Vol. 80 Tuesday, 

No. 8 January 13, 2015 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas 

for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate 

Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; Proposed Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). The EPA 

set the first NAAQS for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997 (62 

FR 36852), including annual standards of 15.0 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65 

mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 

24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7). In 2012, the 

EPA revised the annual standard to lower its level 

to 12 mg/m3 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013, codified 

at 40 CFR 50.18). Unless otherwise noted, all 

references to the PM2.5 standard in this notice are 

to the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3 codified 

at 40 CFR 50.13. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636; FRL–9921–48– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; California; San Joaquin 

Valley Moderate Area Plan and 

Reclassification as Serious 

Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by California to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

These SIP revisions are the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, submitted March 4, 2013, and the 

Supplement, submitted November 6, 

2014. The EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove interpollutant trading ratios 

identified in these SIP submittals for 

nonattainment new source review 

permitting purposes. Finally, the EPA is 

proposing to reclassify the SJV area, 

including Indian country within it, as a 

Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on EPA’s 

determination that the area cannot 

practicably attain this standard by the 

applicable Moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. Upon final 

reclassification as a Serious area, 

California will be required to submit a 

Serious area plan including a 

demonstration that the plan provides for 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV area by the applicable Serious 

area attainment date, which is no later 

than December 31, 2019, or by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable, 

in accordance with the requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0636, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 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 www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and the 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send email directly to the EPA, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

public comment. If the EPA cannot read 

your comments due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket 

(docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0636) for this proposed rule is available 

electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Proposed Actions 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Plans 

III. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements 

for SIP Submittals 

IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2012 

PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Air Quality Modeling 

C. PM2.5 Precursors 

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

E. Major Stationary Source Control 

Requirements Under CAA Section 189(e) 

F. Adopted Control Strategy 

G. Demonstration That Attainment by the 

Moderate Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

H. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

I. Contingency Measures 

J. Interpollutant Trading Ratios for 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

Permits 

K. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment 

and Serious Area SIP Requirements 

A. Reclassification as Serious and 

Applicable Attainment Date 

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Plans 

C. Statutory Deadline for Submittal of the 

Serious Area Plan 

VI. Reclassification of Indian Country 

VII. Summary of Proposed Actions and 

Request for Public Comment 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Proposed Actions 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised 

the 24-hour national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS or standard) for 

PM2.5, particulate matter with a 

diameter of 2.5 microns or less, to 

provide increased protection of public 

health by lowering its level from 65 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 

35 mg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13).1

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. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children (78 FR 3086 at 

3088, January 15, 2013). 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1817 

2See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

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

005, December 2012), p. 2–1. 

3See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 CFR 

81.305. In June 2008, California submitted the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan to provide for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV. In November 2011, the 

EPA approved all but the contingency measures in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (76 FR 69896, November 9, 

2011). In July 2013, the State submitted a revised 

contingency measure plan, which the EPA 

approved in May 2014 (79 FR 29327, May 22, 2014). 

4See U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM2.5

Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html (‘‘PM2.5_

DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14’’) 

(hereafter ‘‘2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports’’). 

‘‘Design values’’ are the 3-year average NAAQS 

metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to 

determine when a monitoring site meets or does not 

meet the NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, 

Section 1.0(c). 

5Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002(c), the EPA 

provided, among other things, that a state was ‘‘not 

required to address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the 

State for control measures,’’ unless the State or the 

EPA provided an appropriate technical 

demonstration showing that emissions from sources 

of these pollutants ‘‘significantly contribute’’ to 

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area (40 

CFR 51.1002(c)(3), (4) and 72 FR 20586 at 20589– 

97 (April 25, 2007)). 

6See Memorandum, dated March 2, 2012 

(withdrawn June 6, 2013), from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions 

I–X re: ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (‘‘2012 Guidance’’) 

Available at: http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_

guide.html. 

7See CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.1002(a). 

8The NRDC decision also remanded the EPA’s 

2008 final rule to implement the nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

requirements for PM2.5 (73 FR 28231, May 16, 2008) 

which, like the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

was premised on the requirements of subpart 1. 

Today’s proposal does not address requirements for 

NNSR programs other than the requirements 

concerning PM2.5 precursors in CAA section 189(e), 

which we discuss in Section IV.C below, and PM2.5

interpollutant trading ratios, which we discuss in 

Section IV.J below. 

various chemical reactions among 

precursor pollutants such as nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (‘‘secondary 

PM2.5’’).2

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by 

CAA section 107(d) to designate areas 

throughout the nation as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 

2009, the EPA designated the SJV as 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

standard of 35 mg/m3 (74 FR 58688, 

November 13, 2009). This designation 

became effective on December 14, 2009 

(40 CFR 81.305). The SJV area is also 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.3

The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

home to 4 million people and is the 

nation’s leading agricultural region. 

Stretching over 250 miles from north to 

south, 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 plans to 

attain the NAAQS in the area is the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVAPCD or District). The 

District works cooperatively with the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

in preparing these plans. Authority for 

regulating sources under state 

jurisdiction in the SJV is split between 

the District, which has responsibility for 

regulating stationary and most area 

sources, and CARB, which has 

responsibility for regulating most 

mobile sources. 

Ambient 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

design value levels in the San Joaquin 

Valley are among the highest recorded 

in the United States for the 2011–2013 

period.4 Exceedances of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard occur almost exclusively 

during the late fall and winter months 

from October to March, when ambient 

PM2.5 is dominated by ammonium 

nitrate (a secondary particulate formed 

from nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

ammonia emissions) and directlyemitted particulates, such as wood 

smoke. During the winter, the SJV 

experiences extended periods of 

stagnant weather with cold foggy 

conditions which encourage wood 

burning and are conducive to the 

formation of ammonium nitrate (2012 

PM2.5, Appendix G, pp. 7 to 9). 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

PM2.5 Moderate Nonattainment Area 

Plans 

In April 2007, the EPA issued the 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule (‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule’’) to assist states with the 

development of SIPs to meet the Act’s 

attainment planning requirements for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards (72 FR 20583, 

April 25, 2007, codified at 40 CFR part 

51, subpart Z). This rule was premised 

on the EPA’s prior interpretation of the 

Act as allowing for implementation of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the 

general nonattainment area provisions 

in subpart 1 of part D, title I of the CAA 

(‘‘subpart 1’’) and not the more specific 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas in subpart 4 of part 

D, title I of the Act (‘‘subpart 4’’). 

Among other things, the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule included 

nationally applicable presumptions 

regarding the need to evaluate and 

potentially control emissions of certain 

PM2.5 precursors.5

In March 2012, the EPA issued a 

guidance document to aid states in 

preparing SIPs to meet the Act’s 

attainment planning requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.6 The 

2012 guidance was based, in large part, 

on the requirements in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, which the EPA 

based solely upon the statutory 

requirements of subpart 1. 

California had three years from the 

effective date of SJV’s designation as 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

standard to submit a SIP for the SJV that 

addressed the applicable requirements 

of the Act.7 On December 20, 2012, the 

District adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 

provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

standard. On January 24, 2013, CARB 

adopted the Plan as an element of the 

California SIP and submitted it to the 

EPA on March 4, 2013. 

On January 4, 2013, several weeks 

after the District’s adoption of the Plan, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit issued its decision in a challenge 

to the EPA’s 2007 mPM2.5

Implementation Rule (NRDC v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In NRDC, 

the court held that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

solely pursuant to the general 

implementation requirements of subpart 

1, without also considering the 

requirements specific to particulate 

matter nonattainment areas in subpart 

4.8 The court reasoned that the plain 

meaning of the CAA requires 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

standards under subpart 4 because PM2.5

particles fall within the statutory 

definition of PM10 and are thus subject 

to the same statutory requirements as 

PM10. The court remanded the 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule in its 

entirety, including the presumptions 

concerning VOC and ammonia in 40 

CFR 51.1002, and instructed the EPA 

‘‘to repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Consistent with the NRDC decision, 

on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA 

published a final rule classifying all 

areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards as ‘‘Moderate’’ under 

subpart 4 and establishing a deadline of 

December 31, 2014 for states to submit 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1818 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9See 79 FR 69806, 69809 (November 21, 2013) 

and 79 FR 31566, 31568 (June 2, 2014). 

10See Letter dated March 4, 2013, from James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures. 

11See Letter dated November 6, 2014, from James 

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures. 

12See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. ES–6 and SJVAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution 2012–12–19, ‘‘In the 

Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 2012 PM2.5 Plan,’’ 

December 20, 2012. 

13See CARB Resolution 13–2, ‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,’’ January 

24, 2013. 

14See Notice of Public Hearing to Adopt 

Supplemental Document to the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 

the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and New Source Review 

Rule to address Clean Air Act Subpart 4 

requirements, available at http://www.valleyair.org/ 

Air_Quality_Plans/docs/NPH_SD_PM25Plan_09_

2014.pdf. 

15See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to 

Consider the Supplemental Document for the San 

Joaquin Valley 24-Hour PM2.5 SIP, September 23, 

2014, and CARB Board Resolution 14–37, October 

24, 2014. 

any attainment-related and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) SIP elements required for these 

areas pursuant to subpart 4. The EPA 

provided its rationale for these actions 

in both the proposed and final 

classification/deadline rule.9

On September 18, 2014, the District 

adopted the ‘‘Supplemental Document, 

Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5

Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and 

District Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review)’’ 

(‘‘Supplement’’) as a revision to the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. The District adopted 

the Supplement to address subpart 4 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

standard to the extent that these 

requirements were not adequately 

addressed in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. CARB 

submitted the Supplement to the EPA 

on November 6, 2014. The Supplement 

includes information on the 

implementation of reasonably available 

controls for ammonia sources in the SJV 

and the District’s demonstration that 

attainment by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 is 

impracticable (‘‘impracticability 

demonstration’’). As a consequence of 

the NRDC decision, we are reviewing 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement for 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of both subpart 1 and 

subpart 4. 

The EPA has longstanding guidance 

interpreting the subpart 4 requirements 

for particulate matter nonattainment 

areas (see ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992) (‘‘General 

Preamble’’) and ‘‘State Implementation 

Plans for Serious PM–10 Nonattainment 

Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for 

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (59 

FR 41998, August 16, 1994) 

(‘‘Addendum’’)). The General Preamble 

at 13538 discusses the relationship of 

subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP 

requirements, and notes that SIPs for 

moderate nonattainment areas must 

meet the general provisions in subpart 

1 to the extent that these provisions are 

not otherwise ‘‘subsumed by, or 

integrally related to, the more specific 

[subpart 4] requirements.’’ Some subpart 

1 provisions have no subpart 4 

equivalent (e.g., the emission 

inventories (CAA section 172(c)(3)) and 

contingency measures (CAA section 

172(c)(9)) and for these provisions, 

subpart 1 continues to govern. Other 

provisions of subpart 1 are subsumed or 

superseded by more specific 

requirements in subpart 4 (e.g., certain 

provisions concerning attainment 

dates). 

Because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan was 

initially developed and submitted to 

meet the requirements of subpart 1 and 

the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

certain elements of the Plan address 

provisions of subpart 1 rather than the 

applicable provisions of subpart 4. 

Specifically, these elements are the 

State’s request for an attainment date 

extension from 2014 to 2019 under CAA 

section 172(a)(2)(A); the demonstration 

of attainment by 2019; those portions of 

the reasonably available control 

measure (RACM) demonstration that 

show there are no section 172(c)(1) 

RACM that would expedite attainment 

from 2019 to 2018; the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emission 

budgets for 2019; and the contingency 

measures for failure to attain. We are not 

proposing any action on these specific 

SIP elements at this time. 

As part of this proposal, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that the SJV 

cannot practicably attain the 2006 PM2.5

standard by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 

and to reclassify the area from Moderate 

to Serious nonattainment under subpart 

4. Should the EPA finalize this proposal 

to reclassify the SJV area as a Serious 

area, the State will be required to adopt 

and submit a new plan addressing the 

Serious area requirements in subpart 4. 

We discuss these Serious area 

requirements in more detail in section 

V. below. 

III. Clean Air Act Procedural 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

We are proposing action on two 

California SIP submittals. The first is the 

‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan,’’ which the State 

submitted to EPA on March 4, 2013 

(hereafter ‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘the 

Plan’’) 10 and the second is the 

‘‘Supplemental Document, Clean Air 

Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 

the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and District 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Sources),’’ which the State 

submitted to EPA on November 6, 2014 

(hereafter ‘‘the Supplement’’).11

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

110(l) require each state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and 

submittal of the 2012 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 December 20, 

2012.12 CARB provided the required 

public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its January 24, 2013 

public hearing on the Plan.13 The SIP 

submittal includes proof of publication 

of notices for these public hearings. We 

find, therefore, that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

meets the procedural requirements for 

public notice and hearing in CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

The District adopted the Supplement 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing.14 CARB adopted the 

Supplement for submittal as a SIP 

revision at its October 24, 2014 Board 

meeting after reasonable public notice.15

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that the EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

date of submittal. The EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The March 4, 2013 submittal of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan became complete by 

operation of law on September 4, 2014. 

We find that the Supplement satisfies 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1819 

16Letter dated January 14, 2014, Matthew Lakin, 

Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA-Region 9 to John 

Taylor, Branch Chief, Transportation Planning 

Branch, CARB; Subject: Use of San Joaquin Valley 

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Recession Adjustment 

Methodology. 

51, appendix V (see our Technical 

Support Document at section I.B). 

IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

We summarize our evaluation of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement below. 

Our detailed evaluation can be found in 

the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

for this proposal which is available 

online at www.regulations.gov in docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636, on 

EPA Region 9’s Web site at 

www.epa.gov/region9/air/sjv-pm25/

index.html, or from the EPA contact 

listed at the beginning of this notice. 

A. Emissions Inventory 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that 

each SIP include a ‘‘comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of the 

relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] 

area. . . .’’ By requiring an accounting 

of actual emissions from all sources of 

the relevant pollutants in the area, this 

section provides for the base year 

inventory to include all emissions that 

contribute to the formation of a 

particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, this 

includes direct PM2.5 as well as the 

main chemical precursors to the 

formation of secondary PM2.5: NOX, 

SO2, VOC, and ammonia (NH3). Primary 

PM2.5 includes condensable and 

filterable particulate matter. 

A state should include in its SIP 

submittal documentation explaining 

how the emissions data were calculated. 

In estimating mobile source emissions, 

a state should use the latest emissions 

models and planning assumptions 

available at the time the SIP is 

developed. California is required to use 

EMFAC2011 to estimate tailpipe and 

brake and tire wear emissions of PM2.5, 

NOX, SO2, and VOC from on-road 

mobile sources (78 FR 14533, March 6, 

2013). States are required to use the 

EPA’s AP–42 road dust method for 

calculating re-entrained road dust 

emissions from paved roads (76 FR 

6328, February 4, 2011). 

In addition to the base year inventory 

submitted to meet the requirements of 

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

also submit future ‘‘baseline 

inventories’’ for the projected 

attainment year and each reasonable 

further progress (RFP) milestone year, 

and any other year of significance for 

meeting applicable CAA requirements. 

By ‘‘baseline inventories’’ (also referred 

to as ‘‘projected baseline inventories’’), 

we mean projected emissions 

inventories for future years that account 

for, among other things, the ongoing 

effects of economic growth and adopted 

emissions control requirements. The SIP 

should include documentation 

explaining how the emissions 

projections were calculated. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan 

The planning inventories for direct 

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

SO2, VOC, and ammonia) for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area together with 

documentation for the inventories are 

found in Appendix B of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan. Winter daily average inventories, 

representing conditions in the period 

November through April, are provided 

for the base year 2007 and the baseline 

year of 2012 and each baseline year 

from 2014 to 2019. A winter inventory 

is used because exceedances of the 35 

mg/m3 PM2.5 standard in the SJV occur 

mostly during the winter months (p. 3– 

4 and Appendix G, p. G–6). Baseline 

inventories reflect all control measures 

adopted prior to January 2012. Growth 

factors used to project these baseline 

inventories are derived from data 

obtained from a number of sources such 

as the California Energy Commission 

and Department of Finance as well as 

studies commissioned by the SJV’s 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(pp. B–21 to B–30). 

Each inventory includes emissions 

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

sources. The inventories use 

EMFAC2011 for estimating on-road 

motor vehicle emissions (p. B–26). After 

EMFAC2011 was released in 2011, new 

information on statewide diesel fuel 

usage and economic forecasts became 

available to the State. For the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, CARB adjusted EMFAC2011 

emissions estimates for heavy-duty 

trucks to reflect this new information (p. 

B–26). The EPA allowed the use of these 

adjustment factors in transportation 

conformity determinations in the SJV.16

Re-entrained paved road dust emissions 

were calculated using the EPA’s AP–42 

road dust methodology (Appendix B, p. 

B–25). 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

winter daily average inventories of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for the 

base year of 2007. These inventories 

provide the basis for the control 

measure analysis and the RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan. 

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

2007 BASE YEAR

[Winter daily average in tons] 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC Ammonia 

Stationary Sources ............................................................... 9.4 45.6 10.4 96.2 19.8 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 62.5 19.0 0.8 213.2 342.2 

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 9.1 296.5 0.6 67.3 5.3 

Off-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 6.1 103.9 1.0 38.0 0.0 

Total .............................................................................. 87.1 465.1 12.8 414.8 367.3 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B–1 to B–5. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action 

The inventories in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan are based on the most current and 

accurate information available to the 

State and District at the time the Plan 

and its inventories were being 

developed in 2011 and 2012, including 

the latest EPA-approved version of 

California’s mobile source emissions 

model, EMFAC2011. The inventories 

comprehensively address all source 

categories in the SJV and were 

developed consistent with the EPA’s 

inventory guidance. For these reasons, 

we are proposing to approve the 2007 

base year emissions inventory in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

17The EPA Modeling Guidance and Modeling 

Guidance Update are available on EPA’s SCRAM 

Web site, Web page: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/ 

guidance_sip.htm; direct links: http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rhguidance.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/

guidance/guide/Update_to_the_24-hour_PM25_

Modeled_Attainment_Test.pdf. 

18The District developed the Plan to address the 

requirements of subpart 1 as interpreted in the 2007 

p.m.2.5 Implementation Rule (prior to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand of this rule in NRDC) which 

authorized the EPA to extend the attainment date 

as appropriate for a period no greater than 10 years 

from the date of designation, considering the 

severity of nonattainment and the availability and 

feasibility of pollution control measures (see CAA 

section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004). Because 

the SJV areas was designated nonattainment 

effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688 

(November 13, 2009), the date ‘‘10 years from the 

date of designation’’ would be December 14, 2019. 

19The 2012 PM2.5 Plan also included receptor 

modeling source apportionment analyses, using 

both the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) model and 

the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) model. 

These models distinguish the ambient PM2.5

contributions of several broad emissions source 

categories based on how they match the chemical 

species components of PM2.5 measurements. These 

results generally corroborated results from the 

photochemical modeling, but were not themselves 

part of the attainment demonstration. 

We are also proposing to find that the 

baseline inventories in the Plan provide 

an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP, 

and impracticability demonstrations. 

B. Air Quality Modeling 

1. Requirements for Air Quality 

Modeling 

CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires 

each state in which a Moderate area is 

located to submit a plan that includes a 

demonstration either (i) that the plan 

will provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date, or (ii) that 

attainment by that date is impracticable. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

include a demonstration that attainment 

by the Moderate area attainment date is 

impracticable. 

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 and still attain the 

standard, and to assess whether the 

proposed control strategy will result in 

attainment of the standard. Air quality 

modeling is performed for a base year 

and compared to air quality monitoring 

data collected during that year in order 

to determine model performance. Once 

the model performance is determined to 

be acceptable, future year changes to the 

emissions inventory are simulated with 

the model to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and 

changes in ambient air quality. To 

project future design values, the model 

response to emission reductions, in the 

form of Relative Response Factors 

(RRFs), is applied to monitored design 

values from the base year. 

For demonstrating attainment, the 

EPA’s recommendations for model 

input preparation, model performance 

evaluation, use of the model output for 

the attainment demonstration, and 

modeling documentation are described 

in Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA– 

454/B–07–002, April 2007 (‘‘Modeling 

Guidance’’), as amended by ‘‘Update to 

the 24 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Modeled 

Attainment Test,’’ Memorandum dated 

June 28, 2011, from Tyler Fox, Air 

Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA 

to Regional Air Program Managers, EPA 

(‘‘Modeling Guidance Update’’).17 The 

EPA has not issued modeling guidance 

specific to impracticability 

demonstrations but believes that a state 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

generally should provide air quality 

modeling similar to that required for an 

attainment demonstration. The main 

difference is that for an impracticability 

demonstration, the model’s projected 

design value on the required attainment 

date would be above the NAAQS, 

despite full implementation of the SIP 

control strategy including all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM). 

Alternatively, a model projection could 

show that the implementation of the SIP 

control strategy (including RACM) 

results in attainment of the standard, 

but that this is achieved only after the 

applicable attainment date. We are 

using the latter alternative in evaluating 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, since its modeling 

focuses on an attainment year of 2019, 

instead of 2015, which is the Moderate 

area attainment year for this area under 

subpart 4 (CAA section188(c)(1)).18

The EPA recommends that states 

prepare modeling 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 

applicable standard, and producing 

documentation to be submitted for EPA 

Regional Office review and approval 

prior to actual modeling. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA’s Guidance describes an 

Unmonitored Area Analysis (UAA). 

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 base year 

and future baseline (projection year) 

ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the 

standard. 

Finally, as discussed below, the 

Modeling Guidance recommends 

supplemental air quality analyses. 

These may be used as part of a Weight 

of Evidence analysis (WOEA), which 

assesses attainment by considering 

evidence other than the main air quality 

modeling attainment test. While 

supplemental analyses can increase 

confidence in the reliability of the 

modeling, they are less important for 

evaluating the impracticability 

demonstration per se. That is, the level 

of rigor in the modeling analyses 

supporting the Plan’s conclusion that 

attainment will occur by 2019 is less 

important when the object is to 

demonstrate that attainment is not 

practicable by 2015. Supplemental 

analyses to support a demonstration of 

attainment by the end of 2019 will be 

necessary in a new Serious area plan. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan 

A brief description of the modeling in 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and our evaluation of 

it follows. More detailed information 

about the modeling is available in 

section II.B. of the TSD. 

CARB and the District jointly 

performed the air quality modeling for 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The modeling 

analysis uses the Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical 

model, developed by the EPA.19 It 

incorporates routinely available 

meteorological and air quality data 

collected during 2007. The MM5 

(Mesoscale Model version 5) was used 

to prepare meteorological input for 

CMAQ. Air Quality modeling was 

performed only for the first and fourth 

quarters (Q1 and Q4) of 2007 which is 

sufficient for modeling the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard in the SJV because the 

high 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations occur 

only during the colder part of the year. 

Only the top 10 percent of modeled 

days is required for projecting the 98th 

percentile-based design values into the 

future. (Modeling Guidance Update, p. 

B–1) The 2012 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling 

protocol is contained in Appendix F 

and includes descriptions of the 

photochemical modeling. Additional 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1821 

20The WOEA is Appendix B to the ‘‘[CARB] Staff 

Report, Proposed Revision to the PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin 

Valley,’’ Release Date: January 11, 2013 (‘‘Staff 

Report’’), which can be found in the docket for this 

proposed rule. Appendix G to the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

also contains a weight of evidence analysis which 

is identical to the one in the CARB Staff Report 

except for the two additional appendices 5 and 6. 

21EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter 

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

22EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

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

005, December 2012), p. 2–1. 

23Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ‘‘[t]he 

control requirements applicable under plans in 

effect under this part for major stationary sources 

of PM10 shall also apply to major stationary sources 

of PM10 precursors, except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the 

standard in the area.’’ 

description of the photochemical 

modeling is also covered in the Weight 

of Evidence Analysis (’’WOEA’’).20 The 

protocol was reviewed by the EPA and 

a number of academic experts, and 

covers all of the topics recommended in 

the Guidance, including thorough 

discussions of past modeling results and 

emission inventory preparation 

procedures. 

The air quality modeling and results 

are summarized in Chapter 4 of the Plan 

(section 4.5, p. 4–22) and in the WOEA 

(section 10, p. 62). The Plan’s 

meteorological model and air quality 

model performance statistics and 

graphics are available from the CARB 

Web site (‘‘Meteorology and Air Quality 

Modeling for the 2012 24-Hour PM2.5

Plan for the San Joaquin Valley’’, http:// 

arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling_PM25/

24hr_PM25_ModelingPage.htm). The air 

quality model performance appears to 

be quite good, with bias within the 

criteria for acceptance, and usually 

within the original performance goals; 

performance is very good for total PM2.5

and for nitrate, the largest component of 

PM2.5; however, time series plots show 

that some high PM2.5 periods were 

underestimated. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan included a UAA 

in Appendix 6 of the Weight of 

Evidence Analysis in Appendix G of the 

Plan (p. G–175). (ARB Staff Report 

Appendix B is identical to Plan 

Appendix G, except that it does not 

include the latter’s Appendices 5 and 6). 

3. Evaluation of the Air Quality 

Modeling in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

The modeling showed that existing 

State and District control measures are 

not sufficient to attain the 2006 PM2.5

standard by 2019 at all monitoring sites 

in the SJV. Modeling of the additional 

measures in the Plan (additional direct 

PM2.5 reductions from residential wood 

burning and from commercial 

charbroiling) showed attainment at all 

sites by 2019. Id. 

Given the extensive discussion of 

modeling procedures, tests, and 

performance analyses called for in the 

Modeling Protocol and the good model 

performance, the EPA finds that the 

modeling is adequate for purposes of 

supporting the RACM demonstration, 

the RFP demonstration, and the 

demonstration of impracticability in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement. To 

satisfy the statutory requirements for a 

serious area attainment demonstration, 

however, the State will need to address 

documentation gaps outlined in the TSD 

(section II.B. of the TSD). 

While the State included a UAA in 

the Plan, it makes no difference for the 

impracticability demonstration we are 

concerned with here. Any unmonitored 

peaks with concentrations higher than 

at the monitors would merely 

strengthen the case for attainment being 

impracticable by the required date. A 

demonstration that attainment is 

impracticable at monitor locations is 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii). The EPA finds 

that the supplemental analyses 

presented in the WOEA are useful in a 

weight of evidence analysis, and 

support the demonstration of the 

impracticability of attainment by 2015. 

We note finally that existing ambient 

air quality monitoring data also support 

the modeled demonstration that 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

by December 31, 2015 is impracticable. 

Compliance with the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard is assessed using the 

three-year average of the yearly 98th 

percentile concentrations. The most 

recent monitored PM2.5 concentrations 

show that compliance with the 2006 

standard is not possible by the end of 

2015. See discussion in section II.F.3 of 

the TSD and section V.A. of this 

proposal. 

C. PM2.5 Precursors 

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The composition of PM2.5 is complex 

and highly variable due in part to the 

large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to 

total fine particle mass in most 

locations, and to the complexity of 

secondary particle formation processes. 

A large number of possible chemical 

reactions, often non-linear in nature, 

can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOC and 

ammonia to PM2.5, making them 

precursors to PM2.5.21 Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 may also depend on 

atmospheric conditions, including solar 

radiation, temperature, and relative 

humidity, and the interactions of 

precursors with preexisting particles 

and with cloud or fog droplets.22

The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning the four PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

See 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Although the 

rule included presumptions that states 

should address SO2 and NOx emissions 

in their attainment plans, it also 

included presumptions that regulation 

of VOCs and ammonia was not 

necessary. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002(c), the EPA provided, among 

other things, that a state was ‘‘not 

required to address VOC [and ammonia] 

as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of 

VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the 

state for control measures,’’ unless the 

state or the EPA provided an 

appropriate technical demonstration 

showing that emissions from sources of 

these pollutants ‘‘significantly 

contribute’’ to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3), (4); see also 2007 p.m.2.5 

Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 at 

20589–97 (April 25, 2007). 

In NRDC, however, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded the EPA’s 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule in its entirety, 

including the presumptions concerning 

VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002. 

See NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. 

Cir. 2013). Although the court expressly 

declined to decide the specific 

challenge to these presumptions (see 

706 F.3d at 437, n. 10 (D.C. Cir. 2013)), 

the court cited CAA section 189(e) 23 to 

support its observation that ‘‘[a]mmonia 

is a precursor to fine particulate matter, 

making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and 

PM10’’ and that ‘‘[f]or a PM10

nonattainment area governed by subpart 

4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated.’’ 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7 (citing 

CAA section 189(e)). Consistent with 

the NRDC decision, EPA now interprets 

the Act to require that under subpart 4, 

a state must evaluate all PM2.5

precursors for regulation unless it 

provides a demonstration adequate to 

rebut the presumption for a particular 

precursor in a particular nonattainment 

area. 

The provisions of subpart 4 do not 

define the term ‘‘precursor’’ for 

purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly 

require the control of any specifically 

identified particulate matter (PM) 

precursor. The statutory definition of 

‘‘air pollutant,’’ however, provides that 

the term ‘‘includes any precursors to the 

formation of any air pollutant, to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1822 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

24Courts have upheld this approach to the 

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

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

(9th Cir. 2005). 

25This identification is made in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix G, ‘‘PM2.5 Weight of Evidence 

Analysis’’ (‘‘WOEA’’) at pp. iv and 66, and in the 

CARB, ‘‘Staff Report, Proposed Revision to the 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San 

Joaquin Valley,’’ Release Date: January 11, 2013 

(‘‘Staff Report’’) at p. 9, which can be found in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The WOEA is also 

included as Appendix B to the Staff Report. 

26 2009–2010 peak day average in 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix A, Figures A–29 and A–30, p. A–52; 

2009–2011 peak day average in WOEA Figure 7, p. 

10. 27WOEA at Table 5, p. 63. 

extent the Administrator has identified 

such precursor or precursors for the 

particular purpose for which the term 

‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ CAA section 

302(g). The EPA has identified SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and ammonia as precursors 

to the formation of PM2.5. Accordingly, 

the attainment plan requirements of 

subpart 4 presumptively apply to 

emissions of all four precursor 

pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all 

types of stationary, area, and mobile 

sources, except as otherwise provided in 

the Act (e.g. CAA section 189(e)). 

Section 189(e) of the Act requires that 

the control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area. Section 189(e) contains the 

only express exception to the control 

requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., 

requirements for RACM and RACT, best 

available control measures (BACM) and 

best available control technology 

(BACT), most stringent measures, and 

NSR) for sources of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although 

section 189(e) explicitly addresses only 

major stationary sources, the EPA 

interprets the Act as authorizing it also 

to determine, under appropriate 

circumstances, that regulation of 

specific PM2.5 precursors from other 

source categories in a given 

nonattainment area is not necessary. For 

example, under the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the control 

requirements that apply to stationary, 

area, and mobile sources of PM10

precursors area-wide under CAA section 

172(c)(1) and subpart 4 (see General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539–42), a 

state may demonstrate in a SIP 

submittal that control of a certain 

precursor pollutant is not necessary in 

light of its insignificant contribution to 

ambient PM10 levels in the 

nonattainment area.24

We are evaluating the SJV PM2.5 Plan 

in accordance with the presumption 

embodied within subpart 4 that all 

PM2.5 precursors must be addressed in 

the state’s evaluation of potential 

control measures, unless the state 

adequately demonstrates that emissions 

of a particular precursor do not 

contribute significantly to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5

NAAQs in the nonattainment area. In 

reviewing any determination by the 

state to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from 

the required evaluation of potential 

control measures, we consider both the 

magnitude of the precursor’s 

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the area to reductions 

in emissions of that precursor. 

2. Evaluation of Precursors in SJV PM2.5

Plan and Supplement 

In the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, the State and 

District identify NOX, and SOX as the 

precursors that it must control in order 

to attain the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the 

San Joaquin Valley within 10 years of 

the area’s designation as nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., by 2019).25

Although no technical demonstration is 

necessary to support a conclusion 

consistent with the regulatory 

presumptions under subpart 4, the Plan 

nevertheless provides supporting 

evidence describing the need for NOX

and SOX controls. The Plan states that 

further reductions in VOC and ammonia 

emissions would not contribute to 

attainment of the PM2.5 standard in the 

area and provides analyses to support 

this position. In the following, we 

discuss the technical basis that the 

District provided in the Plan to support 

its positions with respect to SO2, NOX, 

VOC, and ammonia. 

a. SO2

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that 

emissions of SO2 contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the San Joaquin Valley, and that 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 

sensitive to reductions in SO2. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan shows the 

measured contribution of SO2 emissions 

to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in pie 

charts portraying the contribution of 

various pollutant species. Depending on 

time period and location, the 

ammonium sulfate contribution is 6 to 

9 percent,26 and the corresponding 

contribution of just the sulfate part of 

the ammonium sulfate molecules is 4 to 

7 percent of ambient PM2.5. The Plan’s 

‘‘Weight of Evidence Analysis’’ 

(‘‘WOEA’’) also gives the ammonium 

sulfate portion of the 2007 design value 

concentration, 4.7 mg/m3 at 

Bakersfield.27 The corresponding 

sulfate-only portion is 3.4 mg/m3. These 

contribution levels are substantial, 

although smaller than the contributions 

of some other components. 

Ambient PM2.5 sensitivity to 

reductions of SO2 emissions is also 

presented in the Plan in the form of 

modeling results. The results from the 

sensitivity modeling is cited and 

discussed below in the NOX subsection. 

The SO2-specific results are that a 25% 

reduction in Valley-wide SO2 emissions 

would result in a 0.18 mg/m3 decrease in 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations at the 

design value monitoring site, 

Bakersfield-California. It can also be 

inferred from the modeling that there is 

an ambient PM2.5 decrease of 0.08 mg/m3

per ton of SO2 reduction (WOEA, Tables 

6 and 7, p. 65). The 0.18 mg/m3 PM2.5

decrease for a 25% SO2 reduction is 

considerably lower than the 3.75 mg/m3

decrease that would result from a 25% 

NOX reduction, but the 0.08 mg/m3

PM2.5 decrease per ton of emissions 

reduction is the same for SO2 as it is for 

NOX. The reason the 25% NOX

reduction provides a larger reduction in 

ambient PM2.5 levels than a 25% SO2

reduction is simply that the NOX

emission inventory for the area is much 

larger than the SO2 inventory. The 2007 

winter planning inventory for SO2 is 

just 12.8 tpd, whereas for NOX it is 

465.1 tpd, more than 35 times larger (see 

2012 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix B, 

Emission Inventory, grand totals in 

tables B–3 for SO2 and B–2 for NOX.) 

Even though the relatively small SO2

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations leaves little scope for 

reductions, the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 to SO2 emission reductions 

indicates that SO2 emissions contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels above the 

standards. 

Based on the technical analyses 

provided in the Plan, the EPA agrees 

with the State’s and District’s 

conclusion that SO2 controls must be 

included in the evaluation of potential 

control measures for the 2006 PM2.5

standard in the SJV, consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. 

b. NOX

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan recognizes that 

emissions of NOX contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the San Joaquin Valley, and that 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 

sensitive to reductions in NOX. The Plan 

discusses NOX in conjunction with 

ammonia, because these precursors 

react together to create ammonium 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1823 

28 2012 PM2.5 Plan Appendix A, Figures A–30 and 

A–29, p. A–52. 

29See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. A–10. The design value 

for Bakersfield-California for 2009–2011 is given as 

a rounded value of 62 mg/m3 in Table A–5 in 

Appendix A of the Plan. For greater precision in 

estimating species contributions, we have used the 

unrounded value of 61.8 mg/m3 calculated as the 

average of the 98th percentiles values for each year 

(66.7, 53.3, and 65.5) as listed in Table A–4. 

30The nitrate fraction of ammonia nitrate is 

calculated as molecular weight of nitrate (62) 

divided by the molecular weight of ammonium 

nitrate (80) and equals 77.5 percent. 

31The academic journal papers and are described 

in Appendix F, section 2.7 (p. 28), and in WOEA, 

section 5.c (p. 64). 

32 Kleeman, M.J., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 

Control strategies for the reduction of airborne 

particulate nitrate in California’s San Joaquin 

Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 2005, 39, 5325– 

5341. Liang, J., Gu ̈rer, K., Allen, P.D., Zhang, K.M., 

Ying, Q., Kleeman, M., Wexler, A., and Kaduwela, 

A., 2006, A photochemical model investigation of 

an extended winter PM episode observed in Central 

California: Model Performance Evaluation, 

Proceedings of the 5th Annual CMAQ Models-3 

User’s Conference, Chapel Hill, NC. Pun, B.K., 

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

wintertime particulate matter formation in Central 

California, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 402–409. 

Different models and emission inventories in these 

studies conducted over the years also contribute to 

the variation in results. 

33 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4–8 and Figure 

4–7, p. 4–10; more detail in WOEA section 9, p. 58, 

Figures 49–52. 

34Chapter 4, Figures 4–4 and 4–5 (Plan, p. 4–9); 

WOEA, section 5b, p. 16. See also CARB Staff 

Report, p. E–3. 

35As noted below in the ammonia subsection, the 

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

must be used with caution. However, for NOX it 

does support evidence from the modeling results 

that NOX significantly contributes to PM2.5

exceedances. 

36CRPAQS is the California Regional Particulate 

Air Quality Study. More information is available 

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

ccaqs.htm. 

37Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., 

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

Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the 

San Joaquin Valley during Winter, Journal of Air 

and Waste Management Association, 56, 1679– 

1693. 

nitrate, the largest component of 

ambient PM2.5 particles by species in the 

SJV.28 The chemical products of 

ammonia and NOX (ammonium and 

nitrate) combine in a 1:1 molecular 

ratio, but as discussed below, this ratio 

does not mean that emissions controls 

for the two precursor pollutants would 

be equally effective at reducing ambient 

PM2.5. The Plan provides several lines of 

evidence to indicate that reductions in 

NOX emissions are effective in reducing 

PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the 

standard, and also that they are more 

effective than reductions in ammonia 

emissions. The evidence includes 

ambient contributions, model 

simulations of NOX emission 

reductions, historical trends, and the 

relative amounts of NOX and ammonia. 

The Plan indicates that the ambient 

contribution of NOX to PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV is substantial. Ammonium 

nitrate is the largest chemical 

component of ambient PM2.5 in the SJV, 

comprising 65 percent of the 2009–2011 

average peak 24-hour PM2.5

concentration at Bakersfield (WOEA, p. 

10). Using the 2009–2011 24-hour PM2.5

design value of 61.8 mg/m3,29 the 

ammonium nitrate concentration on 

peak PM2.5 days is approximately 40.2 

mg/m3. If only nitrate itself is considered 

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

nitrate molecules), the contribution of 

NOX represents approximately 50.3 

percent of the 2009–2011 average peak 

24-hour PM2.5 concentration at 

Bakersfield, which is an ambient 

contribution of 31.1 mg/m3.30 Whether 

considered as ammonium nitrate or 

simply as nitrate, NOX is clearly a 

significant contributor to ambient PM2.5

levels above the standard in the SJV. 

In addition to this evidence on the 

contribution of NOX to PM2.5

concentrations, the Plan provides 

evidence that ambient PM2.5

concentrations are sensitive to NOX

reductions (i.e., nitrate PM2.5

concentrations go down when NOX

emissions are reduced). The evidence is 

from modeling, historical trends, and 

relative proportions of NOX and 

ammonia. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides 

evidence from past and current 

photochemical modeling simulations 

that ambient ammonium nitrate is 

sensitive to NOX reductions. The Plan 

describes past modeling studies that 

were documented in academic 

journals.31 In the various studies, when 

NOX emissions were reduced by 50 

percent, ambient ammonium nitrate 

decreased by 25 to 50 percent, 

depending on the episode modeled and 

the geographic location.32 Modeling for 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan also shows 

substantial sensitivity of ambient PM2.5

concentrations to reductions in NOX

emissions. In the Plan, the State 

modeled a 25 percent reduction in NOX

emissions and showed a decrease in 

Bakersfield PM2.5 concentrations of 3.75 

mg/m3, a 6 percent decrease in the 2009– 

2011 design value of 61.8 mg/m3 and 

similar levels of ambient decreases at 

other monitors (WOEA, Table 6, p. 65). 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides 

additional (non-modeling) evidence on 

the effectiveness of NOX reductions. The 

historical downward trends of NOX

emissions and of ambient nitrate 

concentrations are discussed in Chapter 

4 and the WOEA of the Plan.33 Daily 

NOX emissions levels and winter nitrate 

concentrations appear correlated over 

time on an annual basis. Both have 

decreased by about a third during the 

period 2004 to 2011. This is evidence 

that existing NOX controls are effective 

at reducing ammonium nitrate. The 

evidence is strengthened by the fact that 

this reduction in ambient nitrate 

occurred despite an increase in 

emissions of ammonia, the other 

precursor to ammonium nitrate, during 

the same period (Plan p. 4–8). 

The Plan further describes the 

effectiveness of NOX controls by 

characterizing it as the ‘‘limiting 

precursor’’ in ammonium nitrate 

formation, based on the relative 

amounts of NOX and ammonia. Based 

on monitored concentrations and the 

emissions inventory, the Plan concludes 

that NOX is the limiting precursor. The 

limiting precursor concept is illustrated 

briefly in Chapter 4 and described more 

fully in the WOEA.34 One molecule of 

each of NOX and ammonia is required 

to form each molecule of ammonium 

nitrate. If NOX is in short supply relative 

to ammonia, then NOX is the limiting 

factor in ammonium nitrate formation.35

The WOEA includes plots (Figures 16 

and 17, p. 19) of ammonia and nitric 

acid (which contains nitrate) 

concentrations at two monitoring sites 

in the SJV (Angiola and Fresno) that 

were measured during the winter 2000– 

2001 CRPAQS 36 study and reported in 

Lurmann et al. (2006).37 The Plan notes 

that ammonia concentrations are at least 

an order of magnitude larger than those 

of nitrate and notes Lurmann et al.’s 

conclusion that NOX is the limiting 

precursor. 

The WOEA also considers emissions 

inventories to support the argument that 

NOX is the limiting precursor. The 

WOEA normalized NOX emissions using 

the relative molecular weights of NOX

and ammonia, in order to reflect the 

number of molecules of each available 

to react with each other (p. 18, Table 1). 

In 2000, the amount of NOX available 

was only about two-thirds the amount of 

ammonia; in 2011 NOX was only onethird of ammonia. This shows the 

scarcity of NOX relative to ammonia and 

implies that NOX is the limiting 

precursor in the formation of 

ammonium nitrate. 

Based on the range of technical 

analyses provided in the Plan and other 

information available to EPA, the EPA 

agrees with the State’s and District’s 

conclusion that NOX controls must be 

included in the evaluation of potential 

control measures for the 2006 PM2.5

standard in the SJV, consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. 

c. Ammonia 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

state that ‘‘[b]ecause of the regional 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1824 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

38The ammonium fraction of ammonia nitrate is 

calculated as molecular weight of ammonium (18) 

divided by the molecular weight of ammonium 

nitrate (80) and equals 23.5 percent. The 

ammonium fraction of ammonia sulfate is 

calculated as molecular weight of ammonium 

portion (36) divided by the molecular weight of 

ammonium sulfate (132) and equals 27.3 percent. 

surplus in ammonia, even substantial 

ammonia emissions reductions yield a 

relatively small reduction in nitrate’’ 

(Plan p. 4–8) and that ‘‘ammonia 

reductions would not significantly 

contribute to the Valley’s attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard’’ (Plan p. 4–11). 

To support this finding, the Plan and 

Supplement discuss the ambient 

contribution of ammonia to measured 

PM2.5 levels in the SJV, and the 

sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to ammonia 

reductions. The latter includes 

discussion of the relative abundance of 

NOX and ammonia, and of modeled 

simulations of further reductions in 

ammonia emissions. 

The Plan indicates that ammonia 

contributes to ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5, in the form of ammonium nitrate 

and ammonium sulfate. As noted above 

in the NOX discussion, ammonium 

nitrate contributes 65 percent of the 

2009–2011 average peak PM2.5 ambient 

levels at Bakersfield. Ammonium sulfate 

contributes an additional 7 percent (p. 

G–10; WOEA, p. 10). Thus, ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate together 

account for a total of 72 percent of the 

peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, or 

44.5 mg/m3, and ammonia emissions are 

essential to the formation of both of 

these components of the ambient 

particulate matter. If only the 

ammonium portion of these molecules 

is considered, the corresponding figures 

are 16.6 percent of peak PM2.5 ambient 

levels, or 10.3 mg/m3.38 This level of 

contribution is a substantial fraction of 

the SJV’s 2009–2011 design value of 

61.8 mg/m3, and indicates that emissions 

of ammonia contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations that 

exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 

the SJV. 

Next we examine information in the 

Plan regarding the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 levels in the SJV to ammonia 

emission control. On this issue there is 

conflicting evidence. Based on evidence 

that ammonia is not the limiting 

precursor and that modeled ammonia 

reductions are relatively ineffective, the 

Plan concludes that controls for 

ammonia are not warranted. However, a 

detailed evaluation of the modeling 

shows that ammonia controls can be 

effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 in 

some locations. 

The Plan’s evidence discussed above 

to support the argument that NOX is the 

limiting precursor for ammonia nitrate 

formation is also presented as evidence 

that ammonia is not the limiting 

precursor, and so ambient PM2.5 would 

not be sensitive to ammonia reductions 

(WOEA, p. 16–20). The Plan notes that 

there is both an abundance of ambient 

ammonia relative to ambient nitrate, 

and an abundance of ammonia 

emissions relative to NOX emissions. 

The Plan also indicates that there is an 

abundance of gaseous ammonia relative 

to particulate ammonium at multiple 

locations during the 2000–2001 winter 

episode in the CRPAQS study (WOEA, 

p. 20 and Figure 18). This abundance 

suggests that even under conditions 

favorable to ammonium nitrate 

formation, a substantial amount of 

unreacted ammonia remains. Based on 

these multiple pieces of evidence on the 

abundance of ammonia, the Plan 

concludes that ammonia is not the 

limiting factor for ammonium nitrate 

formation and, thus, that reducing 

ammonia emissions would not reduce 

ambient PM2.5 in the SJV. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan also considered 

air quality modeling analyses to 

evaluate the effectiveness of reducing 

ammonia as compared to other 

precursors, and to PM2.5 decreases 

needed for attainment. Modeling for the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan indicated that a 25 

percent reduction in ammonia 

emissions resulted in a 0.55 mg/m3

decrease in ambient PM2.5 (WOEA, p. 

65, Table 6). This benefit is roughly oneseventh the corresponding benefit for a 

25 percent reduction in NOX. Id. 

Restating the inventory reduction 

percentages in terms of tons per day 

reductions, the Plan notes that reducing 

ammonia emissions by one ton per day 

is only about 10 percent as effective as 

reducing one ton per day of NOX (Plan 

p. 4–11). Thus, based on this air quality 

modeling, the Plan concludes that 

additional ammonia control is 

considerably less effective than NOX

control. 

The Plan also notes that, assuming the 

same rate of improvement in ambient 

PM2.5 concentration per ton of ammonia 

reduced, it would take a 34 percent 

reduction in ammonia emissions to 

decrease ambient PM2.5 by 1 mg/m3, the 

amount that would have been needed to 

advance projected attainment by one 

year from 2019 to 2018. The Plan 

considers this to be ‘‘an infeasible 

amount, since there are no control 

strategies that exist or have been 

identified which could achieve such 

large reductions’’ (Plan, p. 4–11). 

The Plan assumes that additional 

ammonia control, as modeled, would 

provide limited benefit for attainment 

planning purposes. The Plan concludes, 

based upon the various information and 

analyses described above, that 

‘‘ammonia reductions would not 

significantly contribute to the Valley’s 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard’’ 

(Plan p. 4–11), and therefore additional 

control measures should not be 

evaluated. 

After reviewing the information 

discussed above, EPA believes that the 

information provided by the State and 

District in the Plan and Supplement 

shows that ammonia contributes to a 

large fraction of measured PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV area, in the 

form of ammonium nitrate and 

ammonium sulfate. Additionally, 

modeling analyses submitted by the 

State and studies available to EPA 

indicate that although ammonia control 

is generally less effective at reducing 

PM2.5 concentrations when compared to 

NOX control, it remains true that 

reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV 

would reduce PM2.5 by varying amounts 

throughout the nonattainment area. 

Moreover, reductions in ammonia in 

conjunction with reductions of SO2 and 

NOX would help to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS in the SJV. 

While EPA finds the modeling and 

other analyses presented in the 2012 

PM2.5 plan to be credible, the fact 

remains that the modeling analyses 

show that additional reductions in 

ammonia may reduce ambient PM2.5

levels to varying degrees. In the various 

studies, when ammonia emissions were 

reduced by up to 50 percent, ambient 

ammonium nitrate decreased by 5 to 25 

percent, depending on the episode 

modeled and the geographic location 

evaluated. (WOEA, p. 64) These 

percentages for ammonia benefits are 

generally smaller than those for NOX

reductions, but these modeling results 

show that reductions in ammonia 

emissions under certain circumstances 

can effectively reduce ambient PM2.5. 

The fact that all the modeling studies, 

including the modeling done for the 

current Plan, find at least some benefit 

from ammonia control shows that the 

concept of a ‘‘limiting precursor’’ 

discussed above is not absolute. In 

addition, the test for determining 

whether emission reduction measures 

for a particular precursor must be 

evaluated for purposes of timely 

attainment should not be exclusively 

based on the control effectiveness of the 

precursor relative to other precursors, 

but should also consider whether 

emissions of the precursor ‘‘contribute 

significantly’’ to ambient PM2.5 levels 

which exceed the PM2.5 standard in the 

nonattainment area. 

Regarding the Plan’s statement that it 

would take a 34 percent reduction in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1825 

39Chen, J., Ying, Q., and Kleeman, M.J., 2010, 

Source apportionment of wintertime secondary 

organic aerosol during the California regional PM10/ 

PM2.5 air quality study, Atmospheric Environment, 

44(10), 1331–1340. 

40The contribution of Organic Matter to 2009– 

2011 peak day PM2.5 levels was 17 percent at 

Bakersfield and 29 percent at Fresno (see Staff 

Report, Appendix B, p. 10 [pdf.52], Figure 6. Five 

percent of these gives 0.85 percent SOA at 

Bakersfield and 1.45 percent at Fresno. As a fraction 

of the 2007 design values of 66 mg/m3 at Bakersfield 

and 63 mg/m3 at Fresno, these give SOA 

contributions of 0.56 and 0.91 mg/m3 at Bakersfield 

and Fresno, respectively. 

41Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 

2009, Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter 

Formation in Central California, Atmospheric 

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

j.atmosenv.2008.08.040. 

42EPA-Region 9, Technical Support Document 

and Responses to Comments Final Rule on the San 

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation 

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

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

2005, Control strategies for the reduction of 

airborne particulate nitrate in California’s San 

Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 39: 

5325–5341 September 2005. doi:10.1016/

j.atmosenv.2005.05.044; cited in Plan Modeling 

Protocol. p. F–36). 

ammonia emissions to decrease ambient 

PM2.5 by 1 mg/m3, the amount needed to 

advance attainment by one year from 

2019 to 2018, EPA notes that the test for 

advancing the attainment date is based 

not on an evaluation of control 

measures for a single pollutant but 

rather on an evaluation of potential 

control measures for direct PM2.5 and all 

PM2.5 precursors from all types of 

sources in the nonattainment area. We 

also note that the appropriate inquiry in 

this context is whether reasonably 

available control measures would 

advance attainment by one year from 

2015 to 2014 (not from 2019 to 2018), 

given under subpart 4 the applicable 

attainment date for the SJV area for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is December 31, 

2015. 

In summary, the information provided 

by the State and District in the Plan and 

Supplement shows that ammonia 

contributes to a large fraction of 

measured PM2.5 concentrations in the 

SJV area, in the form of ammonium 

nitrate and, to a lesser extent, 

ammonium sulfate. Additionally, 

modeled evidence submitted by the 

State and studies available to EPA 

indicate that although ammonia control 

is less effective at reducing PM2.5

concentrations compared to NOX

control, reducing ammonia emissions in 

the SJV would reduce PM2.5 by some 

amount in parts of the Valley. Given the 

severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem in the SJV, the demonstration 

that attainment in SJV by 2015 is 

impracticable, and the documentation 

in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan showing that 

ammonia emissions are responsible for 

more than 10 mg/m3 of ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV area, EPA 

does not agree with the statement in the 

Plan that additional ammonia controls 

need not be evaluated to satisfy CAA 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

standard in the SJV. 

While stating that additional 

ammonia reductions are not necessary, 

the State nevertheless provided in the 

Supplement an evaluation of ammonia 

control measures currently 

implemented in the SJV and other 

potential ammonia control measures. 

We discuss the State’s ammonia control 

evaluation in section D, below 

(‘‘Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology’’). 

d. VOC 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan states that 

further reductions in VOC emissions 

would not contribute to PM2.5

attainment in the San Joaquin Valley. To 

support this finding, the Plan discusses 

the ambient contribution of VOC to 

measured PM2.5 levels in the Valley, the 

indirect role of VOC in ammonium 

nitrate formation, and modeled 

simulations of further reductions in 

VOC emissions. 

There are two routes by which VOC 

can contribute to ambient PM2.5. The 

first is through various chemical 

reactions leading to the formation of 

Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA). The 

second is through photochemical 

reactions that create oxidants such as 

ozone and the hydroxyl radical (OH), 

which in turn oxidize NOX emissions to 

nitrate, leading to the formation of 

particulate ammonium nitrate. The 

Plan’s Chapter 4 (p. 4–12) discussed 

both routes in section 4.4.2. The WOEA 

discusses SOA in section 6 (WOEA, p. 

32) and the oxidant route in section 5d 

(WOEA, p. 24). 

For the direct contribution of VOC to 

PM2.5, SOA, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan states 

that modeling for annual average PM2.5

for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan found that 

anthropogenic SOA were about 3 to 5 

percent of total organic aerosol, and that 

SOA were mainly formed during the 

summer from nonanthropogenic 

sources. The winter anthropogenic 

contribution that is of interest for the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard would 

necessarily be lower, since SOA 

formation is less at winter temperatures, 

which are lower than the annual 

average. The Plan also cites a study by 

Chen et al. 39 for the winter 2000–2001 

CRPAQS episode. This study found that 

the SOA portion of total organic aerosol 

had a maximum value of 4.26 mg/m3

with concentrations at Fresno and 

Bakersfield of 2.46 and 2.28 mg/m3, 

respectively, which represent 6 percent 

and 4 percent of the total organic 

aerosol at those locations. Applying this 

roughly 5 percent SOA proportion to the 

organic carbon portion of the measured 

2009–2011 winter PM2.5 composition 

shows that SOA is around 0.9 percent 

of total ambient PM2.5 at Bakersfield, 

and 1.5 percent of ambient PM2.5 at 

Fresno.40 Because anthropogenic SOA is 

only a portion of the total, the portion 

due to controllable anthropogenic 

sources would be even less. These 

modeling studies show that SOA is not 

a substantial component of ambient 

PM2.5 in the SJV and that the potential 

for reducing ambient PM2.5 through 

VOC emission reductions is very 

limited. 

For the indirect contribution of VOC 

to PM2.5, nitrate formation via daytime 

photochemistry, it appears that this 

route is also not a substantial 

contributor, based on modeled 

sensitivity to VOC reductions. For one 

such study there were relatively low 

modeled concentrations of ozone, which 

did not appear consistent with nitrate 

formation via daytime oxidant (ozone) 

photochemistry, which would be 

expected to have elevated ozone 

levels.41 The Plan reviews the same 

studies that the State relied on in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards (Plan Modeling 

Protocol, p. F–31). The EPA’s review of 

these studies and of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan’s examination of them is covered 

in the TSD for the EPA’s final action on 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.42 The findings 

from those reviews remain the same for 

the current Plan: past modeling studies 

vary on whether controlling VOC 

reduces PM2.5, but the most reliable 

ones show VOC control has little 

benefit, or even a disbenefit. As detailed 

in that previous TSD and in the Plan’s 

Modeling Protocol, the studies for 

which VOC control showed a benefit at 

some times and places are less reliable 

because they used unrealistic emissions 

levels, unrealistic control scenarios, or 

the effect occurred at PM2.5

concentrations no longer reached in the 

SJV. The Protocol also suggested that 

there is sufficient background ozone 

flowing in from outside the SJV area to 

perform the oxidizing role, even in the 

absence of oxidants generated from VOC 

emissions within the SJV,43 implying 

that VOC reductions would have little 

effect on ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding 

the standard in the SJV. The overall 

conclusion is that the effect of reducing 

VOC emissions is somewhat uncertain, 

but in general produces little benefit or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1826 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

44See VOC columns of WOEA Tables 6 and 7 (p. 

65) for Bakersfield, Visalia, Corcoran, and Merced. 

45WOEA Figure 54 (p. 67) shows the model PM2.5

response at Bakersfield to reductions in various 

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

NOX reductions plotted against VOC reductions. 

For a given level of NOX, in decreasing VOC by 

moving leftward along a horizontal line 

(representing constant NOX), one crosses the lines 

of constant PM2.5 (isopleths) into regions of 

increased PM2.5. The Plan presents similar diagrams 

in Chapter 4, Figures 4–15 through 4–23 (pp. 4– 

31ff) for the various monitoring sites. 

46Absent a demonstration to EPA’s satisfaction 

that major stationary sources of ammonia emissions 

do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5

levels that exceed the NAAQS in the SJV area, 

under CAA section 189(e) major stationary sources 

of ammonia are subject to the control requirements 

that apply to major stationary sources of direct 

PM2.5, including NNSR requirements. We intend to 

evaluate the adequacy of SJV’s NNSR program for 

PM2.5 purposes in a separate rulemaking. 

47This interpretation is consistent with guidance 

provided in the General Preamble at 13540. 

even a disbenefit in PM2.5

concentrations. 

Added to this evidence from past 

studies is the 2012 Plan’s current 

modeling, which indicates a disbenefit 

from controlling VOC at important 

geographic locations. This is shown by 

negative PM2.5 sensitivities (that is, 

decreased VOC emissions result in 

increased PM2.5 levels) for multiple 

locations.44 In addition, diagrams of 

model PM2.5 response at Bakersfield to 

various combinations of NOX and VOC 

reductions show graphically that VOC 

reductions increase PM2.5, for any given 

level of NOX.45 For all the monitoring 

sites, these NOX vs. VOC diagrams show 

either no decrease or an actual increase 

in PM2.5 as VOC emissions are reduced. 

The current modeling provides strong 

evidence that additional VOC 

reductions would not decrease ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. 

In sum, the information provided by 

the State and District in the Plan and 

Supplement shows that: (a) wintertime 

levels of secondary organic aerosol 

measured in the SJV are low and 

therefore the direct products of VOC 

emissions do not directly contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels above the 

standard in the SJV; and (b) wintertime 

reductions in VOC emissions in the SJV, 

when PM2.5 concentrations are high, 

would not reduce ambient PM2.5 levels, 

and therefore the indirect products of 

VOC emissions also do not directly 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 

above the standard in the SJV. Based on 

this information, we propose to 

determine that at this time VOC 

emissions do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that 

exceed the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the 

SJV nonattainment area. 

3. Proposed Action 

Based on a review of the information 

provided by the District and other 

information available to EPA, we 

propose to determine that at this time 

VOC emissions do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels 

which exceed the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

in the SJV and, therefore, that VOCs 

may be excluded from the State’s 

evaluation of potential control measures 

for purposes of this standard in this 

area. Consistent with the regulatory 

presumptions under subpart 4, all other 

PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SO2, and 

ammonia) must be included in the 

State’s evaluation of potential control 

measures for the 2006 PM2.5 standard in 

the SJV area, including NNSR 

provisions to implement the 

requirements of subpart 4.46 We discuss 

the State’s evaluation of potential 

control measures for NOX, SO2, and 

ammonia, as well as direct PM2.5, in 

section D (‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Measures/Reasonably Available 

Control Technology’’). 

D. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c) under subpart 1 

describes the general attainment plan 

requirement for RACM and RACT, 

requiring that attainment plan 

submissions ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures 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) and shall provide 

for attainment’’ of the NAAQS. The 

attainment planning requirements 

specific to PM2.5 under subpart 4 

likewise impose upon states an 

obligation to develop attainment plans 

that require RACM on sources of direct 

PM2.5 and those PM2.5 precursors 

determined to be subject to the RACM/ 

RACT requirement. CAA section 

189(a)(1)(C) requires that Moderate area 

PM2.5 SIPs contain provisions to assure 

that RACM are implemented by no later 

than 4 years after designation of the 

area. The EPA reads CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) together to 

require that attainment plans for 

Moderate nonattainment areas must 

provide for the implementation of 

RACM and RACT for existing sources of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the 

nonattainment area as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than 4 years 

after designation.47 As part of the 

RACM/RACT analysis, all available 

controls should be evaluated, and 

reasonable controls should be adopted. 

The terms RACM and RACT are not 

specifically defined in the Act, nor do 

the provisions of subpart 4 specify how 

states are to meet the RACM and RACT 

requirements. In longstanding guidance, 

however, the EPA has interpreted the 

RACM requirement to include any 

potential control measure for a point, 

area, on-road and non-road emission 

source that is technologically and 

economically feasible (General Preamble 

at 13540) and is not ‘‘absurd, 

unenforceable, or impracticable’’ 

(General Preamble at 13560). The EPA 

has historically defined RACT as the 

lowest emission limitation that a 

particular stationary source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control 

technology (e.g., devices, systems, 

process modifications, or other 

apparatus or techniques that reduce air 

pollution) that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. See General Preamble at 

13541 and 57 FR 18070, 18073–74 

(April 28, 1992). 

The EPA recommends that states use 

the following process to identify RACM/ 

RACT: 

1. Develop a comprehensive list of 

available control measures for all source 

categories in the nonattainment area. In 

developing this list, the state should identify 

existing control measures currently being 

implemented in the area and also include 

any control measures suggested in public 

comments. 

2. Remove from the list any measure that 

is unreasonable because emissions from the 

affected source or source category are 

insignificant (i.e., de minimis). The state 

should appropriately document any 

determination that a source or source 

category is insignificant. 

3. Evaluate each remaining available 

control measure for its ‘‘reasonableness,’’ 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility and any potentially adverse 

impacts. The state should provide a reasoned 

justification if it rejects a listed control 

measure as unreasonable. 

4. Include in its submitted Moderate area 

attainment plan, in enforceable form, each 

control measure found to be reasonable 

unless the measure is already either federally 

promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs. In areas that 

demonstrate attainment by the Moderate area 

attainment date, the state may justify 

rejection of an otherwise reasonable measure 

by demonstrating that the measure would 

not, individually or collectively with other 

reasonable measures being rejected, advance 

attainment by one year or more. For areas 

that demonstrate that attainment by the 

Moderate area attainment date is 

impracticable, the state must provide for the 

implementation of all available control 

measures that are technologically and 

economically feasible. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1827 

See General Preamble at 13540–13544. 

An evaluation of technological 

feasibility should include consideration 

of factors such as a source’s process and 

operating conditions, raw materials, 

physical plant layout, and non-air 

quality and energy impacts (e.g., 

increased water pollution, waste 

disposal, and energy requirements) (57 

FR 18070, 18073). 

An evaluation of economic feasibility 

should include consideration of factors 

such as cost per ton of pollution 

reduced (cost-effectiveness), capital 

costs, and annualized cost (57 FR 18070, 

18074). Absent other indications, the 

EPA presumes that it is reasonable for 

similar sources to bear similar costs of 

emissions reductions. Economic 

feasibility of RACM and RACT is thus 

largely informed by evidence that other 

sources in a source category have in fact 

applied the control technology, process 

change, or measure in question in 

similar circumstances. Id. 

2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan’s RACM/RACT 

evaluation for direct PM2.5, NOX and 

SO2 sources is summarized in section 

9.2 (p. 9–3) and detailed in Appendices 

C (‘‘Mobile Source Control Strategies’’) 

and D (‘‘Stationary and Area Source 

Control Strategy Evaluation’’). RACM 

for ammonia sources is discussed in 

Attachment A of the Supplement. The 

Plan includes a short discussion of the 

District’s current VOC control measures 

(p. 5–17 and Supplement, p. 13) but 

includes no detailed evaluation of them. 

The treatment of VOCs is thus 

consistent with the District’s 

determination that additional VOC 

controls are not necessary in the SJV 

area for purposes of attaining the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The evaluation of potential controls in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan is presented by 

source category. For stationary and area 

source categories, the evaluation is 

broken down by the current District rule 

or rules that apply to that source 

category. The evaluation also addresses 

a number of source categories that are 

not currently subject to emission 

controls (e.g., fireworks). See 2012 Plan, 

Appendix D, p. D–163. 

The following information is provided 

in Appendix D for each stationary or 

area source category or District rule or, 

for ammonia sources, in Attachment A 

to the Supplement: 

• A description of the sources within the 

category or sources subject to the rule; 

• base year (2007), current year (2012), and 

projected baseline year emissions (for every 

year from 2014 to 2019) in the source 

category or affected by the rule; 

• a discussion of the current rule 

requirements and/or listing and discussion of 

existing rules, regulations, or other control 

efforts that address the source category; and 

• identification and discussion of potential 

new controls, including in many cases, a 

discussion of the technological and economic 

feasibility of the new controls. Rules adopted 

by other agencies (including the EPA, South 

Coast AQMD, and Bay Area AQMD) are 

discussed and compared to existing SJV 

rules. Measures proposed by the public for 

the source category/rule are also identified 

and discussed. In addition, non-regulatory 

approaches to reducing emissions in each 

stationary and area source category are 

discussed, including the use of incentives, 

opportunities for technology advancement 

programs, policy initiatives, and education/

outreach programs. 

The following information is provided 

in Appendix C for each major on- and 

off-road mobile source category: 

• A description of the type of sources in 

the category; 

• base year (2007), current year (2012), and 

projected baseline year emissions (for every 

year from 2014 to 2019) in the source 

category; 

• a discussion of the current rule 

requirements and/or listing and discussion of 

existing rules, regulations, or other control 

efforts that address the source category; and 

• identification and discussion of potential 

new controls. Measures proposed by the 

public for the source category/rule are also 

identified and discussed with the majority of 

this discussion presented in the responses to 

comments in Appendix I, pp. I–10 to I–13. 

Through this evaluation process, the 

District identified 5 new control 

measures for adoption. The 2012 PM2.5

plan includes enforceable commitments 

to adopt these measures. See 2012 PM2.5

Plan, section 5.3.1 (p. 5–21) and Table 

2 below. 

TABLE 2—SJVAPCD 2012 PM2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE AMENDMENT COMMITMENTS

District rule 

No. Measure number and description Amend date Comply date Rule amendment commitment 

4308 .............. Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr.2013 2015 Lower the NOX emission limit for instantaneous water 

heaters in the size range of 0.075–0.4 MMBtu/hr from 

the current level of 55 ppmv to 20 ppmv. 

4692 .............. Commercial Charbroiling ..................... 2016 2017 Add requirements for under-fired charbroilers. 

1. Lower the threshold level for calling wood-burning curtailments from 30 μg/m3 to ≥20 μg/m3. 

2. Review the meteorological conditions that lead to elevated PM2.5, to prevent the buildup of PM2.5 that may 

lead to a potential exceedance day. 

4901 .............. Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Burning Heaters.

2016 2016/2017 3. Consider expanding the wood burning season to include October and/or March. 

4. Analyze the feasibility of allowing the use of the cleanest certified wood burning devices at specified curtailment levels. 

4905 .............. Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces.2014 2015 Lower the NOX emission limits for residential furnaces 

and examine the possibility of incorporating NOX limits 

for natural gas-fired, fan-type, commercial central furnaces into the rule. 

9610 .............. SIP Creditability of Incentives ............. 2013 2013 Establish appropriate mechanisms for the District to take 

SIP credit for eligible incentive programs. 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5–21, Table 5–3, and section 5.3.1. 

The District also identified a number 

of source categories for which existing 

information is inadequate to determine 

the feasibility of additional controls. 

These categories and the additional 

controls to be studied are discussed in 

section 5.3.3. (p. 5–24). The schedule for 

these studies is given in Table 5–4 (p. 

5–24). 

The Plan also includes descriptions of 

the District’s incentive programs 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

48These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin 

Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of 

Governments, the Merced County Association of 

Governments, the Madera County Transportation 

Commission, the Council of Fresno County 

Governments, Kings County Association of 

Governments, the Tulare County Association of 

Governments and the Kern Council of 

Governments. 

49See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012) (final rule 

approving Rule 4570 into the California SIP). 

50The Idaho rule requires dairy farms above 

specified threshold numbers of cows or animal 

units to register with Idaho DEQ and to implement 

industry best management practices (BMPs) to 

control ammonia emissions. A list of BMPs is 

contained in the rule. Each BMP is assigned a point 

value based on relative effectiveness in reducing 

ammonia. Dairy farms must employ BMPs totaling 

27 points. See Idaho Administrative Procedure Act 

(IDAPA) 58.01.01 Sections 760–764: Rules for the 

Control of Ammonia from Dairy Farms (adopted 

March 30, 2007; amended May 8, 2009). 

51Citing IDEQ’s technical documentation for the 

Idaho rule, the Supplement states that the Idaho 

rule’s point system is ‘‘arbitrary’’ and that overall 

ammonia emission reductions from the rule may 

not be substantial given the flexibility in the rule 

and the absence of a direct correlation between the 

points required and the amount of emission 

reductions achieved (see Supplement at A–25). 

52See Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements 

General Order for Existing Milk Cow Dairies, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Valley Region Order R5–2013–0122, 

October 3, 2013, available at http://

www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_

decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2013- 

0122.pdf 

53See 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012) (final 

rule approving Rule 4566 into California SIP). 

54See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012) (final rule 

approving Rule 4565 into California SIP). 

(Chapter 6); its technology advancement 

program (Chapter 7), and its public 

outreach program (Chapter 8). 

The efforts by the SJV’s eight 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO) 48 to implement cost-effect 

transportation control measures (TCM) 

are described in Appendix C, section C– 

11–4 (p. C–33). While no additional 

TCMs were identified by the MPOs, the 

Plan includes a discussion of the ongoing implementation of a broad range 

of TCMs in the Valley. There is also a 

discussion of the MPOs’ Congestion 

Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) 

funding policy which is a standardized 

process across the Valley for 

distributing 20 percent of the CMAQ 

funds to projects that meet a minimum 

cost-effectiveness. During the comment 

period for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, a 

number of TCMs were suggested by the 

public for consideration. See Appendix 

I, pp. I–10 to I–13. The feasibility of 

these measures is discussed in the 

District’s responses to comments. Id. 

The Supplement identifies three 

categories of ammonia (NH3) emission 

sources in the SJV, which are estimated 

to account for 96% of ammonia air 

emissions in the Valley—farming 

operations, including confined animal 

facilities (239.2 tpd), evaporation from 

agricultural fertilizers (66.1 tpd), and 

composting solid waste operations (20.5 

tpd) (see Supplement at 11). Information 

presented in the Supplement then 

compares District rules for confined 

animal facility (CAF) and composting 

operations to analogous requirements in 

other areas and discusses water quality 

measures for agricultural fertilizer 

application that may also reduce air 

emissions (see generally Supplement at 

Attachment A). 

Farming operations: The Supplement 

states that the control measures in SIPapproved Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities, adopted 2010) 49 have a 

secondary benefit of limiting NH3

emissions and have reduced ammonia 

emissions by more than 100 tpd (see 

Supplement at A–2, citing Staff Report 

for June 2009 re-adoption of Rule 4570 

(June 2009) at Appendix F). Rule 4570 

is a work practice rule that requires 

farmers to implement management 

practices (e.g., feed according to NRCS 

guidelines, remove manure from corrals 

at least four times per year) for different 

components of the CAF operation, such 

as feeding, milking parlors, housing/

bedding, manure management and land 

application. Rule 4570 applies to 

livestock operations, including dairy, 

beef, poultry and swine, above certain 

size thresholds. The District assumes in 

its RACM analysis that, for most control 

measures, the ammonia control 

efficiencies are the same as the VOC 

control efficiencies. The District 

compares Rule 4570 to livestock rules in 

seven other California air districts, 

including the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD), Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), and the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD). Based on a review 

of the number of work practices 

required by the other California rules, 

the District concludes that Rule 4570 is 

at least as stringent as the air quality 

rules for livestock operations in these 

other areas. In cases where the work 

practice standards in other rules may be 

more stringent than the requirements in 

Rule 4570, the District considers these 

measures beyond RACT or the 

emissions differences not significant 

(see, e.g., Supplement at A–7, noting 

frequency of mitigation requirements in 

South Coast Rule 223, adopted June 2, 

2006). 

The Supplement also compares Rule 

4570 to the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (IDEQ) dairy 

ammonia permit by rule, adopted in 

2009 (Idaho rule).50 While Rule 4570 is 

based on implementing a certain 

number of BMPs in specific categories, 

the Idaho rule is based on a ‘‘points’’ 

system, where each BMP is assigned a 

certain number of points based on 

control effectiveness. The District states 

that Rule 4570 is more stringent than 

the Idaho rule based on Rule 4570’s 

lower applicability threshold (e.g., 500 

milking cows v. 1,638 cows (@1,400 lbs) 

for free stall/flush dairies), more 

stringent requirements and greater 

number of required mitigation measures 

(see Supplement at A–25 and A–29). 

The District also states that Rule 4570 is 

more stringent regarding temporary 

suspension and substitution of 

mitigation measures, and contains more 

stringent testing, monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements. It also 

states that Rule 4570 is more stringent 

because it provides specific mitigation 

measures for various operations at 

dairies, while the Idaho rule is based on 

what the District characterizes as an 

‘‘arbitrary’’ point system that does not 

guarantee a specific degree of control 

(see Supplement at A–24 to A–29).51

Fertilizer application: The 

Supplement identifies fertilizer 

application to crops as the second 

largest source of ammonia emissions in 

the Valley and suggests that research to 

identify maximum efficiency of nitrogen 

use for various crop types could lead to 

a reduction of excess nitrogen in the soil 

that is susceptible to leaching and 

volatilization. The Supplement also 

refers to a ‘‘Regional Board General 

Order’’ issued by the Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board as 

a control measure that has ‘‘significantly 

reduced losses of nitrogen compounds 

to the environment, including leaching 

of nitrogen compounds to groundwater 

and air emissions such as ammonia and 

nitrous oxide’’ (Supplement at A–25 to 

A–27).52 The Supplement does not, 

however, identify any state or local air 

pollution control measure that limits 

ammonia emissions from fertilizer 

application operations. 

Composting: The District compares its 

two SIP-approved composting rules, 

Rule 4566 (Organic Water Materials, 

adopted in 2011) 53 and Rule 4565 

(Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry 

Litter Operations, adopted in 2007),54 to 

analogous rules adopted by the 

SCAQMD, Rule 1133.3 (Emission 

Reductions from Greenwaste 

Composting Operations, adopted in 

2011) and Rule 1133.2 (Emission 

Reductions from Co-Composting 

Operations, adopted in 2003). For this 

analysis, the District assumes that 

ammonia control efficiencies achieved 

by these rules are the same as the VOC 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1829 

55 VOC sources in the San Joaquin Valley are 

currently subject to a broad range of controls 

measures adopted by the District and CARB as part 

of their strategy to attain the ozone standards in the 

area. The SJV is currently designated nonattainment 

and classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone standards. See 40 CFR 81.305. Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas are required by CAA section 

172(c)(1) to implement RACM for VOC sources and 

by section 182(b)(2) to the implement RACT for all 

major sources of VOC and certain other sources of 

VOC. A major source of VOC in an extreme ozone 

nonattainment area is a source that emits or has the 

potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of VOC 

(CAA section 182(e)) which is much lower than the 

100 tpy threshold for major stationary sources in 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas (CAA section 

302(j)). In 2012, the EPA approved the RACM 

demonstration in SJV’s SIP for attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 12652, 12670 

(March 1, 2012)) and found that the State had met 

the section 182(b)(2) RACT control requirement for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards (limited approval, 

77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); final corrective rule 

approval, 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012)). 

As noted in the General Preamble, Congress 

recognized that PM precursors may be otherwise 

controlled and expressly recommended that the 

EPA consider other provisions of the CAA in 

addressing precursors (General Preamble at 13542, 

n. 22). Accordingly, the General Preamble provides 

that a state may demonstrate in a SIP submittal that 

control of VOC under other CAA requirements 

relieves it from the need to adopt additional 

controls for VOC as a precursor under section 

189(e). Id. at 13542. 

56See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); EPA Region 

9, Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the California State 

Implementation Plan—EPA’s Evaluation of San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District’s Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), Adopted April 16, 2009 

(dated August 29, 2011); letter dated October 19, 

2012, from Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air 

Division EPA-Region 9 to Samir Sheikh, SJVAPCD; 

and letter dated June 4, 2014, from Andrew Steckel, 

Chief, Rules Office, EPA Region 9 to Errol Villegas, 

Planning Manager, SJVAPCD. 

57A full list of the District’s rules, including cites 

to our most recent final or proposed rulemaking on 

each can be found in Appendix B to the TSD. 

58The balance of the ammonia inventory is 

spread among a number of source categories from 

electric utilities to gasoline-powered on-road 

vehicles. The largest of these sources, at 6.3 tpd in 

2007 (1.7 percent of the total ammonia inventory), 

is the area source category ‘‘Other (Miscellaneous 

Processes).’’ See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, 

Table B–5. Ammonia emissions in this category are 

from domestic sources including pets, untreated 

human waste (e.g., diapers), and perspiration. See 

ENVIRON International Corporation, ‘‘Final Work 

Plan California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality 

Study—Ammonia Emissions Improvement Projects 

in Support of CRPAQS Aerosol Modeling and Data 

Analyses: Draft Ammonia Inventory Development,’’ 

April 13, 2001, p. 2–16, found at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/

nh3environworkplan.pdf. 

We note that two of the remaining source 

categories (open burning and residential wood 

burning at a combined 2.9 tpd in 2007) are covered 

by SIP-approved rules that prohibit and/or curtail 

burning and therefore also reduce ammonia 

emissions from these sources. 

control efficiencies. In its comparison of 

Rule 4566 with SCAQMD Rule 1133.3, 

the District acknowledges that Rule 

1133.3 has a much lower size threshold 

for implementing most stringent 

controls (80% control efficiency) but 

notes that neither SCAQMD nor the 

District currently has any facilities that 

trigger the most stringent controls. 

Therefore, the District states that, in 

practice, the controls are equivalent. In 

its comparison of Rule 4565 with 

SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, the District finds 

that the controls in Rule 4565 are 

generally more stringent than Rule 

1133.2 for small facilities but less 

stringent than Rule 1133.2 for large 

facilities. The Supplement states that 

the most stringent measures in Rule 

1133.2 are not cost-effective for facilities 

in the Valley. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action 

The process followed by the District 

in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

to identify RACM/RACT is generally 

consistent with the EPA’s 

recommendations in the General 

Preamble. The process included 

compiling a comprehensive list of 

potential controls measures for sources 

of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and ammonia 

in the SJV. This list included measures 

suggested in public comments on the 

Plan. See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendices 

C, D, and I. No source categories were 

identified as insignificant except by 

implication for a few source categories 

of ammonia which collectively 

contributed less than 5 percent to the 

base year ammonia inventory 

(Supplement, p. A–1.) As part of this 

process, the District evaluated potential 

controls for all relevant source 

categories for economic and 

technological feasibility and provided 

justifications for the rejection of certain 

identified measures. Id. After 

completing this evaluation, the District 

included enforceable commitments to 

adopt and expeditiously implement 

those measures it found to be 

reasonable. See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Table 

5–3, p. 21 and Table D–1 above. Since 

submittal of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan in 

March 2013, the District has adopted all 

but two of these measures. One 

measure, amendments to Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type 

Residential Central Furnaces) is 

scheduled for adoption this winter. The 

second measure, amendments to Rule 

4692 (Commercial Charbroiling), is not 

scheduled until 2016. Research and 

development of cost-effective control 

technology are currently underway for 

certain measures in Rule 4692, the 

addition of PM2.5 emission limits for 

under-fired charbroilers (Plan, p. 5–22 

and Supplement, p. 8). 

We have reviewed the District’s 

determination in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

that its stationary and area source 

control measures represent RACM/

RACT for direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2. 

As discussed in Section II.C. of the TSD, 

the EPA is proposing to determine that 

at this time, VOCs do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that 

exceed the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the 

SJV and that a VOC control evaluation 

therefore is not necessary for purposes 

of this standard in this area.55 In our 

review, we relied mainly on our 

previous evaluations of the District’s 

rules in connection with our approval of 

the SJV RACT SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, our comments on the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, and our comments on 

the District’s RACT SIP for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard.56 We also 

reviewed measures suggested by the 

public in comments on the 2012 PM2.5

Plan. Based on this review, we believe 

that the District’s rules provide for the 

implementation of RACM/RACT for 

stationary and area sources of direct 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2.57

We have also reviewed the District’s 

analysis of current and potentially 

available ammonia controls for the three 

largest sources of ammonia emissions in 

the SJV: CAF operations, agricultural 

fertilizer application, and composting 

operations. Collectively these sources 

account for 96 percent of total base year 

(2007) ammonia emissions.58 See 2012 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–5. 

Farming Operations and Composting: 

The District adopted Rule 4565, Rule 

4566 and Rule 4570 primarily to control 

VOC emissions, and EPA has 

determined that the control 

requirements in each of these rules 

represent RACT-level controls for VOCs. 

See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012) (final 

rule approving Rule 4565 and Rule 4570 

into California SIP) and 77 FR 71129 

(November 29, 2012) (final rule 

approving Rule 4566 into California 

SIP). Although the Supplement does not 

provide a detailed analysis of the extent 

to which these rules also reduce 

ammonia emissions, the District’s 

general conclusion that the work 

practice standards in these rules reduce 

ammonia emissions appears to be 

factually correct. The District’s 

evaluation of Rule 4565, Rule 4566 and 

Rule 4570 generally supports a 

conclusion that these SIP-approved 

rules for CAFs and composting 

operations are as stringent as analogous 

rules implemented in other California 

districts. 

With respect to the Idaho rule, 

because it is based on a point system 

and Rule 4570 is based on numbers of 

BMPs for different components of the 

CAF operation, it is difficult to compare 

the requirements in these two rules 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1830 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

59 IDEQ’s technical documentation indicates that 

under the Idaho rule, BMP points are awarded 

based on a detailed assessment of each BMP’s 

relative effectiveness in controlling ammonia 

emissions. See IDEQ, ‘‘Scientific Basis for the 

Control of Ammonia from Dairy Farms Best 

Management Practices,’’ July 18, 2006, available at 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/635665-58_0101_

0502_scientific_basis_final.pdf. 

60The proposed approvals of the SJV 2007 [8- 

hour] Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846, 57852 (September 

16, 2011) and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 41338, 

41345 (July 13, 2011) include discussions of 

California’s control programs for mobile sources. 

61The 2012 PM2.5 Plan is the latest in a series of 

air quality plans and control strategies that the 

District and CARB have adopted to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS in the SJV. These plans 

include the 2003 PM10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 

(May 26, 2004)); the 2004 Extreme [1-hour] Ozone 

Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 

2010), approval withdrawn 77 FR 70376 (November 

26, 2012)); the 2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan (approved 

77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012)); the 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

(approved 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011)); and 

the 2009 RACT SIP (limited approval January 10, 

2012 (77 FR 1417); last corrective rule approval 

November 29, 2012 (77 FR 71129)). 

directly. Both rules contain options for 

controlling ammonia emissions in 

different parts of the CAF operation, but 

Rule 4570 may be more prescriptive in 

requiring a certain number of BMPs for 

each component, while the Idaho rule 

does not set a specific number of BMPs 

and instead requires that the points 

associated with the selected BMPs total 

to at least 27. It appears that in some 

respects Rule 4570 has more stringent 

provisions than the Idaho rule (e.g., rule 

applicability threshold, and provisions 

for temporary suspension/substitution, 

testing and records retention). On the 

other hand, the Idaho rule contains 

options (e.g., chemical amendments, 

lagoon nitrification/de-nitrification 

systems, lagoon covers, tunnel 

ventilation with biofilter, incorporation 

of manure within 24 hours of land 

application) that do not appear to be 

included in Rule 4570. It is not clear 

whether these control options are 

commonly implemented in Idaho or 

reasonably available or appropriate for 

use in the SJV. 

In the absence of specific information 

regarding more stringent ammonia air 

emission control measures that may be 

technologically and economically 

feasible for implementation in the SJV 

area, we find the District’s evaluation of 

Rule 4565, Rule 4566 and Rule 4570 in 

comparison to analogous rules adopted 

elsewhere is adequate to demonstrate 

that the District is implementing all 

available control measures for ammonia 

emissions from CAFs and composting 

operations that are technologically and 

economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV at this time. 

We note, however, that the District’s 

analyses of these rules appear to rest on 

certain assumptions concerning 

ammonia emissions reductions that are 

not supported by specific 

documentation or analyses (e.g., 

assumptions concerning ammonia 

control efficiencies based on VOC 

control efficiencies). The point system 

in the Idaho rule appears to be based 

upon detailed scientific studies on the 

ammonia control efficiencies of the 

identified BMPs,59 some of which may 

be available for implementation in the 

SJV. We note also that the timing of the 

NRDC decision in early 2013 may have 

constrained the State’s and District’s 

ability to fully evaluate additional 

ammonia control measures as part of a 

RACM/RACT control strategy ahead of 

the applicable Moderate area attainment 

date (December 31, 2015). Taking these 

unique circumstances into account, we 

find the District’s ammonia control 

evaluation adequate for RACM/RACT 

purposes at this time but recommend 

that the State and District conduct a 

more thorough evaluation of all 

available ammonia control measures for 

farming and composting operations as 

part of its development of a Serious area 

plan. Specifically, we encourage the 

District to revisit its control evaluation 

for CAFs and composting operations at 

its earliest opportunity, both to 

specifically consider the ammonia 

control efficiencies and cost 

effectiveness of Rule 4565, Rule 4566 

and Rule 4570, and to address any 

additional control options that may be 

technologically and economically 

feasible for implementation in the SJV, 

e.g., the BMPs identified in the Idaho 

rule and other control options identified 

by EPA or by citizens during the 

District’s rulemaking processes. 

Fertilizer application: Although 

certain water pollution control and 

other requirements contained in the 

‘‘Regional Board General Order’’ cited in 

the Supplement may indirectly reduce 

ammonia emissions to the air from 

fertilizer application operations, these 

requirements have not been approved 

into the SIP for purposes of attainment 

of the NAAQS and therefore cannot 

provide a basis for approval of a RACM 

demonstration under the CAA. We are 

not aware, however, of ammonia air 

emission control measures that have 

been adopted and implemented for 

fertilizer application operations 

elsewhere. In the absence of information 

regarding air emission control measures 

for agricultural fertilizer application that 

may be technologically and 

economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV area, we find 

the District’s analysis in the Supplement 

acceptable for RACM purposes at this 

time. We note also that the timing of the 

NRDC decision in early 2013 may have 

constrained the State’s and District’s 

ability to fully evaluate additional 

ammonia control measures as part of a 

RACM/RACT control strategy ahead of 

the applicable Moderate area attainment 

date (December 31, 2015). Taking these 

unique circumstances into account, we 

find the District’s ammonia control 

evaluation adequate for RACM/RACT 

purposes at this time, but we encourage 

the District to revisit its control 

evaluation for fertilizer application at its 

earliest opportunity to specifically 

evaluate the technical and economic 

feasibility of potential air pollution 

control measures that may reduce 

ammonia emissions from fertilizer 

application in the SJV. 

Mobile Sources: Finally, we have 

reviewed the analysis of current and 

potentially available controls for both 

on and off-road mobile sources in 

Chapter 5 and Appendix C. As we have 

noted in previous actions on SJV 

plans,60 California is a leader in the 

development and implementation of 

stringent control measures for on-road 

and off-road mobile sources. Its current 

program addresses the full range of 

mobile sources in the SJV through 

regulatory programs for both new and in 

use vehicles and through incentive grant 

programs. See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Table 5– 

2 and Appendix A of the TSD. The 

District has also adopted measures to 

reduce emissions from mobile sources 

including its indirect source review rule 

(Rule 9510) and employer trip reduction 

rule (Rule 9410) and has a well-funded 

incentive grants program focused on 

mobile sources. See Chapter 6. The 

MPOs also have a program to fund costeffective TCMs. See Appendix C, p. C– 

33. Overall, we believe that the State, 

District, and MPO programs provide for 

the implementation of RACM for PM2.5

and its precursors from mobile sources 

in the SJV. 

For the foregoing reasons, we propose 

to find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

Supplement provide for the 

implementation of all RACM/RACT that 

can be implemented prior to the 

applicable Moderate area attainment 

date as required by CAA sections 

189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)(1) and to 

approve the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the Plan.61

E. Major Stationary Source Control 

Requirements Under CAA Section 

189(e) 

CAA section 189(e) specifically 

requires that the control requirements 

applicable to major stationary sources of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1831 

62The control requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of direct PM2.5 in a Moderate area 

include, at minimum, the requirements of a 

nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit 

program meeting the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(5) (see CAA 189(a)(1)(A)). 63The language in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6) is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain 

any enforceable ‘‘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. 

64E.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). 

65The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld the EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 

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 Houston-Galveston 

ozone SIP in BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et 

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

66These measures are typically rules that have 

compliance dates that occur after the adoption date 

of a plan and mobile source measures that achieve 

reductions as older engines are replaced through 

attrition (e.g., through fleet turnover). 

67The current status of each commitment is 

presented for informational purposes only. We are 

not at this time proposing to make any finding 

regarding the District’s compliance with these 

commitments. 

direct PM2.562 also apply to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, 

except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 

that exceed the standard in the area 

(General Preamble at 13539 and 13541 

to 42). The Supplement contains a 

discussion of the District’s Rule 2201 

(New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule) (Supplement at 17–20) 

and three potential major stationary 

sources of ammonia operating in the SJV 

(Supplement at A–39 to A–41). The EPA 

is not proposing to act on these 

components of the Plan at this time and 

will do so in a separate rulemaking to 

address the control requirements 

specific to major stationary sources of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors under 

section 189(e) in the SJV. 

F. Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for Control Strategies 

and Enforceable Commitments 

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).63

Measures necessary to meet RACM/

RACT requirements should also be 

adopted by the State in an enforceable 

form (General Preamble at 13541). 

Generally, the EPA will approve a 

State plan that takes emissions 

reduction credit for a control measure 

only where the EPA has approved the 

measure as part of the SIP, or in the case 

of certain on-road and nonroad 

measures, where the EPA has issued the 

related waiver of preemption or 

authorization under CAA section 209(b) 

or section 209(e). The EPA has, 

however, approved enforceable 

commitments that are limited in scope 

where circumstances exist that warrant 

the use of such commitments in place 

of adopted measures. Commitments 

approved by the EPA under CAA 

section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by the 

EPA and citizens under CAA sections 

113 and 304, respectively. In the past, 

the EPA has approved enforceable 

commitments and courts have enforced 

actions against states that failed to 

comply with them.64 Additionally, if a 

state fails to meet its commitments, the 

EPA could make a finding of failure to 

implement the SIP under CAA section 

179(a)(4), which starts an 18-month 

period for the state to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory 

sanctions are imposed. 

Once the EPA determines that 

circumstances warrant use of an 

enforceable commitment, the EPA 

considers three factors in determining 

whether to approve the use of an 

enforceable commitment to meet a CAA 

requirement: (a) Does the commitment 

address a limited portion of the CAArequired program; (b) is the state 

capable of fulfilling its commitment; 

and (c) is the commitment for a 

reasonable and appropriate period of 

time.65

2. Control Strategy in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan 

For purposes of evaluating the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan, we have divided the 

measures relied on to satisfy the 

applicable control requirements into 

two categories: baseline measures and 

control strategy measures. 

As the term is used here, baseline 

measures are federal, State, and District 

rules and regulations adopted prior to 

January 2012 (i.e., prior to the 

development of 2012 PM2.5 Plan) that 

continue to achieve emissions 

reductions through the current 

attainment year of 2015 and beyond.66

The Plan describes many of these 

measures in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1 

and 5.1.2 and in Appendices C and D. 

Reductions from these measures are 

incorporated into the baseline inventory 

and, for the most part, not individually 

quantified. According to the Plan, these 

measures provide all the emissions 

reductions projected to occur between 

the base year of 2007 and the current 

attainment year of 2015 and, based on 

the model-predicted level of emission 

reductions needed to meet the 2006 

PM2.5 standard in the SJV in 2019, most 

of the direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and 

ammonia reductions needed to meet the 

PM2.5 standard. See Table F–1 in the 

TSD and Appendices A and B in the 

TSD. 

Control strategy measures are the new 

rules, rule revisions, commitments, and 

other measures that provide the 

additional increment of emissions 

reductions needed beyond the baseline 

measures to provide for attainment 

(when applicable), to demonstrate RFP, 

to meet the RACM/RACT requirement, 

or to provide for contingency measures. 

For the Plan, the District identified 

and committed to adopt, submit, and 

implement amendments to four District 

prohibitory rules as well as to adopt and 

submit a rule to provide a process for 

quantifying emission reductions from 

the use of incentive funds (Rule 9610) 

(2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5–21, Table 5–3 and 

SJV Governing Board Resolution 2012– 

12–19, p. 4). The District also 

committed to achieve an aggregate 

reduction of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 

2019 (id). These commitments and their 

current status are shown in Table 3 

below.67


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2012 PM2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE AMENDMENT

COMMITMENTS

District rule 

No. Measure number & description Amendment date 

Compliance 

date 

Emission 

reductions Status of the amended rule 

4308 ............. Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 

MMBtu/hr.

2013 2015 TBD .................... Adopted November 14, 2013; submitted May 13, 2014. 

4692 ............. Commercial Charbroiling ................ 2016 2017 0.4 tpd PM2.5 ...... Adoption scheduled for 2016. 

4901 ............. Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters.

2016 2016/2017 1.5 tpd of PM2.5 .. Adopted September 18, 2014. 

4905 ............. Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces.2014 2015 TBD .................... Adoption scheduled for January 22, 

2015. 

9610 ............. SIP Creditability of Incentives ......... 2013 2013 TBD .................... Adopted June 20, 2013; proposed 

for approval May 19, 2014 (79 

FR 28650). 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5–21, Table 5–3. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions 

As discussed above, the Plan provides 

for the vast majority of the emissions 

reductions necessary for attainment to 

be achieved by baseline measures. 

These reductions come from a 

combination of District, State, and 

federal stationary and mobile source 

measures. Over the past two decades, 

the District has adopted or revised 

almost 40 prohibitory rules that limit 

emissions of NOX, SO2 and/or 

particulate matter from stationary and 

area sources in the SJV area (see 

Appendix B of the TSD). All but a few 

of these rule are currently SIP approved 

and as such their emissions reductions 

are fully creditable in attainment-related 

SIPs. California has also adopted 

standards for many categories of on- and 

off-road vehicles and engines as well as 

standards for gasoline and diesel fuels 

(2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5). 

The State’s mobile source measures 

fall into two categories: Measures for 

which the State has obtained or has 

applied to obtain a waiver of federal 

pre-emption or authorization under 

CAA section 209 (‘‘section 209 waiver 

measures’’ or ‘‘waiver measures’’) and 

those for which the State is not required 

to obtain a waiver or authorization 

(‘‘non-waiver measures’’ or ‘‘SIP 

measures’’). We believe that credit for 

emissions reductions from 

implementation of California mobile 

source rules that are subject to CAA 

section 209 waivers or authorizations 

(i.e., ‘‘waiver measures’’) is appropriate 

notwithstanding the fact that such rules 

are not approved as part of the 

California SIP. Historically, the EPA has 

granted credit for the waiver measures 

because of special Congressional 

recognition, in establishing the waiver 

process in the first place, of the 

pioneering California motor vehicle 

control program and because 

amendments to the CAA (in 1977) 

expanded the flexibility granted to 

California in order ‘‘to afford California 

the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the 

health of its citizens and the public 

welfare’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th 

Congr., 1st Sess. 301–2 (1977)). In 

allowing California to take credit for the 

waiver measures notwithstanding the 

fact that the underlying rules are not 

part of the California SIP, the EPA 

treated the waiver measures similarly to 

the Federal motor vehicle control 

requirements, which the EPA has 

always allowed States to credit in their 

SIPs without submitting the program as 

a SIP revision. 

Credit for Federal measures, including 

those that establish on-road and 

nonroad standards, notwithstanding 

their absence in the SIP, is justified by 

reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 

which establishes the following content 

requirements for SIPs: ‘‘* * * 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), * * *, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this chapter.’’ 

(emphasis added). Federal measures are 

permanent, independently enforceable 

(by the EPA and citizens), and 

quantifiable without regard to whether 

they are approved into a SIP, and thus 

the EPA has never found such measures 

to be ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ for 

inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. Section 209 of 

the CAA establishes a process under 

which the EPA allows California’s 

waiver measures to substitute for 

Federal measures, and like the Federal 

measures for which they substitute, the 

EPA has historically found, and 

continues to find, based on 

considerations of permanence, 

enforceability, and quantifiability, that 

such measures are not ‘‘necessary or 

appropriate’’ for California to include in 

its SIP to meet the applicable CAA 

requirements. 

First, with respect to permanence, we 

note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB’s 

on-road waiver measures can be relaxed 

only to a level of aggregate equivalence 

to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program (FMVCP). (CAA section 

209(b)(1)). In this respect, the FMVCP 

acts as a partial backstop to California’s 

on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a 

waiver, the FMVCP would apply in 

California). Likewise, Federal nonroad 

vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding 

California nonroad waiver measures. 

(CAA section 209(e)(2)(A)). The 

constraints of the waiver process thus 

serve to limit the extent to which CARB 

can relax the waiver measures for which 

there are corresponding EPA standards, 

and thereby serve an anti-backsliding 

function similar in substance to those 

established for SIP revisions in CAA 

sections 110(l) and 193. Meanwhile, the 

growing convergence between California 

and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the 

emissions reductions reasonably 

attributed to the two programs and 

strengthens the role of the Federal 

program in serving as an effective 

backstop to the State program. In other 

words, with the harmonization of EPA 

mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the 

Federal program is becoming essentially 

a full backstop to most parts of the 

California program. 

Second, as to enforceability, we note 

that the waiver process itself bestows 

enforceability onto California to enforce 

the on-road or nonroad standards for 

which the EPA has issued the waiver or 

authorization. CARB has as long a 

history of enforcement of vehicle/engine 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1833 

68For more information on the applicable air 

quality modeling requirements, please see section 

IV.B. above. 

emissions standards as the EPA, and 

CARB’s enforcement program is equally 

as rigorous as the corresponding EPA 

program. The history and rigor of 

CARB’s enforcement program lends 

assurance to California SIP revisions 

that rely on the emissions reductions 

from CARB’s rules in the same manner 

as the EPA’s mobile source enforcement 

program lends assurance to other states’ 

SIPs in their reliance on emissions 

reductions from the FMVCP. While it is 

true that citizens and the EPA are not 

authorized to enforce California waiver 

measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., 

because they are not in the SIP), citizens 

and the EPA are authorized to enforce 

EPA standards in the event that vehicles 

operate in California without either 

California or EPA certification. 

As to quantifiability, the EPA’s 

historical practice has been to give SIP 

credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver 

measures by allowing California to 

include motor vehicle emissions 

estimates made by using California’s 

EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor 

vehicle emissions factor model in SIP 

inventories. The EPA verifies the 

emissions reductions from motorvehicle-related waiver measures through 

review and approval of EMFAC, which 

is updated from time to time by 

California to reflect updated methods 

and data, as well as newly-established 

emissions standards. (Emissions 

reductions from the EPA’s motor vehicle 

standards are reflected in an analogous 

model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC 

model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which 

California has received waivers from the 

EPA but accounts for vehicle 

deterioration and many other factors. 

The motor vehicle emissions estimates 

themselves combine EMFAC results 

with vehicle activity estimates, among 

other considerations. See the 1982 Bay 

Area Air Quality Plan, and the related 

EPA rulemakings approving the plan 

(see 48 FR 5074, February 3, 1983, for 

the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130, 

December 28, 1983, for the final rule) as 

an example of how the waiver measures 

have been treated historically by the 

EPA in California SIP actions. The 2012 

PM2.5 Plan was developed using a 

version of the EMFAC model referred to 

as EMFAC2011, which the EPA has 

approved for use in SIP development in 

California (78 FR 14533, March 6, 2013). 

Thus, the emissions reductions that are 

from the California on-road ‘‘waiver 

measures’’ and that are estimated 

through use of EMFAC are as verifiable 

as are the emissions reductions relied 

upon by states other than California in 

developing their SIPs based on 

estimates of motor vehicle emissions 

made through the use of the MOVES 

model. 

Moreover, the EPA’s waiver (and 

authorization) review and approval 

process is analogous to the SIP approval 

process. First, CARB adopts its 

emissions standards following notice 

and comment procedures at the state 

level, and then submits the rules to the 

EPA as part of its waiver request. When 

the EPA receives new waiver or 

authorization requests from CARB, the 

EPA publishes a notice of opportunity 

for public hearing and comment and 

then publishes a decision in the Federal 

Register following the public comment 

period. Once again, in substance, the 

process is similar to that for SIP 

approval and supports the argument 

that one hurdle (the waiver/

authorization process) is all Congress 

intended for California standards, not 

two (waiver/authorization process plus 

SIP approval process). Second, just as 

SIP revisions are not effective until 

approved by the EPA, changes to 

CARB’s rules (for which a waiver or 

authorization has been granted) are not 

effective until the EPA grants a new 

waiver or authorization, unless the 

changes are ‘‘within the scope’’ of a 

prior waiver or authorization and no 

new waiver or authorization is needed. 

Third, both types of final actions by the 

EPA— i.e., final actions on California 

requests for waivers or authorizations 

and final actions on state submittals of 

SIPs and SIP revisions—may be 

challenged under CAA section 307(b)(1) 

in the appropriate United States Court 

of Appeals. 

For additional explanation of the 

EPA’s long-standing practice of allowing 

credit for California ‘‘waiver measures’’ 

notwithstanding the fact that the 

measures are not approved into the SIP, 

please see the EPA’s responses to 

comments challenging this practice in 

the following final rules: 77 FR 12652, 

at 12655–12658, March 1, 2012 (final 

action on San Joaquin Valley 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP); 77 FR 12674, at 

12677–12682, March 1, 2012 (final 

action on South Coast 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP); 76 FR 69896, at 69906– 

69910, November 9, 2011 (final action 

on San Joaquin Valley 1997 PM2.5 SIP); 

76 FR 69928, at 69930–69932, 

November 9, 2011 (final action on South 

Coast 1997 PM2.5 SIP). 

In addition to baseline measures, 

which according to the District will 

achieve the vast majority of the direct 

PM2.5, NOX, and SOx emission 

reductions needed to attain the 2006 

PM2.5 standard in the SJV, the Plan also 

contains District commitments to adopt 

several amendments to its rules by 

specific dates and to achieve specified 

amounts of emissions reductions by 

2019 (2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5–21, Table 5– 

3 and SJV Governing Board Resolution 

2012–12–19, p. 4; see also Table 2 

above). 

As discussed above, we generally 

consider three factors in determining 

whether to approve the use of an 

enforceable commitment to meet a CAA 

requirement. In this case, however, the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan does not rely on either 

the rule amendment commitments or 

the emission reduction commitments in 

the impracticability demonstration, 

RACM demonstration, RFP 

demonstration, or quantitative 

milestones, or to meet any other CAA 

requirement; therefore, we do not need 

to apply this three factor test before 

proposing to approve the District’s 

commitments into the SIP. Approval of 

these commitments will strengthen the 

SIP and contribute to the SIP’s purpose 

of ‘‘eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the [PM2.5

NAAQS] and achieving expeditious 

attainment of such standards.’’ (CAA 

section 176(c)(1)(A)). For these reasons, 

the EPA proposes to approve the 

SJVAPCD Governing Board District’s 

commitments as given in p. 5–21, Table 

5–3 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and on page 

4 of SJV Governing Board Resolution 

2012–12–19. 

G. Demonstration That Attainment by 

the Moderate Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

1. Requirements for Attainment/

Impracticability of Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that 

each Moderate area attainment plan 

include a demonstration that the plan 

provides for attainment by the latest 

applicable Moderate area deadline or, 

alternatively, that attainment by the 

latest applicable attainment date is 

impracticable. A demonstration that the 

plan provides for attainment must be 

based on air quality modeling, and the 

EPA generally recommends that a 

demonstration of impracticability also 

be based on air quality modeling 

consistent with the EPA’s modeling 

guidance (General Preamble at 13538). 

Id.68

CAA section 188(c) states, in relevant 

part, that the Moderate area attainment 

date ‘‘shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the end of 

the sixth calendar year after the area’s 

designation as nonattainment. . . .’’ For 

the San Joaquin Valley, which was 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

69See Memorandum dated December 15, 2014 

from Elfego Felix and Scott Bohning, U.S. EPA, 

Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office, to San 

Joaquin Valley Reclassification Docket, Subject: 

Practicability of SJV 2015 attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM NAAQS (‘‘Felix-Bohning Memo’’) and 

U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM2.5

Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html (‘‘PM25_

DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14).’’ 

initially designated as nonattainment for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective 

December 14, 2009, the applicable 

Moderate area attainment date under 

section 188(c) is as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than December 

31, 2015. 

In SIP submissions to demonstrate 

impracticability, the state should 

document that its required control 

strategy in the attainment plan 

represents the application of RACM/

RACT to existing sources. The EPA 

believes it is reasonable to require 

adoption of all available control 

measures that are technologically and 

economically feasible in areas that do 

not demonstrate timely attainment. The 

impracticability demonstration will 

then be based on a showing that the area 

cannot attain by the applicable date, 

notwithstanding implementation of the 

required controls. 

2. Impracticability Demonstration in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

include a demonstration, based on air 

quality modeling that even with the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures for all 

appropriate sources, attainment by 

December 31, 2015 is not practicable. 

See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, section 9.1 and 

Supplement, section 2.1. This 

demonstration is specific to Kern 

County (in particular the California 

Street-Bakersfield monitor) because the 

air quality modeling performed for the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan showed that this area 

would be the last to attain the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. Id. The demonstration is 

summarized in Table 4 below. 

TABLE 4—IMPRACTICABILITY OF ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION, KERN

COUNTY

[Tons per winter day] 

Year 2015 

Baseline NOX inventory .............. 58.6 

New control measures ........ 0 

NOX inventory after new 

controls ............................ 58.6 

NOX emissions level needed for attainment .............. 46.8 

Shortfall in NOX emissions 

reductions needed for attainment ........................... 11.8 

Baseline direct PM2.5 inventory .. 11.5 

New control measures ........ 0 

Direct PM2.5 inventory after 

new controls ..................... 11.5 

Direct PM2.5 level needed 

for attainment ................... 11.1 

Shortfall in direct PM2.5

emissions reductions 

needed for attainment ...... 0.4 

Baseline SO2 inventory .............. 1.8 

TABLE 4—IMPRACTICABILITY OF ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION, KERN

COUNTY—Continued 

[Tons per winter day] 

Year 2015 

New control measures ........ 0 

SO2 inventory after new 

controls ............................ 1.8 

SO2 emissions level needed 

for PM2.5 attainment ......... 1.8 

Shortfall in SO2 emission reductions needed for attainment ........................... 0 

Source: 2014 Supplement, p. 6. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action 

The impracticability demonstration in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan is based on air 

quality modeling which is generally 

consistent with applicable EPA 

guidance. We find the modeling 

adequate to support the impracticability 

demonstration in the Plan. See section 

VI.B. 

We have also evaluated the RACM/

RACT demonstration and find that it 

provides for the expeditious 

implementation of all RACM/RACT that 

may feasibly be implemented at this 

time, consistent with the requirements 

of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV. See section IV.D. 

Finally, we have evaluated the 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

that the implementation of the State/

District’s SIP control strategy, including 

RACM/RACT measures, is insufficient 

to bring the San Joaquin Valley into 

attainment by December 31, 2015 and 

agree that attainment by that date is thus 

impracticable. 

In addition to the information in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement, we 

have reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring 

data from the San Joaquin Valley. These 

data show that 24-hour PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV, with a current design value 

(2011–2013) of 65 mg/m3, continue to be 

well above the 35 mg/m3 level of the 

2006 PM2.5 standard, and the recent 

trends in the Valley’s 24-hour PM2.5

levels are not consistent with a 

projection of attainment by the end of 

2015.69

Based on this evaluation, we propose 

to approve the State’s demonstration in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement 

that attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS by the Moderate area 

attainment date in the SJV is 

impracticable, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

189(a)(1)(B)(ii). Based on this proposal, 

we also propose to reclassify the SJV as 

Serious nonattainment, which would 

trigger requirements for the State to 

submit a Serious area plan consistent 

with the requirements of subparts 1 and 

4 of part D, title I of the Act (see Section 

V). 

H. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further 

Progress and Quantitative Milestones 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP). In 

addition, CAA section 189(c) requires 

PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs to 

include quantitative milestones to be 

achieved every 3 years until the area is 

redesignated to attainment and which 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

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

Section 171(1) defines RFP as ‘‘such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by [Part D] or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part 

D, title I of the Act requires that a set 

percentage of emissions reductions be 

achieved in any given year for purposes 

of satisfying the RFP requirement. 

RFP has historically been met by 

showing annual incremental emission 

reductions sufficient generally to 

maintain at least linear progress toward 

attainment by the applicable deadline 

(Addendum at 42015). As discussed in 

EPA guidance in the Addendum, 

requiring linear progress in reductions 

of direct PM2.5 and any individual 

precursor in a PM2.5 plan may be 

appropriate in situations where: 

• The pollutant is emitted by a large 

number and range of sources, 

• the relationship between any 

individual source or source category 

and overall air quality is not well 

known, 

• a chemical transformation is 

involved (e.g., secondary particulate 

significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels 

over the standard), and/or 

• the emission reductions necessary 

to attain the PM2.5 standard are 

inventory-wide. Id. 

The EPA’s guidance in the Addendum 

recommends that requiring linear 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1835 

70Subpart 4 requires states to submit attainment 

plans within 18 months after nonattainment 

designations (CAA 189(a)(2)). Due to unusual 

circumstances, however, the EPA has by rule 

created a later attainment plan submission date for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in order to provide states 

and the EPA an opportunity to address the 

requirements for attainment plans consistent with 

a court decision. See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 

71The 2012 PM2.5 Plan was developed and 

adopted by the District in accordance with the 

methodology for calculating RFP targets in the 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, prior to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC remanding this rule. 

72Under subpart 4, the latest permissible 

attainment date for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 

area is the end of the sixth calendar year after the 

area’s designation as nonattainment. CAA 188(c)(1). 

Because the SJV area was designated nonattainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 

2009, the area is currently subject to a Moderate 

area attainment date no later than December 31, 

2015. 

progress is less appropriate in other 

situations, such as: 

• Where there are a limited number of 

sources of direct PM2.5 or a precursor, 

• where the relationships between 

individual sources and air quality are 

relatively well defined, and/or 

• where the emission control systems 

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

will result in swift and dramatic 

emission reductions. 

In nonattainment areas characterized 

by any of these latter conditions, RFP 

may be better represented as step-wise 

progress as controls are implemented 

and achieve significant reductions soon 

thereafter. For example, if an area’s 

nonattainment problem can be 

attributed to a few major sources, EPA 

guidance indicates that ‘‘RFP should be 

met by ‘adherence to an ambitious 

compliance schedule’ which is likely to 

periodically yield significant emission 

reductions of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5

precursor’’ (Addendum at 42015). 

Plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

should include detailed schedules for 

compliance with emission regulations 

in the area and provide corresponding 

annual emission reductions to be 

realized from each milestone in the 

schedule (Addendum at 42016). In 

reviewing an attainment plan under 

subpart 4, EPA evaluates whether the 

annual incremental emission reductions 

to be achieved are reasonable in light of 

the statutory objective of timely 

attainment. We believe that it is 

appropriate to require early 

implementation of the most costeffective control measures while 

phasing in the more expensive control 

measures (Id.). 

Section 189(c) provides that the 

quantitative milestones submitted by a 

state for an area also must be consistent 

with RFP for the area. Thus, the EPA 

determines an area’s compliance with 

RFP in conjunction with determining its 

compliance with the quantitative 

milestone requirement. Because RFP is 

an annual emission reduction 

requirement and the quantitative 

milestones are to be achieved every 3 

years, when a state demonstrates 

compliance with the quantitative 

milestone requirement, it will 

demonstrate that RFP has been achieved 

during each of the relevant 3 years. 

Quantitative milestones should consist 

of elements that allow progress to be 

quantified or measured objectively. 

Specifically, states should identify and 

submit quantitative milestones 

providing for the amount of emission 

reductions adequate to achieve the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date (Addendum at 42016). 

The CAA does not specify the starting 

point for counting the 3-year periods for 

quantitative milestones under CAA 

section 189(c). In the General Preamble 

and Addendum, EPA interpreted the 

CAA to require that the starting point 

for the first 3-year period be the due 

date for the Moderate area plan 

submittal (General Preamble at 13539, 

Addendum at 42016). In keeping with 

this historical approach, the EPA is 

proposing to establish December 31, 

2014 as the starting point for the first 3- 

year period under CAA section 189(c) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the SJV. 

This date is the due date for the state’s 

submittal of attainment-related SIPs 

necessary to satisfy the subpart 4 

Moderate area requirements applicable 

to the SJV area.70 Accordingly, the first 

quantitative milestone date for the SJV 

area would be December 31, 2017 (3 

years after December 31, 2014). 

Following reclassification of the SJV 

area as Serious for the 2006 PM2.5

standard, later milestones would be 

addressed by the Serious area plan 

(Addendum at 42016). 

2. RFP Demonstration and Quantitative 

Milestones in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 

9, section 9.3 (pp. 9–4 to 9–7) of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. The District included 

this same demonstration and provided a 

brief discussion of quantitative 

milestones in section 4 (p. 14) of the 

Supplement. The demonstration 

addresses direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

and uses the 2007 winter daily average 

inventory as the base year inventory and 

the 2019 winter daily average baseline 

inventory as the attainment year 

inventory. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan does not 

explicitly provide an RFP 

demonstration for ammonia but does 

include a base year ammonia inventory 

as well as 2014, 2017, and 2019 

ammonia baseline inventories, which 

account for reductions from existing 

ammonia control measures. (2012 PM2.5

Plan at Appendix B). 

The Plan shows that emissions of 

direct PM2.5, NOX and SOX will decline 

from the 2007 base year through 2015 

and states that emissions will remain 

below the levels needed to show 

‘‘generally linear progress’’ from 2007 to 

2019—the year that the Plan projects to 

be the earliest practicable attainment 

date (2012 PM2.5 Plan, section 9.3). 

Direct PM2.5, NOX and SO2 are emitted 

by a large number and range of sources 

in the SJV and the emission reductions 

needed for these pollutants are 

inventory wide (2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix B). The District followed the 

procedures in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule (40 CFR 

51.1009(f)) to calculate its RFP targets 

for 2014 and 2017 in both the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan 71 and the Supplement. (2012 

PM2.5 Plan, pp. 9–5 to 9–7 and 

Supplement at 14). It then showed that 

projected emission levels based on its 

adopted control strategy would be 

below those targets in both milestone 

years. Id. With respect to quantitative 

milestones, the Supplement states that 

the Plan ‘‘identifies target emissions 

levels for generally linear progress that 

can serve as the quantitative milestones 

for subpart 4’’ and that the adopted 

control strategy in the Plan meets these 

quantitative milestones. Supplement at 

14 (citing 2012 PM2.5 Plan at Table 9– 

4). 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions 

We are deferring action on the 

quantitative milestones described on pg. 

14 of the Supplement but we are 

evaluating the Plan with respect to the 

RFP requirement. Because the District’s 

methodology for calculating ‘‘RFP target 

emission levels’’ and evaluating 

‘‘generally linear progress’’ is premised 

on a 2019 attainment date, these 

evaluations are not consistent with the 

requirements of the Act.72 The Plan 

demonstrates, however, that all RACM/ 

RACT are being implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable and 

identifies projected emission levels for 

2014 and 2017 that reflect full 

implementation of the State’s and 

District’s RACM/RACT control strategy 

for the area. See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

section 9.3 and Appendix B; see also 

discussion in Section II.D (‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Measures/Reasonably 

Available Control Technology’’). In an 

area that cannot practicably attain the 

PM2.5 standard by the applicable 

Moderate area attainment date, we 

believe it is reasonable to find that full 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1836 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

73 In the inventories provided in Appendix B of 

the Plan, emissions from these sources are found in 

the categories ‘‘Farming Operations,’’ ‘‘Pesticides/ Fertilizers,’’ and ‘‘Other (Waste Disposal),’’ 

respectively. 

implementation of a control strategy 

that satisfies the Moderate area control 

requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at a 

minimum) represents reasonable further 

progress toward attainment. We 

propose, therefore, to approve the RFP 

demonstration for direct PM2.5, NOX and 

SO2 as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(2). 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan also shows a 

substantial reduction in total ammonia 

emissions in the period 2007 to 2012 

with emissions increasing each 

following year but still remaining below 

2007 base year levels in 2015 and 2019. 

See Appendix B, Table B–5. Unlike the 

wide range of sources emitting PM2.5, 

NOX and SO2 in the Valley, emissions 

of ammonia are almost entirely from 

three source categories: CAF, fertilizer 

application, and composting, with more 

than two-thirds of all emissions coming 

from CAF.73 Collectively, these three 

categories emit 96 percent of all 

ammonia emissions in the 2007 base 

year inventory. 

Reductions in ammonia emissions 

from CAF between 2007 and 2012 

resulted from the implementation of 

District Rule 4570 ‘‘Confined Animal 

Operations,’’ which required 

implementation of control measures to 

reduce ammonia in 2008 and required 

full compliance by affected sources by 

mid-2012. Although emissions in this 

category increase after 2012 due to 

continuing growth in the Valley’s dairy 

industry, overall emissions in 2015 and 

2019 remain below the 2007 base year 

level. The implementation of the 

District’s Rule 4655 ‘‘Organic Material 

Composting Operations’’ (adopted 

August 18, 2011) beginning in 2012 

most likely resulted in some ammonia 

reductions (Supplement, p. A–27), but 

these reductions are not included in the 

base year or baseline inventories. As 

discussed in the Supplement (p. A–25), 

ammonia emissions from manure 

fertilizer application by dairies may be 

reduced as a co-benefit from the Central 

Valley Regional Water Quality Control 

Board’s requirements for reducing 

nitrate in ground water adopted in 2007. 

However, because these reductions are 

not quantified and the control 

requirements are not in the SIP, no 

reductions from these controls are 

included in the inventories at this time. 

As discussed above, generally linear 

reduction in emissions on a yearly basis 

may not be necessary for RFP where 

there are a limited number of sources of 

a precursor and where the emission 

control systems utilized will result in 

swift emission reductions. Both of these 

considerations are relevant for ammonia 

emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. In 

such cases, the EPA believes that RFP 

can be shown by adherence to an 

ambitious compliance schedule 

(Addendum at 42015). In this case all 

ammonia reductions included in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan were achieved through 

the implementation of controls before 

the Plan was adopted. We believe that 

this represents an ambitious compliance 

schedule. Additionally, despite the 

growth in total ammonia emissions in 

the Valley after 2012, the District’s 

implementation of its existing RACM/

RACT control strategy for ammonia 

emissions is projected to result in total 

ammonia emissions that are lower in the 

Moderate area attainment year of 2015 

and in 2019 than in the base year of 

2007 (Table 5 below). We propose, 

therefore, to conclude that the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan provides for RFP for 

ammonia as required by CAA section 

172(c)(2). 

TABLE 5—AMMONIA EMISSIONS BY YEAR

[Winter daily average in tons] 

2007 2012 2014 2015 2017 2019 

A. Farming Operations (CAF) .......................................... 264.5 225.4 234.6 239.2 248.4 257.6 

B. Pesticide/Fertilizers ..................................................... 68.4 66.9 66.3 66.1 65.5 64.9 

C. Other (Waste Disposal) (Composting) ........................ 17.9 19.3 20.1 20.5 21.3 22.2 

D. All other sources ......................................................... 16.5 15.0 15.0 14.9 15.2 15.4 

E. Total ammonia emissions .................................... 367.3 326.6 336.0 340.7 350.4 360.1 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B–5. 

We are proposing to determine that 

VOCs do not contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 

2006 PM2.5 standard in the SJV and that 

a VOC control evaluation therefore is 

not necessary for RFP or quantitative 

milestones for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 standard in the SJV (see section 

II.C. of the TSD). CAA section 171(1) 

defines RFP as ‘‘such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant . . . that may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ Based 

on our proposal to determine that VOCs 

do not contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 

standard, we propose to conclude that 

no RFP demonstration or quantitative 

milestones are necessary for purposes of 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the SJV. 

In evaluating RFP, we are relying in 

part on the Plan’s analysis of both 

adopted control measures and 

additional control measures for wood 

burning and charbroiling to be adopted 

in future years, which the Plan indicates 

will collectively bring the SJV into 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

by the end of 2019. We are not, 

however, proposing to approve this 

demonstration of attainment by 2019 for 

any purpose at this time. Following 

reclassification of the SJV area to 

Serious nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard, the SJV area will be 

subject to Serious Area planning 

requirements under subpart 4 and will 

need to reevaluate and strengthen its 

SIP control strategy as necessary to meet 

the Serious area requirement for best 

available control measures (BACM) and 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT), among other requirements. The 

State will also need to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than December 

31, 2019, and provide a revised RFP 

demonstration, both taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

Serious Area control strategy. Today, we 

are proposing to approve most of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement for the 

limited purpose of satisfying the 

statutory control requirements that 

apply to Moderate areas demonstrating 

that attainment by the Moderate Area 

attainment date under subpart 4 is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1837 

74The EPA does not interpret the requirement for 

failure-to-attain contingency measures to apply to 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas that cannot 

practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory 

attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate for the state to identify and adopt 

attainment contingency measures as part of the 

Serious area attainment plan that it will develop 

once the EPA reclassifies the area (Addendum at 

42015). 

impracticable (see Section II.D. of the 

TSD). 

I. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM2.5

plans must include contingency 

measures to be implemented if an area 

fails to meet RFP (‘‘RFP contingency 

measures’’) or fails to attain the PM2.5

standards by the applicable attainment 

date (‘‘attainment contingency 

measures’’). Under subpart 4, however, 

the EPA interprets section 172(c)(9) in 

light of the specific requirements for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas. 

Section 189(b)(1)(A) differentiates 

between attainment plans that provide 

for timely attainment and those that 

demonstrate that attainment is 

impracticable. Where the SIP includes a 

demonstration that attainment by the 

applicable attainment date is 

impracticable, the state need only 

submit contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to meet 

RFP.74

The purpose of contingency measures 

is to continue progress in reducing 

emissions while the SIP is being revised 

to meet the missed RFP milestone or 

correct continuing nonattainment. 

The principle requirements for 

contingency measures are: 

• Contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented quickly 

upon failure to meet RFP or failure of 

the area to meet the standard by its 

attainment date. 

• The SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measures will be implemented without 

further action by the state or by the EPA. 

In general, we expect all actions needed 

to affect full implementation of the 

measures to occur within 60 days after 

the EPA notifies the state of a failure. 

• The contingency measures should 

consist of other control measures for the 

area that are not relied on to 

demonstrate attainment or RFP. 

• The measures should provide for 

emissions reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year of reductions 

needed for RFP calculated as the overall 

level of reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment divided by the 

number of years from the base year to 

the attainment year. 

(General Preamble at 13543 and 

Addendum at 42014). 

Contingency measures can include 

Federal, state and local measures 

already scheduled for implementation 

or already implemented. The CAA 

requires contingency measures that 

provide for additional emissions 

reductions that are not relied on to 

demonstrate RFP or attainment and thus 

not included in these demonstrations. In 

other words, contingency measures are 

intended to achieve reductions over and 

beyond those relied on in the RFP and 

attainment demonstrations. Nothing in 

the CAA precludes a state from 

implementing such measures before 

they are triggered. 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); see also LEAN v. EPA, 382 

F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding 

contingency measures that were 

previously required and implemented 

where they were in excess of the 

attainment demonstration and RFP SIP). 

2. Contingency Measures in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan 

Contingency measures for failure to 

meet RFP milestones are described in 

Section 9–4 of the Plan. The 

Supplement also discusses the RFP 

contingency measures in section 5. 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action 

We are deferring action on the RFP 

contingency measures in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan and Supplement. We note that 

once SJV is reclassified to Serious, the 

State will be obligated to demonstrate 

that its SIP provides for the 

implementation of BACM and BACT 

and for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, and no later than 2019. As 

part of this demonstration, the State will 

need to revise its RFP demonstration to 

establish new RFP targets, quantitative 

milestones, and RFP contingency 

measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because we are proposing to approve 

the State’s demonstration that 

attainment by the applicable Moderate 

area attainment date of December 31, 

2015 is impracticable in the SJV and to 

reclassify the area to Serious, 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain are not required as part of this 

Moderate area plan. Upon 

reclassification of the SJV area as a 

Serious area, California will be required 

to adopt failure-to-attain contingency 

measures as part of the Serious area 

attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

J. Interpollutant Trading Ratios for 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

Permits 

The CAA’s Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

provisions require that emissions from 

new or modified major stationary 

sources proposing to construct or 

modify in a nonattainment area be 

‘‘offset’’ by reductions from the same or 

other sources in the area (CAA section 

173(c)). This ‘‘offset’’ requirement 

ensures that progress toward attaining 

the NAAQS is maintained while still 

allowing for the construction and 

modification of major stationary 

sources. Generally, the pollutant 

emitted at the new or modified source 

must be offset by reductions of the same 

pollutant. Under certain circumstances, 

however, the EPA may allow for 

‘‘interpollutant’’ offsets—i.e., increased 

emissions of one pollutant (or a 

precursor to that pollutant) may be 

offset by reductions in a different 

precursor to the pollutant, or emissions 

of a certain precursor may be offset by 

reductions in the pollutant to which it 

is a precursor. 

Where a state intends to provide for 

such interpollutant trading, the state 

must provide a technical demonstration 

that shows the net air quality benefits of 

the interpollutant trade in the PM2.5

nonattainment area, to ensure the trade 

does not jeopardize the attainment 

demonstration or progress toward 

attainment of the NAAQS. We refer to 

the rate of emission reduction in tons 

per day (tpd) that would offset the 

ambient effect of a 1 tpd increase in new 

source emissions as an ‘‘interpollutant 

trading (IPT) ratio’’ or an ‘‘interpollutant 

equivalency ratio’’. In a July 2011 policy 

memorandum (‘‘IPT memo’’), EPA 

stated that ‘‘any ratio involving PM2.5

precursors submitted to the EPA for 

approval for use in a state’s 

interpollutant offset program for PM2.5

nonattainment areas must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

75Memorandum, dated July 21, 2011, Gina 

McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1–10, Subject: Revised 

Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant 

Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5) (‘‘IPT 

memo’’). 

76 If 1 tpd of pollutant A is to be offset by R tpd 

of pollutant B, and the sensitivity of PM2.5 to 

emissions in mg/m3 per tpd are respectively SA and 

SB, then the pollutant and its offset have an equal 

ambient PM2.5 effect in mg/m3 when SA*1= SB*R so 

R = SA/SB. 

77For example, NOX:PM2.5 ratio = PM2.5

sensitivity/NOX sensitivity = 0.34/0.08 = 4.25 

(Table 7, CARB Staff Report App. B., p.65). 

will be applied.’’ 75 The IPT memo 

provides general guidance on 

developing interpollutant offset ratios, 

which includes sensitivity simulations 

with a photochemical model when 

PM2.5 precursors are involved. In rough 

terms, the memorandum describes the 

process for calculating a ratio as taking 

the modeled impact in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) per tpd of the 

pollutant whose emissions are to be 

offset, and dividing by the mg/m3 impact 

per tpd of the offsetting pollutant, i.e. 

the ratio of the sensitivities of ambient 

PM2.5 levels to emission changes in the 

pollutants.76

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan includes 

proposed interpollutant trading ratios 

for use in the District’s NSR program. 

(Appendix H, p. H–3). The proposed 

ratios are 5.3 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions to offset 1 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission increase and 4.1 tpd of SOX

emission reductions to offset 1 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission increase. Id. 

Attachment 1 to Appendix H includes a 

description of the approach used for 

determining these ratios. The 2012 

PM2.5 Plan refers to ‘‘EPA’s preferred 

method’’ for estimating ratios (pp. H–4 

and H–88). As discussed above, 

however, the EPA has provided only 

general guidance and has not identified 

a preferred method. The method 

described in the Plan does use the 

general concept in the EPA’s IPT memo 

for computing a ratio of modeled 

sensitivities, but it contains internal 

inconsistencies and an insufficient 

rationale for the specific approach used 

to develop the ratios. 

An internal inconsistency of the 

approach used is that dividing the 

pollutant sensitivities provided in the 

sensitivity table gives ratios that do not 

match those provided in the trading 

ratio table (Appendix H, Tables 1 and 2, 

p. H–87). For example, for Fresno—1st 

Street site, the sensitivities given are 

0.14 mg/m3 per tpd of direct PM2.5, and 

0.03 for NOX; the ratio of these is 4.7, 

but the corresponding trading ratio 

given is 4.0. Overall the differences in 

ratios range from +17 percent to ¥17 

percent. These discrepancies may be a 

result of rounding within the sensitivity 

table, but there is not enough 

documentation to make this 

determination. Another inconsistency is 

that the interpollutant ratios provided in 

Appendix H do not match those 

provided in the WOEA (Staff Report 

Appendix B). For example, the WOEA 

sensitivities for Bakersfield-California 

site imply that the NOX:PM2.5 and 

SOX:PM2.5 ratios are both 4.25,77 but the 

corresponding Appendix H ratios are 

given as 7.0 and 5.2. This discrepancy 

may be due to different modeling runs 

having been used to establish the ratios, 

but this is not explained. 

The specifics of the Plan’s approach 

pose several difficulties. The Plan states 

that the sensitivity simulations used 50 

percent reductions in emissions from 

‘‘NSR source categories’’ (p. H–86). The 

latter is not defined. If ‘‘NSR source 

categories’’ are major stationary sources, 

then a 50 percent reduction in the 

overall category would be far larger than 

any likely emission increase or offset. It 

is not clear that the response of the 

model to this large a change is 

representative of the ambient effects that 

would occur from an actual 

interpollutant trade or for the aggregate 

of trades expected to occur. The Plan 

states that a 50 percent reduction in 

annual average emissions was used, but 

it is not clear why this is appropriate for 

a NAAQS based on a 24-hour average. 

The Plan provides no rationale for why 

a 50 percent reduction is appropriate to 

use for assessing interpollutant ratios, 

including consideration of the 

robustness of the ratios under 

alternative reduction percentages. 

Another issue is that in general, the 

ambient effect of a trade will depend on 

the location of both the new source and 

the offset, since transport and 

atmospheric chemistry depend on 

location. The Plan implicitly recognizes 

this by providing ratios for multiple 

monitor locations, ranging from 3.4 to 

8.1. However, the Plan then averages the 

ratios together, which would seem to 

guarantee that the final ratio does not 

reflect any actual trade or impacts at any 

particular location. A scheme in which 

the ratio varied by general geographic 

zone of source and of offset would better 

address the effect of actual trades. 

Alternatively, the use of the maximum 

of the available ratios would have 

provided a conservative analysis. The 

Plan’s approach examined only design 

values and only at monitor locations, 

employing the same general procedure 

used for the attainment demonstration, 

i.e., the application of RRFs to 

monitored concentrations. It is not clear 

why this approach is appropriate for 

deriving interpollutant trading ratios for 

NSR. Trades will affect all 

concentrations, not just the 98th 

percentile and not just their three-year 

average as used in design value 

calculations. They will also affect all 

locations, not just those with monitors. 

The procedure used does not employ 

information about concentrations away 

from monitors that are available from 

the modeling; these concentrations 

show the outcome of a trade at 

unmonitored locations, but are not 

reflected in the procedure. 

A more general concern with the Plan 

procedure is that it does not provide an 

overall rationale for the methodology 

grounded in the statutory purpose of 

NSR offsets. The CAA requires that 

emissions from new or modified major 

stationary sources be sufficiently offset 

‘‘so as to represent . . . reasonable 

further progress’’ toward attainment of 

the NAAQS (CAA 173(a)(1)(A)), and the 

EPA’s implementing regulations require 

that emission offsets provide a ‘‘net air 

quality benefit in the affected area’’ (40 

CFR part 51, Appendix S, sec. IV. A.). 

The Plan does not explain how this 

requirement is satisfied when 

interpollutant trading is used. As 

mentioned above, the justification for an 

interpollutant ratio requires a technical 

demonstration that the new source 

emission increase and the offset are 

equivalent in their ambient effect. 

However, the precise sense in which 

changes in precursor emissions must be 

‘‘equivalent’’ has not been defined; 

equivalency could be defined in terms 

of the maximum concentration from the 

model, the average over time and space 

of modeled concentrations above the 

NAAQS, or some other metric. The 

criteria for assessing equivalency should 

be provided with a rationale grounded 

in the underlying goals of NSR 

offsetting. 

Given these inadequacies in the 

technical demonstration and related 

documentation for the PM2.5 NSR 

interpollutant trading ratios provided in 

Appendix H of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, we 

are proposing to disapprove these 

interpollutant trading ratios for NSR 

purposes. 

K. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1839 

78After EMFAC2011 was released in 2011, new 

information on statewide diesel fuel usage and 

economic forecasts became available to the State. 

For the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, CARB adjusted 

EMFAC2011 emissions estimates for heavy-duty 

trucks to reflect this new information (p. B–26). The 

EPA allowed the use of these adjustment factors in 

transportation conformity determinations in the 

SJV. See footnote 14 of this notice. 

79On January 14, 2014, we approved the use of 

these scaling factors by the SJV MPOs in the 

regional emissions analyses in their transportation 

conformity determinations. See letter dated January 

14, 2014, Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air Planning 

Office, EPA-Region 9 to John Taylor, Branch Chief, 

Transportation Planning Branch, CARB; Subject: 

Use of San Joaquin Valley Heavy Duty Diesel 

Vehicle Recession Adjustment Methodology. 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, 

and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans (RTP) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. 

This demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(budgets) contained in all control 

strategy SIPs. An attainment, 

maintenance, or RFP SIP should include 

budgets for the attainment year, each 

required RFP year, or the last year of the 

maintenance plan, as appropriate. 

Budgets are generally established for 

specific years and specific pollutants or 

precursors and must reflect all of the 

motor vehicle control measures 

contained in the attainment and RFP 

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

PM2.5 plans should identify budgets 

for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors 

whose on-road emissions are 

determined to significantly contribute to 

PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP 

milestone year and the attainment year, 

if the plan demonstrates attainment. All 

direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include 

direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions 

from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. 

A state must also consider whether reentrained paved and unpaved road dust 

or highway and transit construction 

dust are significant contributors and 

should be included in the direct PM2.5

budget. (40 CFR 93.102(b) and 

§ 93.122(f) and the conformity rule 

preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031–40036 

(July 1, 2004)). 

Transportation conformity trading 

mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR 

93.124 where a SIP establishes 

appropriate mechanisms for such trades. 

The basis for the trading mechanism is 

the SIP attainment modeling which 

established the relative contribution of 

each PM2.5 precursor pollutant. 

In general, only budgets in approved 

SIPs can be used for transportation 

conformity purposes; however, section 

93.118(e) of the transportation 

conformity rule allows budgets in a 

submitted SIP to apply for conformity 

purposes before the SIP is approved 

under certain circumstances. First, there 

must not be any other approved SIP 

budgets that have been established for 

the same time frame, pollutant, and 

CAA requirement. Second, the EPA 

must find that the submitted SIP 

budgets are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. To be found 

adequate, the submittal must meet the 

conformity adequacy requirements of 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). The criteria for 

determining adequacy of submitted 

motor vehicle emissions budgets are 

provided at 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). The transportation conformity rule, 

however, does allow submitted motor 

vehicle emissions budgets that have 

been found adequate to replace 

approved budgets if the EPA has limited 

the duration of its approval to last only 

until it finds replacement budgets 

adequate (40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1)). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets 

for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the RFP 

years of 2014 and 2017 and the 

projected attainment year of 2019. (2012 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, section C.11). 

The SJV has eight separate county-based 

MPOs; therefore, separate budgets are 

provided for each MPO as well as a total 

for the nonattainment area as a whole. 

The budgets reflect winter daily average 

emissions and are calculated using 

EMFAC2011, the currently approved 

emission model for California (78 FR 

14533 (March 6, 2013)).78 Winter annual 

day emissions are used in the Plan and 

the budgets because SJV’s exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard occur 

almost exclusively during the winter 

months (2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 3–4 and 

Appendix G, p. 7). 

The direct PM2.5 budgets include 

tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear 

emissions but exclude paved road, 

unpaved road, and road construction 

dust based on the District’s conclusion 

that these source categories are 

insignificant contributors to PM2.5 levels 

in the Valley (Appendix C, section 

C.11.2.). The Plan states it does not 

include budgets for SO2 because on-road 

mobile exhaust estimates of SOx are less 

than 1 ton per day Valley-wide in 2014 

and 2017, which equates to less than 10 

percent of the total SOx emissions 

inventory for those years (id.). 

Additionally, the Plan states that it does 

not include budgets for VOC because 

VOC emissions do not contribute 

significantly to the formation of 

secondary PM2.5 in the SJV (id.). The 

Plan does not specifically address 

ammonia emissions for MVEB purposes 

but shows that ammonia emissions from 

on-road mobile sources contribute just 

over 1 percent of the total ammonia 

inventory in 2014 and 2017 (see Plan at 

Appendix B, Table B–5). 

The truck activity estimates in 

EMFAC2011 used to develop the 

budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are 

consistent with those used by CARB in 

its 2010 revisions to the In-Use Truck 

and Bus Rule. Since the 2010 updates, 

new economic data (e.g., statewide 

diesel fuel usage, truck sales) has 

become available which suggests that 

truck emissions will be lower in future 

years in the San Joaquin Valley than 

currently estimated in EMFAC2011. In 

order to account for this reduction in 

emissions from trucks in the budgets, 

results from EMFAC2011 are scaled by 

year-specific factors (SJV PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix C, section C.11.3 and Table 

C–1). The MPOs will also use these 

scaling factors in their conformity 

determinations.79 Reductions from 

certain State and local control measures 

are not included in the on-road 

emission inventories generated from 

EMFAC2011 and must be subtracted 

from EMFAC2011 inventories used as 

the basis for the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets and the attainment 

demonstration. 

On October 7, 2014, we received a 

letter from CARB stating that it intends 

to revise the previously-submitted 2014 

and 2017 budgets to remove reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

Carl Moyer and Proposition IB incentive 

grant programs but intends to make no 

other revisions to the budgets. The letter 

provided the proposed revised budgets. 

(Table 6 below). These changes make 

the budgets consistent with the 

attainment demonstration. The letter 

also stated that CARB would be taking 

the revised budgets to its Board in 

November 2014 for approval and an 

additional letter from CARB requested 

in the interim that the EPA consider 

these budgets under the Agency’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1840 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

80Letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, Region 9, dated October 7, 2014. 

81Letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, Region 9, dated November 6, 2014, 

requesting parallel processing of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

82Under the Transportation Conformity 

regulations, the EPA may review the adequacy of 

submitted motor vehicle emission budgets 

simultaneously with the EPA’s approval or 

disapproval of the submitted implementation plan. 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

parallel processing procedures for SIP 

submittals.80 81

TABLE 6—2006 PM2.5 STANDARD MVEB FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Winter daily average in tons] 

County 

2014 2017 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Fresno .............................................................................................................................. 1.0 31.6 0.9 25.2 

Kern (SJV) ....................................................................................................................... 1.2 43.2 1.0 34.4 

Kings ................................................................................................................................ 0.2 8.8 0.2 7.2 

Madera ............................................................................................................................. 0.3 8.7 0.2 7.0 

Merced ............................................................................................................................. 0.5 17.2 0.4 13.7 

San Joaquin ..................................................................................................................... 0.7 20.0 0.6 15.9 

Stanislaus ........................................................................................................................ 0.5 15.1 0.5 12.0 

Tulare ............................................................................................................................... 0.5 14.3 0.4 10.7 

Total * ........................................................................................................................ 4.9 159.0 4.2 126.0 

Source: Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, dated October 7, 2014, Attachment, Table C–4. 

* Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. Attachment, Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, dated October 7, 2014, with Attachment, revised Table C–4, ‘‘Transportation Conformity Budgets’’ to 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan also includes a 

proposed trading mechanism for 

transportation conformity analyses that 

would allow future decreases in NOX

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, 

using a NOX:PM2.5 ratio of 8:1. 

(Appendix C, section C.11.3 and Table 

C–2). 

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions 

We have evaluated the revised 

budgets against our adequacy criteria in 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our 

review of the budgets’ approvability (see 

section II.I (Table I–3) in the TSD for 

this proposal) and expect to have 

completed the adequacy review of these 

budgets before or concurrent with our 

final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.82

We posted the budgets on EPA’s 

adequacy review Web page at http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm from October 23, 

2014 to November 24, 2014 and did not 

receive any comments on them. 

Based on the information about reentrained road dust in the Plan and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 

we propose to concur with the District’s 

finding that re-entrained road dust 

emissions from paved roads, unpaved 

roads, and road construction are not 

significant contributors to the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the Valley 

and that these emissions therefore do 

not need to be addressed in the MVEBs. 

Additionally, based on the information 

about VOC, SO2, and ammonia 

emissions in the Plan and in accordance 

with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), we propose 

to find that transportation-related 

emissions of VOC, SO2, and ammonia 

emissions are not significant 

contributors to the PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem in the SJV area and, 

accordingly, that MVEBs for these 

pollutants are not necessary. 

For the reasons discussed in section 

IV.G., above, we are proposing to 

approve the State’s demonstration that it 

is impracticable to attain the 2006 PM2.5

standard in the San Joaquin Valley by 

the applicable Moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 2015 and 

proposing to reclassify the area as 

Serious. Because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

does not demonstrate attainment, we do 

not address in this proposal any budgets 

for the attainment year of 2015 or 2019. 

For reasons discussed in section IV.H. 

above, we are proposing to approve the 

RFP demonstration for 2014 and 2017 in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The budgets, as 

given in Table 6 above, are consistent 

with the demonstration, are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified, and 

meet all other applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements including 

meeting the adequacy criteria in 

93.118(e)(4). For these reasons, the EPA 

proposes to approve the budgets listed 

in Table 6 above. We provide a more 

detailed discussion in Section II.H of 

the TSD, which can be found in the 

docket for today’s action. 

CARB has requested that we limit the 

duration our approval of the budgets 

only until the effective date of the EPA’s 

adequacy finding for any subsequently 

submitted budgets. (Letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, March 4, 2013). The 

transportation conformity rule allows us 

to limit the approval of budgets. (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(1)). However, we can consider 

a state’s request to limit an approval of 

its MVEB only if the request includes 

the following elements: 

Æ An acknowledgement and 

explanation as to why the budgets under 

consideration have become outdated or 

deficient; 

Æ A commitment to update the 

budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP 

update; and 

Æ A request that the EPA limit the 

duration of its approval to the time 

when new budgets have been found to 

be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

(67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) 

(limiting our prior approval of MVEB in 

certain California SIPs)). 

Because CARB’s request does not 

include all of these elements, we cannot 

address it at this time. Once CARB has 

adequately addressed them, we intend 

to review the information and take 

appropriate action. If we propose to 

limit the duration of our approval of the 

MVEB in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, we will 

provide the public an opportunity to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1841 

83The budgets and the trading program approved 

in 2011 will continue to apply in the SJV for 

determining transportation conformity for the 1997 

PM2.5 annual standard. 

84For a general discussion of EPA’s interpretation 

of the reclassification provisions in section 

188(b)(1) of the Act, see the General Preamble, 57 

FR 13498 at 13537–38 (April 16, 1992). 

comment. The duration of the approval 

of the budgets, however, would not be 

limited until we complete such a 

rulemaking. 

We have previously approved motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards (76 

FR 69896, 69923 (November 9, 2011)). 

These budgets will continue to apply for 

the 2006 24-hour standard until we 

finalize our approval of the budgets in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan or find these 

budgets adequate. The budgets 

approved in 2011, however, will 

continue to apply in the SJV for 

determining transportation conformity 

for the 1997 PM2.5 annual and 24-hour 

standards. 

As noted above, the State included a 

trading mechanism to be used in 

transportation conformity analyses that 

would use the proposed budgets in the 

2012 Plan 83 as allowed for under 40 

CFR 93.124. This trading mechanism 

would allow future decreases in NOX

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, 

using a NOX:PM2.5 ratio of 8:1. To 

ensure that the trading mechanism does 

not impact the ability to meet the NOX

budget, the Plan provides that the NOX

emission reductions available to 

supplement the PM2.5 budget would 

only be those remaining after the NOX

budget has been met. The Plan also 

provides that each agency responsible 

for demonstrating transportation 

conformity shall clearly document the 

calculations used in the trading, along 

with any additional reductions of NOX

or PM2.5 emissions in the conformity 

analysis. 

The EPA has reviewed the air quality 

modeling used to develop the 8:1 

NOX:PM2.5 ratio and, while we are not 

proposing to take any action on it, we 

find that it is a reasonable method to use 

to develop ratios for transportation 

conformity purposes. We note that the 

ratio the State is proposing to use for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

derived from air quality modeling that 

evaluated the effect of reductions in 

local Kern County NOX and PM2.5 levels 

on ambient concentrations at the 

California Avenue-Bakersfield site (2012 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, p. 68). The air 

quality modeling that the State 

performed to evaluate the effectiveness 

of regional (nonattainment wide) NOX

and PM2.5 reductions on ambient 

concentrations showed NOX:PM2.5 ratios 

that range from a high of 4.7 at the 

Stockton monitor to a low of 2.8 at the 

Corcoran monitor. See 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix G, p. 65. Because the 8:1 

trading ratio is more stringent than any 

determined by the regional modeling, 

we are proposing to approve its use to 

trade excess NOX reductions for PM2.5

increases. We are not, however, 

proposing to approve its use to trade 

excess PM2.5 reductions for NOX

increases, as this would result in undercontrol of NOX.

We believe that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

includes an approvable 8:1 NOX:PM2.5

ratio trading mechanism for determining 

transportation conformity for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. We therefore propose to 

approve the trading mechanism as 

described on p. C–32 in Appendix C of 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as enforceable 

components of the transportation 

conformity program in the SJV for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard with the condition 

that trades are limited to substituting 

excess reductions in NOX for increases 

in PM2.5. 

V. Reclassification as Serious 

Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP 

Requirements 

A. Reclassification as Serious and 

Applicable Attainment Date 

Section 188 of the Act outlines the 

process for classification of PM2.5

nonattainment areas and establishes the 

applicable attainment dates. Under the 

plain meaning of the terms of section 

188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA has general 

authority to reclassify at any time before 

the applicable attainment date any area 

that the EPA determines cannot 

practicably attain the standard by such 

date. Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) of 

the Act is a general expression of 

delegated rulemaking authority. In 

addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 

section 188(b)(1) mandate that the EPA 

reclassify ‘‘appropriate’’ PM10

nonattainment areas at specified time 

frames (i.e., by December 31, 1991 for 

the initial PM10 nonattainment areas, 

and within 18 months after the SIP 

submittal due date for subsequent 

nonattainment areas). These 

subparagraphs do not restrict the EPA’s 

general authority but simply specify 

that, at a minimum, it must be exercised 

at certain times.84

We have reviewed the 

impracticability demonstration in the 

Plan and Supplement and believe the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area cannot practicably attain the 2006 

PM2.5 standard by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 

(see section IV.G, above). We have also 

reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring data 

for the San Joaquin Valley available in 

the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. These data show that 24-hour 

PM2.5 levels in the SJV continue to be 

well above 35 m/m3, the level of the 

2006 PM2.5 standard, and the recent 

trends in the Valley’s 24-hour PM2.5

levels are not consistent with a 

projection of attainment by the end of 

2015 (see Table 7 below and Figure III– 

1 and Table III–1 in the TSD). 

TABLE 7—24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES 1 IN μg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV 

Site AQS ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Bakersfield: 

Planz ..................................................................... 60290016 54 60 68 70 70 65 55 47 60 

CA Ave .................................................................. 60290014 58 62 66 66 68 62 62 58 65 

Golden State Hwy ................................................. 60290010 60 64 69 64 66 64 n/a n/a n/a 

Corcoran ....................................................................... 60310004 55 58 61 52 53 49 46 43 49 

Hanford ......................................................................... 60311004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 54 60 

Visalia ........................................................................... 61072002 55 56 58 57 59 51 47 47 56 

Fresno: 

Pacific .................................................................... 60195025 57 59 61 52 50 43 48 53 63 

Garland ................................................................. 60190011 60 58 63 58 60 54 58 59 2 62 2

Clovis ............................................................................ 60195001 55 56 58 54 53 47 54 54 58 

Tranquility ..................................................................... 60192009 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 31 30 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1842 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

85See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 

86For a discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the 

requirements of section 188(e), see ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans for Serious PM10

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers 

for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 

1994) (hereafter ‘‘Addendum’’) at 42002; 65 FR 

19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on PM10

Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252 

(October 2, 2001) (proposed action on PM10 Plan for 

Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 

2002) (final action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa 

County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, 

amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding 

EPA action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, 

Arizona but generally upholding EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA section 188(e)). 

87For any Serious area, the terms ‘‘major source’’ 

and ‘‘major stationary source’’ include any 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to 

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

189(b)(3)). 

TABLE 7—24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES 1 IN μg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV—Continued 

Site AQS ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Madera ......................................................................... 60392010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51 52 

Merced: 

M Street ................................................................ 60472510 45 45 48 50 51 45 39 40 49 

Coffee .................................................................... 60470003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 43 41 42 

Turlock .......................................................................... 60990006 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 51 49 53 

Modesto ........................................................................ 60990005 49 51 55 54 55 49 50 44 51 

Manteca ........................................................................ 60772010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 38 37 

Stockton ....................................................................... 60771002 40 41 45 51 50 44 38 36 45 

Source: U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM2.5 Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html (‘‘PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14’’). The term ‘‘n/a’’ means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 CFR part 50, appendix N). 1The 24-hour design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 

CFR part 50 appendix N. For example, the 24-hour design value for 2013 is the average of the 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations for 2011, 

2012, and 2013. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value is 35 μg/m3 or less. 2The Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar 

year 2012. The design value reported represents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in early 2012. 

In accordance with section 188(b)(1) 

of the Act, the EPA is proposing to 

reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to 

Serious nonattainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard of 35 mg/m3, based 

on the EPA’s determination that the SJV 

area cannot practicably attain this 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. 

Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the 

attainment date for a Serious area ‘‘shall 

be as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than the end of the tenth calendar 

year beginning after the area’s 

designation as nonattainment. . . .’’ The 

SJV area was designated nonattainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard effective 

December 14, 2009.85 Therefore, upon 

final reclassification of the SJV area as 

a Serious nonattainment area, the latest 

permissible attainment date under 

section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for purposes 

of the 2006 PM2.5 standard in this area, 

will be December 31, 2019. 

Under section 188(e) of the Act, a 

state may apply to EPA for a single 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

date by up to 5 years, which EPA may 

grant if the state satisfies certain 

conditions. Before EPA may extend the 

attainment date for a Serious area under 

section 188(e), the state must: (1) Apply 

for an extension of the attainment date 

beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) 

demonstrate that attainment by the 

statutory attainment date is 

impracticable; (3) have complied with 

all requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the plan for the area includes the most 

stringent measures that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state or 

are achieved in practice in any state, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area; and (5) submit a demonstration of 

attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable.86

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

Plans 

Upon reclassification as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, California will be required to 

submit additional SIP revisions to 

satisfy the statutory requirements that 

apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas, including the requirements of 

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

The Serious area SIP elements that 

California will be required to submit are 

as follows: 

1. Provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM), 

including best available control 

technology (BACT) for stationary 

sources, for the control of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors shall be 

implemented no later than 4 years after 

the area is reclassified (CAA section 

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

2. a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2019, or where the state is seeking 

an extension of the attainment date 

under section 188(e), a demonstration 

that attainment by December 31, 2019 is 

impracticable and that the plan provides 

for attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable and no later 

than December 31, 2024 (CAA sections 

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

3. plan provisions that require 

reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA 

172(c)(2)); 

4. quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every 3 years until the 

area is redesignated attainment and 

which demonstrate RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable date (CAA 

section 189(c)); 

5. provisions to assure that control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to 

major stationary sources of PM2.5

precursors, except where the state 

demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction 

that such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed 

the standard in the area (CAA section 

189(e)); 

6. a comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 

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

7. contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to meet 

RFP or to attain by the applicable 

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

and 

8. A revision to the nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) program to 

lower the applicable ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ 87 thresholds from 100 tons per 

year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 

189(b)(3)). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1843 

88See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum, 59 FR 

41998 (August 16, 1994). 

89 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 

refers to: ‘‘(a) All land within the limits of any 

Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (b) all dependent 

Indian communities within the borders of the 

United States whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and 

whether within or without the limits of a state, and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which 

have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same.’’ 

The EPA is currently developing a 

proposed rulemaking to provide 

guidance to states on the attainment 

planning requirements in subparts 1 and 

4 of part D, title I of the Act that apply 

to areas designated nonattainment for 

PM2.5. In the interim, EPA encourages 

the State to review the General Preamble 

and Addendum for guidance on how to 

implement these statutory requirements 

in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area.88

C. Statutory Deadline for Submittal of 

the Serious Area Plan 

Section 189(b)(2) of the Act states, in 

relevant part, that the state must submit 

the required BACM provisions ‘‘no later 

than 18 months after reclassification of 

the area as a Serious Area’’ and must 

submit the required attainment 

demonstration ‘‘no later than 4 years 

after reclassification of the area to 

Serious.’’ Thus, if a final reclassification 

of the area to Serious becomes effective 

in early 2015, the Act provides the state 

with up to 18 months after this date (i.e., 

until late 2016) to submit a BACM 

demonstration and up to 4 years after 

this date (i.e., until early 2019) to submit 

a Serious area attainment 

demonstration. Given the December 31, 

2019 Serious area attainment date for 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard in this area 

under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA 

expects the State to adopt and submit a 

Serious area attainment demonstration 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard well before 

the statutory SIP submittal deadline in 

section 189(b)(2). 

The Act does not specify a deadline 

for the State’s submittal of 

nonattainment NSR program revisions 

to lower the ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) 

to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) 

following reclassification of a Moderate 

PM2.5 nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment under subpart 4. 

Pursuant to EPA’s gap-filling authority 

in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate 

the statutory control requirements in 

section 189 of the Act, the EPA proposes 

to require the State to submit these 

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions no 

later than 12 months from the effective 

date of final reclassification of the SJV 

area as Serious nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. We believe this 

timeframe will give the State sufficient 

time to make these relatively 

straightforward revisions to its 

nonattainment NSR SIP while assuring 

that new or modified major sources 

locating in the SJV area will be subject 

to the lower statutory major source 

thresholds expeditiously. We are 

requesting comment on this proposed 

12-month timeframe for submission of 

the nonattainment NSR SIP revisions. 

We note that nonattainment NSR SIP 

revisions that satisfy the requirement in 

CAA section 189(b)(3) for purposes of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards may also 

satisfy this requirement for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 

VI. Reclassification of Indian Country 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area. These 

tribes are listed in Table 8 below. 

TABLE 8—INDIAN TRIBES LOCATED IN

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA

Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Big Sandy Rancheria). 

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Cold Springs Rancheria). 

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the North Fork Rancheria). 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians 

(including the Picayune Rancheria). 

Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe (including the Santa Rosa Rancheria). 

Table Mountain Rancheria (including the 

Table Mountain Rancheria). 

Tule River Indian Tribe (including the Tule 

River Reservation). 

Tejon Indian Tribe. 

We have considered the relevance of 

our proposal to reclassify the SJV 

nonattainment area as Serious for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard to each tribe 

located within the SJV area. We believe 

that the same facts and circumstances 

that support the proposal for the nonIndian country lands also support the 

proposal for Indian country 89 located 

within the SJV nonattainment area. The 

EPA is therefore proposing to exercise 

our authority under CAA section 

188(b)(1) to reclassify areas of Indian 

country geographically located in the 

SJV nonattainment area. Section 

188(b)(1) broadly authorizes the EPA to 

reclassify a nonattainment area— 

including any Indian country located 

within such an area—that EPA 

determines cannot practicably attain the 

relevant standard by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Elevated PM2.5 levels are a pervasive 

pollution problem throughout the SJV 

area. Directly-emitted PM2.5 and its 

precursor pollutants (NOX, SO2, VOC, 

and ammonia) are emitted throughout a 

nonattainment area and can be 

transported throughout that 

nonattainment area. Therefore, 

boundaries for nonattainment areas are 

drawn to encompass both areas with 

direct sources of the pollution problem 

as well as nearby areas in the same 

airshed. Initial classifications of 

nonattainment areas are coterminous 

with, that is, they match exactly, their 

boundaries. The EPA believes this 

approach best ensures public health 

protection from the adverse effects of 

PM2.5 pollution. Therefore, it is 

generally counterproductive from an air 

quality and planning perspective to 

have a disparate classification for a land 

area located within the boundaries of a 

larger nonattainment area, such as the 

areas of Indian country contained 

within the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. Moreover, violations of the 2006 

PM2.5 standard, which are measured and 

modeled throughout the nonattainment 

area, as well as shared meteorological 

conditions, would dictate the same 

conclusion. Furthermore, emissions 

increases in portions of a PM2.5

nonattainment area that are left 

classified as Moderate could counteract 

the effects of efforts to attain the 

standard within the overall area because 

less stringent requirements would apply 

in those Moderate portions relative to 

those that would apply in the portions 

of the area reclassified to Serious. 

Uniformity of classification 

throughout a nonattainment area is thus 

a guiding principle and premise when 

an area is being reclassified. Equally, if 

the EPA believes it is likely that a given 

nonattainment area will not attain the 

PM2.5 standard by the applicable 

attainment date, then it may be an 

additional reason why it is appropriate 

to maintain a uniform classification 

within the area and thus to reclassify 

the Indian country together with the 

balance of the nonattainment area. In 

this particular case, we are proposing to 

determine, based on the State’s 

demonstration and current ambient air 

quality trends, that the SJV 

nonattainment area cannot practicably 

attain the 2006 PM2.5 standards by the 

applicable Moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. 

In light of the considerations outlined 

above that support retention of a 

uniformly-classified PM2.5

nonattainment area, and our finding that 

is impracticable for the area to attain by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1844 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

90We sent letters to seven tribal officials 

regarding government-to-government consultation 

on September 30, 2014. EPA inadvertently did not 

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe, therefore, 

we sent a letter to the chairperson of the Tejon 

Indian Tribe inviting government to government 

consultation on our proposed reclassification of the 

SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area on December 18, 

2014. All eight letters can be found in the docket 

for today’s action. 

the applicable attainment date, we 

propose to reclassify the areas of Indian 

country within the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area to Serious for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. 

The effect of reclassification would be 

to lower the applicable ‘‘major source’’ 

threshold for purposes of the 

nonattainment new source review 

program and the Title V operating 

permit program from its current level of 

100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections 

189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B)) thus subjecting 

more new or modified stationary 

sources to these requirements. The 

reclassification may also lower the de 

minimis threshold under the CAA’s 

General Conformity requirements (40 

CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 

70 tpy. Under the General Conformity 

requirements, Federal agencies bear the 

responsibility of determining 

conformity of actions in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas that require 

Federal permits, approvals, or funding. 

Such permits, approvals or funding by 

Federal agencies for projects in these 

areas of Indian country may be more 

difficult to obtain because of the lower 

de minimis thresholds. 

Given the potential implications of 

the reclassification, the EPA has 

contacted tribal officials to invite 

government-to-government consultation 

on this rulemaking effort.90 The EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. We note that although eligible 

tribes may opt to seek EPA approval of 

relevant tribal programs under the CAA, 

none of the affected tribes will be 

required to submit an implementation 

plan to address this reclassification. 

VII. Summary of Proposed Actions and 

Request for Public Comment 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA 

is proposing to approve the following 

elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

Supplement submitted by California to 

address the CAA’s Moderate area 

planning requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area: 

1. The 2007 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

2. the reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); 

3. the reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); 

4. the demonstration that attainment 

by the Moderate area attainment date of 

December 31, 2015 is impracticable as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii); and 

5. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to adopt 

and implement specific rules and 

measures in accordance with the 

schedule provided in Chapter 5 of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown therein, 

and to submit these rules and measures 

to ARB within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to EPA as a revision to the 

SIP, as stated on p. 4 of SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution 2012–12– 

19. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2014 and 2017 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets as shown in 

Table 6 above because they are derived 

from an approvable RFP demonstration 

and meet the requirements of CAA 

section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A, provided the State completes 

its public review process and adopts 

and submits these budgets in final form 

prior to our final action on the Plan and 

Supplement. The EPA is also proposing 

to approve, in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.124, the trading mechanism as 

described on p. C–32 in Appendix C of 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as an enforceable 

component of the transportation 

conformity program for the SJV for the 

2006 PM2.5 standard, with the condition 

that trades are limited to substituting 

excess reductions in NOX for increases 

in PM2.5. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratios 

provided in Appendix H of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan for NNSR permitting 

purposes. Under section 179(a) of the 

CAA, final disapproval of a SIP 

submittal that addresses a requirement 

of part D, title I of the Act or is required 

in response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions 

clock. The NNSR interpollutant trading 

ratios provided in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

were not submitted to meet either of 

these requirements. Therefore, if we 

take final action to disapprove this 

component of the Plan, no sanctions 

will be triggered. Disapproval of a SIP 

element also triggers the requirement 

under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision, before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. Disapproval of 

these NNSR interpollutant trading 

ratios, however, would not create any 

deficiency in the plan and therefore 

would not trigger the obligation on EPA 

to promulgate a FIP under section 

110(c). 

Finally, pursuant to CAA section 

188(b)(1), the EPA is proposing to 

reclassify the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area, including the 

Indian country within it, as Serious 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

standard based on the Agency’s 

determination that the SJV area cannot 

practicably attain the 2006 PM2.5

standard by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

Upon final reclassification as a Serious 

nonattainment area, California will be 

required to submit, within 18 months 

after the effective date of 

reclassification, provisions to assure 

that BACM shall be implemented no 

later than 4 years after the date of 

reclassification and to submit, within 4 

years after the effective date of 

reclassification, a Serious area plan that 

satisfies the requirements of part D of 

title I of the Act, including a 

demonstration that the plan provides for 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than December 31, 2019, or by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable 

and no later than December 31, 2024, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

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

In addition, because the EPA is 

proposing to similarly reclassify areas of 

Indian country within the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

standard, consistent with our proposed 

reclassification of the surrounding nonIndian country lands, EPA has invited 

consultation with interested tribes 

concerning this issue. We note that 

although eligible tribes may seek the 

EPA’s approval of relevant tribal 

programs under the CAA, none of the 

affected tribes will be required to submit 

an implementation plan to address this 

reclassification. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals for the next 

45 days. The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1845 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This proposed action would 

approve State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and would not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. Additionally, the 

proposed rule would reclassify the SJV 

nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and would not itself regulate 

small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This proposed action 

would approve State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. 

Additionally, the proposed action 

would reclassify the SJV nonattainment 

area as Serious nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and would not 

itself impose any federal 

intergovernmental mandate. The 

proposed action would not require any 

tribes to submit implementation plans. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment 

area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The Big 

Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria 

of Mono Indians of California, the North 

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Picayune Rancheria of 

Chukchansi Indians of California, the 

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi 

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain 

Rancheria of California, the Tejon 

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian 

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. 

EPA’s proposed approvals of the SIP 

elements submitted by California to 

address the 2006 PM2.5 standard in the 

SJV would not have tribal implications 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed SIP approvals do 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The EPA has concluded that the 

proposed reclassification might have 

tribal implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, but would not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. 

We note that none of the tribes located 

in the SJV nonattainment area has 

requested eligibility to administer 

programs under the CAA. The proposed 

reclassification would affect the EPA’s 

implementation of the new source 

review program because of the lower 

‘‘major source’’ threshold triggered by 

reclassification (70 tons per year for 

direct PM2.5 and precursors to PM2.5). 

The proposed reclassification may also 

affect new or modified stationary 

sources proposed in these areas that 

require Federal permits, approvals, or 

funding. Such projects are subject to the 

requirements of EPA’s General 

Conformity rule, and Federal permits, 

approvals, or funding for the projects 

may be more difficult to obtain because 

of the lower de minimis thresholds 

triggered by reclassification. 

Given the potential implications, the 

EPA contacted tribal officials during the 

process of developing this proposed rule 

to provide an opportunity to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. On September 30, 2014, 

we sent letters to leaders of the seven 

tribes with areas of Indian country in 

the SJV nonattainment area inviting 

government-to-government consultation 

on the rulemaking effort. We requested 

that the tribal leaders, or their 

designated consultation representatives, 

provide input or request government-togovernment consultation by October 27, 

2014. We did not receive a response 

from any of the seven tribes. As noted 

above, the EPA inadvertently did not 

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe 

at the time we sent letters to the other 

seven tribes. We contacted the 

chairperson of the Tejon Indian Tribe on 

December 18, 2014 to offer them an 

opportunity for government-togovernment consultation. We intend to 

continue communicating with all eight 

tribes located within the boundaries of 

the SJV nonattainment area for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS as we move forward in 

developing a final rule. EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This proposed action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it would only approve a state 

air quality plan implementing a federal 

standard and reclassify the SJV 

nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, triggering Serious area 

planning requirements under the CAA. 

This proposed action does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1846 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed action 

would only approve a state air quality 

plan implementing a federal standard 

and reclassify the SJV nonattainment 

area as Serious nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering 

additional Serious area planning 

requirements under the CAA. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Incorporation 

by reference. 

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

Dated: December 29, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00270 Filed 1–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS