discussed in EPA 

guidance in the Addendum, requiring 

linear progress in reductions of direct 

PM2.5 and any individual precursor in a 

PM2.5 plan may be appropriate in 

situations where: 

• the pollutant is emitted by a large 

number and range of sources, 

• the relationship between any 

individual source or source category 

and overall air quality is not well 

known, 

• a chemical transformation is 

involved (e.g., secondary particulate 

significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels 

over the standard), and/or 

• the emission reductions necessary 

to attain the PM2.5 standard are 

inventory-wide.442

The Addendum states that requiring 

linear progress may be less appropriate 

in other situations, such as: 

• where there are a limited number of 

sources of direct PM2.5 or a precursor, 

• where the relationships between 

individual sources and air quality are 

relatively well defined, and/or 

• where the emission control systems 

utilized (e.g., at major point sources) 

will result in swift and dramatic 

emission reductions. 

In nonattainment areas characterized 

by any of these latter conditions, RFP 

may be better represented as step-wise 

progress as controls are implemented 

and achieve significant reductions soon 

thereafter. For example, if an area’s 

nonattainment problem can be 

attributed to a few major sources, EPA 

guidance indicates that ‘‘RFP should be 

met by ‘adherence to an ambitious 

compliance schedule’ which is likely to 

periodically yield significant emission 

reductions of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5

precursor.’’ 443

Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

should include detailed schedules for 

compliance with emission regulations 

in the area and provide corresponding 

annual emission reductions to be 

realized from each milestone in the 

schedule.444 In reviewing an attainment 

plan under subpart 4, EPA evaluates 

whether the annual incremental 

emission reductions to be achieved are 

reasonable in light of the statutory 

objective of timely attainment. Although 

early implementation of the most costeffective control measures is often 

appropriate, states should consider both 

cost-effectiveness and pollution 

reduction effectiveness when 

developing implementation schedules 

for their control measures and may 

implement measures that are more 

effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to 

provide greater public health 

benefits.445

Section 189(c) requires that 

attainment plans include quantitative 

milestones in order to demonstrate RFP. 

The purpose of the quantitative 

milestones is to allow periodic 

evaluation of the area’s progress towards 

attainment of the NAAQS through the 

RFP requirements. Thus, the EPA 

determines an area’s compliance with 

RFP in conjunction with determining its 

compliance with the quantitative 

milestone requirement. Because RFP is 

an annual emission reduction 

requirement and the quantitative 

milestones are to be achieved every 

three years, when a state demonstrates 

compliance with the quantitative 

milestone requirement, it will 

demonstrate that RFP has been achieved 

during each of the relevant three years. 

Quantitative milestones should provide 

an objective means to evaluate progress 

toward attainment meaningfully, e.g., 

through imposition of emission controls 

in the attainment plan and the 

requirement to quantify those required 

emission reductions. The CAA also 

requires milestone reports (due 90 days 

after each milestone), and these reports 

should include calculations and any 

assumptions made concerning how RFP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6976 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

446 Id. at 42016, 42017. 

447 General Preamble at 13539, Addendum at 

42016. 

448 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule 

establishing subpart 4 moderate area classifications 

and deadline for related SIP submissions) 

(‘‘Classification and Deadline Rule’’). Although the 

Classification and Deadline Rule did not affect any 

action that EPA had previously taken under CAA 

section 110(k) on a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, EPA noted that states may need to submit 

additional SIP elements to fully comply with the 

applicable requirements of subpart 4, even for areas 

with previously approved PM2.5 attainment plans, 

and that the deadline for any such additional plan 

submissions was December 31, 2014. Id. at 31569. 

449Letter from R. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB 

to J. Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region 9, December 15, 2015. 

450 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6–8 (‘‘RFP 

Target Demonstration (2014 and 2017)’’), p. 6–8. 

451 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B. 

452 2015 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6–6 to 6–8. 

453 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.1, pp. 

7–2 to 7–6. 

454 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp. 7–3 to 7–4 and 

Appendix C, p. C–102. 

455 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–4 and 

Appendix C, p. C–157. 

456 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–108. 

457 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–194. 

458 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.3, pp. 

7–6 to 7–13. 

459 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D–8 to D– 

12 (for heavy heavy duty trucks) and D–15 (for farm 

equipment) and Appendix B, p. B–7. 

460 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B–19. 

461 Id. See also, 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2– 

27, which concludes the District’s analysis of the 

relationship between ammonia emissions and 

ambient PM2.5 levels by stating that ‘‘ammonia 

reductions at the Bakersfield-California site are 

only. . . 10% as effective as NOX reductions.’’ 

462 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, section 2.6 

(‘‘Insignificant Precursors to PM2.5 Concentrations 

in the Valley’’). 

463 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26. 

464 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 25– 

26. 

has been met, e.g., through 

quantification of emission reductions to 

date.446

The CAA does not specify the starting 

point for counting the three-year periods 

for quantitative milestones under CAA 

section 189(c). In the General Preamble 

and Addendum, EPA interpreted the 

CAA to require that the starting point 

for the first three-year period be the due 

date for the Moderate area plan 

submission.447 In keeping with this 

historical approach, EPA is proposing to 

establish December 31, 2014 as the 

starting point for the first 3-year period 

under CAA section 189(c) for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV. This date 

was the due date established in the 

EPA’s June 2, 2014 Deadline and 

Classification Rule for the State’s 

submission of any additional 

attainment-related SIP elements 

necessary to satisfy the subpart 4 

Moderate area requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV area.448

December 31, 2017 and December 31, 

2020 would then be the milestone dates 

that the Serious Area plan must address, 

at minimum. The EPA believes that 

establishing December 31, 2017 as the 

first quantitative milestone date is an 

appropriate means for implementing the 

requirements of subpart 4 prospectively. 

2. RFP Demonstration and Quantitative 

Milestones in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

The RFP demonstration and 

quantitative milestones appear in 

Chapter 6, section 6.3 (pp. 6–6 to 6–8) 

of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. Further 

discussion of the RFP demonstration, 

particularly with respect to ammonia, 

and the establishment of dates, content, 

and a reporting commitment for 

quantitative milestones, appears in 

CARB’s Staff Report (pp. 25–26). In 

addition, by letter dated December 15, 

2015, CARB’s Executive Officer 

committed to submit a SIP revision to 

supplement the quantitative milestone 

portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan by 

December 31, 2016 (‘‘QM Letter’’).449

The Plan estimates that emissions of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX will decline 

from the 2012 base year to 2020 and 

states that emissions of each of these 

pollutants will remain below the levels 

needed to show ‘‘generally linear 

progress’’ from 2012 to 2020, the year 

that the Plan projects to be the earliest 

practicable attainment date for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard.450 The Plan’s 

emissions inventory shows that direct 

PM2.5, NOX, and SOX are emitted by a 

large number and range of sources in the 

SJV and the emission reductions needed 

for these pollutants are inventory 

wide.451 The District followed the 

procedures in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule to calculate 2014 

and 2017 RFP targets (or ‘‘benchmark’’ 

emission levels) for direct PM2.5, NOX, 

and SOX and then concluded that 

projected emission levels for each 

pollutant, based on its adopted control 

strategy, would be below those targets in 

both milestone years.452

The BACM control strategy that 

provides the basis for these emissions 

projections is described in Chapters 5 

and 7 and Appendices C and D of the 

Plan. For stationary and area sources, 

the Plan highlights several rules that are 

projected to contribute to attainment of 

the PM2.5 standards.453 For example, 

Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’) 

controls emissions of NOX, SOX, and 

PM from industrial glass 

manufacturing—the largest source of 

SOX emissions in the San Joaquin 

Valley—and its emissions projections 

are presented in Appendix C as part of 

the Plan’s BACM and MSM analysis.454

Similarly, Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’) 

controls emissions from residential 

wood burning and addresses the largest 

combustion source of direct PM2.5.455

Measures to control dust sources of 

direct PM2.5 are also presented in the 

Plan’s BACM and MSM analyses and 

reflected in the Plan’s baseline emission 

projections. Examples of such measures 

include Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation 

Management Practices’’) 456 and Rule 

8061 (‘‘Paved and Unpaved Roads’’).457

For mobile sources, the Plan lists 

numerous CARB regulations and 

discusses the key regulations that limit 

the emission of direct PM2.5 and NOX

from on-road and non-road mobile 

sources.458 For instance, the regulations 

that apply to the two largest sources of 

NOX in the San Joaquin Valley—heavy, 

heavy-duty diesel trucks and farm 

equipment—are discussed in Appendix 

C and their emission projections are 

presented in the Plan’s emissions 

inventory.459

With respect to ammonia, the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan projects an increase in 

annual average ammonia emissions 

from 329.5 tpd in 2012 to 358.0 tpd in 

2020.460 The Plan states that both NOX

and ammonia participate in forming 

ammonium nitrate (i.e., secondary 

PM2.5) but that NOX emission reductions 

are an order of magnitude more effective 

at reducing ambient PM2.5 than 

ammonia reductions.461 Based on the 

relative insensitivity of ambient PM2.5

levels to ammonia reductions compared 

to NOX reductions, the Plan states that 

ammonia is not a significant precursor 

to ambient PM2.5 in the SJV 462 and thus 

that an RFP demonstration for ammonia 

is not required.463 The Plan also states 

that NOX emission levels are projected 

to be well below the levels needed to 

show generally linear progress toward 

attainment. The CARB Staff Report 

provides additional analysis by 

converting the increase in ammonia 

emissions into ‘‘NOX equivalent’’ 

emission levels (using a ‘‘NOX

equivalency’’ calculation method) and 

demonstrating that the ‘‘NOX

equivalent’’ emissions level continues to 

show linear progress toward attainment 

from 2012 to 2020.464

The NOX equivalency method used in 

the Plan relies on the sensitivity of 

ambient PM2.5 levels to decreases in 

ammonia emissions compared to 

decreases in NOX emissions, as modeled 

at the Bakersfield-California monitoring 

site. The Plan states that in the San 

Joaquin Valley ammonia emission 

reductions are only 10% as effective as 

NOX emission reductions, with a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6977 

465 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2–27. Note that 

Bakersfield-California is projected to be the design 

value monitor for the SJV in 2018 with respect to 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix F, Table F–1 (‘‘Projected 2018 and 2020 

Design Values’’), p. F–7. 

466We use ‘‘RFP milestone year’’ to mean each 

year for which the Plan provides an RFP analysis 

and related emissions projections. 

467That is, (NOX emissions) 2017 + [(NH3

emissions) 2017¥(NH3 emissions) 2012] * 0.1 = (total 

NOX equivalent emissions) 2017. Using values from 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the 17.5 tpd increase in 

ammonia emissions from 2012 to 2017 is equivalent 

to a 1.8 tpd increase in NOX emissions, as follows: 

235.7 + [347.0¥329.5]*0.1 = 237.5 tpd. See CARB 

Staff Report, p. 26, Table 12. 

468 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.41, 

pp. C–240 to C–281 and Appendix B, p. B–17. 

469 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26. 470 Id. 472QM Letter, pp. 1–2. 473 Id., p. 2. 

474 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B. 

475 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1 

(‘‘Significance Determination Approach’’). 

476 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3, and 

Appendix B. See also our discussion of BACM/

BACT in section V.D of this proposed rule. 

477 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–106 to C– 

107. 

478 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5–2, pp. 5– 

7 to 5–8. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. 

B–2, 

479 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–4 and 

Appendix C, p. C–156. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix B, p. B–2. 

480 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9. 

relative sensitivity factor of 0.1.465

Stated alternatively, this is a 1:10 NOX

for ammonia trading ratio, i.e., it takes 

1 tpd of NOX emissions to match the 

ambient effect of 10 tpd of ammonia in 

this area. The State calculates the 

change in ammonia emissions from the 

base year (2012) to each RFP milestone 

year 466 (2014 and 2017), and multiplies 

it by the trading ratio to calculate a NOX

increase equivalent to the ammonia 

increase, which the State then adds to 

the NOX emissions inventory for each 

RFP milestone year to calculate the total 

NOX decrease and ammonia increase 

expressed as ‘‘NOX equivalent’’ 

emission levels.467 The CARB Staff 

Report states that the total NOX

equivalent emissions levels are below 

the linear reductions in NOX necessary 

to demonstrate RFP and, therefore, that 

the RFP requirement is met, despite the 

projected increase in the ammonia 

inventory. 

Control measures for ammonia 

sources are described in Appendix C of 

the Plan. For example, ammonia 

controls resulting from Rule 4570 

(‘‘Confined Animal Facilities’’), Rule 

4565 (‘‘Biosolids, Animal Manure, and 

Poultry Litter Operations’’), and Rule 

4566 (‘‘Organic Material Composting’’) 

are discussed at length in section C.41 

of Appendix C and their emission 

projections are presented collectively 

under farming operations in the Plan’s 

emissions inventory.468 We discuss 

these control measures more fully in 

section V.D of this preamble (‘‘Best 

Available Control Measures and Most 

Stringent Measures’’) and in the EPA’s 

SJV Rules TSD. 

With respect to quantitative 

milestones, the CARB Staff Report states 

that the Plan identifies RFP emissions 

levels for direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX for 

2014 and 2017 that show generally 

linear progress towards attaining the 

annual standard in 2020, and that 

‘‘[t]hese emission levels for 2017 along 

with the 2020 attainment emission 

levels serve as the quantitative 

milestones required under the Act.’’ 469

CARB addresses the projected increase 

in ammonia emissions over the 

planning period by evaluating those 

emissions in light of the atmospheric 

response to NOX and ammonia 

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley area 

and concluding that ‘‘the combined 

emission levels of NOX and ammonia 

that are projected to occur through the 

2020 attainment year provide for the 

required generally linear air quality 

progress.’’ 470 The CARB Staff Report 

also states California’s commitment to 

provide letters to EPA ‘‘reporting that 

the emission inventory milestones have 

been met and the status of any emission 

reduction commitments,’’ and to 

provide these letters by March 31, 2018 

for the 2017 milestone and by March 31, 

2021 for the 2020 milestone.471

Additionally, the QM Letter contains 

the State’s commitment to submit, by 

December 31, 2016, a SIP revision that 

supplements the quantitative milestone 

portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan by 

identifying specific quantitative 

milestones to be achieved by the 2017 

RFP milestone year and 2020 attainment 

year that demonstrate reasonable further 

progress toward timely attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The QM Letter states that 

this SIP revision will include the 

following milestones to track 

implementation of control measures and 

emissions levels at each milestone year: 

(1) A list of measures in the Plan’s 

BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy 

and key implementation requirements 

through 2017 and 2020, including 

compliance milestones for the State’s 

Truck and Bus Rule and the District’s 

residential wood burning rule (Rule 

4901), (2) compliance with the State’s 

and District’s enforceable commitments 

in the Plan by the 2017 milestone date, 

and (3) updated emissions inventories 

for both 2017 and 2020.472 The QM 

Letter also states that the SIP revision 

will identify appropriate air quality 

quantitative milestones for 2017 and 

2020 designed to evaluate air quality 

progress resulting from implementation 

of the Plan’s control strategy, including 

an assessment of monitored ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations and other variables 

affecting ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

in each of those years.473

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions 

Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

With respect to direct PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, we agree that ‘‘generally linear 

progress’’ is an appropriate measure of 

RFP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV area given that, as the Plan 

documents, direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX

are emitted by a large number and range 

of sources in the SJV, the emission 

reductions needed for these pollutants 

are inventory wide,474 and secondary 

particulates contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV area.475

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan documents the 

State’s conclusion that all BACM, 

BACT, and MSM for these pollutants are 

being implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable and identifies projected 

levels of direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX

emissions in 2014 and 2017 that reflect 

full implementation of the State’s and 

District’s BACM/BACT and MSM 

control strategy for these pollutants.476

For example, Rule 4550 (‘‘Conservation 

Management Practices’’) was adopted in 

2004 and its requirements to control 

PM10 emissions (including PM2.5) from 

on-field crop and animal feeding 

operations are fully implemented.477

These operations represent the largest 

dust sources of direct PM2.5 in the San 

Joaquin Valley.478 More recently, 

SJVUAPCD revised Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters’’) in September 2014 by 

strengthening the District’s curtailment 

program for residential wood burning, 

thereby further limiting emissions from 

San Joaquin Valley’s largest combustion 

source of direct PM2.5.479 These rule 

amendments provide part of the 

incremental emission reductions of 

direct PM2.5 from the 2014 to 2017 RFP 

milestone years and through the 2018 

and 2020 attainment years.480

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6978 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

481 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–9 to 7–10 and 

Appendix D, pp. D–8 to D–11. 482Title 13, California Code of Regulations, 

Section 2025 (‘‘Regulation to Reduce Emissions of 

Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and 

Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Vehicles’’), paragraphs (e), (f), and 

(g), effective December 14, 2011. See also EPA’s 

final rule approving CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule. 

77 FR 20308 at 20309–20310 (April 4, 2012). 

483 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B–7. 

484 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp, 7–3 to 7–4. 

485 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6–6, p. 6– 

7 vs. CARB Staff Report, p. 9. 

486 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, 

p. 9. 

487For example, the 2017 RFP benchmark for 

direct PM2.5 should account for five years’ worth of 

annual incremental reductions and is calculated as 

(2012 emission inventory)¥(annual increment 

reduction)*5 = 66.0 tpd¥(0.65 tpd/yr)*5 = 62.75 

tpd. The projected emissions inventory for direct 

PM2.5 in 2017 is 62.5 tpd, which is less than this 

RFP benchmark. 

488 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–5. 

489 In the inventories provided in Appendix B of 

the Plan, emissions from these sources are found in 

the categories ‘‘Farming Operations’’, ‘‘Pesticides/

Fertilizers’’, and ‘‘Other (Waste Disposal)’’, 

respectively. 

490 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–5 

(‘‘Ammonia’’), pp. B–16 to B–19. The three 

categories comprising this 95% of emissions in the 

ammonia emission inventory are Other (Waste 

Disposal), Pesticides/Fertilizers, and Farming 

Operations. 

491 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–240 to C– 

243. 

492 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–240 to C– 

241. See also, Memo to file, ‘‘Call with California 

Air Resources Board regarding VOC and ammonia 

emissions inventory,’’ R. Mays, EPA Region 9, 

September 30, 2015. 

493 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–276. 

494 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–272 to C– 

273. 

The Truck and Bus Regulation and 

Drayage Truck Regulation became 

effective in 2011 and have rolling 

compliance deadlines based on truck 

engine model year. These and other 

regulations applicable to heavy duty 

diesel trucks will continue to reduce 

emissions of diesel particulate matter 

and NOX through the RFP and 

attainment planning years.481 For 

instance, model year 1994 and 1995 

heavy heavy duty diesel truck engines 

must be upgraded to meet the 2010 

model year truck engine emission 

standards by 2016, and model year 

1996–1999 engines must by upgraded 

by January 1, 2020.482 The emission 

reductions from these rules represent 

the largest portion of the NOX emission 

reductions upon which the Plan’s 

attainment and RFP demonstrations 

rely.483 With respect to SOX emissions, 

Rule 4354 (‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’) 

was amended in May 2011, establishing 

SOX emission limits with compliance 

deadlines through January 1, 2014.484

This rule will achieve emission 

reductions through the 2017 RFP 

milestone year and 2018 and 2020 

attainment years. As explained in 

section V.D of this preamble, we are 

proposing to find that the State and 

District are implementing these BACM, 

BACT and MSM provisions for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Additionally, the method used to 

calculate RFP target (or ‘‘benchmark’’) 

emission levels for direct PM2.5, NOX, 

and SO2 is generally consistent with the 

method provided in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule (40 CFR 

51.1009(f)). We note that the 2015 PM2.5

Plan calculates the 2014 and 2017 RFP 

benchmark emission levels using 2020 

attainment emissions levels that are not 

consistent with the attainment targets 

presented in CARB’s Staff Report.485 We 

have, however, re-calculated the RFP 

benchmark emissions levels for these 

years using the attainment targets found 

in the CARB Staff Report,486 as shown 

in Table 10 below. The EPA’s 

calculations indicate that the Plan’s 

projected 2014 and 2017 emission levels 

for direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX are 

below the RFP benchmark emission 

levels for these years.487

TABLE 10—EPA CALCULATION OF 2015 PM2.5 PLAN RFP DEMONSTRATION

[tpd, based on annual averages] 

2012 

Emissions 

inventory a

2020 

Attainment 

target b

Annual 

incremental 

reduction c

2014 RFP 

Benchmark 

2014 

Projected 

emissions d

2017 RFP 

Benchmark 

2017 

Projected 

emissions d

Direct PM2.5 .................. 66.0 60.8 0.65 64.7 63.3 62.75 62.5 

NOX .............................. 332.2 206.5 15.71 300.78 284.2 253.63 235.7 

SOX .............................. 8.1 7.8 0.04 8.03 7.4 7.91 7.6 

a 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6–6, p. 6–7. b 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, p. 9. cAnnual incremental reduction = (2012 emissions inventory¥2020 attainment target)/(2020¥2012). d 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6–8, p. 6–8. 

With respect to ammonia, the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan shows an 8.6% increase in 

total ammonia emissions during the 

2012 to 2020 period.488 Unlike the wide 

range of sources emitting direct PM2.5, 

NOX, and SO2 in the Valley, emissions 

of ammonia are almost entirely from 

three source categories: confined animal 

facilities (CAFs), fertilizer application, 

and composting, with more than half of 

all emissions coming from CAFs.489

Collectively, these three categories emit 

95% of all ammonia emissions in the 

2012 annual average base year 

inventory.490

Several District measures already in 

the SIP for the SJV area control 

ammonia emissions from two of these 

source categories. District Rule 4570 

(‘‘Confined Animal Facilities’’) required 

implementation of control measures to 

reduce VOCs in 2008 and required full 

compliance by affected sources by mid2012.491 Many of the VOC control 

measures have an ammonia co-benefit, 

and the District estimates a 100 tpd 

reduction in ammonia from this rule, 

which have been accounted for in the 

emissions inventory of the 2015 PM2.5

Plan.492 The Plan also indicates that 

implementation of District Rule 4565 

(‘‘Biosolids, Animal Manure, and 

Poultry Litter Operations’’), adopted 

March 15, 2007,493 and Rule 4566 

(‘‘Organic Material Composting 

Operations’’), adopted August 18, 

2011,494 resulted in some ammonia 

reductions, but these reductions are not 

reflected in the base year or baseline 

inventories. As discussed in section V.D 

of this proposed rule, we are proposing 

to determine that each of these measures 

implements BACM and MSM for the 

control of ammonia as a precursor to 

PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The statement in the Plan that 

ammonia is an insignificant precursor in 

the SJV area is based on the State’s 

analysis of the relative sensitivity of 

ambient PM2.5 levels to changes in 

ammonia emissions as compared to 

NOX emissions. The State relies in part 

on information previously presented in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6979 

495 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G (‘‘Weight of 

Evidence Analysis’’), p. 64. 

496 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Table 7, p. 65. 

497The difference between these two figures is 

about 0.1% when carried through in the calculation 

of the NOX equivalent of ammonia. 

498 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2–27 (stating 

that ‘‘ammonia reductions at the BakersfieldCalifornia site are . . . only 10% as effective as 

NOX reductions’’); see also CARB Staff Report, p. 

26 and Table 12 (expressing NOX and ammonia 

emissions combined as ‘‘NOX equivalent’’ emission 

levels). 

499 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F–1 

(‘‘Projected 2018 and 2020 Design Values’’), p. F– 

7. 

500 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26. 

501This approach is consistent with the 

regulatory option of 40 CFR 51.1009(g)(2) that the 

RFP plan demonstrate emission levels that are 

‘‘projected to result in a generally equivalent 

improvement in air quality by the milestone year 

as would be achieved under the benchmark RFP 

plan.’’ 

502 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–2, p. 

B–8 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. Emissions of NOX

are project to decrease from 332.2 tpd in 2012 to 

206.5 tpd in 2020 (i.e., a decrease of 125.7 tpd or 

37.8%). 

503 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–5, p. 

B–19. Emissions of ammonia are project to increase 

329.5 tpd in 2012 to 358.0 tpd in 2020 (i.e., an 

increase of 28.5 tpd or 8.6%). 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard to justify a NOX for 

ammonia trading ratio of 0.1. The 2012 

PM2.5 Plan contains modeling results 

and states that ‘‘reductions in ammonia 

are approximately nine times less 

effective than NOX.’’ 495 The 2012 PM2.5

Plan also gives ammonia and NOX

sensitivities (ambient PM2.5 changes in 

mg/m3 per tpd of emission reductions), 

based on modeling of the ambient effect 

of a 25% area-wide reduction in each 

pollutant.496 The ratios of these 

sensitivities give an ammonia-NOX

relative sensitivity ratio, or NOX for 

ammonia trading ratio, of 0.10 for the 

Bakersfield-California site, and 0.11 

(about 1/9) for the Bakersfield-Planz 

site.497

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan similarly reflects 

the State’s conclusion that ammonia 

emission reductions are about 10% as 

effective as NOX reductions in 

decreasing ambient PM2.5

concentrations.498 We have reviewed 

the modeling analysis from which the 

State and District derived the 0.1 NOX

for ammonia trading ratio and propose 

to find that this ratio is a reasonable 

estimate of the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 to ammonia reductions relative to 

NOX reductions, at least for the 

Bakersfield-California and BakersfieldPlanz monitoring sites for which the 

analysis was performed. For further 

discussion of our evaluation of this 

trading ratio for purposes of the Plan’s 

RFP demonstration, see section IV.A of 

the EPA’s Interpollutant Trading Ratios 

TSD. 

The Bakersfield-California site is 

projected to be the design value site for 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 

2018,499 which addresses the 

requirement of 40 CFR 51.1009(h) that 

an equivalent method for demonstrating 

RFP must do so at the design value 

monitoring site within the 

nonattainment area. As discussed in 

section V.E.5 of this proposed rule, 

although the State had initially 

projected the Madera site to be the 

design value site for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in 2020, based on weight 

of evidence, it now appears the 

Bakersfield-Planz site will most likely 

be the design value site for the annual 

PM2.5 standard in 2020. Either way, the 

0.1 ammonia-NOX relative sensitivity 

factor is adequate for the RFP 

demonstration because it is derived 

from modeling analyses that account for 

emission projections at both of these 

Bakersfield monitoring sites. 

Taking the ammonia emissions 

increases into account, the NOX

equivalent emission levels presented in 

the Plan 500 for the 2014 and 2017 RFP 

milestone years fall below the 

benchmark RFP NOX emissions levels 

for those same years.501 In essence, the 

substantial reduction of NOX emissions 

that is projected to result from the Plan’s 

control strategy (i.e., 37.8% reduction) 

from 2012 to 2020 502 appears to more 

than offset the increase in ammonia 

emissions (i.e., 8.6% increase) that is 

projected to occur during that same 

period.503 More specifically, as shown 

in Table 11, taking into account the 

increase in ammonia emissions during 

the 2012 to 2020 period, the NOX

equivalent emission levels projected in 

the Plan for the 2014 and 2017 RFP 

milestone years are 5–6% lower than 

the levels representing generally linear 

NOX emission reductions for those same 

years, thus showing NOX emission 

reductions at a rate faster than the 

benchmark scenario. 

TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF NOX EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS TO RFP LINEAR EMISSIONS LEVEL FOR NOX FOR RFP 

MILESTONE YEARS

[tpd, except row G] 

2012 2014 2017 

A ....................... NOX Emissions ......................................................................................................... 332.2 284.2 235.7 

B ....................... Ammonia Emissions ................................................................................................. 329.5 336.2 347.0 

C ....................... NOX equivalent of ammonia increase ...................................................................... .................... 0.7 1.8

D ....................... Total NOX Equivalent Emissions (A+C) ................................................................... .................... 284.9 237.5 

E ....................... RFP Linear Level for NOX ........................................................................................ .................... 300.9 253.9 

F ....................... Total NOX Equivalent Emission Reductions Beyond RFP Linear Level (E–D) ....... .................... 16.0 16.4 

G ....................... % Below RFP Linear Level (F/E) ............................................................................. .................... 5.3% 6.5% 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 12, p. 26. 

As discussed in section V.C of this 

proposed rule, we are proposing to 

determine that VOCs do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that 

exceed the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 

SJV and, accordingly, that no RFP 

demonstration for VOCs is necessary for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

this area. 

In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

demonstrates that emissions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX and SOX will be reduced at 

rates representing generally linear 

progress toward attainment, and that the 

increase in ammonia emissions over the 

2012–2020 planning period will be 

more than offset by substantial NOX

emission reductions exceeding the 

amounts necessary to show generally 

linear progress toward attainment. The 

Plan also demonstrates that all BACM, 

BACT and MSM that provide the bases 

for the direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX, and 

ammonia emissions projections in the 

RFP analysis in the Plan are being 

implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable. Accordingly, we propose to 

determine that the Plan requires the 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and relevant 

PM2.5 precursors that are necessary for 

the purpose of ensuring attainment of 

the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6980 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

504 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–6, and 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15–4–7A, 

paragraph 7. 

505For stationary and area sources, ‘‘Residential 

Fuel Combustion’’ is the largest combustion source 

of direct PM2.5 in San Joaquin Valley (e.g., 9.4 tpd 

of the total 2012 winter average emissions of 61.0 

tpd) and CARB’s Staff Report identifies Rule 4901 

as achieving the largest portion of the direct PM2.5

emission reductions for attaining 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (e.g., 2.9 tpd of the Plan’s 6.6 tpd total 

winter average emission reductions from 2012 to 

2018). 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B–2 and 

CARB Staff Report, p. 9. For all sources, ‘‘Heavy 

Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (HHDV)’’ are the largest 

source of NOX in the San Joaquin Valley (e.g., 120.5 

tpd of the total 2012 annual average emissions of 

332.2 tpd) and the Plan estimates that the largest 

emission reductions of NOX during the attainment 

planning period, for which the Truck and Bus Rule 

is a significant driver, will result from this source 

category (e.g., 59.2 tpd of the 125.7 tpd annual 

average emission reductions from 2012 to 2020). 

2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B–7 and CARB 

Staff Report, p. 9. 

506 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7–6, and 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15–4–7A, 

paragraph 7. 

507The Plan estimates that the amendments to 

Rule 4692 will achieve 0.4 tpd of the Plan’s 5.2 tpd 

total annual average emission reductions of direct 

PM2.5 from 2012 to 2020. 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB 

Staff Report, p. 9. 

508Addendum at 42017. 

509 General Preamble at 13543–13544 and 

Addendum at 42014–42015. 

standards by 2018 and 2020, 

respectively, in accordance with the 

requirements of CAA sections 171(1) 

and 172(c)(2). 

Quantitative Milestones 

Although the RFP emission levels 

identified in the Plan for the 2017 and 

2020 milestone years represent 

generally linear progress toward 

attainment by 2018 and 2020, the Plan 

as originally submitted in June 2015 

does not identify an objective means for 

evaluating the area’s compliance with 

these emission targets or progress 

toward attainment, other than through 

2017 and 2020 emissions levels and 

CARB’s commitment to report on the 

‘‘status of any emission reduction 

commitments’’ in the Plan. We note that 

the Plan contains only one emission 

reduction commitment: To adopt 

amendments to District Rule 4692 

(‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) in 2016 

and to achieve 0.4 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions through 

implementation of this amended rule or 

a substitute rule achieving equivalent 

emission reductions.504 Such a 

milestone would not provide an 

adequate means to evaluate progress 

toward attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV, consistent with RFP 

requirements. 

In the QM Letter, however, CARB 

committed to adopt and submit, no later 

than December 31, 2016, a revision to 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan that identifies 

specific milestones demonstrating 

progress toward attainment of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 

2018 and the annual PM2.5 standard by 

December 31, 2020. The QM Letter 

describes the specific components of 

this SIP revision that CARB will adopt 

and submit by December 31, 2016, 

including milestones to track 

implementation of specific SIP control 

measures and commitments, and air 

quality milestones to be achieved by the 

2017 RFP milestone year and 2020 

attainment year. Two of the control 

measures identified in the QM Letter are 

responsible for a significant portion of 

the NOX and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions necessary for RFP and 

attainment: CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule 

and the District’s residential wood 

burning rule (Rule 4901). Emissions 

from heavy heavy duty trucks and 

residential wood burning are the largest 

combustion sources of NOX and direct 

PM2.5 in San Joaquin Valley, and the 

Truck and Bus Rule and Rule 4901 

achieve the largest amounts of NOX and 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions, 

respectively, identified in the Plan’s 

attainment demonstration.505 The 

District’s commitment in the Plan to 

amend Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial 

Charbroiling’’) in 2016 and to achieve 

0.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions through implementation of 

this amended rule or a substitute rule 

achieving equivalent emission 

reductions 506 also accounts for a 

portion of the direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions necessary for RFP and 

attainment in the Plan.507 These 

implementation milestones, together 

with the updated emission inventories 

and air quality milestones for 2017 and 

2020 that the State has also committed 

to identify as quantitative milestones in 

the SIP revision, would provide an 

objective means to evaluate the area’s 

progress in achieving not only the 

incremental emissions reductions but 

also the incremental air quality 

improvements necessary to attain the 

24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 

2018 and 2020, respectively. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

revision based on a commitment by the 

State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain but not later 

than 1 year after the date of the plan 

approval. Based on CARB’s 

commitments to submit the specific SIP 

revisions identified in the QM Letter by 

December 31, 2016, as discussed above, 

we propose to conditionally approve the 

quantitative milestone component of the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan. 

We note that, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 189(c)(2) 

as interpreted in longstanding EPA 

policy, each of the milestone reports 

due March 31, 2018 (for the December 

31, 2017 milestone date) and March 31, 

2021 (for the December 31, 2020 

milestone date) should include 

technical support sufficient to 

document completion statistics for 

appropriate milestones, e.g., 

calculations and any assumptions made 

concerning emission reductions to 

date.508

G. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM2.5

attainment plans must include 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to meet RFP 

(‘‘RFP contingency measures’’) or fails 

to attain the PM2.5 standards by the 

applicable attainment date (‘‘attainment 

contingency measures’’). Under subpart 

4, however, the EPA interprets section 

172(c)(9) in light of the specific 

requirements for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. Section 

189(b)(1)(A) differentiates between 

attainment plans that provide for timely 

attainment and those that demonstrate 

that attainment is impracticable. The 

2015 PM2.5 Plan is a Serious area plan 

that demonstrates attainment of the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2018 and attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2020, and thus, must 

include contingency measures for RFP 

and attainment. 

The purpose of contingency measures 

is to continue progress in reducing 

emissions while a state revises its SIP to 

meet the missed RFP requirement or to 

correct continuing nonattainment. The 

principle requirements for contingency 

measures are: 509

• Contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented quickly 

upon failure to meet RFP or failure of 

the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date. 

• The SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measures will be implemented without 

further action by the State or by the 

EPA. In general, we expect all actions 

needed to affect full implementation of 

the measures to occur within 60 days 

after EPA notifies the State of a failure. 

• The contingency measures should 

consist of other control measures for the 

area that are not already relied upon to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6981 

510See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) 

(direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP 

revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final 

rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 

30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving 

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 Connecticut ozone SIP revision); see 

also 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). 

511 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6– 

9, Table 6–9. 

513 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6– 

11, Table 6–11. 

514 2015 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6–12, Table 6–12. 

515AERO stands for Advanced Emission 

Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr. 

516 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 27. 

demonstrate attainment (e.g., to meet 

RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM 

requirements) or to meet RFP. 

• The measures should provide for 

emissions reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year of reductions 

needed for RFP calculated as the overall 

level of reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment divided by the 

number of years from the base year to 

the attainment year. 

Finally, we note that contingency 

measures can include federal, state, and 

local measures that are already 

scheduled for implementation or 

already implemented that provide for 

additional emissions reductions that are 

not relied on to demonstrate RFP or 

attainment. In other words, contingency 

measures are intended to achieve 

reductions over and beyond those relied 

on in the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a state from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered 

by a failure to meet RFP or a failure to 

attain by the applicable attainment date. 

EPA has approved numerous SIPs under 

this interpretation.510

2. Contingency Measures in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan addresses the 

contingency measure requirement in 

Chapter 6, section 6.4 (‘‘Contingency 

Measures’’) of the Plan and in the CARB 

Staff Report, pages 26–27. Chapter 6, 

section 6.4 addresses contingency 

measure requirements for the 2014 and 

2017 RFP milestone years and for the 

2020 attainment year by discussing 

emission reductions to be achieved by 

already adopted measures, voluntary 

incentive programs, and inter-pollutant 

trading between PM2.5 and NOX for the 

2020 attainment year. The CARB Staff 

Report, p. 26–27, provides a brief 

statement on contingency measures for 

the 2018 attainment year for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS and identifies several 

additional control measures to address 

the 2020 attainment year for the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Chapter 6 states that a 

year’s worth of annual average emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate RFP 

(‘‘One year’s worth of RFP’’) is 

calculated by taking the overall level of 

emission reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment and dividing it 

by the number of years between the base 

year and attainment year.511 Table 6–9 

of the Plan (Contingency Emissions 

Reductions Target (tpd)) is reproduced 

below: 

Contingency 

Need = ‘‘One 

year’s worth of 

RFP’’ 

Direct PM2.5 ...................... 0 .4 

NOX .................................. 15 .7 

SOX ................................... 0 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6–9. 

Chapter 6 of the Plan identifies 

emission reductions to be achieved by 

the control strategy in the Plan in 2014 

and 2017 that the District considers 

‘‘surplus’’ to those reductions necessary 

to demonstrate RFP. The District states 

that these emission reductions are thus 

available to meet the contingency 

measure requirement.512 Table 6–10 of 

the Plan (Reductions Surplus to RFP for 

Contingency (tpd)), reproduced below, 

identifies the PM2.5 and NOX emission 

reductions in 2014 and 2017 that the 

District considers ‘‘surplus’’ to RFP 

requirements: 

Year 

2014 2017 

RFP target 

emissions 

level 

Projected 

emissions 

inventory 

Contingency 

RFP target 

emissions 

level 

Projected 

emissions 

inventory 

Contingency 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 65.2 63.3 1.9 64.0 62.5 1.5 

NOX .......................................................... 300.9 284.2 16.7 253.9 235.7 18.2 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6–10. 

For the 2020 attainment year, the Plan 

provides estimates of emission 

reductions projected in 2021 from a 

combination of adopted state and local 

measures, including District Rules 4901, 

4306, 4308, and 4905 for direct PM2.5

and NOX and mobile source measures 

for several source categories for NOX.513

Table 6–11 of the Plan identifies 1.6 tpd 

of direct PM2.5 and 12.0 tpd of NOX

emission reductions as reductions that 

are available to meet the 2020 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement. In order to address a 

shortfall of needed NOX emission 

reductions, the District relies on interpollutant trading of direct PM2.5

emission reductions for NOX emission 

reductions at a ratio of 1:9 and, based 

on this analysis, concludes that there 

are sufficient emission reductions to 

meet the attainment contingency 

requirement.514 The CARB Staff Report 

also addresses contingency measures for 

the 2020 attainment year. It identifies 

additional direct PM2.5 and NOX

emission reductions to be achieved by 

the following control measures: ARB 

mobile source measures, the Portable 

Equipment Registration Program (PERP) 

and Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

(ATCM), Indirect Source Review (ISR) 

on-site mitigation (i.e., District Rule 

9510), and the AERO 515 rule (i.e., 

District Rule 4320). Based on these 

analyses, CARB concludes that the SIP 

control strategy achieves emission 

reductions sufficient to meet the 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Finally, for the 2018 attainment year 

for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

CARB Staff Report states that 

‘‘additional reductions in 2019 provide 

0.2 tpd of PM2.5 and 10 tpd of NOX

reductions’’ but does not identify the 

control measures that achieve these 

emission reductions.516

3. EPA’s Evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5

Plan’s Contingency Measures 

The contingency measures portion of 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan contains several 

deficiencies. 

First, the Plan incorrectly calculates 

one year’s worth of RFP emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6982 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

517See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3, 

Table 6–6, Total Reductions Necessary to Reach 

Attainment (tpd). The ‘‘Attainment Emissions 

Level’’ used in Table 6–6 of the Plan reflect the 

projected emission inventory levels found in 

Appendix B Emission Inventory Tables, and does 

not reflect the attainment target levels identified by 

the CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment 

Emission Levels, Table 1. 

518CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment 

Emission Levels, p. 9. 519 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2 and 

CARB Staff Report, p. 27. 520 75 FR 68294 (November 5, 2010) and 76 FR 

16696 (March 25, 2011). 521 76 FR 26609 at 26612–26613 (May 9, 2011). 

522The CAA requires that emission reductions 

resulting from incentive programs be ‘‘quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable and permanent’’ in order to 

qualify for emission reduction credit in a SIP. See, 

e.g., ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, Office of Air and 

Radiation, January 2001; see also 80 FR 19020 

(April 9, 2015) (final action on SJVUAPCD Rule 

9610). 

523 General Preamble at 13539 and 13541–42. 

reductions. Although Chapter 6 of the 

Plan correctly describes the required 

steps for calculating one year’s worth of 

annual average emission reductions 

needed to demonstrate RFP, the actual 

calculation in the Plan is based on 2020 

baseline emission reductions 

estimates 517 rather than the attainment 

targets of 60.8 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 

206.5 tpd NOX.518 EPA recalculated one 

year’s worth of RFP emission reductions 

based on the attainment emission levels 

presented in the Plan, as shown in Table 

12 below. 

TABLE 12—EPA’S CALCULATION OF ‘‘ONE YEAR’S WORTH OF RFP’’ USING ATTAINMENT EMISSIONS LEVELS

2012 Base 

year emissions 

(tpd) 

Calculation of ‘‘One Year’s Worth of RFP’’ Using 

Attainment Emissions Levels (tpd) 

2020 

Attainment 

emissions 

(tpd) 

Total emission 

reduction 

(tpd) 

One year’s 

worth of RFP 

emission 

reductions 

(tpd) 

Direct PM2.5 ...................................................................................................... 66.0 60.8 5.2 0.65 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 332.2 206.5 125.7 15.7 

SOX .................................................................................................................. 8.1 7.8 0.3 0.0 

Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6–6 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. 

Thus, according to EPA’s calculation, 

one year’s worth of RFP is 0.65 tpd of 

direct PM2.5, 15.7 tpd of NOX and 0.0 

tpd of SOX. The NOX and SOX values 

are essentially identical to the values 

identified in Chapter 6 of the Plan (and 

reproduced in Table 6–9 above), but 

EPA’s calculation of the direct PM2.5

emission reductions representing one 

year’s worth of RFP is significantly 

higher than the value identified in 

Chapter 6 of Plan. Consequently, the 

Plan significantly underestimates the 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

necessary to satisfy contingency 

measure requirements. 

Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

provide an adequate basis for the State’s 

and District’s conclusion that the 

emission reductions identified for 

contingency measure purposes are in 

fact ‘‘surplus’’ to the reductions needed 

to demonstrate RFP and timely 

attainment (e.g., for RACM/RACT, 

BACM/BACT, or MSM). Section 6.4.2 of 

the Plan states that regulatory emission 

reductions to be achieved by 2014 and 

2017 exceed the minimum emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate RFP 

in those years but does not provide a 

basis for the District’s conclusion that 

the identified emission reductions are 

not relied on to satisfy RFP 

requirements. Similarly, the Plan 

provides no support for either the 

District’s conclusion that ‘‘additional 

PM2.5 and NOX reductions occurring 

between 2020 and 2021 can serve as 

attainment contingencies’’ or the State’s 

conclusion that ‘‘[f]or the interim 24- 

hour 2018 attainment deadline, 

additional reductions in 2019 provide 

for 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 and 10 tpd of NOX

reductions.’’ 519

Third, two of the control measures 

identified in the CARB Staff Report as 

contingency measures—SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) and SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9510 (ISR On-Site Mitigation)—are 

not creditable for SIP purposes at this 

time. Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) is not SIPcreditable because it contains provisions 

that allow owners and operators to pay 

a fee in lieu of complying with the rule’s 

emission limits and which render the 

NOX emission limits in the rule 

unenforceable.520 Rule 9510 (ISR OnSite Mitigation) is not SIP-creditable 

because it likewise contains provisions 

that allow project developers to pay fees 

instead of implementing on-site 

pollution mitigation plans.521

Fourth, the contingency measure 

portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan indicates 

that the District is relying on ‘‘SIPcreditable incentive-based emissions 

reductions’’ to address contingency 

measure requirements but does not 

identify the specific incentive grant 

programs expected to provide the 

requisite emission reductions, nor does 

it provide the documentation and 

related enforceable commitments 

necessary to support a SIP submission 

that relies on incentive programs for SIP 

emission reduction credit.522 Finally, 

the contingency measure portion of the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan does not discuss 

ammonia emissions or provide any basis 

for a conclusion that contingency 

measures for purposes of ammonia are 

not necessary to satisfy the statutory 

requirements. 

In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

contain or identify SIP-creditable 

measures that are surplus to RFP and 

attainment needs and that are sufficient 

to achieve at least one year’s worth of 

emission reductions for each of the RFP 

and attainment years identified in the 

Plan. Accordingly, we propose to 

disapprove the contingency measure 

portion of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for 

failure to satisfy the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9). 

H. Major Stationary Source Control 

Requirements Under CAA Section 

189(e) 

Section 189(e) of the Act specifically 

requires that the control requirements 

applicable to major stationary sources of 

direct PM2.5 also apply to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, 

except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 

that exceed the standards in the area.523

The control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of direct PM2.5

in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area 

include, at minimum, the requirements 

of a nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) permit program meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6983 

524CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious 

area plans include provisions submitted to meet the 

requirements for Moderate areas in section 

189(a)(1)). 

525 80 FR 18528 at 18533 (April 7, 2015). 

526 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014). 

527 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v). 

528 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also 

conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031– 

40036 (July 1, 2004). 

529 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 

530 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.4 (for 

2014, 2017, and 2020 budgets) and 2018 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP Plan Supplement,’’ dated 

June 19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 

23, 2015, p. 4. 

531EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. EPA 

announced the availability of the EMFAC2014 

model for use in state implementation plan 

development and transportation conformity in 

California on December 14, 2015. EPA’s approval of 

the EMFAC2014 emissions model for SIP and 

conformity purposes was effective on the date of 

publication of the notice in the Federal Register. 

EMFAC2014 must be used for all new regional 

emissions analyses and CO, PM10 and PM2.5 hotspot analyses that are started on or after December 

14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for 

EMFAC2014. 

532Plan at Chapter 6, Section 6.5.3. 

and 189(b)(3).524 As part of our April 7, 

2015 final action to reclassify the SJV 

area as Serious nonattainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards, we established a 

May 7, 2016 deadline for the State to 

submit NNSR SIP revisions addressing 

the requirements of CAA sections 

189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the Act.525

California has not yet submitted the 

NNSR SIP revisions required to satisfy 

the subpart 4 requirements for Serious 

nonattainment areas because they are 

not yet due. Accordingly, we are not 

proposing any action with respect to 

these requirements at this time. CARB 

submitted amendments to the 

SJVUAPCD’s NNSR rules in 2011 to 

address the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to 

ensure that new and modified major 

sources of PM2.5 undergo preconstruction review, and the EPA 

approved these NNSR SIP revisions on 

September 17, 2014.526

I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, 

and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans (RTP) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. 

This demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(budgets) contained in all control 

strategy SIPs. An attainment, 

maintenance, or RFP SIP should include 

budgets for the attainment year, each 

required RFP milestone year, or the last 

year of the maintenance plan, as 

appropriate. Budgets are generally 

established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors and 

must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations.527

PM2.5 plans should identify budgets 

for direct PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5

precursors whose on-road emissions are 

determined to significantly contribute to 

PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP 

milestone year and the attainment year, 

if the plan demonstrates attainment. All 

direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include 

direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions 

from tailpipes, brake wear, and tire 

wear. A state must also consider 

whether re-entrained paved and 

unpaved road dust or highway and 

transit construction dust are significant 

contributors and should be included in 

the direct PM2.5 budget.528

Transportation conformity trading 

mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR 

93.124 where a SIP establishes 

appropriate mechanisms for such trades. 

The basis for the trading mechanism is 

the SIP attainment modeling which 

established the relative contribution of 

each PM2.5 precursor pollutant. 

In general, only budgets in approved 

SIPs can be used for transportation 

conformity purposes. However, section 

93.118(e) of the transportation 

conformity rule allows budgets in a SIP 

submission to apply for conformity 

purposes before the SIP submission is 

approved under certain circumstances. 

First, there must not be any other 

approved SIP budgets that have been 

established for the same time frame, 

pollutant, and CAA requirement. 

Second, the EPA must find that the 

submitted SIP budgets are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. To 

be found adequate, the submission must 

meet the conformity adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). The transportation conformity rule 

does, however, allow for replacement of 

previously approved budgets by 

submitted motor vehicle emissions 

budgets that the EPA has found 

adequate, if the EPA has limited the 

duration of its prior approval to the 

period before it finds replacement 

budgets adequate.529

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets 

for direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2014 and 

2017 (RFP milestone years), 2018 

(projected attainment year for the 1997 

24-hour NAAQS), and 2020 (projected 

attainment year for the 1997 annual 

NAAQS).530 The budgets were 

calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB’s 

latest version of the EMFAC model for 

estimating emissions from on-road 

vehicles operating in California.531 The 

SJV has eight separate county-based 

MPOs; therefore, separate budgets are 

provided for each MPO as well as a total 

for the nonattainment area as a whole. 

The budgets for 2014, 2017, and 2020 

reflect annual daily average emissions, 

and the budgets for 2018 reflect winter 

daily average emissions. Winter average 

day emissions are used for the 2018 

budgets because SJV’s exceedances of 

the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS occur almost 

exclusively during the winter months 

and are linked with the District’s 2018 

attainment demonstration for the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Annual average day 

emissions are used for the 2014 and 

2017 budgets because the District has 

determined that annual average day 

budgets are the more protective of the 

two budgets options (i.e., annual versus 

24-hour NAAQS) for the RFP milestone 

years when both standards apply, as is 

the case for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. Annual 

average day emissions are used for the 

2020 budgets because those emissions 

are linked with the District’s attainment 

demonstration for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The direct PM2.5 budgets include 

tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear 

emissions but exclude paved road, 

unpaved road, and road construction 

dust based on the District’s conclusion 

that these source categories are 

insignificant contributors to PM2.5 levels 

in the SJV.532 The Plan does not include 

budgets for SO2, VOC, and ammonia. 

Under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6984 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

533 Id. 

534 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6–17. 

535 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). 

536The EPA approved this air quality modeling 

as part of its approval of the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR 

41338, 41349 and 76 FR 69896, 69924. 

537Under 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). 

is not required to include budgets for 

VOC, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or 

ammonia (NH3) unless EPA or the State 

has made a finding that transportationrelated emissions of any of these 

precursors within the nonattainment 

area are a significant contributor to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem. The 

District considered on-road SO2, VOC, 

and ammonia emissions and concluded 

that it is not necessary to control onroad SO2, VOC, and ammonia emissions 

to attain the NAAQS. The District states 

in the Plan that on-road mobile exhaust 

estimates of SOX are less than 1 ton per 

day Valley-wide in the budget years; 

VOC emissions do not contribute 

significantly to the formation of 

secondary PM2.5 in the SJV; and on-road 

mobile exhaust estimates of ammonia 

are less than 1 ton per day Valley-wide 

in the budget years.533

TABLE 13—MVEBS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FOR 1997 PM2.5 STANDARD

County 

2014 2017 2018 2020 

Annual average, 

tpd 

Annual average, 

tpd 

Winter average, 

tpd 

Annual average, 

tpd 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Fresno .............................. 1.2 41.2 1.0 31.2 0.9 29.9 0.9 25.3 

Kern (SJV) ....................... 1.0 36.5 0.8 28.0 0.8 27.7 0.8 23.3 

Kings ................................ 0.2 7.6 0.2 5.7 0.1 5.5 0.1 4.8 

Madera ............................. 0.2 7.8 0.2 5.8 0.2 5.5 0.2 4.7 

Merced ............................. 0.4 13.9 0.3 10.7 0.3 10.3 0.3 8.9 

San Joaquin ..................... 0.7 19.6 0.6 14.9 0.6 14.4 0.6 11.9 

Stanislaus ......................... 0.5 15.6 0.4 11.9 0.4 11.4 0.4 9.6 

Tulare ............................... 0.5 14.9 0.4 11.9 0.4 10.3 0.4 9.6 

Totals a ............................. 4.8 157.0 3.8 119.0 3.6 115.0 3.5 96.8 

Sources: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6–16; and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement, dated June 19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 23, 2015. aTotals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan also includes a 

proposed trading mechanism for 

transportation conformity analyses that 

would allow future decreases in NOX

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, 

using a NOX to PM2.5 ratio of 9:1.534 The 

State is proposing to use the same 9:1 

ratio that was in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and approved by the EPA.535

Using the same Community 

Multiscale Air Quality modeling 

application 536 underlying the 

attainment demonstrations in the prior 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the current 

2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB previously 

developed an equivalency ratio between 

emission reductions of direct PM2.5 and 

of NOX. For each pollutant, CARB 

modeled the ambient effect of a 10% 

reduction of emissions over the 

modeling domain. The concentration 

change per emission change gave a 

precursor effectiveness value for NOX

and an effectiveness value for direct 

PM2.5. The ratio of these two 

effectiveness values provided the 

NOX:PM2.5 trading ratio. 

To ensure that the trading mechanism 

does not affect the ability of the SJV to 

meet the NOX budget, the NOX emission 

reductions available to supplement the 

PM2.5 budget would only be those 

remaining after the NOX budget has 

been met. Each MPO responsible for 

demonstrating transportation 

conformity must clearly document the 

calculations used in the trading, along 

with any additional reductions of NOX

or PM2.5 emissions in the conformity 

analysis. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions 

We have evaluated the budgets 

against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5) as part of our review 

of the budgets’ approvability (see 

section V in the EPA’s General TSD for 

this proposal) and will complete the 

adequacy review of these budgets 

concurrent with our final action on the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan.537 On September 18, 

2015, the EPA announced the 

availability of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan with 

MVEBs and a 30-day public comment 

period. This announcement was posted 

on EPA’s Adequacy Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/reg9sips.htm#ca. The 

comment period for this notification 

ended on October 19, 2015. 

Based on the information about reentrained road dust in the Plan and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 

we propose to concur with the District’s 

finding that re-entrained road dust 

emissions from paved roads, unpaved 

roads, and road construction are not 

significant contributors to the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the Valley 

and that these emissions therefore do 

not need to be addressed in the MVEBs 

(see discussion in section V.A.2 of this 

proposed rule). Additionally, based on 

the information about VOC, SO2, and 

ammonia emissions in the Plan and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), 

we propose to find that it is not 

necessary to establish motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for transportationrelated emissions of VOC, SO2, and 

ammonia to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. 

For the reasons discussed in section 

V.E.2 of this proposed rule, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

demonstration that it is impracticable to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV 

by the applicable Serious area 

attainment date of December 15, 2015 

and proposing to extend the attainment 

dates to December 31, 2018 and 

December 31, 2020 for the 24-hour and 

annual NAAQS, respectively. 

For the reasons discussed in sections 

V.E.v and V.F of this proposed rule, we 

are proposing to approve the RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan. The budgets, as given in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6985 

538Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 

California Air Resources Board, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

June 25, 2015. 

539 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 

540 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting 

our prior approval of MVEB in certain California 

SIPs. 

541 76 FR 69896, 69923 (November 9, 2011). 542 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). 

Table 13 of this proposed rule, are 

consistent with these demonstrations, 

are clearly identified and precisely 

quantified, and meet all other applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

including the adequacy criteria in 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, 

the EPA proposes to approve the 

budgets listed in Table 13 above. We 

provide a more detailed discussion in 

section V of the EPA’s General TSD, 

which can be found in the docket for 

today’s action. 

CARB has requested that we limit the 

duration our approval of the budgets 

only until the effective date of the EPA’s 

adequacy finding for any subsequently 

submitted budgets.538 The 

transportation conformity rule allows us 

to limit the approval of budgets.539

However, we will consider a state’s 

request to limit an approval of its MVEB 

only if the request includes the 

following elements: 540

• 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. 

Because CARB’s request does not 

include all of these elements, we cannot 

at this time propose to limit the 

duration of our approval of the 

submitted budgets until new budgets 

have been found adequate. In order to 

limit the approval, we would need the 

information described above in order to 

determine whether such limitation is 

reasonable and appropriate in this case. 

Once CARB has adequately addressed 

that information, we intend to review it 

and take appropriate action. If we 

propose to limit the duration of our 

approval of the MVEB in the 2015 PM2.5

Plan, we will provide the public an 

opportunity to comment. The duration 

of the approval of the budgets, however, 

would not be limited until we complete 

such a rulemaking. 

We have previously approved motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.541

These budgets will continue to apply for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area 

until we finalize our approval of the 

budgets in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan or find 

them adequate. 

As noted above, the State included a 

trading mechanism to be used in 

transportation conformity analyses that 

would use the proposed budgets in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan as allowed for under 40 

CFR 93.124. This trading mechanism 

would allow future decreases in NOX

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, 

using a NOX for PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. To 

ensure that the trading mechanism does 

not affect the ability to meet the NOX

budget, the Plan provides that the NOX

emission reductions available to 

supplement the PM2.5 budget would 

only be those remaining after the NOX

budget has been met. The Plan also 

provides that each MPO responsible for 

demonstrating transportation 

conformity shall clearly document the 

calculations used in the trading, along 

with any additional reductions of NOX

or PM2.5 emissions in the conformity 

analysis. 

The EPA has reviewed the trading 

mechanism as described on page 6–17 

in section 6.5.5 of Chapter 6 the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan and finds it is appropriate for 

transportation conformity purposes in 

the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the 9:1 NOX

for PM2.5 ratio the State is proposing to 

use for transportation conformity 

purposes in the 2015 Plan is the same 

as previously approved by EPA in its 

action on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan.542

We therefore propose to approve the 

trading mechanism with a NOX for 

PM2.5 trading ratio of 9:1 as enforceable 

components of the transportation 

conformity program for the SJV for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For further 

discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1 

NOX for PM2.5 trading ratio for purposes 

of the Plan’s motor vehicle emission 

budgets, please see section IV.B of the 

EPA’s Interpollutant Trading Ratios 

TSD. 

VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and 

Request for Public Comment 

Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 

110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to 

approve, conditionally approve, and 

disapprove SIP revisions submitted by 

California to address the Act’s Serious 

area planning requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following elements of the 2015 PM2.5

Plan: 

1. The 2012 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

2. the best available control measures/ 

best available control technology 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements for RACM/RACT and 

BACM/BACT in CAA sections 172(c)(1), 

189(a)(1)(C), and 189(b)(1)(B); 

3. the attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(b)(1)(A); 

4. the reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); 

5. the State’s application for an 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to December 

31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 188(e); 

6. the District’s commitment to amend 

and implement revisions to Rule 4692 

(‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) for underfired charbroilers in accordance with 

the schedule provided on page 7–6 of 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan to achieve the 

emissions reductions identified therein, 

as adopted in SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution 15–4–7A; and 

7. the 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, as 

shown in Table 13 of this proposed rule, 

because they are derived from 

approvable attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and meet the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

interpollutant trading mechanism 

provided in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for use 

in transportation conformity analyses, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, with 

the condition that trades are limited to 

substituting excess reductions in NOX

emissions for direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions. 

Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA 

is proposing to conditionally approve 

the quantitative milestones identified in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan because they do not 

fully satisfy the requirement for 

quantitative milestones in section 189(c) 

of the Act. Section 110(k)(4) authorizes 

the EPA to conditionally approve a plan 

revision based on a commitment by the 

State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain but not later 

than one year after the date of the plan 

approval. In this instance, the 

enforceable measures that the State 

must submit are enforceable 

quantitative milestones that enable the 

EPA to determine whether the area is 

meeting its reasonable further progress 

goals as contemplated in the attainment 

plan and, if the area is not doing so, that 

enable the EPA to require the State to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6986 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

submit plan revisions to correct the 

deficiency. On December 15, 2015, 

CARB submitted a letter committing to 

submit a SIP revision containing 

specific quantitative milestones no later 

than December 31, 2016. If we finalize 

this proposed conditional approval, 

CARB must adopt and submit the SIP 

revisions it has committed to submit by 

December 31, 2016. If CARB fails to 

comply with this commitment, this 

conditional approval will convert to a 

disapproval and start an 18-month clock 

for sanctions under CAA section 

179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) under 

CAA section 110(c)(1). 

Finally, under CAA section 110(k)(3), 

the EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

contingency measure portion of the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan because it does not 

fully satisfy the requirement for 

contingency measures in section 

172(c)(9) of the Act. If we finalize the 

proposed disapproval, the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 

would apply in the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area 18 months after the 

effective date of final disapproval and 

the highway funding sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) would apply in the 

area 6 months after the offset sanction 

is imposed. Neither sanction would 

apply if California submits and the EPA 

approves, prior to the implementation of 

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct 

the deficiencies identified in the EPA’s 

final action. Additionally, the 

disapproval action would trigger an 

obligation on the EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan unless 

California corrects the deficiencies, and 

the EPA approves the related plan 

revisions, within two years of the final 

action. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals for the next 

30 days. The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the ‘‘Date’’ and ‘‘Addresses’’ 

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02325 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2