74518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516; FRL–9229–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley 

State Implementation Plan for Fine 

Particulate Matter; 2007 State Strategy; 

PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) nonattainment area. The SIP 

revisions are the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(revised 2010) and portions of the 2007 

State Strategy (revised 2009). 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the emissions inventories as 

meeting the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act and EPA’s fine particle 

implementing rule and to approve 

commitments to implement specific 

measures and meet specific aggregate 

emissions reductions by the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District and 

the California Air Resource Board. In 

addition, we are proposing to find that 

volatile organic compounds are a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the SJV for 

which controls should be evaluated. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

attainment demonstration. EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove the reasonably 

available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology 

demonstration, the air quality modeling, 

the reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration, the contingency 

measures, and the attainment and RFP 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. EPA is also proposing to not 

grant California’s request to extend to 

April 5, 2015 the deadline for the SJV 

nonattainment area to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0516, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

• E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher, 

Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly 

identified as such and should not be 

submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comments. If you 

send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comments. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations: 

• California Air Resources Board, 

2020 L Street, Sacramento, California 

95812 

• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 

Gettysburg, California 93726. 

The SIP materials are also 

electronically available at: http://

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/

PM_Plans.htm and http://

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, we, us and 

our refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

II. California’s State Implementation Plan 

Submittals to Address PM2.5 Attainment 

in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

the SJV Portion of the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

B. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5

SIP 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and the 

Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirement for RACM/RACT 

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP 

a. SJVAPCD’s RACM/RACT Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

c. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

i. Commitment must Represent a Limited 

Portion of Required Reductions 

ii. The State must be Capable of Fulfilling 

its Commitment 

iii. The Commitment must be for a 

Reasonable and Appropriate Period of 

Time 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

E. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74519 

1On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 μg/ 

m3. At the same time, it retained the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standards at 15.0 μg/m3. 71 FR 61144. 

On November 13, 2006, EPA designated areas, 

including the SJV, with respect to the revised 24- 

hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now 

required to submit an attainment plan for the 35 μg/ 

m3 24-hour standards no later than 3 years after the 

effective date of the designation, that is, no later 

than December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all 

references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise 

specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

of 65 μg/m3 and annual standards of 15 μg/m3 as 

codified in 40 CFR § 50.7. 

2See EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value 

Report, August 9, 2010. These values are the highest 

design values in the SJV. A design value is an 

ambient concentration calculated using a specific 

methodology from monitored air quality data and 

is used to compare an area’s air quality to a 

NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating design 

values for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N Sections 

1(c)(1) and (c)(2), respectively. 

3See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District Governing Board Resolution: In the 

Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Continued 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/ 

Inadequacy Finding 

4. Proposed Finding and Action on the 

Budgets 

H. Mid-Course Review 

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2.5 Offsets 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions and Potential 

Consequences 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and 

Disapprovals 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established new national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less, including annual 

standards of 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 3- 

year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations and 24-hour (daily) 

standards of 65 μg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7. EPA 

established the standards based on 

substantial evidence from numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations 

above the levels of these standards. 

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. See, EPA, Air 

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 

No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/ 

P–99/002bF, October 2004. 

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

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

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 

25, 2007). 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to 

designate areas throughout the nation as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA published 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on air quality 

monitoring data for the three-year 

periods of 2001–2003 or 2002–2004. 70 

FR 944. These designations became 

effective on April 5, 2005.1

EPA designated the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV), in the southern part of 

California’s Central Valley, 

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 40 CFR 

81.305. The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment 

area is home to 4 million people and is 

the nation’s leading agricultural area. 

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. It 

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. For a 

precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 

§ 81.305. The local air district with 

primary responsibility for developing a 

plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

area is the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

District). 

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM2.5

levels in the urban Bakersfield area in 

the southern SJV are the highest 

recorded in the United States at 22.6 μg/ 

m3 and 70 μg/m3, respectively, for the 

2007–2009 period.2 In the SJV, the 

levels and composition of ambient PM2.5

differ by season. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Figures H–4 and H–5. Higher PM2.5

concentrations occur during the winter, 

between late November and February, 

when ambient PM2.5 is dominated by 

ammonium nitrate, formed from NOX

and ammonia emissions, and directlyemitted particulates, such as wood 

smoke. During the winter, the SJV 

experiences extended periods of 

stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy 

conditions which are conducive to the 

formation of secondary ammonium 

nitrate particulates and encourage wood 

burning. During the summer, PM2.5

levels generally remain below 15 μg/m3, 

the level of the annual standards. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Figures H–6 and H–7. 

II. California’s State Implementation 

Plan Submittals to Address PM2.5

Nonattainment in the San Joaquin 

Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

Designation of an area as 

nonattainment starts the process for a 

state to develop and submit to EPA a 

state implementation plan (SIP) under 

title 1, part D of the CAA. This SIP must 

include, among other things, a 

demonstration of how the NAAQS will 

be attained in the nonattainment area as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the date required by the CAA. 

Under CAA section 172(b), a state has 

up to three years after an area’s 

designation as nonattainment to submit 

its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, these SIPs were due no later 

than April 5, 2008. 

California has made several SIP 

submittals to address the CAA’s PM2.5

attainment planning requirements in the 

San Joaquin Valley. The two principal 

ones are the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(2008 PM2.5 Plan or Plan) and the 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (2007 State 

Strategy). 

In addition to these submittals, the 

District and State have also submitted 

numerous rules that contribute to 

improving air quality in the San Joaquin 

Valley. EPA has approved many of these 

rules. See Appendices A and B of the 

technical support document (TSD) for 

this proposal. 

1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by 

the District’s Governing Board on April 

30, 2008 and by CARB on May 22, 2008 

and submitted to EPA on June 30, 

2008.3 It includes an attainment 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

April 30, 2008 (SJVAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution), CARB Resolution No. 08–28, May 22, 

2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 30, 2008, with 

enclosures. 

4See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, September 15, 2010, 

with enclosures. 

5See CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27, 

2007 with attachments and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 16, 2007 with enclosures. 

6The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures 

to be implemented by the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements) 

and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). 

See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64–65 and CARB 

Resolution 7–28, Attachment B, p. 8. 

7See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 21, 2009, 

with attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 

2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11–27 of the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP 

revision. The balance is for informational purposes 

only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution No. 

09–34. 

8We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as 

revised in 2009 as the revised 2007 State Strategy. 

9Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA–Region 9 to James 

Goldstene, CARB, September 23, 2010. 

demonstration, commitments by the 

SJVAPCD to adopt control measures to 

achieve emissions reductions from 

sources under its jurisdiction (primarily 

stationary sources), and motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes air 

quality modeling, a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, an analysis of 

reasonably available control measures/ 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT), base year and projected 

year emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. The 2008 PM2.5

Plan also includes the District’s 

demonstration that attainment of the 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV will require 

significant reductions in NOX and PM2.5

emissions (50 percent and 25 percent 

from 2005 levels, respectively) and that 

the most expeditious date for attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley is April 5, 2015. On 

September 15, 2010, CARB submitted a 

minor revision to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 

control strategy to extend the adoption 

date for one control measure.4 Future 

references to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan in this 

proposal will be to the Plan as revised 

in 2010. 

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

To demonstrate attainment, the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan relies in part on measures in 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 

State Strategy was adopted by CARB on 

September 27, 2007 and submitted to 

EPA on November 16, 2007.5 It 

discusses CARB’s overall approach to 

addressing, in conjunction with local 

plans, attainment of both the 1997 PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in 

the San Joaquin Valley but also in 

California’s other nonattainment areas 

such as the South Coast Air Basin and 

the Sacramento area. It also includes 

CARB’s commitments to propose 15 

defined State measures 6 and to obtain 

specific amounts of aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in the SJV from 

sources under the State’s jurisdiction, 

which are primarily on- and off-road 

motor vehicles and engines. 

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘Status Report on the State Strategy 

for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy,’’ dated March 24, 2009, 

adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State 

Strategy Status Report) 7 which updates 

the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its 

implementation during 2007 and 2008.8

In today’s proposal, we are only 

evaluating those portions of the 2007 

State Strategy as revised in 2009 that are 

relevant for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the San Joaquin Valley. 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

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

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and a public hearing was held 

on it consistent with EPA’s 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

51.102. 

Both the SJVAPCD and CARB have 

satisfied applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. The District conducted 

public workshops, provided public 

comment periods, and held a public 

hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan 

on April 30, 2008. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix J and SJVAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided 

the required public notice and 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the 

Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 08–28. 

The District also provided the required 

public notice and hearing on the 2010 

revision to the Plan. See SJVAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 10–06– 

18. 

CARB conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on 

September 27, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07–28. CARB also 

provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a 

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 

adoption of the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report. See CARB Resolution No. 

09–34. 

The SIP submittals include proof of 

publication for notices of SJVAPCD and 

CARB public hearings, as evidence that 

all hearings were properly noticed. We 

find, therefore, that each of the four 

submittals that comprise the SJV PM2.5

SIP meets the procedural requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that EPA has not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete six 

months after the date of submittal by 

operation of law. EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan became complete by 

operation of law on December 30, 2008. 

We found the 2010 revision to the Plan 

complete on September 23, 2010.9 The 

November 16, 2007 submittal of the 

2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 

2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to 

the Strategy became complete by 

operation of law on May 16, 2008 and 

February 12, 2010, respectively. 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

EPA is implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under Title 1, Part D, subpart 

1 of the CAA, which includes section 

172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions.’’ 

Section 172(a)(2) requires that a PM2.5

nonattainment area attain the NAAQS 

as ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but 

no later than five years from the date of 

the area’s designation as nonattainment. 

This section also allows EPA to grant up 

to a five-year extension of an area’s 

attainment date based on the severity of 

the area’s nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of controls. 

EPA designated the SJV as 

nonattainment effective April 5, 2005, 

and thus the applicable attainment date 

is no later than April 5, 2010 or, should 

EPA grant a full five-year extension, no 

later than April 5, 2015. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74521 

10 In June 2007, a petition to the EPA 

Administrator was filed on behalf of several public 

health and environmental groups requesting 

reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2.5

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, Petition for 

Reconsideration, ‘‘In the Matter of Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule,’’ June 25, 2007. 

These provisions are (1) The presumption that 

compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

satisfies the NOX and SO2 RACT requirements for 

electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the 

requirement to establish emission limits for 

condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January 

1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for analyzing the 

economic feasibility of RACT; and (4) the use of 

out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate 

RFP. These provisions are found in the PM2.5

implementation rule and preamble at 20623–20628, 

40 CFR 51.1002(c), 20619–20620, and 20636, 

respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the 

petition with respect to the fourth issue. Letter, 

Gina McCarthy, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, 

Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is currently 

considering the other issues raised in the petition. 

Neither the District nor the State relied on the 

first, third, or fourth of these provisions in 

preparing the 2008 PM2.5 Plan or the 2007 State 

Strategy. The District has deferred some, but not all, 

CPM limits in its rules. EPA does not believe this 

deferral affects its proposed disapproval actions on 

the SIP’s RACM/RACT or expeditious attainment 

demonstrations. See section II.D.3 of the TSD for 

this proposal. We will evaluate any rule adopted or 

revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to 

assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. 

11While the attainment date for PM2.5 areas with 

a full five-year extension would be April 5 2015, 

reductions must be implemented by 2014 to achieve 

attainment by that date. See 40 CFR 51.1007(b). We 

refer, therefore, to 2014 as the attainment year and 

April 5, 2015 as the attainment date. 

Section 172(c) contains the general 

statutory planning requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas, 

including the requirements for 

emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, 

attainment demonstrations, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. 

On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 

20586, codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation rule). 

The PM2.5 implementation rule and its 

preamble address the statutory planning 

requirements for emissions inventories, 

RACM/RACT, attainment 

demonstrations including air quality 

modeling requirements, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. This rule also addresses other 

matters such as which PM2.5 precursors 

must be addressed by the state in its 

PM2.5 attainment SIP, applicable 

attainment dates, and the requirement 

for mid-course reviews.10 We will 

discuss each of these CAA and 

regulatory requirements for PM2.5

attainment plans in more detail below. 

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and the SJV Portion of the Revised 2007 

State Strategy 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve in part 

and disapprove in part the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and those portions of the 

2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 

specific to PM2.5 attainment in the SJV. 

We are proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories in these SIP 

revisions as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and PM2.5

implementation rule. We are also 

proposing to approve the District’s and 

CARB’s commitments to specific 

measures and specific aggregate 

emissions reductions in these SIP 

revisions as strengthening the SIP. 

In addition, we are proposing to find 

that volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

are a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

that must be addressed in the RACM/ 

RACT analysis, RFP and attainment 

demonstrations, and for other PM2.5 SIP 

control requirements. The Plan as 

submitted does not treat VOC as a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

air quality modeling analysis on which 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment, 

RACM/RACT, and RFP demonstrations 

and the State’s attainment date 

extension request are based because the 

Plan does not currently include 

sufficient documentation and analysis 

for EPA to determine the modeling’s 

adequacy. 

Based on our proposed finding that 

VOC should be a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and our proposed disapproval 

of the air quality modeling, we are 

proposing to disapprove the 2008 PM2.5

Plan’s RACM/RACT analysis and the 

RFP and attainment demonstrations and 

related contingency measures as not 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

the CAA and PM2.5 implementation 

rule. We are also proposing to 

disapprove the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the RFP milestone years of 

2009 and 2012 and the attainment year 

of 2014.11 We are proposing to 

disapprove the attainment 

demonstration for the additional reason 

that it relies too extensively on 

commitments to emissions reductions in 

lieu of fully adopted and submitted 

rules. Rules that have either not been 

adopted in final form or have not been 

submitted to and approved by EPA 

cannot be credited toward the 

attainment demonstration. Finally, we 

are proposing to not grant the State’s 

request to extend the attainment date for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV to April 5, 

2015. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

summarized below and are described in 

more detail in the TSD for this proposal 

which is available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in the docket, 

EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516, or from the 

EPA contact listed at the beginning of 

this notice. 

B. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states 

to submit a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant.’’ The PM2.5 implementation 

rule requires a state to include direct 

PM2.5 emissions and emissions of all 

PM2.5 precursors in this inventory, even 

if it has determined that control of any 

of these precursors is not necessary for 

expeditious attainment. 40 CFR 

51.1008(a)(1) and 72 FR 20586 at 20648. 

Direct PM2.5 includes condensable 

particulate matter. 40 CFR 51.1000. 

PM2.5 precursors are NOX, SO2, VOC, 

and ammonia. Id. The inventories 

should meet the data requirements of 

EPA’s Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 

51 subpart A) and include any 

additional inventory information 

needed to support the SIP’s attainment 

demonstration and (where applicable) 

RFP demonstration. 40 CFR 

51.1008(a)(1) and (2). 

A baseline emissions inventory is 

required for the attainment 

demonstration and for meeting RFP 

requirements. As determined on the 

date of designation, the base year for 

this inventory should be the most recent 

calendar year for which a complete 

inventory was required to be submitted 

to EPA. The baseline emissions 

inventory for calendar year 2002 or 

other suitable year should be used for 

attainment planning and RFP plans for 

areas initially designated nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 

51.1008(b). 

EPA has provided additional 

guidance for PM2.5 emissions 

inventories in ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter NAAQS and 

Regional Haze Regulations,’’ November 

2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001). 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP 

The baseline planning inventories for 

direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors for 

the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 

together with additional documentation 

for the inventories are found in 

Appendix B of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Both average winter day and average 

annual day baseline inventories are 

provided for the year 2005 (the 

reference year for the air quality 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

modeling) and each year from 2009 to 

2014. These baseline inventories 

incorporate reductions from federal, 

State, and District measures adopted 

prior to 2007. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B–1 

and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 

1. A winter inventory is provided 

because the majority of high PM2.5 days 

in the SJV occur during the winter 

months between November and 

February. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H–4 

and H–5. 

Table 1 is a summary of the average 

annual day inventories of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors for the baseline 

year of 2005 and the projected 

attainment year of 2014. These 

inventories provide the basis for the 

control measure analysis and the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

As a starting point for the 2008 PM2.5

Plan’s inventories, the District used 

CARB’s 2002 base year inventory. An 

example of this inventory and CARB’s 

documentation for its inventories can be 

found in Appendices A and F, 

respectively, of the 2007 State Strategy. 

The 2002 inventory for the SJV was 

projected to 2005 and future years using 

CARB’s California emissions forecasting 

system (CEFSv 1.06). 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

p. B–1. Both base year and baseline 

inventories use the most current version 

of California’s mobile source emissions 

model approved by EPA for use in SIPs, 

EMFAC2007, for estimating on-road 

motor vehicle emissions. 73 FR 3464 

(January 18, 2008). Off-road inventories 

were developed using the CARB offroad model. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS FOR THE 2005 

BASE YEAR AND 2014 ATTAINMENT YEAR

[Annual average day emissions in tons per day] 

Emissions inventory category 

PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC Ammonia 

2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 

Stationary Sources ....................................... 13.3 14.4 80.1 56.5 20.4 22.0 121.5 129.5 19 .8 23 .0 

Area Sources ............................................... 51.5 45.2 13.5 10.7 0.9 0.9 140.7 128.0 355 .9 423 .1 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................. 12.1 8.9 327.9 206.7 2.6 0.7 94.8 57.2 6 .2 4 .8 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................. 9.0 6.6 153.9 102.2 2.4 0.8 62.7 48.5 0 0 

Total ...................................................... 86.0 75.0 575.4 376.2 26.4 24.5 419.8 363.2 382 .0 451 .0 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

We have reviewed the emissions 

inventories in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

the inventory methodologies used by 

SJVAPCD and CARB for consistency 

with CAA requirements, the PM2.5

implementation rule, and EPA’s 

guidance. We find that the base year and 

projected baseline year inventories are 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventories of actual or projected 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

in the SJV nonattainment area as of the 

date of their submittal. We propose, 

therefore, to approve these inventories 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(3), the PM2.5

implementation rule and applicable 

EPA guidance. We provide more detail 

on our review of the inventories in 

section II.A. of the TSD. 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures [RACM] as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology [RACT]), and shall 

provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards.’’ 

EPA defines RACM as measures that a 

state finds are both reasonably available 

and contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in its 

nonattainment area. Thus, what 

constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5

attainment plan is closely tied to that 

plan’s expeditious attainment 

demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 

20586 at 20612. States are required to 

evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM2.5

and all of its attainment plan precursors. 

40 CFR 51.1002(c). 

For PM2.5 attainment plans, EPA is 

requiring a combined approach to 

RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of 

Part D of the CAA. Subpart 1, unlike 

subparts 2 and 4, does not identify 

specific source categories for which EPA 

must issue control technology 

documents or guidelines, or identify 

specific source categories for state and 

EPA evaluation during attainment plan 

development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. 

Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers 

RACT to be part of an area’s overall 

RACM obligation. Because of the 

variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in 

different nonattainment areas which 

may require states to develop attainment 

plans that address widely disparate 

circumstances, EPA determined not 

only that states should have flexibility 

with respect to RACT and RACM 

controls but also that in areas needing 

significant emission reductions to attain 

the standards, RACT/RACM controls on 

smaller sources may be necessary to 

reach attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 

20615. Thus, under the PM2.5

implementation rule, RACT and RACM 

are those reasonably available measures 

that contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. 

Specifically, the PM2.5

implementation rule requires that 

attainment plans include the list of 

measures a state considered and 

information sufficient to show that the 

state met all requirements for the 

determination of what constitutes 

RACM/RACT in a specific 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010(a). 

In addition, the rule requires that the 

state, in determining whether a 

particular emissions reduction measure 

or set of measures must be adopted as 

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative 

impact of implementing the available 

measures and to adopt as RACM/RACT 

any potential measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility 

if, considered collectively, they would 

advance the attainment date by one year 

or more. Any measures that are 

necessary to meet these requirements 

which are not already either federally 

promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be 

submitted in enforceable form as part of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74523 

12The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program provides incentive 

grants for engines, equipment and other sources of 

pollution that are cleaner than required by 

federal,State, or local rules, providing early or extra 

emission reductions. Eligible projects include 

cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and 

stationary agricultural pump engines. The program 

achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOX, 

PM, and VOC. 

a state’s attainment plan for the area. 72 

FR 20586 at 20614. 

A more comprehensive discussion of 

the RACM/RACT requirement for PM2.5

attainment plans and EPA’s guidance 

for it can be found in the PM2.5

implementation rule preamble (72 FR 

20586 at 20609–20633) and in section 

II.D. of the TSD. 

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy are the latest in a series 

of air quality plans that the District and 

CARB have developed to provide for 

attainment of the federal air quality 

standards in the SJV. These planning 

efforts have resulted in a comprehensive 

set of rules and programs that address 

the vast majority of emissions sources in 

the Valley. Many of these District and 

State rules are among the most stringent 

in the nation. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy, the District, CARB, and 

the local agencies (through the SJV’s 

eight metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO)) each undertook a 

process to identify and evaluate 

potential reasonably available control 

measures that could contribute to 

expeditious attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the SJV. We describe each 

agency’s efforts below. 

a. SJVAPCD’s RACM/RACT Analysis 

and Adopted Control Strategy 

The District’s RACM/RACT analysis, 

which focuses on stationary and area 

source controls, is described in Chapter 

6 and Appendix I of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. To identify potential RACM/ 

RACT, the District reviewed potential 

measures from a number of sources 

including EPA’s list of potential control 

measures in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule preamble (72 FR 20586 at 20621), 

measures in other nonattainment areas’ 

plans, and measures suggested by the 

public during development of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6–6 to 

6–8. The identified potential measures, 

as well as existing District measures, are 

described by emissions inventory 

category in Appendix I. These measures 

address emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX

and SO2. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6–8 

and Appendix I. Potential RACM/RACT 

controls for VOC or ammonia were not 

specifically identified or evaluated. 

From the set of identified potential 

controls for PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, the 

District selected measures for adoption 

and implementation based on the 

technological feasibility and practicality 

of emissions controls, the potential 

magnitude and timing of emissions 

reductions, cost effectiveness, and other 

acceptable criteria. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 

6–7. 

After completing its RACM/RACT 

analysis for stationary and area sources 

under its jurisdiction, the District 

developed its ‘‘Stationary Source 

Regulatory Implementation Schedule’’ 

(2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6–2) which 

gives the schedule for regulatory 

adoption and implementation of the 

selected RACM/RACT measures. The 

District also identified a number of 

source categories for which feasibility 

studies would be undertaken to refine 

the inventory and evaluate potential 

controls. These categories and the 

schedule for studying them are listed in 

Table 6–4 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

In the five years prior to the adoption 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVAPCD 

developed and implemented 

comprehensive plans to address 

attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 

PM10 Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May 

26, 2004)), the 1-hour ozone standards 

(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, 

approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), 

and the 8-hour ozone standards (2007 

Ozone Plan, submitted November 16, 

2007). These plans for other NAAQS 

have resulted in the adoption by the 

District of many new rules and revisions 

to existing rules for stationary and area 

sources in the SJV. In general, the 

SJVAPCD’s current rules are equivalent 

to or more stringent than those 

developed by other air districts. In 

addition to these stationary and area 

source measures, the District has also 

adopted an indirect source review rule, 

Rule 9510, to address increased indirect 

emissions from new industrial, 

commercial and residential 

developments. See SJVAPCD Rule 9510 

‘‘Indirect Source Review,’’ adopted 

December 15, 2005. EPA proposed to 

approve this rule as a revision to the 

California SIP on May 21, 2010. 75 FR 

28509. The District also operates 

incentive grant programs including the 

Carl Moyer program,12 to accelerate 

turnover of existing stationary and 

mobile engines to cleaner units. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Section 6.5. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District 

identified and committed to adopting 

and implementing 13 new control 

measures for direct PM2.5, NOX, and/or 

SO2. In Table 2 below, we list these 

measures, which mostly involve 

strengthening existing District rules, 

along with their anticipated and actual 

adoption, initial implementation, and 

final compliance dates. As can be seen 

from Table 2, the District has met its 

intended rulemaking schedule and has 

only two rule actions remaining (S– 

COM–6 and S–COM–10). On Table 3, 

we list the expected emissions 

reductions from each measure. We note, 

however, that the District’s commitment 

is only to the aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2 shown. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6– 

9 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution, p. 5. The reductions listed 

on Table 3 are those anticipated to be 

achievable from each measure at the 

time the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted. 

Actual reductions from each measure 

once adopted may be greater or less than 

those anticipated. Finally, on Table 4 

we give the current SIP submittal and 

approval status of the measures in the 

Plan. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

Measure number & 

description District rule number Rule making completion date 

Actual adoption 

date 

Compliance 

date 

Actual compliance date Year reductions start Actual year reductions start 

S–AGR–1 .............. 4103—Open Burning .................... 2nd Q—2010 ........ April 2010 .......... 2010 June 2010 ......... 2009 2010 

S–COM–1 ............. 4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam 

Generators and Process Heaters (≤ 5 MMBtu/hr).

3rd Q—2008 ......... October 2008 .... 2012 July 2012 to 

January 2014.

2012 July 2011 

S–COM–2 ............. 4307—Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (2 to 5 

MMBtu/hr).

3rd Q—2008 ......... October 2008 .... 2012 July 2010 to 

January 2016.

2012 July 2010 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS— 

Continued 

Measure number & 

description District rule number Rule making completion date 

Actual adoption 

date 

Compliance 

date 

Actual compliance date Year reductions start Actual year reductions start 

S–COM–3 ............. 4308—Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (0.075 to 

< 2 MM Btu/hr).

4th Q—2009 ......... December 2009 2011 January 2011 .... 2011 January 2011 

S–COM–5 ............. 4703—Stationary Gas Turbines ... 3rd Q—2007 ......... September 2007 2012 January 2012 .... 2012 July 2009 

S–COM–6 ............. Rule 4702—Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.4th Q—2010 ......... Scheduled for 

December 

2010.

2012 TBD ................... 2012 TBD 

S–COM–7 ............. 4354—Glass Melting Furnaces .... 3rd Q—2008 ......... October 2008 ....

Under revision ...

2009 PM10 & SOx— 

January 2011.

NOX limits—January 2014– 

2018.

2009 PM10 & SOx— 

June 2009 

NOX limits—January 2011 

S–COM–9 ............. 4902—Residential Water Heaters 1st Q—2009 ......... March 2009 ....... Attrition Attrition .............. 2011 January 2010 

S–COM–10 ........... 4905—Natural Gas-Fired, Fan 

Type Residential Central Furnaces.

4nd Q—2014 ........ TBD ................... Attrition TBD ................... 2015 TBD 

S–COM–14 ........... 4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters.

3rd Q—2009 ......... October 2008 .... 2010 2008 .................. 2010 2008 

S–IND–9 ............... 4692—Commercial Charbroiling .. 2nd Q—2009 ........ September 2009 2011 January 2011 .... 2011 January 2011 

S–IND–21 ............. 4311—Flares ................................ 2nd Q—2009 ........ June 2009 ......... 2010 July 2011 .......... 2010 July 2011 

M–TRAN–1 ........... 9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction Program.4th Q—2009 ......... December 2009 2012 January 2012 .... 2012 January 2012 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6–2. ‘‘Actual’’ information is taken from the individual rules as adopted or revised. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74525 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY

AIR

POLLUTION

CONTROL

DISTRICT

ESTIMATED

EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS FOR 2008 PM2.5

PLAN

SPECIFIC

RULE

COMMITMENTS

(tons per average annual day) 

NOX Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

S–AGR–1 ........................... 4103—Open Burning ...................................................... 1.21 1.95 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.65 S–COM–1 ........................... 4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, 

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr).

0 0 0 1.49 1.50 1.52 

S–COM–3 ........................... 4308—Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr). 0 0 0.12 0.27 0.39 0.55 S–COM–5 ........................... 4703—Stationary Gas Turbines ..................................... 0 0 0 2.21 2.21 2.21 S–COM–7 ........................... 4354—Glass Melting Furnaces ...................................... 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.60 1.67 1.58 S–COM–9 ........................... 4902—Residential Water Heaters .................................. 0 0 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.40 S–COM–14 ......................... 4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters.

0 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 

Commitment to Total 

NOX Reductions.

.................................................................................... 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 8.82 8.97 

PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

S–AGR–1 ........................... 4103—Open Burning ...................................................... 1.60 2.57 3.53 3.52 3.50 3.49 S–COM–1 ........................... 4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, 

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr).

0 0 0 0.23 0.24 0.24 

S–COM–14 ......................... 4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters.

0 0.39 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69 

S–IND–9 ............................. 4692—Commercial Charbroiling .................................... 0 0 2.17 2.21 2.25 2.28 

Commitment to Total 

PM2.5 Reductions.

.................................................................................... 1.60 2.96 4.46 1 6.69 6.70 6.70 

SO2 Emissions Reductions 

S–AGR–1 ........................... 4103—Open Burning ...................................................... 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 S–COM–1 ........................... 4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, 

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr).

0 0 0 0.76 0.76 0.76 

S–COM–14 ......................... 4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters.

0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 

M–TRAN–1 ......................... 9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs ........ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 

Commitment to Total 

SO2 Reductions.

.................................................................................... 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.92 

This column sums to 6.46 tpd. Because the 4.46 tpd figure is given in Table 6–3b in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and used in the attainment demonstration in Table 9–1 in the Plan, we are assuming that it reflects the District’s intended emissions reductions commitment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

13More information on this public process 

including presentations from the workshops and 

symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. 

TABLE 4—SIP SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF SJVAPCD RULES IN THE 2008 PM2.5 PLAN

Rule 4103—Open Burning (Phase IV) ............................. Not submitted ..................... Most current revision of rule approved: May 17, 2007 at 

74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009) 

4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, 

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/ 

hr).

Submitted ........................... Submittal date: March 17, 2009 Submittal found complete: April 20, 2009 New rule 

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process 

Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr).

Approved ............................ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

Rule 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process 

Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr).

Submitted ........................... Submittal date: May 17, 2010 Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 Most current revision of rule approved: October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29887 (May 30, 

2007) 

Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines ................................. Approved ............................ 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009) 

Rule 4702 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

(2010 revisions).

Under development, expected adoption December 2010.Most current revision of rule approved: January 18, 

2007 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008) 

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces (2008 revisions) ....... Not Submitted .................... Most current revision of rule approved: August 17, 2006 

at 72 FR 41894 (August 1, 2007) 

Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters .............................. Approved ............................ 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010) 

4905—Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central 

Furnaces.

Adoption scheduled for 

2014.

Most current version of the rule approved: October 20, 

2005 at 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007) 

Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters.

Approved ............................ 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009) 

Rule 4692 Commercial Charbroiling ................................. Submitted ........................... Submittal date: May 17, 2010 

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: March 21, 2002 

at 68 FR 33005 (June 3, 2003) 

Rule 4311 Flares .............................................................. Submitted ........................... Submittal date: January 10, 2010 

Submittal found complete: February 4, 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: June 20, 2002 

at 68 FR 8835 (February 26, 2003) 

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction Program ...... Submitted ........................... Submittal date: May 17, 2010 

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 New rule. 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of some of the most 

stringent control measures nationwide 

for on-road and off-road mobile sources 

and the fuels that power them. These 

standards have reduced new car 

emissions by 99 percent and new truck 

emissions by 90 percent from 

uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 37. The State is also working with 

EPA on goods movement activities and 

is implementing programs to reduce 

emissions from ship auxiliary engines, 

locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo 

handling equipment. In addition, the 

State has standards for lawn and garden 

equipment, recreational vehicles and 

boats, and other off-road sources that 

require newly manufactured equipment 

to be 80–98 percent cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, 

the State has adopted many measures 

that focus on achieving reductions from 

in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

requirements in California’s Smog 

Check program, truck and bus idling 

restrictions, and various incentive 

programs. Since 1994 alone, the State 

has taken more than 45 rulemaking 

actions and achieved most of the 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in the State’s nonattainment 

areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 36– 

40. As is noted in the 2007 State 

Strategy, EPA has approved California’s 

mobile source program as representing 

best available control measures. See 

2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 69 FR 

5412 (February 4, 2004) and 69 FR 

30006 (May 26, 2004) (proposed and 

final approval of SJV 2003 PM10 Plan). 

CARB developed its proposed 2007 

State Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential SIP measures. This process is 

described in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 7– 

11.13 From this process, CARB 

identified and committed to propose 15 

new defined measures. These measures 

focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet as 

well as increasing the stringency of 

emissions standards for a number of 

engine categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. Many, if not most, of these 

measures are being proposed for 

adoption for the first time anywhere in 

the nation. They build on CARB’s 

already comprehensive program 

described above that addresses 

emissions from all types of mobile 

sources and consumer products, 

through both regulations and incentive 

programs. See Appendix A of the TSD. 

Table 5 below lists the new defined 

measures in the 2007 State Strategy, 

which also include one measure each 

from the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair and the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation. As 

shown in this table, the State has 

adopted many of the measures. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74527 

TABLE 5—2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

Defined state measure 

Primary 

area 

(SC 

and/or 

SJV) 

Adoption year Current status 

Smog Check Improvements .......... Both ................... 2007–2008 ........ Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010). 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ....... Both ................... 2008–2014 ........ Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of Automotive Repair September 

2010. 

Revisions to Reformulated Gasoline Program.Both ................... 2007 .................. Approved, see 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 2010). 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks Both ................... 2008 .................. Adopted 2008, pending revisions. 

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and 

Other Clean Technologies.

SC ..................... 2007–2008 ........ Adopted December 2007. 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and 

Fuels.

SC ..................... Fuel: 2007 .........

Engines: 2009 ...

Adopted July 2007. 

Port Truck Modernization ............... SC ..................... 2007–2008 ........ Adopted December 2007 and December 2008. 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.Both ................... 2007–2008 ........ In progress. 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts ... SC ..................... 2007 .................. Adopted November 2007, revised June 2010. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines Both ................... 2007 .................. Adopted 2007, pending revisions. 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment.SJV .................... 2009 .................. On-going through incentive grant programs. 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats.Both ................... 2009–2010 ........ Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public review. 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions Standards.

Both ................... By 2010 ............. Adopted November 2008. 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for 

Above Ground Storage Tanks.

Both ................... 2007 .................. Adopted June 2007. 

Additional Evaporative Emissions 

Standards.

Both ................... By 2010 ............. Partial adoption, 2008. 

Consumer Products Program (I & 

II).

Both ................... 2008 & 2010– 

2012.

Phase I—Approved 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009). 

Department of Pesticide Regulation.SJV .................... 2008 .................. Adopted 2008, amended 2009. 

SC = South Coast Air Basin. Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included) 

Appendix A of the TSD includes a list 

of all measures adopted by CARB 

between 1990 and the beginning of 

2007. These measures, reductions from 

which are reflected in the Plan’s 

baseline inventories, fall into two 

categories: Measures that are subject to 

a waiver of Federal pre-emption under 

CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver 

measures or waiver measures) and those 

for which the State is not required to 

obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures). 

Emissions reductions from waiver 

measures are fully creditable in 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

may be used to meet other CAA 

requirements, such as contingency 

measures. See EPA’s proposed approval 

of the SJV 1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 

33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final 

approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 

2010). The State’s baseline non-waiver 

measures have generally all been 

approved by EPA into the SIP and as 

such are fully creditable for meeting 

CAA requirements. 

In addition to the State’s 

commitments to propose defined 

measures, the 2007 State Strategy 

includes enforceable commitments for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC emissions 

reductions from mobile source 

categories that are crucial for attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 

Valley. For the SJV, the 2007 State 

Strategy includes State commitments to 

achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2.5, 76 tpd of 

NOX, and 23 tpd of VOC reductions. See 

2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB 

Resolution 07–28, Attachment B, p. 6. 

The 2007 State Strategy indicates that 

the State expects to achieve these 

emissions reductions in the San Joaquin 

Valley by the projected attainment year 

of 2014 from the measures listed in 

Table 5 or other similar measures. In the 

2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an 

estimated emissions reduction for each 

measure to show that, when considered 

together, these measures can meet the 

total commitment. CARB states, 

however, that its enforceable 

commitment is to achieve the aggregate 

emissions reductions for each pollutant 

by the given dates and not for a specific 

level of reductions from any specific 

measure. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58. 

A summary of the estimates from the 

proposed measures is provided in Table 

6 below. 

As mentioned above, CARB’s 

commitment is also to propose specific 

new measures that are identified and 

defined in the 2007 Strategy State. See 

2007 State Strategy, pp. 64–65 and 2009 

State Strategy revisions, pp. 22–23. 

TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY 2014 TONS PER DAY

Measure PM2.5 NOX VOC 

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) ............................................................................................. 0.05 3.3 2.9 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ..................................................................................................... 0.01 0.5 0.7 

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program ....................................................................... — — 2.9 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks ............................................................................................. 3.6 61.4 6.4 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

14These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: 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 the Kern Council of 

Governments. 

TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY 2014 TONS PER DAY—Continued 

Measure PM2.5 NOX VOC 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives ................................................................ 0.2 7.2 0.5 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) ............................................................................. 0.8 3.7 0.9 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment ....................................................................................... NYQ NYQ NYQ 

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats ....................................................................... — 0.1 1.3 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards ............................................... — — 2.2 

Consumer Products Program ...................................................................................................... — — 3.2 

Pesticides ..................................................................................................................................... — — 2.5 

Totals: .......................................................................................................................................... 5 76 23 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined measures with reductions in the SJV are shown here. 

NYQ = Not yet quantified. 

c. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM 

Analysis 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM 

analysis was conducted by the SJV’s 

eight MPOs.14 This analysis focused on 

potential NOX emissions reductions 

from transportation control measures 

(TCM). TCMs are, in general, measures 

designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions 

in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 

congestion. The analysis’ results are 

described in Chapter 7 (pp. 7–8 to 7–11) 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. It addressed 

NOX but not direct PM2.5, SO2, or VOC. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV 

MPOs reviewed and updated the RACM 

analysis they performed for the SJV 

2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan, based on 

EPA’s guidance in the preamble to the 

PM2.5 implementation rule. For the 2007 

Ozone Plan, they developed a local 

RACM strategy after an extensive 

evaluation of potential RACM for 

advancing the 8-hour ozone standard 

attainment date. After reviewing the 

2007 Ozone Plan’s local RACM analysis, 

EPA’s suggested RACM, recentlydeveloped plans from other areas, and 

the potential emission reductions 

available from the implementation of 

TCMs in the SJV, the MPOs determined 

that there were no additional local 

RACM for NOX, beyond those measures 

already adopted, that could advance 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7–11. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, 

RACM/RACT are the set of measures 

necessary for expeditious attainment. 

The measures must address emissions of 

PM2.5 and all PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors that are necessary for such 

expeditious attainment. Thus, in order 

for a PM2.5 plan to demonstrate that it 

provides for RACM/RACT, it must also 

demonstrate that it provides for 

expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586 at 

20612–20623. As discussed in section 

IV.D.2. below, we are proposing to 

disapprove the air quality modeling in 

the 2008 PM2.5 plan because there is 

insufficient documentation for us to 

determine its adequacy. Air quality 

modeling establishes the level of 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in an area. Thus, 

uncertainties about the adequacy of the 

air quality modeling result in 

uncertainties regarding the emissions 

reductions needed for attainment. 

Without a reliable estimate of the 

emission reductions needed for 

attainment, we are unable to determine 

if the measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

include all RACM/RACT that will 

provide for attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

In addition, as described in section 

IV.D.3. below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that VOC is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the SJV 

nonattainment area. Under the PM2.5

implementation rule, States must 

address all PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors in their RACM/RACT 

analyses. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). 

Neither the District nor the local 

jurisdictions (through the MPOs) 

evaluated potential RACM/RACT for 

VOC emission sources. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

find that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, together 

with the revised 2007 State Strategy, 

does not provide for the implementation 

of RACM/RACT as required by CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010 

and to disapprove the SJV PM2.5 SIP’s 

RACM/RACT demonstration. It appears, 

however, that the State, District, and 

local jurisdictions have identified and 

otherwise provided for the 

implementation of a comprehensive set 

of measures that are among the most 

stringent in the nation and, should the 

District and State correct the 

deficiencies in the attainment 

demonstration and appropriately 

address VOC as an attainment plan 

precursor in its RACM/RACT 

demonstration, we may be able to 

approve the SIP’s RACM/RACT 

demonstration. 

Because they will strengthen the 

California SIP, we are proposing to 

approve the SJVAPCD’s commitments to 

adopt and implement specific control 

measures on the schedule identified in 

Table 6–2 (as amended June 15, 2010) 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, to the extent that 

these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled, and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX and SOx by specific years as 

given in Table 6–3 of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. 

We are also proposing to approve, as 

a SIP strengthening measure, CARB’s 

commitments to propose certain defined 

measures, as given on page 23 of the 

2009 State Strategy Status Report, and to 

achieve aggregate emissions reductions 

of 5 tpd direct PM2.5, 76 tpd NOx, and 

23 tpd VOC in the San Joaquin Valley 

by 2014 as given on page 21 of the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report. 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 172 requires a State to 

submit a plan for each of its 

nonattainment areas that demonstrates 

attainment of the applicable ambient air 

quality standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 

specified attainment date. Under the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, this 

demonstration should consist of four 

parts: 

(1) Technical analyses that locate, 

identify, and quantify sources of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74529 

15EPA’s modeling guidance can be found in 

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix W and ‘‘Guidance on the Use of 

Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze’’, 

EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007. 

emissions that are contributing to 

violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS; 

(2) Analyses of future year emissions 

reductions and air quality improvement 

resulting from already-adopted national, 

state, and local programs and from 

potential new state and local measures 

to meet the RACM/RACT and RFP 

requirements in the area; 

(3) Adopted emissions reduction 

measures with schedules for 

implementation; and 

(4) Contingency measures required 

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586 at 

20605. 

The requirements for the first two 

parts are described in the sections on 

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT 

above (sections IV.B. and IV.C.) and in 

the sections on air quality modeling, 

PM2.5 precursors, extension of the 

attainment date, and attainment 

demonstration that follow immediately 

below. Requirements for the third and 

fourth parts are described in the 

sections on the control strategy and 

contingency measures (sections IV.C. 

and IV.F.), respectively. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires states to submit an attainment 

demonstration based on modeling 

results. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.1007(a) 

states: 

For any area designated as nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit 

an attainment demonstration showing that 

the area will attain the annual and 24-hour 

standards as expeditiously as practicable. 

The demonstration must meet the 

requirements of § 51.112 and Appendix W of 

this part and must include inventory data, 

modeling results, and emission reduction 

analyses on which the State has based its 

projected attainment date. The attainment 

date justified by the demonstration must be 

consistent with the requirements of 

§ 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be 

consistent with requirements in § 51.1009 for 

RFP and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. 

The attainment demonstration and 

supporting air quality modeling should be 

consistent with EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.15

See also, 72 FR 20586 at 20665. 

Air quality modeling is used to 

establish emissions attainment targets, 

the combination of emissions of PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors that the area can 

accommodate without exceeding the 

NAAQS, and to assess whether the 

proposed control strategy will result in 

attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality 

modeling is performed for a base year 

and compared to air quality monitoring 

data in order to determine model 

performance. Once the performance is 

determined to be acceptable, future year 

changes to the emissions inventory are 

simulated to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and 

changes in ambient air quality 

throughout the air basin. 

The procedures for modeling PM2.5 as 

part of an attainment SIP are contained 

in EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the Use of 

Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.’’ A 

brief description of the modeling in 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and our concerns 

regarding it follows. More detailed 

information about the modeling is 

available in section II.D. of the TSD. 

CARB and the District jointly 

performed the air quality modeling for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Significant time, 

money, and effort by CARB, the District, 

and many others have gone into 

preparing the air quality modeling to 

support the attainment demonstration in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley, including support for the multimillion dollar California Regional 

Particulate Air Quality Study 

(CRPAQS). CRPAQS is a cooperative 

effort involving California cities; State 

and local and air pollution control 

agencies, federal agencies, industry 

groups, academics, and contractors. 

Field data for CRPAQS were collected 

during the 14 months from December 

1999 through February 2001 and 

included short-term, intensive 

monitoring during the fall and winter. 

The study’s design placed emphasis on 

collecting sufficient continuous air 

quality and meteorological data, both at 

the surface and aloft, to support receptor 

and photochemical modeling. Data and 

modeling results based on the CRPAQS 

study provided solid underpinnings for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan uses multiple 

modeling analyses to demonstrate 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. It mainly relies on several variants 

of an approach based on receptor 

modeling for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This approach begins with Chemical 

Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which 

distinguishes the ambient PM2.5

contributions of several broad emissions 

source categories based on how they 

match the chemical species components 

of PM2.5 measurements. The CMB 

results are then refined with emissions 

inventory data to distinguish additional 

source categories; an area of influence 

analysis to better reflect particular 

sources affecting a monitor; and 

information from past photochemical 

modeling to assess how secondarilyformed PM2.5 will respond to changes in 

precursor emissions. Several variants of 

this approach were used with CMB 

results from different locations and 

different base case years. This modeling 

only addresses the annual PM2.5

standard. 

The receptor modeling approaches are 

supplemented with an attainment 

demonstration using photochemical 

modeling with the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. 

This modeling incorporates data 

collected during CRPAQS. The CMAQ 

modeling addresses both the annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

EPA recommends that States prepare 

modeling/analysis protocols as part of 

their modeled attainment 

demonstrations. Guidance, p. 133. The 

Guidance at pp. 133–134 describes the 

topics to be addressed in this modeling 

protocol. A modeling protocol should 

detail and formalize the procedures for 

conducting all phases of the modeling 

analysis, such as describing the 

background and objectives, creating a 

schedule and organizational structure, 

developing the input data, conducting 

model performance evaluations, 

interpreting modeling results, 

describing procedures for using the 

model to demonstrate whether proposed 

strategies are sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS, and producing documentation 

to be submitted for EPA Regional Office 

review and approval prior to actual 

modeling. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling 

protocol is contained in Appendix F 

and includes descriptions of both the 

receptor modeling approaches and the 

photochemical modeling. Additional 

description of the photochemical 

modeling is also covered in Appendix 

G, and also in the additional appendix 

entitled ‘‘Regional Model Performance 

Analysis’’ (RMPA). The protocol covers 

all of the topics recommended in the 

Guidance, except that it does not 

identify how modeling and other 

analyses will be archived or made 

available to the public. See Guidance, p. 

117. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s air quality 

model performance is discussed in the 

RMPA, starting at p. 6. Overall, 

modeling performance is not 

sufficiently documented for EPA to fully 

evaluate it. While substantial effort went 

into preparing the materials for model 

evaluation, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan has 

relatively little discussion of the 

evaluation results and no discussion of 

sensitivity or diagnostic testing, both of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

which are necessary for confidence in 

the model and the performance statistics 

presented. Without such testing, it 

cannot be determined if the model is 

adequately simulating the physical and 

chemical processes leading to PM2.5 in 

the atmosphere and if the model will 

respond in a scientifically reasonable 

way to emissions changes. Also 

insufficiently documented are the Plan’s 

deviations from EPA’s guidance on 

performing the Speciated Modeled 

Attainment Test (SMAT). Although, the 

Plan cites several factors as justifying 

such deviations (e.g., the prevalence of 

ammonia, the dominance of ammonium 

nitrate, the effect of substantial controls 

on fugitive dust and direct carbon 

emissions (p. G–10 and p. 3–20)), it does 

not provide sufficiently detailed 

explanations for EPA to understand 

exactly what these deviations are or to 

judge whether these deviations are 

acceptable. Another example of 

insufficient documentation is that the 

Relative Reduction Factors, which are 

the key results from the model for use 

in the attainment test, and details of 

their calculation, are not presented in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Given this lack of 

documentation, EPA cannot determine 

at this time whether the attainment tests 

are adequate and meet EPA guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA’s Guidance requires an 

unmonitored area analysis. This 

analysis is intended to ensure that a 

control strategy leads to reductions in 

PM2.5 at other locations that have no 

monitor but that might have baseline 

(and future) ambient PM2.5 levels 

exceeding the NAAQS. The 

unmonitored area analysis uses a 

combination of model output and 

ambient data to identify areas that might 

exceed the NAAQS if monitors were 

located there. The analysis should 

include, at a minimum, all counties 

designated nonattainment and the 

counties surrounding the nonattainment 

area. In order to examine unmonitored 

areas in all portions of the modeling 

domain, EPA recommends use of 

interpolated spatial fields of ambient 

data combined with gridded modeled 

outputs. Guidance, p. 29. 

In lieu of an unmonitored area 

analysis, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan section 

entitled ‘‘Unmonitored peaks’’ presents a 

simple screening analysis. This consists 

of a filled concentration contour plot 

(Figure 3 on p. G–20), and the 

observation that ‘‘there are no areas with 

steep gradients that would result in 

higher design values than those 

measured at monitors.’’ 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

p. G–15. This analysis departs 

significantly from the procedures 

recommended in the Guidance and does 

not adequately substitute for an 

unmonitored area analysis consistent 

with the procedures recommended in 

the Guidance. Without an unmonitored 

area analysis, EPA cannot determine 

whether emission reductions in the Plan 

are sufficient for attainment of the 

NAAQS at locations without an air 

quality monitor. 

In summary, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

lacks or fails to adequately document 

several significant elements of a 

modeling demonstration including: a 

provision for access to the underlying 

modeling data, the sensitivity and 

diagnostic testing of the air quality 

model, a discussion of the relative 

reduction factors, and an unmonitored 

area analysis. While the modeling 

appears to be essentially sound, the 

documentation provided in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan is not sufficient for EPA to 

fully evaluate its adequacy. An 

attainment demonstration must 

demonstrate, i.e. document with 

evidence and analyses, that the controls 

will result in attainment. Without 

sufficient documentation, the Plan 

states but does not adequately 

demonstrate that it provides for 

attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the 

SJV. Although it is not necessary to 

provide comprehensive documentation 

on every single facet of a modeling 

analysis, the level of documentation in 

the Plan falls significantly short of what 

is necessary for a reliable attainment 

demonstration, as described in the 

EPA’s modeling guidance. Given the 

lack of documentation and the absence 

of an unmonitored area analysis, EPA 

cannot at this time propose to approve 

the Plan’s air quality modeling. We also 

cannot determine at this time that the 

modeling provides an adequate basis for 

the RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

EPA recognizes NOX, SO2, VOCs, and 

ammonia as the main precursor gases 

associated with the formation of 

secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air. 

These gas-phase PM2.5 precursors 

undergo chemical reactions in the 

atmosphere to form secondary 

particulate matter. Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 depends on numerous 

factors including the concentrations of 

precursors; the concentrations of other 

gaseous reactive species; atmospheric 

conditions including solar radiation, 

temperature, and relative humidity; and 

the interactions of precursors with 

preexisting particles and with cloud or 

fog droplets. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

As discussed previously, a state must 

submit emissions inventories for each of 

the four PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 

FR 20586 at 20589 and 40 CFR 

51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall 

contribution of different precursors to 

PM2.5 formation and the effectiveness of 

alternative potential control measures 

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors 

that a state should regulate to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some 

extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 

20589. 

In the PM2.5 implementation rule, 

EPA did not make a finding that all 

potential PM2.5 precursors must be 

controlled in each specific 

nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 at 

20589. Instead, for reasons explained in 

the rule’s preamble, a state must 

evaluate control measures for sources of 

SO2 in addition to sources of direct 

PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also 

evaluate control measures for sources of 

NOX unless the state and/or EPA 

determine that control of NOX emissions 

would not significantly reduce PM2.5

concentrations in the specific 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(2). In contrast, EPA has 

determined in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule that a state does not need to address 

controls for sources of VOC and 

ammonia unless the state and/or EPA 

make a technical demonstration that 

such controls would significantly 

contribute to reducing PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area. 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). Such 

a demonstration is required ‘‘if the 

administrative record related to 

development of its SIP shows that the 

presumption is not technically justified 

for that area.’’ 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(5). 

‘‘Significantly contributes’’ in this 

context means that a significant 

reduction in emissions of the precursor 

from sources in the area would be 

projected to provide a significant 

reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in the 

area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590. Although 

EPA did not establish a quantitative test 

for determining what constitutes a 

significant change, EPA noted that even 

relatively small reductions in PM2.5

levels are estimated to result in 

worthwhile public health benefits. Id. 

EPA further explained that a technical 

demonstration to reverse the 

presumption for NOX, VOC, or ammonia 

in any area could consider the 

emissions inventory, speciation data, 

modeling information, or other special 

studies such as monitoring of additional 

compounds, receptor modeling, or 

special monitoring studies. 72 FR 20586 

at 20596–20597. These factors could 

indicate that the emissions or ambient 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74531 

16Quote from ‘‘Initial Data Analysis of Field 

Program Measurements,’’ DRI Document No. 2497, 

July 29, 2005; Judith C. Chow, L.W. Antony Chen, 

Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy, 

Kihong Park, Steven D. Kohl, Dana L. Trimble, John 

G. Watson, Desert Research Institute. 

17Quote from Lurmann, F. et. al., 2006, 

‘‘Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol 

Formation in the San Joaquin Valley During 

Winter,’’ Journal of the Air & Waste Management 

Association, (56): 1679–1693, cited at 2008 PM2.5

Plan p. 3–10. 

concentration contributions of a 

precursor, or the sensitivity of ambient 

concentrations to changes in precursor 

emissions, differs for a specific 

nonattainment area from the 

presumption for that precursor in the 

PM2.5 implementation rule. 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not 

explicitly identify the pollutants that 

have been selected as PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors as defined in 40 CFR 

51.1000. The Plan addresses only NOX

and SO2 in the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and in the District’s 

RACM/RACT analysis, and thereby 

implicitly identifies NOX and SO2, but 

not VOC or ammonia, as attainment 

plan precursors. It does include 

supporting documentation for the 

inclusion of NOX as an attainment plan 

precursor and for the exclusion of 

ammonia. However, as discussed below, 

it does not fully evaluate the impact of 

controlling VOC as a precursor for PM2.5

attainment, even though other 

information in the Plan indicates that 

controlling VOC, in addition to SO2 and 

NOX, may contribute significantly to 

reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV. 

As mentioned above, ambient 

contribution and ambient sensitivity to 

emissions changes may both be 

considered in determining whether the 

presumption for an attainment plan 

precursor should be reversed. The 2008 

PM2.5 Plan contains numerous 

qualitative statements that San Joaquin 

Valley’s ambient PM2.5 levels are 

dominated by ammonium nitrate, and 

that NOX reductions are more effective 

at reducing ambient PM2.5 than 

reductions in the other precursors. Most 

of those statements are in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix F, and are based on excerpts 

of findings from CRPAQS. Several of the 

cited CRPAQS documents are available 

at CARB’s ‘‘Central California Air 

Quality Studies’’ Web site (at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/airways). 

For the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

contains some qualitative descriptions 

of precursor ambient contributions. For 

example, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan states on 

p. 2–8 that annual concentrations are 

driven by wintertime concentrations 

and further, that the highest short term 

concentrations are driven by ammonium 

nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS study: 

For most of the sites within the SJV, 

50–75% of the annual average PM2.5

concentration could be attributed to a 

high PM2.5 period occurring from 

November to January. At non-urban 

sites, the elevated PM2.5 was driven by 

secondary [ammonium nitrate].16

There are also quantitative data in the 

Plan’s Appendix G (p. G–21, Table 2) 

and, projected to 2014, in the Receptor 

Modeling Documentation (RMD). 

Ammonium nitrate for 2000 monitored 

data ranges from 24–36 percent of total 

PM2.5, and if projected to 2014, ranges 

from 36–51 percent, confirming the 

importance of NOX, one source of the 

nitrate in ammonium nitrate, as a 

precursor that significantly contributes 

to annual PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

In addition to composition data, 

ambient sensitivity to emissions 

changes can also be a consideration in 

determining which pollutants should be 

regulated in the attainment plan for a 

specific area. For ammonium nitrate 

PM2.5, which is formed from both 

ammonia and NOX, a key issue is 

whether the control of either or both 

precursors would be effective at 

reducing ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

Among the findings cited in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan that address this issue are 

that: 

Particulate [ammonium nitrate] 

concentrations are limited by the rate of 

[nitric acid] formation, rather than by the 

availability of [ammonia]. 

and 

Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid 

concentrations show that ammonia is far 

more abundant than nitric acid, which 

indicates that ammonium nitrate formation is 

limited by the availability of nitric acid, 

rather than ammonia * * *. This study’s 

analyses suggest that reductions in NOX

emissions will be more effective in reducing 

secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol 

concentrations than reductions in ammonia 

emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will 

reduce secondary organic aerosol 

concentrations and may reduce ammonium 

nitrate. * * * The results indicate 

ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately 

controlled by NOX emission rates and the 

other species, including VOCs and 

background ozone, which control the rate of 

NOX oxidation in winter, rather than by 

ammonia emissions.17

These findings are based on the 

relative abundance of ammonia relative 

to nitrate: There is so much ammonia 

present that significantly reducing its 

emissions would still leave ample 

ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. On 

the other hand, NOX is scarce (relative 

to ammonia), so reducing it could 

reduce ammonium nitrate significantly. 

Finally, sensitivity results from 

photochemical modeling were used in 

conjunction with the CMB results 

mentioned above. The 2014 RMD 

section on ‘‘Review of control strategy 

effectiveness supported by CMAQ 

nitrate particulate evaluation’’ shows the 

projected effect of a 50 percent 

reduction of NOX emissions on PM2.5

concentrations annually and in shorter 

seasonal episodes. For the annual 

concentration, the NOX reduction 

resulted in a predicted 5 μg/m3 PM2.5

reduction, while for the winter episode 

the NOX reduction resulted in a 

predicted 28 μg/m3 PM2.5 reduction. 

2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent 

reduction in ammonia emissions, on the 

other hand, predicted PM2.5 reductions 

of only 0.1 μg/m3 on an annual basis 

and 0.3 μg/m3 during the winter 

episode. RMD, p. 81. When compared to 

the annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 

and 65 μg/m3, respectively, the effect of 

NOX reductions appears to be 

significant while the effect of ammonia 

reductions does not. Thus, the data and 

modeling results presented in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, as well as the results of the 

cited studies, support the identification 

of NOX and the exclusion of ammonia 

as PM2.5 attainment plan precursors, 

consistent with the EPA presumption in 

the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

EPA’s presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule is that VOC need 

not be an attainment plan precursor. 40 

CFR 51.1002(c)(3). As explained in the 

preamble to the rule, this presumption 

may not be technically justified for a 

particular nonattainment area, i.e., this 

presumption may be incorrect where 

emissions of VOC significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586 at 

20590–93, 20596–97. States or EPA may 

conduct a technical demonstration to 

reverse the presumptive exclusion of 

VOC as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor based on the weight of 

evidence of available technical and 

scientific information. Id. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains 

substantial information indicating that, 

for the SJV nonattainment area, VOC 

should be considered as a potential 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. On an 

annual basis, Table 2 in Appendix G (p. 

G–21,) gives an organic carbon range of 

38–49 percent of the total PM2.5. This 

organic PM2.5 can be further divided 

into vegetative burning (9–19 percent of 

total annual PM2.5), direct VOC PM2.5

emissions (also 9–19 percent of total 

annual PM2.5), and secondary organic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

18Lurmann, F. et. al., 2006, op cit., p. 1688. 

19These studies are: 

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. 

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. 

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

and Roberts P.T., 2006, ‘‘Processes Influencing 

Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin 

Valley During Winter’’, Journal of the Air & Waste 

Management Association, 56: 1679–1693. 

McCarthy, M., 2005, ‘‘The Role of Nighttime 

Chemistry in Winter Ammonium Nitrate Formation 

in the San Joaquin Valley’’, presented at the 

American Association for Aerosol Research 

(AAAR), Supersites Conference, February 2005, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 1998, ‘‘Conceptual 

Model of Particulate Matter Pollution in the 

California San Joaquin Valley’’, prepared by 

Atmospheric and Environmental Research for 

Pacific Gas & Electric, Document Number CP045– 

1–98, 8 September 1998. 

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 2001, ‘‘Sensitivity of 

Particulate Matter Nitrate Formation to Precursor 

Emissions in the California San Joaquin Valley’’, 

Environmental Science and Technology, 35: 2979– 

2987. 

Pun, B., 2004, ‘‘CRPAQS Task 2.7 When and 

Where Does High O3 Correspond to High PM2.5? 

How Much PM2.5 Corresponds to Photochemical 

End Products?’’, prepared by Atmospheric and 

Environmental Research, Inc. for the San Joaquin 

Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency. 

Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, 

‘‘Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation 

in Central California’’, Atmospheric Environment, 

43: 402–409. 

Stockwell, W.R., Watson, J.G., Robinson, N.F., 

Steiner, W., and Sylte, W.W., 2000, ‘‘The 

Ammonium Nitrate Particle Equivalent of NOX

Emissions for Continental Wintertime Conditions’’, 

Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4711–4717. 

Ying, Q., Lu, J., and Kleeman, M., 2009, 

‘‘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, 43: 419–430, January 2009. 

aerosols (SOA) (2–5 percent of total 

annual PM2.5). RMD at 19. This SOA 

contribution to overall PM2.5 levels 

appears to be non-negligible. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan states: 

‘‘Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) 

contribute to a significant fraction of 

PM2.5. SOA is organic carbon particulate 

formed in the photochemical oxidation 

of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC 

precursor gases. Aromatic compounds 

are believed to be efficient SOA 

producers contributing to this secondary 

particulate.’’ 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p.3–8. On 

a 24-hour episodic basis, the 

contribution of SOA could be higher 

than the annual 2–5 percent, though it 

is likely lower for the winter episodes 

of most concern in the SJV, due to 

decreased photochemical activity when 

fog and clouds (typical for the SJV in the 

winter) partially block sunlight. The 

chemistry of SOA is less well 

understood than the chemistry of other 

chemical species, so overall these 

considerations are not enough to 

overcome the negative presumption for 

VOC. 

But as noted in the preamble to the 

PM2.5 implementation rule at pp. 

20592—20593, the lightest organic 

molecules can participate in 

atmospheric chemistry processes that 

result in the formation of ozone and 

certain free radical compounds (such as 

the hydroxyl radical [OH]) and these in 

turn participate in oxidation reactions to 

form secondary organic aerosols, 

sulfates, and nitrates. That is, VOC may 

be a PM2.5 precursor not just via 

formation of SOA, but also via its 

participation in the oxidant chemistry 

that leads to nitrate formation, a 

necessary step in the formation of 

ammonium nitrate PM2.5. NOX

emissions must be oxidized to nitric 

acid before they form particulate 

ammonium nitrate. Two pathways for 

this to occur are 1) daytime oxidation by 

OH, which VOC radicals help create, 

and 2) nighttime oxidation by ozone.18

The discussion in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3–10, 

quoted above) also refers to VOC, which 

is identified as one of the controlling 

factors in NOX oxidation (which as 

noted above is a key process in the 

formation of nitrate and ammonium 

nitrate PM2.5): ‘‘Reductions in VOC 

emissions will reduce secondary organic 

aerosol concentrations and may reduce 

ammonium nitrate.’’ The Plan also 

states: ‘‘Relatively low non-methane 

organic compounds/nitrogen oxide 

ratios indicate the daytime 

photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and 

background-ozone limited in winter.’’ 

Id. If nitrate formation is VOC-limited 

under some circumstances, then VOC 

emission reductions could lead to 

ambient PM2.5 reductions. 

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains 

sensitivity analyses for VOC, similar to 

the ones described above for NOX and 

ammonia. According to the sensitivity 

analysis, a 50 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions was predicted to reduce PM2.5

levels by 1.3 μg/m3 annually and 8.7 μg/ 

m3 for the winter episode. When 

compared to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15 μg/m3 and 24-hour 

NAAQS of 65 μg/m3, these projected 

reductions appear significant. The 2014 

RMD concludes: ‘‘Finding: VOC 

reduction is effective for the annual 

standard and the winter episode for 

reduction of total carbon secondary 

particulates.’’ 

In response to comments submitted 

during the District’s public comment 

period on the VOC issue, the Plan states 

that the ‘‘modeling has shown that VOC 

reductions are not as effective in 

reducing secondary PM2.5 as NOX or 

SO2 reductions’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll of the 

technical evaluations for CRPAQS and 

prior assessments of regional particulate 

models have indicated that NOX is the 

dominant factor and VOC and ammonia 

are not.’’ 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp.J–9 and 

p.J–19. These statements about VOC 

may be true, but they state only the 

relative effectiveness of controlling VOC 

compared to other precursors, do not 

cite any supporting modeling or 

technical evaluations, and do not 

address the substantial information in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan indicating that VOC 

may contribute significantly to ambient 

PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

As explained above, although EPA’s 

presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule is that VOC need 

not be a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor, this presumption may not be 

technically justified for certain 

nonattainment areas. Indeed, technical 

information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

strongly suggests that VOC reductions 

can significantly reduce ambient PM2.5

concentrations and contribute to 

expeditious attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV. 

Other statements in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan clearly indicate the State did not 

intend to reverse the presumption for 

VOC. Nevertheless, the technical 

information we have identified is part of 

the administrative record related to 

development of the SIP provides 

evidence that the VOC presumption 

may not be technically justified in the 

SJV. It also indicates that the State 

should submit a demonstration to either 

support or reverse the presumption 

under the PM2.5 implementation rule 

that VOC is not an attainment plan 

precursor. 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(5). 

In the absence of a technical 

demonstration by the State, EPA 

reviewed the results of several modeling 

and monitoring studies of PM2.5 in the 

San Joaquin Valley. Some of these 

documents are available on the ‘‘Central 

California Air Quality Studies’’ Web site 

(at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways) and/ 

or are cited in the Plan and are reports 

from contractors involved in CRPAQS. 

Others are papers from peer-reviewed 

journals and are analyses using 

CRPAQS data or data from the earlier 

1995 Integrated Monitoring Study 

(IMS95 study). We found that four 

monitoring studies and six modeling 

studies were relevant to the VOC 

precursor issue.19 Further information 

on these studies as well as excerpts from 

these studies are provided in the TSD. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74533 

20EPA’s proposed concurrence on excluding 

ammonia as an attainment plan precursor is limited 

to the attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standards in 2006 to 

lower them to 35 μg/m3 and is currently reviewing 

both the annual and 24-hour standards to determine 

if they should be further revised to protect public 

health. See EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review 

of the Particulate Matter NAAQS, Second External 

Review Draft, June 2010. Evaluation of ammonia 

controls for the attainment of the 2006 standards 

and any future revised standards may show that 

such controls would significantly contribute to 

lower PM2.5 levels in the Valley. 

21 In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM10 plan, EPA 

determined that for the purposes of section 

189(b)(1)(B) and (e) and in the absence of final data 

from CRPAQS, VOC does not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the 

standards in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May 

26, 2004). In that determination, EPA relied on the 

criteria that VOC control was not shown to be 

absolutely necessary for PM10 attainment and that 

it had a lower effectiveness than NOX control in 

reduction PM10. In addition, EPA noted in its 2004 

final rule the District’s intention to re-examine the 

VOC issue when CRPAQS results were available. 69 

FR 30010. 

Since its 2004 finding, EPA promulgated the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, which has an explicit 

criterion for determining which PM2.5 precursors 

must be evaluated for controls, namely, that a 

significant change in emissions of the precursor 

would be projected to provide a significant change 

in PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 

See 72 FR 20586 at 20590 and 40 CFR 51.1000. This 

is a different criterion than the one relied on in the 

2004 determination. Data and analyses from 

CRPAQS have also become available. These 

developments since 2004 support a finding 

different from our 2004 one. 

We also note that the 2004 finding was made for 

the PM10 standards rather than the PM2.5 standards. 

The levels of the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

(65 μg/m3 and 15 μg/m3) are much lower than those 

for the 24-hour and (revoked) annual PM10

standards (150 μg/m3 and 50 μg/m3). A given 

concentration change is therefore likely to be more 

significant for the PM2.5 standards than for the PM10

standards. 

The monitoring studies all contain 

evidence that the VOC pathway for 

nitrate creation is important at least 

some of the time but differ as to how 

important it is relative to other 

pathways such as the nighttime ozone 

pathway, and are not conclusive on the 

efficacy of VOC controls. Unlike the 

monitoring studies, most of the 

modeling studies explicitly assessed the 

relative effectiveness of precursor 

controls, simulating the effect of 50 

percent reductions in NOX, ammonia, 

and VOC. (One study does not explicitly 

address the issue, but states that 

background ozone is the most important 

oxidant, implying that VOC control 

would have little effect.) The two 

earliest modeling studies are based on 

photochemical box modeling and differ 

on whether VOC controls would 

significantly affect PM2.5. Three later 

studies use more sophisticated 

photochemical grid models and find 

VOC control to be effective, though 

generally less so than NOX control. One 

study predicts VOC control to be about 

two-thirds as effective as NOX control. 

The second study predicted VOC 

control to be effective, though only by 

a relatively small amount, at most 10 

percent for a 50 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions, or only on certain days. 

The third grid modeling study predicts 

VOC control to give slightly more 

benefit than NOX control. While the 

models, input data, and results differ 

between these studies, they provide 

ample evidence that control of VOC can 

significantly reduce PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV. EPA is, 

therefore, proposing to find that these 

studies constitute a technical 

demonstration that VOC is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor, necessitating 

the evaluation of controls for VOC for 

PM2.5 attainment in the SJV. 

EPA proposes to concur with the 

evaluation in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that, 

at this time, ammonia does not need to 

be considered an attainment plan 

precursor for purposes of attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.20

However, because the Plan and 

independent scientific studies contain 

substantial information indicating that 

VOC significantly contributes to PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV, EPA is 

proposing to find that VOC is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area under 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3) and thus must be 

evaluated for emissions reductions 

measures.21

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that 

an area’s attainment date ‘‘shall be the 

date by which attainment can be 

achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years 

from the date such area was designated 

nonattainment * * *, except that the 

Administrator may extend the 

attainment date to the extent the 

Administrator determines appropriate, 

for a period no greater than 10 years 

from the date of designation as 

nonattainment considering the severity 

of nonattainment and the availability 

and feasibility of pollution control 

measures.’’ 

Because the effective date of 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5

standards is April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), 

the initial attainment date for PM2.5

nonattainment areas is as expeditiously 

as practicable but not later than April 5, 

2010. For any areas that are granted a 

full five-year attainment date extension 

under section 172, the attainment date 

would be not later than April 5, 2015. 

Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5

implementation rule addresses the 

attainment date requirement. Section 

51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an 

attainment demonstration justifying its 

proposed attainment date and provides 

that EPA will approve an attainment 

date when we approve that 

demonstration. Thus, our approval of an 

extended attainment date is dependent 

upon a demonstration showing 

expeditious attainment and likewise, 

dependent upon proper evaluation of 

what constitutes RACM/RACT level 

controls in the area. 

States that request an extension of the 

attainment date under CAA section 

172(a)(2) must provide sufficient 

information to show that attainment by 

April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the 

severity of the nonattainment problem 

in the area and the lack of available and 

feasible control measures to provide for 

faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b). 

States must also demonstrate that all 

RACM and RACT for the area are being 

implemented to bring about attainment 

of the standard by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable for the area. 

72 FR 20586 at 20601. Thus, the proper 

evaluation of RACM/RACT controls is 

an integral part of justifying an 

extension of the attainment date. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a 

demonstration that the attainment date 

for the SJV should be April 5, 2015, i.e., 

that the area qualifies for the full fiveyear extension of the attainment date 

allowable under section 172(a)(1). This 

demonstration is found in Chapter 9 of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and is derived from 

the air quality modeling in the Plan. 

SJV’s degree of PM2.5 nonattainment 

can fairly be characterized as severe. 

The area typically records the highest 

ambient PM2.5 levels in the nation, with 

2007–2009 design values for the annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in urban 

Bakersfield area of 22.6 μg/m3 and 70 

μg/m3, respectively. See EPA, Air 

Quality System, Design Value Report, 

August 9, 2010. The PM2.5 problem in 

the San Joaquin Valley is complex, 

caused by both direct and secondary 

PM2.5 and compounded by the area’s 

topographical and meteorological 

conditions that are particularly 

conducive to the formation and 

concentration of PM2.5 particles. See 

2008 PM2.5 plan, Chapter 3. 

As discussed in section IV.C.2.a. 

above, the District’s strategy for 

attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on 

reductions of direct PM2.5 as well as the 

PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOX and 

SO2. The SJV needs significant 

reductions in PM2.5 and NOX to 

demonstrate attainment. EPA believes 

that further reduction of these 

pollutants is challenging because the 

State and local air pollution regulations 

already in place include most of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

readily available PM2.5 and NOX, control 

measures. Moreover, attainment in the 

SJV depends upon emissions reductions 

that offset the emissions increases 

associated with the projected increases 

in population and emissions levels for 

this high-growth area. 

Reductions of direct PM2.5 are 

achieved primarily from open burning, 

commercial charbroiling, and 

residential wood combustion control 

measures. These types of control 

measures present special 

implementation challenges (e.g., the 

large number of individuals subject to 

regulation and the difficulty of applying 

conventional technological control 

solutions). NOX reductions come largely 

from District rules for fuel combustion 

sources and from the State’s mobile 

source rules. 

Because of the necessity of obtaining 

additional emissions reductions from 

these source categories in the SJV and 

the need to conduct significant public 

outreach if applicable control 

approaches are to be effective, EPA 

agrees with the District and CARB that 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan reflects expeditious 

implementation of the available control 

programs during the 2008–2014 time 

frame. EPA also agrees that the 

implementation schedule for enhanced 

stationary source controls is 

expeditious, taking into account the 

time necessary for purchase and 

installation of the required control 

technologies. Finally, we believe that it 

is not feasible at this time to accelerate 

the emission reduction schedule for the 

State and Federal mobile source 

requirements which must rely on fleet 

turnover over the years to ultimately 

deliver the anticipated emission 

reductions. The District’s control 

strategies are discussed in greater detail 

in Chapter 6 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, and 

in section IV.C.2.a. above. 

In addition, the State has adopted 

standards for many categories of on-road 

and off-road vehicles and engines, and 

gasoline and diesel fuels, and included 

commitments to develop rules for Smog 

Check Improvements, Cleaner In-Use 

Heavy-Duty Trucks, and Cleaner In-Use 

Off-Road Equipment. 

EPA believes that the District and 

State are implementing these rules and 

programs as expeditiously as 

practicable. We anticipate, however, 

that the District and CARB will 

reevaluate this conclusion after 

completion of the mid-course review of 

the PM2.5 attainment SIP for this area, 

due in April 2011. EPA also expects that 

the District and CARB will continue to 

investigate opportunities to accelerate 

progress toward attainment as new 

control opportunities arise, and that the 

agencies will promptly adopt and 

expeditiously implement any new 

measures found to be feasible in the 

future. 

As discussed in section IV.D.2. above, 

we are proposing to disapprove the air 

quality modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 plan 

because it is insufficiently documented 

for us to evaluate its adequacy. Without 

adequate air quality modeling, it is not 

possible to determine the reductions 

needed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV and, in turn, to evaluate, as 

required by CAA section 172(a)(2), the 

availability and feasibility of controls 

needed to attain. 

As discussed in section IV.C.3. above, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan in part because it does 

not consider RACM/RACT for VOC 

sources. As stated in the PM2.5

implementation rule (72 FR 20586 at 

20601), EPA cannot grant an extension 

of the attainment date beyond the initial 

five years provided by section 

172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not 

adequately considered and evaluated 

the implementation of RACM and RACT 

in the area. By definition, RACM/RACT 

are those controls that are necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable and to meet any RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010(a). 

Without an adequate evaluation of 

potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC 

sources, EPA is unable to determine 

whether the State’s requested 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable in accordance with CAA 

172(a)(2). 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

not grant California’s request for an 

attainment date extension to April 5, 

2015 for the San Joaquin Valley. Given 

the severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem in the SJV, an extension of the 

attainment date would most likely be 

appropriate and approvable if it were 

supported by the necessary analysis and 

part of an attainment plan that meets the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements including RACM/RACT 

and an expeditious attainment 

demonstration. 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

Table 7 below summarizes the 

reductions that are relied upon in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan to demonstrate 

attainment by April 5, 2015. The 

attainment target numbers in this table 

should be considered preliminary 

because they are derived from the Plan’s 

air quality modeling analysis, which we 

are proposing to disapprove. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR SJV’S PM2.5 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

(tons per average annual day) 

PM2.5 NOX SO2

A. 2005 emissions level ............................................................................................................... 86.0 575.4 26.4 

B. 2014 attainment target ............................................................................................................ 63.3 291.2 24.6 

C. Total reductions needed by 2014 (A–B) ................................................................................. 22.7 284.2 1.8 

D. Reductions from baseline (pre-2007) measures .................................................................... 11.0 199.2 0.9 

Percent of total reductions from baseline measures ........................................................... 49.5% 70.8% 50% 

E. Reductions needed from new measures (C–D) ..................................................................... 11.7 85.0 0.9 

Percent of total reductions needed from new measures ..................................................... 50.5% 29.2% 50% 

New District reductions ................................................................................................................ 6.7 9.0 0.9 

Percent of total reductions needed from new District measures ......................................... 28.5% 3.2% 50% 

New State reductions .................................................................................................................. 5.0 76.0 0.0 

Percent of total reductions needed from new State measures ........................................... 22.0% 26.7% 0% 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 8–2 and 9–3. 

As shown in this table, the majority 

of reductions that the State projects are 

needed for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV 

by 2015 come from baseline reductions, 

i.e., from adopted measures that have 

generally been approved by EPA either 

through the SIP or the CAA section 209 

waiver process. See Appendices A and 

B of the TSD. The remaining reductions 

needed for attainment are to be achieved 

through the District’s and CARB’s 

commitments to reduce emissions in the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74535 

22Commitments approved by EPA under CAA 

section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA and 

citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304, 

respectively. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

with those commitments. See, e.g., American Lung 

Ass’n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 

1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, 

Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env’t v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in 

par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for 

Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. 

CV 97–6916–HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). 

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 

the SIP under CAA section 179(a), which starts an 

18-month period for the State to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are 

imposed. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP 

‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or techniques * * * 

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirement of the Act.’’ Section 

172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to 

nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section 

110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the 

CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any 

‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA determines are 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet CAA 

requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’ 

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved. 

23The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency’s use and 

application of the three factor test in approving 

enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP 

for Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. 

v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). 

24The 2007 State Strategy was developed to 

address both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 

8-hour Ozone NAAQS. The 8-hour ozone SIPs were 

due in November 2007, and the development and 

adoption of the State Strategy was timed to 

coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 1. 

SJV. Since the submittal of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy, 

SJVAPCD has already adopted measures 

(summarized in Table 8 below) that can 

be credited toward reducing its 

aggregate emissions reduction in its 

enforceable commitments. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENTS IN THE 2008 PM2.5 PLAN AND SJV PORTION OF THE 2007 STATE

STRATEGY

(Tons per average annual day) 

PM2.5 NOX SOX

Total reductions needed for attainment ................................................................................................... 22.7 284.2 1.8 

Total State and District commitment ....................................................................................................... 11.7 85.0 0.9 

Less reductions from currently creditable measures .............................................................................. 2.3 5.2 0.1 

Total remaining commitments ................................................................................................................. 9.4 79.8 0.8 

Total remaining commitments as a percent of reductions needed for attainment ................................. 41% 28% 44% 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

As shown above, measures already 

adopted by the District and CARB (both 

prior to and as part of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan) provide the majority of emissions 

reductions the State projects are needed 

to demonstrate attainment. The balance 

of the needed reductions is in the form 

of enforceable commitments by the 

District and CARB. This approach is 

consistent with past practice because 

the CAA allows approval of enforceable 

commitments that are limited in scope 

where circumstances exist that warrant 

the use of such commitments in place 

of adopted measures.22 Once EPA 

determines that circumstances warrant 

consideration of an enforceable 

commitment, EPA considers three 

factors in determining whether to 

approve the CAA requirement that relies 

on the enforceable commitment: (a) 

Does the commitment address a limited 

portion of the CAA-requirement; (b) is 

the state capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (c) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.23

We believe that, with respect to the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and revised 2007 State 

Strategy, circumstances warrant the 

consideration of enforceable 

commitments as part of the attainment 

demonstration for this area. As shown 

in Table 9 above, the majority of 

emissions reductions that the State 

currently estimates are needed to 

demonstrate attainment and RFP in the 

SJV come from rules and regulations 

that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., 

they come from the baseline measures. 

As a result of these already adopted 

District and State measures, most 

sources in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area were already subject 

to stringent rules prior to the 

development of the 2007 State Strategy 

and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, leaving fewer 

and more technologically challenging 

opportunities to reduce emissions. In 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State 

Strategy, the District and CARB 

identified potential control measures 

that could achieve the additional 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment. However, the timeline 

needed to develop, adopt, and 

implement these measures went well 

beyond the April 5, 2008 24 deadline to 

submit the PM2.5 attainment plan. As 

discussed above and below, since 2007, 

the District and State have made 

progress in adopting measures to meet 

their commitments, but have not 

completely fulfilled them. Given these 

circumstances, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 

and 2007 State Strategy’s reliance on 

enforceable commitments is warranted. 

We now consider the three factors EPA 

uses to determine whether the use of 

enforceable commitments in lieu of 

adopted measures to meet a CAA 

planning requirement is approvable. 

i. The Commitment Must Represent a 

Limited Portion of Required Reductions 

For the first factor, we look to see if 

the commitment addresses a limited 

portion of a statutory requirement, such 

as the amount of emissions reductions 

needed for attainment in a 

nonattainment area. As shown in Table 

8 above, the remaining portion of the 

enforceable commitments in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy 

are 9.4 tpd direct PM2.5, 79.8 tpd NOX

and 0.8 tpd SO2. When compared to the 

State’s current estimate of the 

reductions needed by 2014 for PM2.5

attainment in the SJV, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments 

represents approximately 41 percent of 

the needed PM2.5 reductions, 28 percent 

of the needed NOX reductions, and 44 

percent of the needed SO2 reductions. 

Historically, EPA has approved SIPs 

with enforceable commitments in the 

range of 10 percent or less of the total 

needed reductions for attainment. See, 

for examples, our approval of the SJV 

PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 

2004), approval of the SJV 1-hour ozone 

plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), 

and approval of the Houston-Galveston 

plan at 66 FR 57160, 57161 (November 

14, 2001). 

We note that there are significant 

emissions reductions tied to the Cleaner 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure and 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines listed 

in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

page 6. EPA understands that the State 

is currently revising these rules for readoption in late 2010 and subsequent 

submittal for EPA approval. It is 

possible that the reductions from these 

measures and several outstanding 

District rules will reduce the percentage 

of the remaining portion of the 

enforceable commitments to below 10 

percent of the total emissions reductions 

needed for attainment. However, until 

these (or other) measures are adopted, 

submitted, and EPA approved, we 

believe that the percentages of 

enforceable commitments for direct 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 relied upon in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy 

are too high and do not represent a 

limited portion of the State’s current 

estimate of total emissions reductions 

needed to meet the statutory 

requirement for attainment in the SJV. 

ii. The State Must Be Capable of 

Fulfilling its Commitment 

For the second factor, we consider 

whether the District and State are 

capable of fulfilling their commitments. 

As discussed above, following the 

adoption and submittal of the 2007 State 

Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted 

the 2009 State Strategy Status Report 

which shows the State’s progress in 

achieving its enforceable commitments 

for the SJV. The 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report shows that during 2007 

and 2008, the State has adopted rules 

for ten measures identified in the 2007 

State Strategy and three rules that were 

not identified in the Strategy that will 

contribute to the needed PM2.5 and NOX

reductions. The 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report includes a table with 

estimates of the reductions that may 

fulfill the CARB’s full commitment. See 

2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 18. 

EPA believes that the District has also 

made good progress in meeting its 

enforceable commitments as shown in 

Table 2 above. We also believe that the 

District’s continued efforts in 

committing to and adopting measures 

for sources under its jurisdiction will 

help it meet its commitments. In 

addition, beyond the rules discussed 

above, both CARB and the District have 

well-funded incentive grants programs 

to reduce emissions from the on- and 

off-road engine fleets. 

While progress has been made by the 

District and State to achieve their 

enforceable commitments, there are still 

significant reductions that must be 

addressed in order to satisfy the 

commitments. As discussed above, the 

remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments is 28 to 44 percent for the 

relevant pollutants. Given the evidence 

of the State’s and District’s efforts to 

date and their continuing efforts to 

reduce emissions, we believe that the 

State and District are capable of meeting 

their enforceable commitments to 

achieve total reductions of 11.7 tpd 

direct PM2.5, 85 tpd NOX, and 0.9 tpd 

SO2 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014. 

iii. The Commitment Must Be for a 

Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe 

Finally, for the third factor, we 

consider whether the commitments are 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time. In order to meet the 

commitments by 2014, the 2008 PM2.5

Plan and 2007 State Strategy include an 

ambitious rule development, adoption, 

and implementation schedules. EPA 

considers these schedules to provide 

sufficient time to achieve the committed 

reductions by 2014. As we have noted 

previously, many of the scheduled 

measures have been adopted. See Tables 

2 and 5 above and the 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, pp. 4, 17 and 23. 

The State and District are continuing to 

evaluate their adopted measures and the 

need for additional emissions 

reductions from new measures in this 

area. While we believe the State and 

District have provided reasonable and 

appropriate schedules for achieving 

their commitments by 2014, as 

discussed above, EPA is not proposing 

to grant the attainment date extension 

for the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, we 

cannot currently conclude that the third 

factor is satisfied. 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment 

demonstration, EPA must make several 

findings and approve the plan’s 

proposed attainment date. 

First, we must find that the 

demonstration’s technical bases, 

including the emissions inventories and 

air quality modeling, are adequate. As 

discussed above in sections IV.B. and 

IV.D.2, we are proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories but to disapprove 

the air quality modeling on which the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment 

demonstration and other provisions are 

based. 

Second, we must find that the SIP 

submittal provides for expeditious 

attainment through the implementation 

of all RACM and RACT. As discussed 

above in section IV.C., we are proposing 

to disapprove the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 

Third, EPA must find that the 

emissions reductions that are relied on 

for attainment are creditable. While EPA 

has previously accepted enforceable 

commitments in lieu of adopted control 

measures in attainment demonstrations, 

EPA has done so only when the 

circumstances warranted it and the 

commitments met three criteria. We 

believe that circumstances here warrant 

the consideration of enforceable 

commitments. We also believe that both 

the State and the District have 

demonstrated the capability to meet 

their commitments. However, the 

commitments do not constitute a 

limited portion of the required 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment and are not for an 

appropriate timeframe. The State’s and 

District’s unfulfilled commitments 

currently represent 41 percent of the 

PM2.5 reductions, 28 percent of the NOX

reductions, and 44 percent of the SO2

emissions reductions (30 percent of the 

combined emissions reductions of all 

pollutants) currently estimated to be 

required for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. These 

percentages are well above the 10 

percent figure generally accepted by 

EPA to approve an attainment 

demonstration that relies in part on 

enforceable commitments. 

Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area that cannot attain within five years 

of its designation as nonattainment, EPA 

must grant an extension of the 

attainment date in order to approve the 

attainment demonstration for the area. 

As discussed above in section IV.D.4., 

while we believe that an extension of 

the attainment date would be 

appropriate if supported by the 

necessary analysis, we are not at this 

time proposing to grant the State’s 

request to extend the attainment date in 

the SJV to April 5, 2015. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are 

proposing to disapprove the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5

Plan. 

E. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that 

plans for nonattainment areas shall 

provide for reasonable further progress 

(RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) 

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires submittal of an RFP plan at the 

same time as the attainment 

demonstration for any area for which a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74537 

state requests an extension of the 

attainment date beyond 2010. For areas 

for which the state requests an 

attainment date extension to 2015, such 

as SJV, the RFP plan must demonstrate 

that in the applicable milestone years of 

2009 and 2012, emissions in the area 

will be at a level consistent with 

generally linear progress in reducing 

emissions between the base year and the 

attainment year. 40 CFR 51.1009(d). 

States may demonstrate this by showing 

that emissions for each milestone year 

are roughly equivalent to benchmark 

emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

addressed in the plan. The steps for 

determining the benchmark emissions 

levels to demonstrate generally linear 

progress are provided in 40 CFR 

51.1009(f). 

The RFP plan must describe the 

control measures that provide for 

meeting the reasonable further progress 

milestones for the area, the timing of 

implementation of those measures, and 

the expected reductions in emissions of 

directly-emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5

attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR 

51.1009(c). 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 

8 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 

demonstration addresses direct PM2.5, 

NOX, and SO2, uses the 2005 annual 

average day inventory as the base year 

inventory, and assumes 2014 as the 

attainment year. The measures that the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan depends on for RFP and 

the emissions reductions from each 

measure in each year are given in Table 

6–3 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan presents the RFP 

demonstration in terms of cumulative 

emissions reductions and percent of 

emissions reductions per year. See 

Table 8–4 in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. This 

demonstration reserves 1 percent of the 

direct PM2.5 baseline (0.8 tpd) and 3 

percent of the NOX baseline (12–15 tpd 

NOX) as contingency measures by 

decreasing the cumulative emissions 

reductions in each milestone year by 

these amounts. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 8–3. 

The Plan does not include a 

contingency reserve for SO2. We discuss 

this contingency reserve below in the 

section on contingency measures. 

However, for the purposes of our 

evaluation of the RFP demonstration as 

presented in Table 9 below, we have not 

included it. This allows us to evaluate 

if the 2008 PM2.5 Plan would 

demonstrate the required RFP without 

the contingency reserve. We note that 

the RFP demonstration presented in 

Table 9 is based on the State’s current 

estimate of the emissions levels needed 

for attainment in the SJV. 

TABLE 9—BENCHMARK RFP DEMONSTRATION USING PLAN DATA NO CONTINGENCY MEASURE RESERVE

(Tons per annual average day) 

PM2.5 NOX SO2

2009 

Benchmark emissions level ......................................................................................................... 75.9 449.1 25.2 

Projected emissions level ............................................................................................................ 78.2 498.5 22.9 

Emissions above benchmark emissions level ............................................................................. 2.3 49.4 ¥2.2 

Percent above benchmark emissions level ................................................................................. 3.0 11.0 ¥8.9 

2012 

Benchmark emissions level ......................................................................................................... 68.3 354.4 24.2 

Projected emissions level ............................................................................................................ 70.3 415.8 22.9 

Emissions above benchmark emissions level ............................................................................. 2.0 61.5 ¥1.3 

Percent above benchmark emissions level ................................................................................. 2.9 17.3 ¥5.4 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the air quality modeling 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan because there is 

insufficient documentation for us to 

determine its adequacy. Because of this, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

RFP demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. Air quality modeling establishes 

the emissions levels needed for 

attainment in an area. Thus, 

uncertainties about the adequacy of the 

air quality modeling result in 

uncertainties about the emissions levels 

needed for attainment. These 

uncertainties also affect the RFP 

demonstrations because in order to 

determine what constitutes ‘‘generally 

linear progress’’ towards attainment in 

an area, we must first know the target 

level of emissions that the area needs to 

attain. 

Assuming that the State’s current 

estimates of the emissions levels needed 

for attainment are correct and that EPA 

will ultimately be able to grant an 

extension of the SJV’s attainment date to 

April 5, 2015, Table 9 shows that the 

SJV area is projected to be only slightly 

above its benchmark emissions levels 

for direct PM2.5 in both 2009 and 2012 

and well below the benchmark 

emissions levels for SO2 in both years. 

However, for NOX, the gap between the 

projected emissions and benchmark 

levels is over 10 percent in 2009 and 

grows to more than 17 percent in 2012. 

The shortfall in RFP for NOX is 

especially problematic given the nature 

of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in 

the SJV. Ammonium nitrate contributes 

40 percent of the Valley’s annual PM2.5

levels. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. H–12. 

Available information indicates that 

NOX is one of the limiting compounds 

in the reaction that forms ammonium 

nitrate, making NOX control an effective 

approach to reducing ambient PM2.5

levels in the SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9– 

1. Hence, the shortfalls in NOX

emissions reductions in the RFP 

demonstration are likely to adversely 

affect progress in reducing ambient 

PM2.5 levels in the SJV, an effect that 

will likely not be compensated for by 

excess reductions of SO2. 

As discussed above, we are proposing 

to find that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor for which the state must 

evaluate RFP, among other things. The 

2008 PM2.5 Plan does not currently 

include an RFP demonstration for VOC. 

Based on our proposed disapproval of 

the air quality modeling analysis and 

attainment demonstration, we are 

proposing to disapprove the RFP 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

for failure to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.1009. We also note the lack of 

generally linear progress in NOX

emissions reductions, especially in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

25See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 

at 13510 (April 16, 1992). 

26Should the rule’s requirements be triggered and 

the collected fees used in an incentive program to 

reduce emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and/ 

or SO2, then the District may rely on those 

reductions to fulfill the contingency measure 

requirement for the PM2.5 plan to the extent that the 

reductions meet SIP creditability requirements and 

are not otherwise needed for expeditious attainment 

or RFP for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2012, and the lack of an RFP 

demonstration for VOC. The District and 

State should address both these issues 

in any revision to the SJV PM2.5 Plan’s 

RFP demonstration. 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all 

PM2.5 attainment plans must include 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to meet RFP 

(RFP contingency measures) and 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date (attainment contingency 

measures). These contingency measures 

must be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that are ready to be 

implemented quickly without 

significant additional action by the 

state. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also 

be measures not relied on in the plan to 

demonstrate RFP or attainment and 

should provide SIP-creditable emissions 

reductions equivalent to approximately 

one year of the emissions reductions 

needed for RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 20642– 

43. Finally, the SIP should contain 

trigger mechanisms for the contingency 

measures and specify a schedule for 

their implementation. Id. 

Contingency measures can include 

Federal, State and local measures 

already scheduled for implementation 

that provide emissions reductions in 

excess of those reductions needed to 

provide for RFP or expeditious 

attainment. EPA has approved 

numerous SIPs under this 

interpretation. See, 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. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Contingency measures are described 

in Section 9.2. of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(pp. 9–5 to 9–9) and are composed of a 

new commitment by the SJVAPCD to 

request that CARB accelerate adoption 

and implementation of its measures and 

surplus reductions from State and 

District measures. In late 2008, the 

SJVAPCD adopted a further contingency 

measure as part of its wood burning 

rule, Rule 4901. CARB identified two 

additional contingency measures for the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan during its public 

hearing on the Plan. We discuss each of 

these contingency measures below. 

The Plan does not calculate the 

emissions reductions that are equivalent 

to one year’s worth of RFP. We have, 

however, calculated one year’s worth of 

RFP to be 2.5 tpd PM2.5, 31.6 tpd NOX, 

and 0.3 tpd SO2 using information in 

the Plan. See section II.I. of the TSD. 

This calculation is based on the State’s 

current estimate of the emissions 

reductions needed for attainment by 

2015. 

Request CARB To Accelerate State 

Measure Implementation—This 

proposed contingency measure (which 

could function as both a RFP and 

attainment contingency measure), 

requires the District’s Governing Board 

to adopt a resolution requesting CARB 

to accelerate the adoption and/or 

implementation of any remaining CARB 

control measures that have not yet been 

adopted or fully implemented. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, p. 9–7. Under CAA section 

172(c)(9) and EPA’s long-standing 

policies 25 interpreting this section, 

contingency measures must require 

minimal additional rulemaking by the 

State and take effect within a few 

months of a failure to make RFP or to 

attain. This proposed contingency 

measure would require additional 

rulemaking at the District level and 

potentially substantial and lengthy 

additional rulemaking at the State level 

to be implemented. For these reasons, 

this proposed measure does not meet 

CAA requirements for contingency 

measures. 

Surplus Emissions Reductions from 

the Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee— 

This proposed contingency measure 

(which could function as an RFP 

contingency measure for the 2012 

milestone and as an attainment 

contingency measure) would use fees 

generated from the District Rule 3170, 

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee, to 

achieve emissions reductions. The 

implementation of Rule 3170 is 

triggered solely by a failure of the SJV 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

its applicable attainment date (which 

can occur no earlier than November 15, 

2010, see CAA section 181(a)(1)) and 

not by any failures to meet PM2.5 RFP 

targets or to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, a minimum requirement for 

contingency measures for PM2.5 SIPs. 

For this reason, this proposed measure 

does not meet CAA requirements for 

contingency measures.26

Surplus Emissions Reductions from 

Incentive Funds—As noted previously, 

the District has several incentive grant 

programs that have the potential to 

generate considerable emissions 

reductions. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

suggests the use of these reductions as 

contingency measures for failure either 

to meet RFP or to attain. While neither 

the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of 

emissions reductions from incentive 

programs to meet all or part of an area’s 

contingency measure obligation, the 

incentive programs must assure that the 

reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent as required 

by EPA guidance. See ‘‘Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01–001 (January 

2001). 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify 

the incentive grant programs expected 

to generate the emissions reductions 

programs, nor the quantity of the 

emissions reductions, that the District 

intends to use to meet the contingency 

measure requirement. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine if they are SIP 

creditable, surplus to attainment and/or 

RFP needs, or sufficient to provide the 

one-year’s worth of RFP needed. For 

these reasons, this proposed measure 

does not currently meet the CAA 

requirements for contingency measures. 

Excess Reductions in the RFP 

Demonstration—The RFP 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

reserves for RFP contingency measure 

purposes about 1 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 

17 tpd of NOX reductions from the total 

reductions expected from the District 

and State measures. No reserve is 

needed for SO2 because SO2 emissions 

levels were projected to be below the 

applicable benchmarks. See 2008 PM2.5

Plan, p. 8–3. 

As discussed above in section IV.E., 

we have proposed to disapprove the 

RFP demonstration in part because we 

are unable to determine if the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan provides for RFP. We have 

also identified concerns with the lack of 

an RFP demonstration for VOC and the 

shortfall in NOX emissions reductions 

needed to show generally linear 

progress toward attainment. Because of 

these issues, we cannot determine, at 

this time, if there are any excess 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74539 

27Personal communications, Jessica Ferrio, 

SJVAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA, August 27, 2010. 

reductions of direct PM2.5 and NOX in 

the RFP demonstration that can be used 

for RFP contingency measures. 

Post-Attainment Year Emissions 

Reductions—Additional emissions 

reductions resulting from turnover in 

the on- and off-road mobile source fleet 

in 2015, the year after the attainment 

year of 2014, may be used to meet the 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement. No estimates of the 

additional emissions reductions are 

given in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. CARB 

estimates the NOX reductions in 2015 

from its existing (baseline) mobile 

source program are 21 tpd (CARB Staff 

Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin 

Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 29), and we 

have estimated an 0.7 tpd PM2.5

reduction using information in the 2007 

State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 100, 

although this figure is in a tons per 

summer planning day metric and not 

the average annual day metric that is 

used in the Plan’s RFP demonstration. 

These emissions reductions are from 

already implemented, fully creditable 

measures and no further actions are 

required by the State to implement 

them. They are not relied on to 

demonstrate either attainment or RFP. 

For these reasons, these post-2014 

emissions reductions may be used to 

fulfill the attainment contingency 

measure requirement, although based on 

existing estimates of the reductions 

needed to show one year’s worth of 

RFP, they are insufficient by themselves 

to fully meet the requirement. 

Contingency Provision in Rule 4901 

‘‘Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood 

Burning Heaters’’—In October, 2008, the 

SJVAPCD revised Rule 4901 to 

incorporate a contingency provision in 

section 5.6.5. This provision requires 

that 60 days after EPA finds the SJV 

nonattainment area has failed to attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the District will 

lower the level at which mandatory 

curtailment of residential wood burning 

is required from a predicted level of 30 

μg/m3 to 20 μg/m3. EPA approved this 

rule, including the contingency 

provision, on November 10, 2009. 74 FR 

57907. 

This attainment contingency 

provision in Rule 4901 meets the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for attainment contingency measures: It 

is triggered by a failure to attain, 

requires no additional rulemaking by 

the District, will be fully implemented 

within 60 days of being triggered, and 

is SIP approved. The District has 

preliminarily quantified the emissions 

reductions expected from this 

contingency provision at 1.6 tons of 

PM2.5 per winter average day.27

Control Strategy Reductions Not 

Included in the RFP and/or Attainment 

Demonstrations 

In its resolution approving the SJV 

PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that the 

District adopt two additional 

contingency measures. See CARB 

Resolution No. 08–28, Attachment A. 

These measures are revisions to 

SJVAPCD’s Rule 4307 (Boilers, 2 to 5 

MMBtu) and Rule 4702 (Internal 

Combustion Engines). While the District 

had already included these rule 

revisions as Measures S–COM–2 and S– 

COM–6 in the Plan’s control strategy, it 

had not estimated or included the NOX

emissions reductions from the measures 

in either the Plan’s RFP or attainment 

demonstration. The District adopted 

revisions to Rule 4307 in October 2008 

and is scheduled to adopt revisions to 

Rule 4702 in December 2010. 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove both the RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan in part because we are 

unable at this time to determine if the 

Plan provides sufficient emissions 

reductions to meet these requirements. 

Until it can be shown that the 

reductions from these two measures are 

not needed to demonstrate either RFP or 

attainment, EPA cannot approve them 

as contingency measures. 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes 

suggestions for several potentially 

approvable contingency measures as 

well as several measures that do not 

currently meet the CAA’s minimum 

requirements (e.g., no additional 

rulemaking, surplus to attainment and 

RFP needs). The Plan does not, 

however, provide sufficient information 

for us to determine if the emissions 

reductions from some of the potentially 

approvable measures are SIP creditable 

(e.g., those from incentive grant 

programs) or does not quantify the 

expected emissions reductions so we 

can gauge if they provide reductions 

equivalent to the current estimate of one 

year’s worth of RFP. Therefore, we are 

proposing to disapprove the RFP and 

attainment contingency measure 

provisions in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, MPOs in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with State 

and local air quality and transportation 

agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to 

demonstrate that an area’s regional 

transportation plans (RTP) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIPs. 

This is typically determined 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 the SIP. An 

attainment or RFP SIP should include 

budgets for the attainment year and each 

required RFP year, as applicable. 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a 

submitted SIP, EPA must first determine 

that the budgets are adequate. In order 

for us to find a budget adequate and, 

eventually approvable, the submittal 

must meet the conformity adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) 

and (5) and be approvable under all 

pertinent SIP requirements. The budget 

must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. See 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v). 

PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans 

should identify budgets for direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. 

All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should 

include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle 

emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and 

tire wear. States 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. See 40 CFR 

93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the 

conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 

40004, 40031–40036 (July 1, 2004). In 

determining whether the on-road mobile 

source emissions of a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor are significant, state and 

local agencies should use the criteria for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

28See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division 

Director, EPA Region 9, to James M. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, ‘‘RE: Adequacy Status of 

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable Further 

Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets,’’ dated April 23, 2010. 

29A state with a PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

required to submit NSR SIP revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the PM2.5 NSR rule by May 

16, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28342. 

30Note that several provisions of the PM2.5 NSR 

rule are currently under reconsideration, including 

EPA’s preferred interpollutant trading ratios. See 

Letter, from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, EPA, to 

Paul R. Cort, Earthjustice, April 24, 2009; 74 FR 

26098 (June 1, 2009); 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009); 

74 FR 48153 (September 22, 2009); and 75 FR 6827 

(February 11, 2010). 

insignificance findings provided in 40 

CFR 93.109(k). See also 70 FR 24280, 

24282–24287 (May 6, 2005). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets 

for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the 

attainment year of 2014 and the RFP 

years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5

Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C. 

The direct PM2.5 budgets includes 

tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear 

emissions but do not include paved 

road, unpaved road, and road and 

transit construction dust because these 

are considered to be insignificant 

contributors to PM2.5 levels in the 

Valley. No budgets for SO2 are included 

because on-road emissions of SO2 are 

also considered insignificant. Id. 

There are no budgets for ammonia or 

VOC in the Plan. 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/ 

Inadequacy Finding 

On April 23, 2010, we notified CARB 

that we had found the budgets in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan for the RFP milestone 

years 2009 and 2012 adequate and for 

the attainment year of 2014 inadequate 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA determined that the attainment 

year budgets are inadequate because 

they lack specificity and are not fully 

enforceable and, therefore, do not meet 

the criteria for adequacy in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4).28 We published a notice of 

our findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12, 

2010). 

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets 

Our finding that the 2009 and 2012 

year RFP budgets are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes was 

based on our preliminary review of the 

RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. After a more in-depth review of 

these demonstrations and the Plan as a 

whole, we are proposing to disapprove 

the Plan’s RFP demonstration for the 

reasons discussed above in section IV.E. 

Based on this proposed disapproval, we 

are now proposing to disapprove the 

2009 and 2012 year RFP budgets 

because they are not consistent with 

requirements for RFP as required by 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). We are also 

proposing to disapprove the budgets for 

the attainment year of 2014, which we 

have already found to be inadequate, 

based on our proposed disapproval of 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment 

demonstration. See section IV.D. above. 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing 

to find that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Should we finalize this 

determination, the State should include 

budgets for VOC as well as for direct 

PM2.5 and other attainment plan 

precursors as applicable in future 

revisions to the Plan. 

H. Mid-Course Review 

Any State that submits to EPA an 

attainment plan for a PM2.5

nonattainment area with an attainment 

date of 2014 or 2015 must also submit 

to EPA a mid-course review (MCR) by 

April 2011. 40 CFR 51.1011. The MCR 

for an area should include: (1) A review 

of emissions reductions and progress 

made in implementing control measures 

to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors 

contributing to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the area; (2) an analysis of changes in 

ambient air quality data for the area; (3) 

a revised air quality modeling analysis 

to demonstrate attainment; and (4) any 

new or revised control measures 

adopted by the State, as necessary to 

ensure attainment by the attainment 

date in the EPA-approved SIP for the 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1011(b). 

In its resolution adopting the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, the SJVAPCD’s Governing 

Board acknowledges the requirement to 

prepare a mid-course review consistent 

with 40 CFR 51.1011 by April 2011. See 

SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, 

page 4. In its resolution adopting the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB commits to 

submitting a MCR in 2011. See CARB 

Resolution 08–28, May 22, 2008, p. 4. 

SJVAPCD is already taking the initial 

steps necessary to prepare its PM2.5

MCR. EPA will work closely with the 

District, CARB, and other interested 

parties to assure that the MCR addresses 

the elements required by the PM2.5

implementation rule. We encourage 

both agencies to use the opportunity 

afforded by the MCR to address the 

proposed disapprovals of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan and SJV portions of the revised 

2007 State Strategy. 

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2.5

Offsets 

EPA has issued an implementation 

rule establishing the requirements for 

New Source Review (NSR) programs in 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. See 73 FR 

28321 (May 16, 2008) (PM2.5 NSR rule). 

Under the PM2.5 NSR rule, during the 

interim period after designation of an 

area as nonattainment but before a state 

has amended its NSR SIP to address 

PM2.5, the NSR permitting requirements 

of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply for 

PM2.5 purposes.29 40 CFR 52.24(k); 73 

FR 28321 at 28342. These Appendix S 

requirements currently apply in the SJV 

area. 

The NSR program requires, among 

other things, that new or modifying 

major stationary sources offset 

significant net emission increases with 

creditable emissions reductions. 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A.3. 

Under Appendix S, section IV.G.5, these 

offset requirements may currently be 

satisfied by offsetting reductions of 

direct PM2.5 emissions. They may also 

currently be satisfied by offsetting 

reductions of emissions of a PM2.5

precursor (i.e., by an interpollutant 

trade) but only if such offsets comply 

with an interprecursor trading hierarchy 

and ratio approved by the 

Administrator. That is, a new PM2.5

emission source is allowed to offset its 

direct PM2.5 and/or PM2.5 precursor 

emission increases with reductions in 

other PM2.5 precursor emissions only in 

accordance with a trading ratio 

approved by EPA.30

The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble states 

that precursors that are significant 

contributors to PM2.5 concentrations 

should be considered regulated NSR 

pollutants. 73 FR 28321 at 28326. It then 

describes ‘‘significant contribution’’ in 

the same terms as are used in the PM2.5

implementation rule, namely that 

emissions reductions of the precursor 

would be projected to provide a 

significant change in PM2.5

concentrations in the area. See 72 FR 

20586 at 20590 and 73 FR 28321 at 

28326. The two rules also have the same 

presumption, for essentially the same 

reasons, that SO2 and NOX should be 

considered precursors, whereas 

ammonia and VOC should not. See 72 

FR 20586 at 20590–20596 and 73 FR 

28321 at 28326–28331. 

In order for precursors to be eligible 

for NSR interpollutant offset trading in 

a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the area’s 

PM2.5 SIP must state which 

combinations of pollutants are eligible 

for interpollutant trading and define and 

provide the basis for the trading ratios 

between them that will be used for 

interpollutant offsets. In the 73 FR 

28321 at 28339, EPA stated that: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74541 

31These factors are in addition to the overall goal 

of the NSR permitting to show net air quality 

benefit and the underlying rationale for offsets to 

provide progress toward NAAQS attainment while 

allowing new sources to be constructed and existing 

sources to expand. 

32This identification of VOC as a regulated NSR 

pollutant for PM2.5 is contrary to the District’s 

assertions in the Plan that controls on VOC sources 

are not important for PM2.5 attainment but supports 

EPA’s proposal to determine that VOC should be 

considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in 

addition to NOX and SO2. See section IV.C. above. 

[T]he final rules allow interpollutant 

trading [for offset purposes] only based on a 

trading ratio established in the SIP as part of 

the attainment demonstration approved for a 

specific nonattainment area * * *. [T]he 

final rules do not allow interpollutant trading 

on a case-by-case basis as part of an 

individual [nonattainment area] NSR 

permitting process. * * * If States choose to 

develop their own hierarchies/trading ratios, 

they will have to substantiate by modeling 

and/or other technical demonstrations of the 

net air quality benefit for PM2.5 ambient 

concentrations, and such a trading program 

will have to be approved by EPA. 

‘‘Hierarchy’’ refers to an identification of 

which combinations of pollutants are 

eligible for trading, e.g., SO2 for primary 

PM2.5, SO2 for NOX, etc. 

EPA completed a technical 

assessment to develop preferred 

interpollutant trading ratios that may be 

used for the purposes of PM2.5 offsets, 

where appropriate.31 Based on this 

assessment, EPA disallowed trading 

directly between NOX and SO2 and set 

preferred trading ratios at 100:1 for NOX

to primary PM2.5 trades and 40:1 for SO2

to primary PM2.5 trades. See 73 FR 

28321 at 28339. The PM2.5 NSR rule 

preamble also states at 28340 that: 

th[e] rule allows interpollutant and 

interprecursor trading of offsets according to 

a SIP-approved trading program. To be 

approved, the trading program must either 

adopt EPA’s recommended trading ratios or 

be supported by regional-scale modeling that 

demonstrates a net air quality benefit using 

appropriate overall offset ratios for such 

trades for a specified nonattainment area, 

State, or multi-State region. 

The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble at 

28339 describes factors that should be 

considered by a State in developing 

area-specific ratios. Additional 

considerations for developing such 

ratios for the SJV are discussed in 

section II.K. of the TSD. 

In summary, interpollutant trades for 

purposes of meeting the NSR offset 

requirement for PM2.5 emissions are 

permissible only in accordance with 

trading ratios established in the SIP as 

part of the attainment demonstration 

approved for the nonattainment area. 

The SIP must explicitly identify which 

precursors are ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutants’’, which combinations are 

eligible for interpollutant trading, and 

the trading ratios between the 

pollutants. A state may either adopt 

EPA’s recommended trading ratios (73 

FR 28321 at 28339) or seek to establish 

alternative ratios, using modeling and/ 

or other technical demonstrations 

showing that the trading ratios provide 

a net air quality benefit, which must be 

approved by EPA. A state must establish 

these ratios as part of an approved 

attainment demonstration for its area; 

EPA will not allow case-by-case 

demonstrations on an individual source 

permit basis. 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not 

explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors that 

are subject to NSR permitting. The Plan 

states, however, that: 

[SJVAPCD] Rule 2201 [New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review] allows the use of 

interpollutant trading amongst criteria 

pollutants and their precursors upon the 

appropriate scientific demonstration of an 

adequate trading ratio. These caps [on the use 

of pre-baseline credits] also apply to the use 

of VOC, NOX, and SOx [emission reduction 

credits] in their application as offsets for 

direct emissions and in their use as PM2.5

precursor interpollutant offsets. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D– 

4. 

It appears from this discussion that 

the District considers VOC, NOX, and 

SO2 to be ‘‘regulated NSR pollutants’’ for 

PM2.5 NSR purposes and that the 

District intends to allow for 

interpollutant trading to satisfy PM2.5

permit requirements.32 The SJV PM2.5

Plan does not, however, provide a 

technical demonstration to support any 

conclusion as to the precursor 

combinations that should be eligible for 

interpollutant trading or the appropriate 

trading ratio for use in NSR permitting 

for PM2.5. It also appears from the Plan 

(at Appendix D, p. D–4) that the District 

intends to allow for interpollutant 

trades to satisfy PM2.5 offset 

requirements on a case-by-case basis, 

which is not permissible under the 

PM2.5 NSR rule. If the District intends to 

seek EPA approval of alternative 

interpollutant offset ratios for purposes 

of meeting PM2.5 NSR offset 

requirements, it must submit an 

adequate technical demonstration to 

support its proposed ratios, together 

with an approvable attainment 

demonstration, consistent with EPA 

regulatory requirements. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions and 

Potential Consequences 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and 

Disapprovals 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve in part and 

disapprove in part California’s 

attainment SIP for the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of 

the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 

portions of CARB’s revised 2007 State 

Strategy that address CAA and EPA 

regulations for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment 

area. 

EPA is proposing to approve under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following 

elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment 

SIP: 

1. The SIP’s base year and baseline 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.1008. 

2. SJVAPCD’s commitments to the 

adoption and implementation schedule 

for specific control measures listed in 

Table 6–2 (amended June 15, 2010) of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to the extent that 

these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX and SO2 by year, as listed 

in Table 6–3 of the PM2.5 Plan, as a SIP 

strengthening; and 

3. CARB’s commitments to propose 

certain defined measures, as listed on 

page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report and to achieve aggregate 

emissions reductions of 5 tpd direct 

PM2.5, 76 tpd NOX, and 23 tpd VOC in 

the San Joaquin Valley by 2014, as listed 

in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 21, as a SIP strengthening; and to 

submit a mid-course review on the SJV 

PM2.5 Plan as stated in the CARB 

Resolution 08–28, p. 4. 

EPA is also proposing to find 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1002(c), that 

VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor for the SJV and, therefore, 

controls on sources of VOC must be 

evaluated as part of the control strategy 

in the SJV PM2.5 attainment SIP. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following 

elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment 

SIP: 

1. The reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration as failing to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010; 

2. The reasonable further progress 

demonstrations for failing to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 40 CFR 51.1009; 

3. The attainment demonstration for 

failing to meet the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1) and (6) and 40 CFR 

51.1007; 

4. The contingency measures for 

failing to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012; 

and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
74542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5. The RFP and attainment years 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

because they are derived from 

unapprovable RFP and attainment 

demonstrations. 

Finally, we are proposing to not grant, 

pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) 

and 40 CFR 51.1004(a), California’s 

request to extend the attainment date for 

the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final 

Disapproval 

EPA is committed to working with the 

SJVAPCD, CARB and the SJV MPOs to 

resolve the problems that make the 

current PM2.5 attainment SIP for the SJV 

not fully approvable under the CAA and 

the PM2.5 implementation rule. We 

firmly believe that such solutions are 

available and that expeditious 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

in the San Joaquin Valley is achievable. 

However, should we finalize the 

disapprovals as proposed here, a 

conformity freeze will take effect once 

the action becomes effective (usually 30 

days after publication of the final action 

in the Federal Register). A conformity 

freeze means that only projects in the 

first four years of the most recent 

conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. 

During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or 

RTP/TIP amendments can be found to 

conform. See 40 CFR 93.120. 

Should we finalize the disapprovals 

proposed here, in addition to the effect 

on conformity, 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 a final 

disapproval. The highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) 

would apply in the area six months after 

the offset sanction is imposed. Neither 

sanction will be imposed under the 

CAA if California submits and we 

approve prior to the implementation of 

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct 

any and all disapproval issues with the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and applicable portions 

of the revised 2007 State Strategy that 

we identify in our final action. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA 

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan addressing the 

deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP for 

the SJV nonattainment area, two years 

after the effective date of any 

disapproval should we not approve a 

SIP revision correcting the deficiencies 

within the two years. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submittals, EPA’s role 

is to approve State choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because this 

proposed SIP partial approval and 

partial disapproval under CAA section 

110 and subchapter I, part D will not inand-of itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the SIP under 

CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from a 

final disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

action proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 74543 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely partially approves and partially 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it 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 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of 

itself create any new regulations but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of 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 Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D and will not in-andof itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29248 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3