41338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516; FRL–9434–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 2008 

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan (revised 2010 and 

2011) and SJV-related provisions of the 

2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 

2011). EPA is proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories; air quality 

modeling; the reasonably available 

control measures/reasonably available 

control technology, reasonable further 

progress, and attainment 

demonstrations; and the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. EPA is also proposing to grant 

California’s request to extend the 

attainment deadline for the SJV to April 

5, 2015 and to approve commitments to 

measures and reductions by the SJV Air 

Pollution Control District and the 

California Air Resources Board. Finally, 

it is proposing to disapprove the SIP’s 

contingency measures. This proposed 

rule amends EPA’s November 30, 2010 

proposed rule (75 FR 74518) on the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy. 

DATES: Any comments must be received 

on or before August 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0516, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher, 

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 for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly 

identified as such and should not be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

and EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comments. If you 

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

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comments. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations: 

• California Air Resources Board, 

1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95812. 

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, 

Fresno, California 93726. 

The SIP materials are also 

electronically available at: http:// 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/ 

PM_Plans.htm and http:// 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

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

Agency, Region 9, (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

II. California State Implementation Plan 

Submittals To Address PM2.5

Nonattainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

3. CARB 2011 Progress Report 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for SIP 

Submittals 

III. EPA’s 2010 Proposed Action on the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP 

IV. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

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

SJV Portion of the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5

SIP 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP 

a. The District’s RACM/RACT Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

c. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

C. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

Addressed in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

i. The Commitment Represents a Limited 

Portion of Required Reductions 

ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its 

Commitment 

iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable 

and Appropriate Timeframe 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

E. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in the 2011 Progress Report and 

Proposed Revisions 

4. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budget 

5. Proposed Action on the Trading 

Mechanism 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Actions and Potential 

Consequences 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41339 

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

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

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

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

On November 13, 2009, EPA designated areas, 

including the SJV, with respect to the revised 24- 

hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now 

required to submit an attainment plan for the 35 μg/ 

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

effective date of the designation, that is, no later 

than December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all 

references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise 

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

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

codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2See EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value 

Report, June 1, 2011. These values are the highest 

design values in the SJV. A design value is an 

ambient concentration calculated using a specific 

methodology from monitored air quality data and 

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

NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating design 

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

found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, Sections 

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

3See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution: In 

the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5

Plan, April 30, 2008 (SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

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

2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Continued 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and 

Disapprovals 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final 

Disapproval 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

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

established new national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less, including annual 

standards of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

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

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65 μg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 40 

CFR 50.7. EPA established these 

standards after considering substantial 

evidence from numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5

concentrations above the levels of these 

standards. 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms, as well as new evidence for 

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular 

health. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children. See EPA, Air 

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 

No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/ 

P–99/002bF, October 2004. 

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

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

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

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

25, 2007). 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

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

designate areas throughout the nation as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA published 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality 

monitoring data for the three-year 

periods of 2001–2003 or 2002–2004. 70 

FR 944. These designations became 

effective on April 5, 2005.1

EPA designated the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV) nonattainment for both the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards. 40 CFR § 81.305. The SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area is home to 4 

million people and is the nation’s 

leading agricultural area. Stretching 

over 250 miles from north to south and 

averaging 80 miles wide, it is partially 

enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to 

the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to 

the south, and the Sierra Nevada range 

to the east. It encompasses over 23,000 

square miles and includes all or part of 

eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern. For a 

precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 

81.305. The local air district with 

primary responsibility for developing a 

plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

area is the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or District). 

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM2.5

levels in the urban Bakersfield area in 

the southern SJV are the highest 

recorded in the United States at 21.2 μg/ 

m3 and 65 μg/m3, respectively, for the 

2008–2010 period.2 These values have 

declined significantly since 2001. See 

Figures IB–1 and IB–2 in the technical 

support document (TSD) for this 

proposal. 

The levels and composition of 

ambient PM2.5 in the SJV differ by 

season. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H–4 

and H–5. Higher PM2.5 concentrations 

occur during the winter, between late 

November and February, when ambient 

PM2.5 is dominated by ammonium 

nitrate (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 are conducive to the 

formation of ammonium nitrate and 

which encourage wood burning. During 

the summer, PM2.5 levels generally 

remain below 15 μg/m3, the level of the 

annual standards. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Figures H–6 and H–7. 

II. California State Implementation 

Plan Submittals To Address PM2.5

Nonattainment in the San Joaquin 

Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

Designation of an area as 

nonattainment starts the process for a 

state to develop and submit to EPA a 

state implementation plan (SIP) under 

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

include, among other things, a 

demonstration of how the NAAQS will 

be attained in the nonattainment area as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the date required by the CAA. 

Under CAA section 172(b), a state has 

up to three years after an area’s 

designation as nonattainment to submit 

its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, these SIPs were due April 5, 

2008. 40 CFR 51.1002(a). 

California has made five SIP 

submittals to address the CAA’s PM2.5

planning requirements in the San 

Joaquin Valley. The two principal ones 

are the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(2008 PM2.5 Plan or Plan) and the 

California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB’s) State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan (2007 

State Strategy). Together the 2008 PM2.5

Plan and the State Strategy present a 

comprehensive and innovative strategy 

for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

the SJV. 

In addition to these submittals, the 

District and State have also submitted 

numerous rules that contribute to 

improving air quality in the San Joaquin 

Valley. See Appendices A and B of the 

TSD for this proposal. 

1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by 

the District’s Governing Board on April 

30, 2008 and by CARB on May 22, 2008 

and submitted to EPA on June 30, 

2008.3 It includes an attainment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

enclosures. 

4While the applicable attainment date for PM2.5

areas with a full five-year extension is April 5, 

2015, reductions must be implemented by 2014 to 

achieve attainment by that date. See 40 CFR 

51.1007(b). We, therefore, refer to 2014 as the 

attainment year and April 5, 2015 as the attainment 

date. 

5See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, September 15, 2010, 

with enclosures. 

6See CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27, 

2007 with attachments and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 16, 2007, with enclosures. 

7The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures 

to be implemented by the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements) 

and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). 

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

Resolution 7–28, Attachment B, p. 8. 

8See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 21, 2009, 

with attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 

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

State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP 

revision. The balance is for informational purposes 

only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution No. 

09–34. 

9On June 21, 2011, CARB posted to its Web site 

technical revisions to the updated MVEB in the 

2011 Progress Report. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. We discuss 

these revisions in the section on MVEB below. 

demonstration, commitments by the 

District to adopt control measures to 

achieve emissions reductions from 

sources under its jurisdiction (primarily 

stationary sources), and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes air 

quality modeling, a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, an analysis of 

reasonably available control measures/ 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT), base year and projected 

year emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. The 2008 PM2.5

Plan also includes the District’s 

demonstration that attainment of the 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV will require 

significant reductions in direct PM2.5

and NOX emissions (25 percent and 50 

percent from 2005 levels, respectively) 

in addition to reductions in SOX

emissions, that the most expeditious 

date for attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is 

April 5, 2015, and that all controls 

necessary for attainment by that date 

will be in place by the attainment year 

of 2014.4 On September 15, 2010, CARB 

submitted a minor revision to the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan’s control strategy to extend 

the adoption date for one control 

measure.5

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

To demonstrate attainment, the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan relies in part on measures in 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 

State Strategy was adopted on 

September 27, 2007 and submitted to 

EPA on November 16, 2007.6 It 

describes CARB’s overall approach to 

addressing, in conjunction with local 

plans, attainment of both the 1997 PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in 

the San Joaquin Valley but also in 

California’s other nonattainment areas 

such as the South Coast Air Basin. It 

also includes CARB’s commitments to 

propose 15 defined State measures 7 and 

to obtain specific amounts of aggregate 

emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and 

NOX in the SJV from sources under the 

State’s jurisdiction, which are primarily 

on- and off-road motor vehicles and 

engines. 

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘Status Report on the State Strategy 

for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy,’’ dated March 24, 2009, 

adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State 

Strategy Status Report) 8 which updates 

the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its 

implementation during 2007 and 2008. 

In today’s proposal, we are only 

evaluating those portions of the 2007 

State Strategy and its revisions 

(including the 2011 revisions described 

below) that are relevant for attainment 

of the PM2.5 standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

3. CARB 2011 Progress Report 

On May 18, 2011, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘Progress Report on Implementation 

of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans 

(SIP) for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed 

SIP Revisions,’’ dated March 29, 2011 

and adopted April 28, 2011 (2011 

Progress Report). This submittal, which 

updates both the 2007 State Strategy 

and SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, shows that 

both CARB and the District have made 

significant progress in meeting their 

commitments to adopt measures and to 

reduce emissions. More specifically, it 

updates CARB’s rulemaking calendar in 

the 2007 State Strategy (as revised in 

2009) to reflect the current status of 

CARB’s adopted measures and to 

change the expected action dates for 

several measures. It also updates the 

RFP demonstration, contingency 

measures, and transportation conformity 

MVEB in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to reflect 

rule adoptions, changes to activity and 

emissions factors for certain source 

categories, and the impact on projected 

future emissions levels in the SJV of the 

recent economic recession.9

The District has also prepared a report 

documenting its progress in 

implementing the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See 

SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress 

Report, draft March 2011 (SJV PM2.5

Progress Report). This report, which is 

informational only and does not include 

any revisions to the SIP, was posted for 

public comment in March and was 

presented to the District’s Governing 

Board at its June 2011 meeting. 

Future references in this proposal to 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy will be to the Plan as 

revised in 2010 and 2011 and the 

Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011, 

respectively, unless otherwise noted. 

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for SIP 

Submittals 

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

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with EPA’s implementing regulations in 

40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB have 

satisfied applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. The District conducted 

public workshops, provided public 

comment periods, and held a public 

hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan 

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

Appendix J and SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided 

the required public notice and 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the 

Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 08–28. 

The District also provided the required 

public notice and hearing on the 2010 

revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 10–06– 

18. 

CARB conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on 

September 27, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07–28. CARB also 

provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a 

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 

adoption of the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report and its April 28, 2011 

adoption of the 2011 Progress Report. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41341 

10Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA-Region 9 to James 

Goldstene, CARB, September 23, 2010. 

11Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA-Region 9 to James 

Goldstene, CARB, June 13, 2011. 

12 In June 2007, a petition to the EPA 

Administrator was filed on behalf of several public 

health and environmental groups requesting 

reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2.5

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, Petition for 

Reconsideration, ‘‘In the Matter of Final Clean Air 

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

These provisions are (1) The presumption that 

compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

satisfies the NOX and SO2 RACT requirements for 

electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the 

requirement to establish emission limits for 

condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January 

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

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

out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate 

Continued 

See CARB Resolution No. 09–34 and 

CARB Resolution No. 11–24. 

The SIP submittals include proof of 

publication for notices of District and 

CARB public hearings, as evidence that 

all hearings were properly noticed. We 

find, therefore, that each of the five 

submittals that comprise the SJV PM2.5

SIP meets the procedural requirements 

for public notice and hearing in CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that EPA has not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

date of submittal. EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan became complete by 

operation of law on December 30, 2008. 

We determined that the 2010 revision to 

the Plan was complete on September 23, 

2010.10 The November 16, 2007 

submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and 

the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 

2009 revisions to the Strategy became 

complete by operation of law on May 

16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, 

respectively. We determined that the 

2011 revision to the Plan was complete 

on June 13, 2011.11

III. EPA’s 2010 Proposed Action on the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP 

This is the second time that EPA has 

proposed action on California’s SIP to 

address attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. On November 30, 

2010 (75 FR 74518), EPA proposed to 

approve in part and disapprove in part 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the related 

portions of the 2007 State Strategy. 

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

the emissions inventories as meeting the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

PM2.5 implementation rule in 40 CFR 

part 41, subpart Z. We also proposed to 

approve the District’s and CARB’s 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific measures and to achieve 

specific aggregate emissions reductions 

because their approval would 

strengthen the SIP. 

In addition, we proposed to find that 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) are a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and 

therefore needed to be addressed in the 

2008 PM2.5 SIP’s RACM/RACT, RFP, 

and attainment demonstrations and in 

other PM2.5 SIP control requirements, 

such as contingency measures. As 

submitted prior to our November 2010 

proposal, the Plan did not treat VOC as 

an attainment plan precursor but did 

contain information indicating that 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

could significantly reduce ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. 

We proposed to disapprove the air 

quality modeling analysis on which the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s RACM/RACT, RFP, 

and attainment demonstrations and the 

State’s attainment date extension 

request were based because the Plan did 

not include sufficient documentation 

and analyses for EPA to determine the 

modeling’s adequacy. 

Based on our proposed finding that 

VOC should be a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and our proposed disapproval 

of the air quality modeling, we proposed 

to disapprove the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 

RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations and the contingency 

measures as not meeting the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and PM2.5

implementation rule. We proposed to 

disapprove the attainment 

demonstration for the additional reason 

that it relied too extensively on 

enforceable commitments to reduce 

emissions in place of fully-adopted and 

submitted rules. We also proposed to 

disapprove the transportation 

conformity MVEB for the RFP milestone 

years of 2009 and 2012 and the 

attainment year of 2014 because they 

were derived from unapprovable RFP 

and attainment demonstrations. Finally, 

based also on our proposed finding on 

VOC and our proposed disapproval of 

the air quality modeling as well as our 

proposed disapproval of the RACM/ 

RACT and attainment demonstrations, 

we proposed to not grant the State’s 

request to extend the attainment date for 

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

2015. 

During the comment period for the 

November 2010 proposal, we received 

five comment letters from the public as 

well as comment letters from CARB and 

the District. Subsequent to the close of 

the comment period, CARB adopted and 

submitted revisions to the SJV PM2.5

Plan and 2007 State Strategy After 

considering information contained in 

the comment letters and these 

supplemental SIP submittals, we have 

substantially amended our November 

2010 proposed action as described 

below. EPA will consider all significant 

comments submitted in response to both 

its November 2010 proposal and today’s 

proposal before taking final action on 

the SJV PM2.5 SIP. However, EPA 

strongly encourages those who 

submitted comments on the November 

2010 proposal to submit revised 

comments reflecting today’s amended 

proposal during the comment period on 

this amended proposal. 

IV. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

EPA is implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under Title 1, Part D, subpart 

1 of the CAA, which includes section 

172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions.’’ 

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

nonattainment area attain the NAAQS 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than five years from the date of the 

area’s designation as nonattainment. 

This section also allows EPA to grant up 

to a five-year extension of an area’s 

attainment date based on the severity of 

the area’s nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of controls. 

EPA designated the SJV as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS effective April 5, 2005, and 

thus the applicable attainment date is 

no later than April 5, 2010 or, should 

EPA grant a full five-year extension, no 

later than April 5, 2015. 

Section 172(c) contains the general 

statutory planning requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas, 

including the requirements for 

emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, 

attainment demonstrations, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. 

On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 

20586, codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation rule). 

The PM2.5 implementation rule and its 

preamble address the statutory planning 

requirements for emissions inventories, 

RACM/RACT, attainment 

demonstrations including air quality 

modeling requirements, RFP 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. This rule also addresses other 

matters such as which PM2.5 precursors 

must be addressed by the state in its 

attainment SIP and applicable 

attainment dates.12 We discuss each of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

RFP. These provisions are found in the PM2.5

implementation rule and preamble at 72 FR 20586 

at 20623–20628, 40 CFR 51.1002(c), 72 FR 20586, 

20619–20620 and 20636, respectively. On May 13, 

2010, EPA granted the petition with respect to the 

fourth issue. Letter, Gina McCarthy, EPA, to David 

Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. On 

April 25, 2011, EPA granted the petition with 

respect to the first and third issues but denied the 

petition with respect to the second issue given that 

the deferral period for CPM emissions limits had 

already ended. Letter, Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul 

Cort, Earthjustice, April 25, 2011. EPA intends to 

publish a Federal Register notice that will 

announce the granting of the latter petition with 

respect to certain issues and to initiate a notice and 

comment process to consider proposed changes to 

the 2007 PM2.5 implementation rule. 

Neither the District nor the State relied on the 

first, third, or fourth of these provisions in 

preparing the 2008 PM2.5 Plan or the 2007 State 

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

CPM limits in its rules. This limited deferral does 

not affect the proposed approvals of the SJV PM2.5

SIP’s RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment 

demonstrations. EPA will evaluate any rule adopted 

or revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to 

assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. 

these CAA and regulatory requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment plans in more 

detail below. 

V. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and the SJV Portion of the Revised 2007 

State Strategy 

We summarize our evaluation of the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP’s compliance with 

applicable CAA and EPA regulatory 

requirements below. Our detailed 

evaluation can be found in the TSD for 

this proposal which is available online 

at www.regulations.gov in docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516 or 

from the EPA contact listed at the 

beginning of this notice. 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires a state 

to submit a plan provision that includes 

a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant.’’ The 

PM2.5 implementation rule requires a 

state to include direct PM2.5 emissions 

and emissions of all PM2.5 precursors in 

this inventory, even if it has determined 

that control of any of these precursors 

is not necessary for expeditious 

attainment. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and 72 

FR 20586 at 20648. Direct PM2.5

includes condensable particulate matter. 

40 CFR 51.1000. PM2.5 precursors are 

NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. Id. The 

inventories should meet the data 

requirements of EPA’s Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 

40 CFR part 51 subpart A) and include 

any additional inventory information 

needed to support the SIP’s attainment 

demonstration and (where applicable) 

RFP demonstration. 40 CFR 

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

Baseline emissions inventories are 

required for the attainment 

demonstration and for meeting RFP 

requirements. As determined on the 

date of designation, the base year for 

these inventories should be the most 

recent calendar year for which a 

complete inventory was required to be 

submitted to EPA. The emissions 

inventory for calendar year 2002 or 

other suitable year should be used 

attainment planning and RFP plans for 

areas initially designated nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 

51.1008(b). 

EPA has provided additional 

guidance for PM2.5 emissions 

inventories in ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter NAAQS and 

Regional Haze Regulations,’’ November 

2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001). 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP 

The base year and future year baseline 

planning inventories for direct PM2.5

and all PM2.5 precursors for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area together with 

additional documentation for the 

inventories are found in Appendix B of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Both average 

winter day and average annual day 

inventories are provided for the Plan’s 

base year of 2005 and each baseline year 

from 2009 to 2014. These base year and 

baseline inventories incorporate 

reductions from Federal, State, and 

District measures adopted prior to 2007. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B–1 and 2007 

State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. A 

winter inventory is provided because 

the majority of high PM2.5 days in the 

SJV occur during the winter months 

between November and February. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Figures H–4 and H–5. 

Both base year and baseline 

inventories use the most current version 

of California’s mobile source emissions 

model, EMFAC2007, for estimating onroad motor vehicle emissions. EPA has 

approved this model for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity analyses. 73 

FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). 

Table 1 is a summary of the average 

annual day inventories of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors for the base year 

of 2005. These inventories provide the 

basis for the control measure analysis 

and the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

As a starting point for the 2008 PM2.5

Plan’s inventories, the District used 

CARB’s inventory for the year 2002. An 

example of this inventory and CARB’s 

documentation for its inventories can be 

found in Appendices A and F, 

respectively, of the 2007 State Strategy. 

The 2002 inventory for the SJV was 

projected to 2005 and future years using 

CARB’s California Emissions 

Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). See 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B–1. 

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

2005 BASE YEAR

[Tons per annual average day] 

Emissions inventory category 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC Ammonia 

2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 

Stationary Sources ............................................................. 13.3 80.1 20.4 121.5 19 .8 

Area Sources ..................................................................... 51.5 13.5 0.9 140.7 355 .9 

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................. 12.1 327.9 2.6 94.8 6 .2 

Off-Road Mobile Sources .................................................. 9.0 153.9 2.4 62.7 0 

Total ............................................................................ 86.0 575.4 26.4 419.8 382 .0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41343 

13See attachment 1 to the letter, Lynn Terry, 

Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth 

Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

9, May 18, 2011 (CARB Progress Report 

supplement), in the docket for today’s proposal. 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

The inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

are based on the most current and 

accurate information available to the 

State and District at the time the Plan 

was developed and submitted 

(including using the latest EPAapproved version of California’s mobile 

source emissions model, EMFAC2007), 

address comprehensively all source 

categories in the SJV, and are consistent 

with EPA’s inventory guidance. For 

these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2005 base year emissions 

inventory in the SJV PM2.5 SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.1008(a)(1) and to find that the 

baseline inventories in the SJV PM2.5

SIP provide an adequate basis for the 

RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations. We provide more detail 

on our review of the base year inventory 

as well as the projected year inventories 

in section II.A. of the TSD. 

Since late 2007, California has 

experienced an economic recession that 

has greatly reduced current levels of 

economic activity in the State’s 

construction and goods movement 

sectors. The recession has resulted in 

lowered projected future levels of 

activity in this sector. 2011 Progress 

Report, Appendix E. As a result, 

projected emissions levels from these 

categories are now substantially lower 

than those projected for 2008 and later 

in the Plan as submitted in 2008. At this 

time, California is addressing these 

recession impacts on future economic 

activity through adjustments to the 

baseline inventories for specific source 

categories. 2011 Progress Report, 

Appendix E. There are no recessionrelated adjustments to the 2005 base 

year inventory in the SJV 2008 PM2.5

Plan. 

CARB also made technical changes to 

the inventories for diesel trucks, buses, 

and certain categories of off-road mobile 

source engines as part of its December 

2010 rulemaking amending the In-Use 

On-Road Truck and Bus Rule and InUse Off-Road Engine Rule. Id. The State 

estimates that these changes collectively 

reduce the 2005 base year NOX

inventory in the SJV by approximately 

6 percent and the PM2.5 inventory by 

5 percent.13 These changes are small 

given the normal and unavoidable 

uncertainties in all emissions 

inventories and, therefore, do not 

change our basis for proposing to 

approve the base year inventory or to 

find the baseline inventories adequate 

for SIP planning purposes. We discuss 

the impact of these changes on the 

Plan’s RFP and attainment 

demonstrations later in this notice. 

We note that the State and District are 

currently working on revisions to the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP to address the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards. These revisions 

are due to EPA in December 2012 and 

will include the most current inventory 

information that is available. 

B. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures 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 national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ EPA 

defines RACM as measures that a state 

finds are both reasonably available and 

contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in its 

nonattainment area. Thus, what 

constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5

attainment plan is closely tied to that 

plan’s expeditious attainment 

demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 

20586 at 20612. States are required to 

evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM2.5

and all of its attainment plan precursors. 

40 CFR 51.1002(c). 

Consistent with subpart 1 of Part D of 

the CAA, EPA is requiring a combined 

approach to RACM and RACT for PM2.5

attainment plans. Subpart 1, unlike 

subparts 2 and 4, does not identify 

specific source categories for which EPA 

must issue control technology 

documents or guidelines for what 

constitutes RACT, or identify specific 

source categories for state and EPA 

evaluation during attainment plan 

development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. 

Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers 

RACT to be part of an area’s overall 

RACM obligation. Because of the 

variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in 

different nonattainment areas, EPA 

determined not only that states should 

have flexibility with respect to RACT 

and RACM controls but also that in 

areas needing significant emission 

reductions to attain the standards, 

RACT/RACM controls on smaller 

sources may be necessary to reach 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 

20615. Thus, under the PM2.5

implementation rule, RACT and RACM 

are those reasonably available measures 

that contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. 

The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires that attainment plans include 

the list of measures a state considered 

and information sufficient to show that 

the state met all requirements for the 

determination of what constitutes 

RACM/RACT in its specific 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010. In 

addition, the rule requires that the state, 

in determining whether a particular 

emissions reduction measure or set of 

measures must be adopted as RACM/ 

RACT, consider the cumulative impact 

of implementing the available measures 

and to adopt as RACM/RACT any 

potential measures that are reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility if, considered 

collectively, they would advance the 

attainment date by one year or more. Id. 

Any measures that are necessary to meet 

these requirements which are not 

already either federally promulgated, 

part of the state’s SIP, or otherwise 

creditable in SIPs must be submitted in 

enforceable form as part of a state’s 

attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 

20586 at 20614. 

A more comprehensive discussion of 

the RACM/RACT requirement for PM2.5

attainment plans and EPA’s guidance 

for it can be found in the PM2.5

implementation rule preamble (72 FR 

20586 at 20609–20633) and in section 

II.D. of the TSD. 

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy, the District, CARB, and 

the local agencies (through the SJV’s 

eight metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO)) each undertook a 

process to identify and evaluate 

potential reasonably available control 

measures that could contribute to 

expeditious attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the SJV. These RACM/ 

RACT analyses address control 

measures for sources of direct PM2.5, 

NOX and SO2, which are the State’s 

selected attainment plan precursors for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in SJV (see 

section V.C.3 below). We describe each 

agency’s efforts below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

a. District’s RACM/RACT Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

The District’s RACM/RACT analysis, 

which focuses on stationary and area 

source controls, is described in Chapter 

6 and Appendix I of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. To identify potential RACM/ 

RACT, the District reviewed potential 

measures from a number of sources 

including EPA’s list of potential control 

measures in the preamble to the PM2.5

implementation rule (72 FR 20586 at 

20621), measures in other 

nonattainment areas’ plans, and 

measures suggested by the public during 

development of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6–6 to 6–8. The 

identified potential measures, as well as 

existing District measures, are described 

by emissions inventory category in 

Appendix I. These measures address 

emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX and SO2. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6–8 and 

Appendix I. Potential RACM/RACT 

controls for VOC or ammonia were not 

specifically identified or evaluated. 

From the set of identified potential 

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

District selected measures for adoption 

and implementation based on the 

technological feasibility and practicality 

of emissions controls, the potential 

magnitude and timing of emissions 

reductions, cost effectiveness, and other 

acceptable criteria. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 

6–7. 

After completing its RACM/RACT 

analysis for stationary and area sources 

under its jurisdiction, the District 

developed its ‘‘Stationary Source 

Regulatory Implementation Schedule’’ 

(2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6–2) which 

gives the schedule for regulatory 

adoption and implementation of the 

selected RACM/RACT measures. The 

District also identified a number of 

source categories for which feasibility 

studies would be undertaken to refine 

the inventory and evaluate potential 

controls. These categories and the 

schedule for studying them are listed in 

Table 6–4 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

In the five years prior to the adoption 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District 

developed and implemented 

comprehensive plans to address 

attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 

PM10 Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May 

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

(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, 

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

and the 8-hour ozone standards (2007 

Ozone Plan, submitted November 16, 

2007). These plans for other NAAQS 

have resulted in the adoption by the 

District of many new rules and revisions 

to existing rules for stationary and area 

sources. For the most part, the District’s 

current rules are equivalent to or more 

stringent than those developed by other 

air districts. In addition to these 

stationary and area source measures, the 

District has also adopted an indirect 

source review rule, Rule 9510, to 

address increased indirect emissions 

from new industrial, commercial and 

residential developments. See 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ‘‘Indirect Source 

Review,’’ adopted December 15, 2005, 

approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 

The District also operates incentive 

grant programs to accelerate turnover of 

existing stationary and mobile engines 

to cleaner units. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Section 6.5 and SJV PM2.5 Progress 

Report, section 2.3. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District 

identified and committed to adopt and 

implement 13 new control measures for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and/or SOX. In Table 

2 below, we list these measures, which 

mostly involve strengthening existing 

District rules, their anticipated and 

actual adoption dates and their current 

SIP approval status. As can be seen from 

Table 2, the District has met its intended 

rulemaking schedule with one 

exception and has only two rule actions 

remaining (S–COM–6 and S–COM–10). 

Table 6–3 in the Plan shows estimated 

emissions reductions from each rule for 

each year from 2009 to 2014; however, 

the District’s commitment is only to the 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in each year. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, p. 6–9 and SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution, p. 5. We 

show these commitments in Table 3 

below. In its SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, 

the District updated the reduction 

estimates to reflect the rules as adopted. 

See Table 4 below. 

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

Measure No. District rule Expected adoption 

date 

Actual adoption 

date Current SIP approval status 

S–AGR–1 ......... 4103—Open Burning ............................ 2nd Q—2010 ......... April 2010 .............. Proposed approval signed: June 29, 

2011. 

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

and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr).

3rd Q—2008 .......... October 2008 ........ Approved. 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 

2010). 

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

Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr).

3rd Q—2008 .......... October 2008 ........ Approved. 76 FR 5276 (January 31, 

2011). 

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

Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM 

Btu/hr).

4th Q—2009 .......... December 2009 ..... Approved. 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 

2011). 

S–COM–5 ......... 4703—Stationary Gas Turbines ............ 3rd Q—2007 .......... September 2007 .... Approved. 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 

2009). 

S–COM–6 ......... Rule 4702—Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines.

4th Q—2010 .......... Anticipated August 

2011.

Most current revision of rule approved: 

January 18, 2007 at 73 FR 1819 

(January 10, 2008). 

S–COM–7 ......... 4354—Glass Melting Furnaces ............. 3rd Q—2008 .......... ................................ 76 FR 37044, June 24, 2011. 

S–COM–9 ......... 4902—Residential Water Heaters ........ 1st Q—2009 .......... March 2009 ........... 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010). 

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

Residential Central Furnaces.

4nd Q—2014 ......... TBD ....................... Most current revision of rule approved: 

October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29886 

(May 30, 2007). 

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

Wood Burning Heaters.

3rd Q—2009 .......... October 2008 ........ Approved. 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 

2009). 

S–IND–9 ........... 4692—Commercial Charbroiling ........... 2nd Q—2009 ......... September 2009 .... Proposed approval signed: June 9,

2011 

S–IND–21 ......... 4311—Flares ......................................... 2nd Q—2009 ......... June 2009 ............. Action pending. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41345 

14More information on this public process 

including presentations from the workshops and 

symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007 

State Strategy can be found at http:// 

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

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

Continued 

Measure No. District rule Expected adoption 

date 

Actual adoption 

date Current SIP approval status 

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

Program.

4th Q—2009 .......... December 2009 ..... Action pending. 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6–2, revised June 17, 2010. Anticipated adoption date for Rule 4702, SJVAPCD, District Highlights, June 16, 

2011 Actions by the District Governing Board. 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM2.5 PLAN AGGREGATE EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS COMMITMENTS

[Tons per average annual day] 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

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

Direct PM2.5 .............................................. 1.60 2.96 4.46 6.69 6.70 6.70 

SO2 ........................................................... 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.92 

TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT AGGREGATE CREDITABLE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

FROM ADOPTED RULES

[Tons per average annual day] 

2009 2012 2014 

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 2.4 10.2 11.4 

Direct PM2.5 ...................................................................................................................... 1.6 4.3 4.3 

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 0.1 3.5 3.6 

Source: SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Table 3–1 Adjusted PM2.5 Emission Inventory; Table 3–2 Adjusted NOX Emission Inventory; and Table 3–3 Adjusted 

SOX Emission Inventory,’’ March 2011 and TSD, Table F–4. 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of stringent control 

measures for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources and the fuels that power 

them. California has unique authority 

under CAA section 209 (subject to a 

waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement 

new emission standards for many 

categories of on-road vehicles and 

engines and new and in-use off-road 

vehicles and engines. 

California’s emissions standards have 

reduced new car emissions by 99 

percent and new truck emissions by 90 

percent from uncontrolled levels. 2007 

State Strategy, p. 37. The State is also 

working with EPA on goods movement 

activities and is implementing programs 

to reduce emissions from ship auxiliary 

engines, locomotives, harbor craft and 

new cargo handling equipment. In 

addition, the State has standards for 

lawn and garden equipment, 

recreational vehicles and boats, and 

other off-road sources that require 

newly manufactured equipment to be 

80–98 percent cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, 

the State has adopted many measures 

that focus on achieving reductions from 

in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

requirements in California’s Smog 

Check program, truck and bus idling 

restrictions, and various incentive 

programs. Appendix A of the TSD 

includes a list of all measures adopted 

by CARB between 1990 and the 

beginning of 2007. These measures, 

reductions from which are reflected in 

the Plan’s baseline inventories, fall into 

two categories: Measures that are subject 

to a waiver of Federal pre-emption 

under CAA section 209 (section 209 

waiver measures or waiver measures) 

and those for which the State is not 

required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver 

measures). Emissions reductions from 

waiver measures are fully creditable in 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

may be used to meet other CAA 

requirements, such as contingency 

measures. See section II.F.4.a.i. of the 

TSD and EPA’s proposed approval of 

the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 

33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final 

approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 

2010). Generally, the State’s baseline 

non-waiver measures have been 

approved by EPA into the SIP and are 

fully creditable for meeting CAA 

requirements. See TSD Appendix A. 

CARB developed its proposed 2007 

State Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential SIP measures. This process is 

described in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at p. 

7–11.14 Through this process, CARB 

identified and has committed to propose 

15 new defined measures. These 

measures focus on cleaning up the inuse fleet as well as increasing the 

stringency of emissions standards for a 

number of engine categories, fuels, and 

consumer products. They build on 

CARB’s already comprehensive program 

described above that addresses 

emissions from all types of mobile 

sources through both regulations and 

incentive programs. See Appendix A of 

the TSD. Table 5 lists the defined 

measures in the 2007 State Strategy that 

contribute to attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the SJV and their current 

adoption and approval status. Table 6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41346 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, 

requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct 

older vehicles to high performing auto technicians 

and test stations for inspection and certification 

effective 2013. Reductions shown for the 

SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report do 

not include reductions from AB 2289 

improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, 

attachment 5. 

16These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The 

San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus 

Council of Governments, the Merced County 

Association of Governments, the Madera County 

Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno 

County Governments, Kings County Association of 

Governments, the Tulare County Association of 

Governments, and the Kern Council of 

Governments. 

provides the State’s current estimate of 

the emissions reductions in the SJV 

from these measures. 

the emissions reductions in the SJV 

from these measures. 

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

State measures Expected 

action year Current status 

Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy 

Smog Check Improvements ....................................................... 2007–2009 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).15

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) ..................................... 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010. 

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program ........................ 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks ............................................ 2008 Proposed approval signed: June 29, 2011. 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives ...................... 2008 Prop 1B bond funds awarded to upgrade line-haul locomotive 

engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those cleaner line-hauls will begin 

operation by 2012. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines .............................................. 2007, 2010 Waiver action pending. 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment ...................................... 2009 Incentive program in progress. No credit taken.

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats ..................... 2013 Partial adoption, July 2008, Additional action expected 2013. 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p.4 and 2011 Progress Report, Table 1. Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined 

measures with direct PM2.5 or NOX reductions in the SJV are shown here. 

TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2011 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per day 2014] 

State measure Direct PM2.5 NOX

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) ................................................................................................................. 0.1 0.7 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ......................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks ................................................................................................................. 1.7 1.1 

Accelerated Intro. of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives ..................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (> 25 hp) .............................................................................................. 0.0 0.3 

Source: 2011 Progress Report, p. 18. Only defined measures with direct PM2.5 or NOX reductions in the SJV are shown here. 

In addition to the State’s commitment 

to propose defined new measures, the 

2007 State Strategy includes an 

enforceable commitment for emissions 

reductions sufficient, in combination 

with existing measures and the District’s 

commitments, to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by 

the requested attainment date of April 5, 

2015. For the SJV, these emissions 

reductions commitments were to 

achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 76 tpd 

of NOX in the SJV by the attainment 

year of 2014. See 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07–28, 

Attachment B, p. 6. The nature of this 

commitment is described in the State 

Strategy as follows: 

The total emission reductions from the 

new measures necessary to attain the federal 

standards are an enforceable State 

commitment in the SIP. While the proposed 

State Strategy includes estimates of the 

emission reductions from each of the 

individual new measures, it is important to 

note that the commitment of the State 

Strategy is to achieve the total emission 

reductions necessary to attain the federal 

standards, which would be the aggregate of 

all existing and proposed new measures 

combined. Therefore, if a particular measure 

does not get its expected emission 

reductions, the State still commits to 

achieving the total aggregate emission 

reductions, whether this is realized through 

additional reductions from the new measures 

or from alternative control measures or 

incentive programs. If actual emission 

decreases occur in any air basin for which 

emission reduction commitments have been 

made that are greater than the projected 

emissions reductions from the adopted 

measures in the State Strategy, the actual 

emission decreases may be counted toward 

meeting ARB’s total emission reduction 

commitments. 

CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3. 

c. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM 

Analysis 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM 

analysis was conducted by the SJV’s 

eight MPOs.16 This analysis focused on 

potential NOX emissions reductions 

from transportation control measures 

(TCM). TCMs are, in general, measures 

designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions 

in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 

congestion. The results of the analysis 

are described in Chapter 7 (pp. 7–8 to 

7–11) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. It 

addressed NOX but not direct PM2.5, 

SO2, or VOC. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV 

MPOs reviewed and updated the RACM 

analysis they performed for the SJV 

2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan, based on 

EPA’s guidance in the preamble to the 

PM2.5 implementation rule. For the 2007 

Ozone Plan, they developed a local 

RACM strategy after an extensive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41347 

17See Association of Irritated Residents v. U.S. 

EPA, Case No. 3:10–CV–03051–WHA, Consent 

Decree dated January 12, 2011. 

18EPA’s modeling guidance can be found in 

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

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

Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8–Hour 

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

EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007. 

evaluation of potential RACM for 

advancing the 8-hour ozone standard 

attainment date. After reviewing the 

2007 Ozone Plan’s local RACM analysis, 

EPA’s suggested RACM, recently 

developed plans from other areas, and 

the potential emission reductions 

available from the implementation of 

TCMs in the SJV, the MPOs determined 

that there were no additional local 

RACM for NOX, beyond those measures 

already adopted, that could advance 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7–11. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

We propose to find that there are, at 

this time, no additional reasonably 

available measures that individually or 

collectively would advance attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area by one year 

or more. This proposal is based on our 

review of potential RACM/RACT in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and updated and 

revised 2007 State Strategy; the 

District’s and State’s adopted control 

strategies, including their commitments 

to adopt measures and their progress in 

meeting those commitments; and our 

proposed concurrence (discussed below 

in section V.C.3.) with the State’s 

determination that SOX and NOX are 

and VOC and ammonia are not 

attainment plan precursors per 40 CFR 

51.1002(c). Therefore, we propose to 

find that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, together 

with the updated and revised 2007 State 

Strategy, provides for the 

implementation of RACM/RACT as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 

40 CFR 51.1010. 

We are also proposing to approve, 

with the exception of the commitment 

to revise Rule 4702, ‘‘Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines,’’ the 

District’s commitments to adopt and 

implement specific control measures on 

the schedule identified in Table 6–2 (as 

amended June 15, 2010) in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, to the extent that these 

commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled, and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX and SOX by specific years as 

given in Table 6–3 of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. The District had committed to 

revise Rule 4702 by December 2010, but 

now expects adoption to occur in 

August 2011. Because EPA is subject to 

a consent decree requiring that we 

approve or disapprove all elements of 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan by no later than 

September 30, 2011,17 we are proposing 

to disapprove this element of the Plan; 

however, we will not need to finalize 

this proposed disapproval if the District 

adopts revisions to the rule that fulfill 

the commitment by the time of EPA’s 

final action on the Plan. We note that 

the District’s decision to include the 

commitment to revise this rule in its 

Plan was discretionary and that the Plan 

does not specifically rely upon emission 

reductions from this particular rule. 

Adoption of revisions to Rule 4702 is 

now expected in August 2011. 

We are also proposing to approve 

CARB’s commitments to propose certain 

defined measures, as given in Table B– 

1 in 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B 

and to achieve the total aggregate 

emissions reductions necessary to attain 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV, 

whether these reductions are realized 

from the new measures, alternative 

control measures, incentive programs, 

or other actual emissions decreases. See 

CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3. This 

commitment is to aggregate emissions 

reductions of 5 tpd direct PM2.5 and 76 

tpd NOX in the San Joaquin Valley by 

2014 as given on page 21 of the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report. 

C. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 172 requires a State to 

submit a plan for each of its 

nonattainment areas that demonstrates 

attainment of the applicable ambient air 

quality standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the 

specified attainment date. Under the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, this 

demonstration should consist of four 

parts: 

(1) Technical analyses that locate, 

identify, and quantify sources of 

emissions that are contributing to 

violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS; 

(2) Analyses of future year emissions 

reductions and air quality improvement 

resulting from already-adopted national, 

state, and local programs and from 

potential new state and local measures 

to meet the RACM/RACT and RFP 

requirements in the area; 

(3) Adopted emissions reduction 

measures with schedules for 

implementation; and 

(4) Contingency measures required 

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

See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586 at 

20605. 

The requirements for the first two 

parts are described in the sections on 

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT 

above (sections V.A. and V.B.) and in 

the sections on air quality modeling, 

PM2.5 precursors, extension of the 

attainment date, and attainment 

demonstration that follow immediately 

below. Requirements for the third and 

fourth parts are described in the 

sections on the control strategy and 

contingency measures (sections V.B. 

and V.F.), respectively. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan 

The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires states to submit an attainment 

demonstration based on modeling 

results. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.1007(a) 

states: 

For any area designated as nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit 

an attainment demonstration showing that 

the area will attain the annual and 24-hour 

standards as expeditiously as practicable. 

The demonstration must meet the 

requirements of § 51.112 and Appendix W of 

this part and must include inventory data, 

modeling results, and emission reduction 

analyses on which the State has based its 

projected attainment date. The attainment 

date justified by the demonstration must be 

consistent with the requirements of 

§ 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be 

consistent with requirements in § 51.1009 for 

RFP and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. 

The attainment demonstration and 

supporting air quality modeling should be 

consistent with EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.18

See also, 72 FR 20586 at 20665. 

Air quality modeling is used to 

establish emissions attainment targets, 

the combination of emissions of PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors that the area can 

accommodate without exceeding the 

NAAQS, and to assess whether the 

proposed control strategy will result in 

attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality 

modeling is performed for a base year 

and compared to air quality monitoring 

data in order to evaluate model 

performance. Once the performance is 

determined to be acceptable, future year 

changes to the emissions inventory are 

simulated to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and 

changes in ambient air quality 

throughout the air basin. The 

procedures for modeling PM2.5 as part of 

an attainment SIP are contained in 

EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41348 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 

8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Regional Haze’’ (Guidance). 

The air quality modeling that 

underpins the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan is 

described in Chapter 3 and documented 

in Appendices E–H and the several 

additional appendices submitted with 

the Plan in 2008. CARB supplemented 

this documentation in 2011. See Letter, 

John DaMassa, CARB to Frances Wicher, 

EPA, January 28, 2011 (CARB modeling 

supplement). 

We provide a brief description of the 

modeling and a summary of our 

evaluation of it below. More detailed 

information about the modeling and our 

evaluation are available in section II.D. 

of the TSD. 

CARB and the District jointly 

performed the air quality modeling for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Significant time, 

money, and effort by CARB, the District, 

and many others have gone into 

preparing the air quality modeling to 

support the attainment demonstration in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley, including support for the multimillion dollar California Regional 

Particulate Air Quality Study 

(CRPAQS). CRPAQS is a cooperative 

effort involving California cities, State 

and local and air pollution control 

agencies, federal agencies, industry 

groups, academics, and contractors. 

Field data for CRPAQS were collected 

during the 14 months from December 

1999 through February 2001 and 

included short-term, intensive 

monitoring during the fall and winter. 

The study’s design placed emphasis on 

collecting sufficient continuous air 

quality and meteorological data, both at 

the surface and aloft, to support receptor 

and photochemical modeling. Data and 

modeling results based on the CRPAQS 

study provided solid underpinnings for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan uses multiple 

modeling analyses to demonstrate 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. The narrative mainly relies on 

several variants of an approach based on 

receptor modeling for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, but photochemical modeling is 

also included. The receptor modeling 

approach begins with Chemical Mass 

Balance (CMB) modeling, which 

distinguishes the ambient PM2.5

contributions of several broad emissions 

source categories based on how they 

match the chemical species components 

of PM2.5 measurements. The CMB 

results are then refined with emissions 

inventory data to distinguish additional 

source categories; an area of influence 

analysis to better reflect particular 

sources affecting a monitor; and 

information from past photochemical 

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

precursor emissions. Several variants of 

this approach were used with CMB 

results from different locations and 

different base case years. This modeling 

only addresses the annual PM2.5

standard. 

The Plan also includes an attainment 

demonstration using photochemical 

modeling with the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. 

This modeling incorporates data 

collected during CRPAQS and addresses 

both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards. Under EPA modeling 

guidance, this is considered the main 

attainment demonstration, with the 

receptor modeling as a corroborating 

analysis. Guidance, p. 4 and p. 103. 

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 NAAQS, and 

producing documentation to be 

submitted for EPA Regional Office 

review and approval prior to actual 

modeling. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling 

protocol is contained in Appendix F 

and includes descriptions of both the 

receptor modeling approaches and the 

photochemical modeling. Additional 

description of the photochemical 

modeling is covered in Appendix G, and 

also in the additional appendix entitled 

‘‘Regional Model Performance Analysis’’ 

(RMPA). The protocol covers all of the 

topics recommended in the Guidance, 

except that it does not identify how 

modeling and other analyses will be 

archived or made available to the 

public. See Guidance, p. 117. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s air quality 

model performance is discussed in the 

RMPA, starting at p. 6, and also more 

extensively in the CARB modeling 

supplement. In the Plan as submitted in 

2008, modeling performance was not 

sufficiently documented for EPA to fully 

evaluate it, but CARB’s modeling 

supplement provides an extensive 

statistical and graphical analysis 

demonstrating adequate model 

performance. The supplement included 

discussion of the evaluation results and 

also of sensitivity or diagnostic testing, 

both of which are necessary for 

confidence in the model and the 

performance statistics presented. The 

testing described by CARB provides 

assurance that the model is adequately 

simulating the physical and chemical 

processes leading to PM2.5 in the 

atmosphere and that the model 

responds in a scientifically reasonable 

way to emissions changes. 

The Plan as submitted in 2008 

provided insufficient documentation 

about the deviations from EPA’s 

guidance on performing the Speciated 

Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT); 

again the CARB modeling supplement 

provides a reasonable rationale for the 

deviations, about which EPA’s Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards was 

consulted. The Plan cites several factors 

as justifying such deviations (e.g., the 

prevalence of ammonia, the dominance 

of ammonium nitrate, the effect of 

substantial controls on fugitive dust and 

direct carbon emissions (p. G–10 and p. 

3–20)), and the CARB modeling 

supplement provides documentation on 

accounting for evaporation of the 

ammonium ion. The CARB modeling 

supplement also provides extensive 

documentation on the Relative 

Reduction Factors, which are the key 

results from the model for use in the 

attainment test, and the details of their 

calculation, which were not presented 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as originally 

submitted. EPA proposes to conclude 

that the attainment tests are adequate 

and consistent with EPA guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA generally requires an unmonitored 

area analysis. This analysis is intended 

to ensure that a control strategy leads to 

reductions in PM2.5 at other locations 

that have no monitor but that might 

have baseline (and future) ambient 

PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS. The 

unmonitored area analysis uses a 

combination of model output and 

ambient data to identify areas that might 

exceed the NAAQS if monitors were 

located there. The analysis should 

include, at a minimum, all counties 

designated nonattainment and the 

counties surrounding the nonattainment 

area. In order to examine unmonitored 

areas in all portions of the modeling 

domain, EPA recommends use of 

interpolated spatial fields of ambient 

data combined with gridded modeled 

outputs. Guidance, p. 29. 

The section in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

entitled ‘‘Unmonitored peaks’’ presents 

an abbreviated simple screening 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41349 

19EPA is proposing to approve the use of this 

NOX to PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio to meet 

CAA planning requirements for the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the use of this ratio in transportation 

conformity determinations for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS but only until such time as EPA finds 

adequate or approves budgets developed 

specifically for the 2006 standard. EPA is not 

proposing, at this time, to approve the use of this 

ratio in plans for future PM standards or in the 

District’s new source review (NSR) permitting 

program. 

The District recently submitted revisions to its 

NSR rule, Rule 2201, which require that 

interpollutant trading ratios used for purposes of 

satisfying PM2.5 NSR offset requirements first be 

approved by EPA into the SIP. See Rule 2201 (April 

21, 2011), section 4.13.3.2. The Rule 2201 submittal 

also states that the District intends to submit SJVspecific PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratios for EPA’s 

approval in a future SIP revision but will, in the 

interim, require project proponents to use the 

default ratios provided in the preamble to EPA’s 

PM2.5 NSR rule (73 FR 28321 at 28339 (May 16, 

2008)), until alternative trading ratios are approved 

by EPA into the SIP. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff 

Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 2201 (New 

And Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), 

March 17, 2011, p. 4. 

analysis, consisting of a filled 

concentration contour plot (Figure 3 on 

p. G–20), and the observation that 

‘‘there are no areas with steep gradients 

that would result in higher design 

values than those measured at 

monitors.’’ 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. G–15. 

This analysis departs significantly from 

the procedures recommended in the 

Guidance. However, the CARB 

modeling supplement documents a 

subsequent unmonitored area analysis 

that uses procedures recommended in 

the Guidance, including use of EPA’s 

MATS software, and concludes that 

there are no unmonitored PM2.5 peaks in 

the modeling domain that would violate 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In summary, despite shortcomings in 

the documentation within the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008, the 

CARB modeling supplement enables 

EPA to conclude that the modeling 

supporting the Plan is sound. EPA 

proposes to approve the air quality 

modeling and to find that the modeling 

provides an adequate basis for the 

RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

Effect of Inventory Changes on the Air 

Quality Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstrations 

As discussed above in section V.A., 

CARB has recently updated the 

inventories for several mobile source 

categories for both the base and future 

years as well as revised the economic 

forecasts on which the future 

inventories were based. Relative to 

emissions in the Plan, the decreases in 

the base year 2005 emissions inventory 

due to the inventory updates are about 

6 percent for NOX and 5 percent for 

direct PM2.5 emissions; the 2014 

attainment year target emissions levels 

are unchanged. CARB Progress Report 

supplement, Attachment 1. EPA 

believes that these base year emission 

changes are small enough to be 

relatively minor in the context of the 

overall uncertainties in inventories and 

in photochemical modeling itself, and 

that the base case modeling remains 

valid. However, EPA assessed how these 

emission inventory changes would be 

expected to affect the attainment 

demonstration, which relies on 

emission reductions between the base 

year and the 2014 attainment target 

year. The emissions decreases in the 

base year tend to reduce the relative 

effect of controls, and to increase the 

projected PM2.5 concentrations in the 

attainment year. (This is because the 

base year ambient concentration is now 

known to result from a slightly lower 

level of emissions. The model must 

therefore be slightly under-predicting, 

and so the predicted attainment year 

concentration should be slightly higher 

to compensate.) To assess the effect of 

the inventory changes on the attainment 

demonstration, EPA used model 

sensitivity results in the 2011 Progress 

Report supplement, Attachment 3. 

Taking into account the model’s 

sensitivity to the inventory changes, 

EPA estimates that predicted ambient 

concentrations in the 2014 attainment 

year would be higher by only about 2.5 

percent due to the emission inventory 

revisions, and that predicted design 

values for 2014 remain below the PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA therefore proposes to find 

that the attainment demonstration 

remains valid, despite the emission 

inventory changes. 

Pollutant Ratios Used To Determine 

PM2.5 Equivalency 

The 2011 Progress Report and the 

2011 SJV Progress Report use a PM2.5

equivalency metric in a number of 

tables and demonstrations. Two ratios 

are used: 

• 9 tpd NOX to 1 tpd direct PM2.5

• 1 tpd SOX to 1 tpd direct PM2.5

The NOX:PM2.5 ratio is documented in 

supplemental information provided by 

CARB, entitled ‘‘Precursor 

Effectiveness,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. In 

two separate runs of the CMAQ 

modeling application used for the 

attainment demonstration, CARB 

simulated an additional 10 percent 

reduction in modeling domain NOX

emissions and in direct PM2.5 emissions. 

These PM2.5 effects were divided by the 

emissions totals for each pollutant to 

give a concentration change per 

emissions change, or effectiveness, for 

each pollutant. This effectiveness shows 

the reduction of precursor emissions 

needed for a given concentration 

change, and so can be used to estimate 

an interpollutant equivalence ratio, the 

amount of one precursor that is 

equivalent to the other in terms of the 

effect on ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5. The direct PM2.5 effectiveness 

was divided by the NOX effectiveness to 

arrive at a NOX:PM2.5 ratio for each 

monitor; the average of these is about 9. 

This method appears to be adequate for 

purposes of assessing the effect of areawide emissions changes, such as are 

used in RFP, contingency measures, and 

conformity budgets, and EPA is 

proposing to allow its use here.19

The SOX:PM2.5 ratio is documented in 

supplemental information provided by 

the District which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

See ‘‘Atmospheric Interpollutant 

Equivalency between Direct Particulate 

Emissions and Secondary Particulate 

Formed from Gaseous Sulfur Oxide 

Emissions’’; the spreadsheet 

‘‘Interpollutant Calculation’’; and letter 

dated May 27, 2009 from David Warner, 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District to Mr. Joseph Douglas, 

California Energy Commission, 

Attachment II, ‘‘Interpollutant Offset 

Ratio Explanation.’’ After reviewing this 

documentation, EPA does not agree 

with the method used to develop the 

ratio. 

The approach used by the District to 

estimate inter-pollutant equivalency 

ratios rests on the incorrect assumption 

that ambient sensitivity to emissions 

reductions of a given precursor can be 

estimated as the ratio of concentration 

to emissions. This is the assumption of 

linear ‘‘rollback’’, and inherently cannot 

address the complexities of PM2.5

formation chemistry, which is 

nonlinear. It is in contrast to the State’s 

approach for the NOX:PM2.5 ratio which 

used photochemical modeling results to 

take into account such nonlinearity. 

EPA’s evaluation of the SOX:PM2.5

approach is discussed in greater detail 

in section II.B.4. of the TSD. 

EPA is proposing to not allow the use 

of this SOX to PM2.5 interpollutant 

trading ratio at this time to meet any 

CAA planning requirements for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. We 

note that the State had proposed the use 

of this ratio to meet only the CAA 

requirement for contingency measures. 

See section V.E. below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

20Quote from ‘‘Initial Data Analysis of Field 

Program Measurements,’’ DRI Document No. 2497, 

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

Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy, 

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

G. Watson, Desert Research Institute. 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

Addressed in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

EPA recognizes NOX, SO2, VOC, and 

ammonia as the main precursor gases 

associated with the formation of 

secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air. 

These gas-phase PM2.5 precursors 

undergo chemical reactions in the 

atmosphere to form secondary 

particulate matter. Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 depends on numerous 

factors including the concentrations of 

precursors; the concentrations of other 

gaseous reactive species; atmospheric 

conditions including solar radiation, 

temperature, and relative humidity; and 

the interactions of precursors with 

preexisting particles and with cloud or 

fog droplets. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

As discussed previously, a state must 

submit emissions inventories for each of 

the four PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 

FR 20586 at 20589 and 40 CFR 

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

contribution of different precursors to 

PM2.5 formation and the effectiveness of 

alternative potential control measures 

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors 

that a state should regulate to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS can also vary to some 

extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 

20589. 

In the PM2.5 implementation rule, 

EPA did not require that all potential 

PM2.5 precursors must be controlled in 

each specific nonattainment area. See 72 

FR 20586 at 20589. Instead, for reasons 

explained in the rule’s preamble, a state 

must evaluate control measures for 

sources of SO2 in addition to sources of 

direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 

40 CFR 51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state 

must also evaluate control measures for 

sources of NOX unless the state and/or 

EPA determine that control of NOX

emissions would not significantly 

reduce PM2.5 concentrations in the 

specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

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

determined in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule that a state does not need to address 

controls for sources of VOC and 

ammonia unless the state and/or EPA 

make a technical demonstration that 

such controls would significantly 

contribute to reducing PM2.5

concentrations in the specific 

nonattainment area at issue. 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3) and (4). Such a 

demonstration is required ‘‘if the 

administrative record related to 

development of its SIP shows that the 

presumption is not technically justified 

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

‘‘Significantly contributes’’ in this 

context means that a significant 

reduction in emissions of the precursor 

from sources in the area would be 

projected to provide a significant 

reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in the 

area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590. Although 

EPA did not establish a quantitative test 

for determining what constitutes a 

significant change, EPA noted that even 

relatively small reductions in PM2.5

levels are estimated to result in 

worthwhile public health benefits. Id. 

EPA further explained that a technical 

demonstration to reverse the 

presumption for NOX, VOC, or ammonia 

in any area could consider the 

emissions inventory, speciation data, 

modeling information, or other special 

studies such as monitoring of additional 

compounds, receptor modeling, or 

special monitoring studies. 72 FR 20586 

at 20596–20597. These factors could 

indicate that the emissions or ambient 

concentration contributions of a 

precursor, or the sensitivity of ambient 

concentrations to changes in precursor 

emissions, differs for a specific 

nonattainment area from the 

presumption EPA established for that 

precursor in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule. 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not 

explicitly identify the pollutants that 

have been selected as PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors as defined in 40 CFR 

51.1000. The Plan addresses NOX and 

SO2 in the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and in the District’s 

RACM/RACT analysis, and thereby 

implicitly identifies NOX and SO2 as 

attainment plan precursors. The Plan 

also includes supporting documentation 

for the inclusion of NOX as an 

attainment plan precursor and for the 

exclusion of ammonia. In our November 

30, 2010 proposal, we noted that the 

Plan did not fully evaluate the impact 

of controlling VOC as a precursor for 

PM2.5 attainment and contained 

conflicting information on whether 

controlling VOC, in addition to SO2 and 

NOX, may contribute significantly to 

reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV. In 2011, however, CARB 

provided additional technical 

information supporting its position that 

VOC should not be considered a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the San 

Joaquin Valley. See letter, James 

Goldstene, CARB, to Frances Wicher, 

EPA, January 31, 2011, attachment 4 

(CARB VOC supplement). We discuss 

below our evaluation of this additional 

technical information. 

As mentioned above, ambient 

contribution and ambient sensitivity to 

emissions changes may both be 

considered in determining whether the 

presumption for an attainment plan 

precursor should be reversed. The 2008 

PM2.5 Plan contains numerous 

qualitative statements that San Joaquin 

Valley’s ambient PM2.5 levels are 

dominated by ammonium nitrate, and 

that NOX reductions are more effective 

at reducing ambient PM2.5 than 

reductions in the other precursors. Most 

of those statements are in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix F, and are based on excerpts 

of findings from the California Regional 

Particulate Air Quality Study 

(CRPAQS). Several of the cited CRPAQS 

documents are available at CARB’s 

‘‘Central California Air Quality Studies’’ 

Web site (at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

airways). 

For the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

contains some qualitative descriptions 

of precursor ambient contributions. For 

example, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan states on 

p. 2–8 that annual concentrations are 

driven by wintertime concentrations 

and further, that the highest short term 

concentrations are driven by ammonium 

nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS study: 

For most of the sites within the SJV, 50– 

75% of the annual average PM2.5

concentration could be attributed to a high 

PM2.5 period occurring from November to 

January. At non-urban sites, the elevated 

PM2.5 was driven by secondary [ammonium 

nitrate].20

There are also quantitative data in the 

Plan’s Appendix G (p. G–21, Table 2) 

and, projected to 2014, in the Receptor 

Modeling Documentation (RMD). 

Ammonium nitrate for 2000 monitored 

data ranges from 24–36 percent of total 

PM2.5, and if projected to 2014, ranges 

from 36–51 percent, confirming the 

importance of NOX, one source of the 

nitrate in ammonium nitrate, as a 

precursor that significantly contributes 

to annual PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

In addition to composition data, 

ambient sensitivity to emissions 

changes can also be a consideration in 

determining which pollutants should be 

regulated in the attainment plan for a 

specific area. For ammonium nitrate 

PM2.5, which is formed from both 

ammonia and NOX, a key issue is 

whether the control of either or both 

precursors would be effective at 

reducing ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

Among the findings cited in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan that address this issue are 

that: 

Particulate [ammonium nitrate] 

concentrations are limited by the rate of 

[nitric acid] formation, rather than by the 

availability of [ammonia]. 

and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41351 

21Quote from Lurmann, F. et al., 2006, ‘‘Processes 

Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the 

San Joaquin Valley During Winter,’’ Journal of the 

Air & Waste Management Association, (56): 1679– 

1693, cited at 2008 PM2.5 Plan p. 3–10. 

Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid 

concentrations show that ammonia is far 

more abundant than nitric acid, which 

indicates that ammonium nitrate formation is 

limited by the availability of nitric acid, 

rather than ammonia * * *. This study’s 

analyses suggest that reductions in NOX

emissions will be more effective in reducing 

secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol 

concentrations than reductions in ammonia 

emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will 

reduce secondary organic aerosol 

concentrations and may reduce ammonium 

nitrate. * * * The results indicate 

ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately 

controlled by NOX emission rates and the 

other species, including VOCs and 

background ozone, which control the rate of 

NOX oxidation in winter, rather than by 

ammonia emissions.21

These findings are based on the 

relative abundance of ammonia relative 

to nitrate: There is so much ammonia 

present that significantly reducing its 

emissions would still leave ample 

ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. On 

the other hand, NOX is scarce (relative 

to ammonia), so reducing it could 

reduce ammonium nitrate significantly. 

Finally, sensitivity results from 

photochemical modeling were used in 

conjunction with the CMB results 

mentioned above. The 2014 RMD 

section on ‘‘Review of control strategy 

effectiveness supported by CMAQ 

nitrate particulate evaluation’’ shows 

the projected effect of a 50 percent 

reduction of NOX emissions on PM2.5

concentrations annually and in shorter 

seasonal episodes. For the annual 

concentration, the NOX reduction 

resulted in a predicted 5 μg/m3 PM2.5

reduction, while for the winter episode 

the NOX reduction resulted in a 

predicted 28 μg/m3 PM2.5 reduction. 

2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent 

reduction in ammonia emissions, on the 

other hand, predicted PM2.5 reductions 

of only 0.1 μg/m3 on an annual basis 

and 0.3 μg/m3 during the winter 

episode. RMD, p. 81. When compared to 

the annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 

and 65 μg/m3, respectively, the effect of 

NOX reductions appears to be 

significant while the effect of ammonia 

reductions does not. Thus, the data and 

modeling results presented in the 2008 

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

cited studies, support the inclusion of 

NOX and the exclusion of ammonia as 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors, 

consistent with the EPA presumptions 

in the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

EPA’s presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule is that VOC need 

not be an attainment plan precursor. 40 

CFR 51.1002(c)(3). This presumptive 

policy for VOC is largely based on 

uncertainties regarding the role of VOC 

in secondary organic aerosol (SOA) 

formation and in photochemical 

reactions that lead to the formation of 

certain free radical compounds (such as 

the hydroxyl radical [OH]), which 

participate in the formation of nitrate 

PM2.5. See 72 FR 20586 at 20593 (April 

25, 2007). As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, this presumption may not be 

technically justified for a particular 

nonattainment area, i.e., where 

emissions of VOC significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

specific nonattainment area at issue. 72 

FR 20586 at 20590–93, 20596–97. States 

or EPA may conduct a technical 

demonstration to reverse the 

presumptive exclusion of VOC as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor based 

on the weight of evidence of available 

technical and scientific information. Id. 

We note that because the SJV is 

designated and classified as extreme 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard, VOC emission sources in this 

area are already subject to specific 

control requirements under subpart 2 of 

title I, part D of the Act. Nevertheless, 

EPA examined the available evidence 

on the effect of VOC reductions on 

ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV, 

consistent with the PM2.5

implementation rule. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains 

inconclusive information on whether 

VOC should be considered a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor for the SJV 

nonattainment area. On the one hand, 

some information in the Plan indicates 

that VOC reductions may contribute to 

reduced ambient PM2.5 levels in the 

area. Table 2 in Appendix G (p. G–21) 

gives an organic carbon range of 38–49 

percent of the total PM2.5 on an annual 

basis. This includes a secondary organic 

aerosol (SOA) contribution of 2–5 

percent of total annual PM2.5. RMD at 

19. This SOA contribution to overall 

PM2.5 levels appears to be nonnegligible, although it may not 

necessarily be significant. The 2008 

PM2.5 Plan also states: ‘‘Secondary 

organic aerosols (SOA) contribute to a 

significant fraction of PM2.5. SOA is 

organic carbon particulate formed in the 

photochemical oxidation of 

anthropogenic and biogenic VOC 

precursor gases. Aromatic compounds 

are believed to be efficient SOA 

producers contributing to this secondary 

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

On a 24-hour episodic basis, the 

contribution of SOA could theoretically 

be higher than the annual 2–5 percent, 

but SOA is formed mainly in the 

summer and so tends to be lower for the 

winter episodes of most concern in the 

SJV, due to decreased photochemical 

activity when the SJV winter’s fog and 

clouds partially block sunlight. The 

SOA contribution to 24-hour PM2.5 is 

thus smaller than for annual PM2.5. 

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains 

sensitivity analyses for VOC, similar to 

the ones described above for NOX and 

ammonia. The 2014 RMD concludes: 

‘‘Finding: VOC reduction is effective for 

the annual standard and the winter 

episode for reduction of total carbon 

secondary particulates.’’ It is not clear 

whether this refers only to SOA or to all 

secondary particulates including 

ammonium nitrate. The various 

statements above indicate VOC 

reductions may contribute to reducing 

ambient PM2.5 levels. 

On the other hand, some statements 

in the Plan indicate VOC should not be 

considered a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor. In response to comments on 

the VOC issue submitted during the 

District’s public comment period, the 

Plan states that the ‘‘modeling has 

shown that VOC reductions are not as 

effective in reducing secondary PM2.5 as 

NOX or SO2 reductions’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll 

of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS 

and prior assessments of regional 

particulate models have indicated that 

NOX is the dominant factor and VOC 

and ammonia are not.’’ 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

pp. J–9 and p. J–19. These statements 

reflect the District’s conclusion that 

VOC should not be considered an 

attainment plan precursor. This 

conclusion was also later explicitly 

stated by CARB. CARB VOC 

supplement. In addition, CARB later 

clarified that statements in the Receptor 

Modeling Document (cited above) were 

not intended to address the question of 

whether VOC should be a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor, and that the 

methodology used in the RMD does not 

substitute for actual photochemical 

modeling performed by CARB. (Personal 

communication, Karen Magliano, CARB, 

January 26, 2011.) As noted above, EPA 

agrees that the CMAQ photochemical 

modeling is the primary basis for the 

Plan’s attainment demonstration. 

Given the later and more definitive 

statements against VOC as an attainment 

plan precursor, overall the evidence on 

SOA does not constitute a technical 

demonstration that VOC is a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the San 

Joaquin Valley, and does not overcome 

the negative presumption for VOC as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. 

However, the Plan’s inconsistency on 

VOC as an attainment plan precursor 

applies not just to the SOA just 

discussed, but also to the indirect role 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41352 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22Lurmann, F. et al., 2006, op cit., p. 1688. 

23See 72 FR 20586 at 20591 (‘‘Assessments of 

which source categories are more cost effective or 

technically feasible to control should be part of the 

later RACT and RACM assessment, to occur after 

the basic assessment of which precursors are to be 

regulated is completed.’’). 

of VOC, which also requires a 

conclusion on its precursor status. VOC 

may be a PM2.5 precursor not just via 

formation of SOA, but also via its 

participation in the oxidant chemistry 

that leads to nitrate formation, a 

necessary step in the formation of 

ammonium nitrate PM2.5. As noted in 

the preamble to the PM2.5

implementation rule at pp. 20592– 

20593, the lightest organic molecules 

can participate in atmospheric 

chemistry processes that result in the 

formation of ozone and certain free 

radical compounds (such as the 

hydroxyl radical [OH]) and these in turn 

participate in oxidation reactions to 

form secondary organic aerosols, 

sulfates, and nitrates. NOX emissions 

must be oxidized to nitric acid before 

they form particulate ammonium 

nitrate. Two pathways for this oxidation 

to occur are (1) daytime oxidation by 

OH, which VOC radicals help create and 

which could be affected by VOC 

controls, and (2) nighttime oxidation by 

ozone, which might not be affected by 

VOC controls in the area.22

Some statements in the Plan seem to 

favor VOC as an attainment plan 

precursor in this indirect role. The 

discussion in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3–10, 

quoted above) also refers to VOC, which 

is identified as one of the controlling 

factors in NOX oxidation (which leads to 

ammonium nitrate PM2.5): ‘‘Reductions 

in VOC emissions will reduce secondary 

organic aerosol concentrations and may 

reduce ammonium nitrate.’’ The Plan 

also states: ‘‘Relatively low nonmethane organic compounds/nitrogen 

oxide ratios indicate the daytime 

photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and 

background-ozone limited in winter.’’ 

Id. Although these are only generic 

statements, if nitrate formation is VOClimited under some circumstances, then 

VOC emissions reductions could lead to 

ambient PM2.5 reductions. On the other 

hand, in this same section, the Plan 

states that ‘‘entrainment of aerosol 

nitrate formed aloft at night may explain 

the spatial homogeneity of nitrate in the 

San Joaquin Valley’’. Id. Since this 

nighttime pathway may not be VOClimited, overall it is not clear whether 

VOC reductions would be effective for 

reducing PM2.5. 

Given the inconclusive statements 

about VOC in the Plan, EPA reviewed 

the results of several modeling and 

monitoring studies of PM2.5 in the San 

Joaquin Valley, and previously 

proposed a technical demonstration that 

VOC should be a plan precursor. See 75 

F 74518, 74530. Some of the study 

documents EPA reviewed are available 

on the ‘‘Central California Air Quality 

Studies’’ Web site (at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/airways) and/or are 

cited in the Plan and are reports from 

contractors involved in CRPAQS. Others 

are papers from peer-reviewed journals 

and are analyses using CRPAQS data or 

data from the earlier 1995 Integrated 

Monitoring Study (IMS95 study). We 

found that four monitoring studies and 

six modeling studies were relevant to 

the VOC precursor issue. A list of these 

studies as well as further information on 

them and excerpts from them are 

provided in section II.E. of the TSD. The 

monitoring studies all contain evidence 

that the VOC pathway for nitrate 

creation is important at least some of the 

time but differ as to how important it is 

relative to other pathways such as the 

nighttime ozone pathway, and are not 

conclusive on the efficacy of VOC 

controls. As noted above, the study by 

Lurmann et al., which is the most recent 

of the monitoring studies and which 

was quoted in the Plan, stated that the 

observed spatial homogeneity of 

ammonium nitrate could be explained 

by nighttime production aloft via the 

ozone pathway, followed by mixing 

down to the surface, as opposed to 

production during the day via the VOC 

pathway. As noted in the CARB VOC 

supplement, CARB technical staff 

involved in the CRPAQS work cite this 

study and agree with this conclusion. 

Unlike the monitoring studies, most 

of the modeling studies explicitly 

assessed the relative effectiveness of 

precursor controls, simulating the effect 

of 50 percent reductions in NOX, 

ammonia, and VOC. (One study does 

not explicitly address the VOC 

reductions, but states that background 

ozone flowing in from outside the 

nonattainment area is the most 

important oxidant, so that VOC controls 

in the SJV would have little effect.) The 

two earliest modeling studies are based 

on photochemical box modeling and 

differ on whether VOC controls would 

significantly affect PM2.5. Three later 

studies use more sophisticated 

photochemical grid models and find 

VOC control to be effective, though 

generally less so than NOX control. One 

study predicts VOC control to be about 

two-thirds as effective as NOX control. 

The second study predicted VOC 

control to be effective, though only by 

a relatively small amount, at most 10 

percent for a 50 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions, or only on certain days. 

The third grid modeling study predicts 

VOC control to give slightly more 

benefit than NOX control. In our 

November 2010 proposal, EPA indicated 

that although the models, input data, 

and results differ among these studies, 

the studies indicated that control of 

VOC could significantly reduce PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV. 

In its VOC supplement, however, 

CARB provided additional 

interpretation of these same studies. 

CARB makes several points about the 

modeling studies that argue against VOC 

as an attainment plan precursor in the 

SJV, namely their unreasonableness for 

this assessment and the lack of benefits 

shown in some of them. On the first of 

these main points, CARB argues that the 

hypothetical 50 percent VOC reduction 

evaluated in the modeling studies is not 

a reasonable basis for assessing VOC as 

a plan precursor, for at least two 

reasons. Its first reason is that this 

amount of reductions may not be 

feasible, especially given the VOC 

reductions already undertaken as part of 

other plans, such as the ozone plan for 

the SJV area. EPA agrees that reasonable 

assumptions are important for an 

attainment plan precursor technical 

demonstration; however, without an 

assessment from the State of the 

feasibility of a 50 percent VOC 

reduction, the model results cannot be 

dismissed on that basis. Indeed, an 

assessment of the feasible degree of VOC 

control in a RACM/RACT analysis 

would be required if VOC were 

considered an attainment plan 

precursor.23

The second reason offered in the 

CARB VOC supplement for why the 

modeled 50 VOC percent reduction may 

not be a reasonable basis for evaluation 

of VOC as an attainment plan precursor 

is that it considers VOC in isolation 

from the other PM2.5 precursors. CARB 

argues that because precursors interact 

in complex ways in the atmosphere, the 

expected effect of VOC controls should 

be evaluated in the context of the 

expected emission levels of the other 

precursors in the attainment 

demonstration. In particular, CARB 

notes that the existing NOX control 

program will provide substantial NOX

emission reductions, and this will affect 

the benefit of VOC controls. Thus, it 

argues that while the modeling studies’ 

VOC reduction results may be 

technically correct in themselves, they 

do not translate directly into measurable 

reductions in ambient PM2.5

concentrations per ton of VOC, nor do 

they support a need for additional VOC 

controls in the PM2.5 control strategy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41353 

24 VOC typically contributes to the formation of 

ozone and hydroxyl, which through its oxidizing 

effect can help convert NOX emissions to 

particulate nitrate. However, there are also direct 

VOC–NOX interactions that act as a ‘‘sink’’, forming 

e.g. peroxyaceytl nitrate (PAN), and removing both 

VOC and NOX from the photochemical reactions 

that lead to ozone and some particulate. Under 

some circumstances, VOC reductions can lessen the 

effect of this ‘‘sink’’, so that more NOX remains to 

form particulate, resulting in a PM2.5 disbenefit 

from VOC control. 

25According to monitoring data in EPA’s AQS 

database, there were 172 values over 80 μg/m3

during 1999–2002; by contrast, there were only 24 

values over 80 during 2007–2010. EPA’s Air Quality 

System, Violation Day Count Report, May 13, 2011. 

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

determined that for the purposes of CAA section 

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

from CRPAQS, VOC did not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels which exceed the standards in the 

SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May 26, 2004). We 

note that EPA made that 2004 finding for a different 

NAAQS (the 24-hour and now revoked annual PM10

standards of 150 μg/m3 and 50 μg/m3, respectively), 

based on criteria for evaluation of precursors that 

differ from those provided in the PM2.5

implementation rule. See 72 FR 20586 at 20590– 

20594 and 40 CFR § 51.1000. 

EPA agrees that the studies highlight a 

need to consider multiple precursor 

effects at once, in the context of what is 

needed for attainment in the target year, 

and that it makes sense to examine 

precursor interactions in assessing plan 

precursors. 

Another main point made by CARB in 

its VOC supplement about the modeling 

studies is that the more sophisticated 

ones, based on photochemical grid 

modeling, tended to show small benefits 

and sometimes disbenefits 24 from VOC 

controls in the more realistic scenarios 

modeled. CARB pointed out that when 

NOX reductions are considered at the 

same time, two studies showed PM2.5

disbenefits from VOC reduction at 

multiple locations, though in one this 

occurred only at some times. (No similar 

disbenefit was seen for additional NOX

reductions when they were considered 

simultaneously with VOC reductions.) 

Thus, under the realistic assumption 

that NOX reductions will occur as a 

result of the Plan control strategy, 

according to these studies additional 

VOC reductions could be 

counterproductive, making it more 

difficult for the SJV to come into PM2.5

attainment. EPA agrees that these 

analyses raise legitimate questions about 

the efficacy of VOC reductions and do 

not support a reversal of the PM2.5

implementation rule’s presumption that 

VOC is not an attainment plan 

precursor. 

Finally, CARB notes that one of the 

studies showed a benefit from VOC 

control only at the very highest PM2.5

levels, above 80 μg/m3, well above 

current design values in the SJV which 

are more in the range of 50–60 μg/m3. 

See CARB VOC supplement, p. 10.25

Based on an examination of model 

output throughout the episode, CARB 

hypothesizes that a different chemical 

regime is entered at high levels, for 

which this VOC sensitivity does occur, 

though this hypothesis apparently has 

not been explored with modeling tools 

such as process analysis. CARB staff 

involved in the CRPAQS modeling 

effort believes that, under current SJV 

conditions, the nighttime nitrate 

production route via background ozone 

is the main oxidation driver for nitrate 

PM2.5 in the SJV, and that the VOCsensitive daytime oxidant route is of 

less importance. CARB VOC 

supplement, p. 10. 

After careful review, EPA is proposing 

to determine that the information 

submitted by CARB in the VOC 

supplement raises significant questions 

about the efficacy of VOC controls for 

reducing ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

in the SJV and demonstrates that the 

available technical information does not 

provide a sufficient basis for reversing 

the presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule that VOC is not an 

attainment plan precursor in this area. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to concur 

with CARB’s determination that at this 

time, VOC should not be an attainment 

plan precursor in the SJV area.26 EPA 

also proposes to concur with the 

evaluation in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that, 

at this time, ammonia does not need to 

be considered an attainment plan 

precursor for purposes of attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

EPA’s proposed concurrence on 

excluding ammonia and VOC as 

attainment plan precursors in the SJV is 

limited to the SIP for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards in 2006 to lower 

them to 35 μg/m3. Evaluation of whether 

ammonia and VOC controls may be 

necessary for the expeditious attainment 

of the 2006 PM2.5 standards and any 

future revised standards may show that 

such controls would significantly 

contribute to lower PM2.5 levels in the 

SJV. 

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that 

an area’s attainment date ‘‘shall be the 

date by which attainment can be 

achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years 

from the date such area was designated 

nonattainment * * *, except that the 

Administrator may extend the 

attainment date to the extent the 

Administrator determines appropriate, 

for a period no greater than 10 years 

from the date of designation as 

nonattainment considering the severity 

of nonattainment and the availability 

and feasibility of pollution control 

measures.’’ 

Because the effective date of 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5

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

the initial attainment date for PM2.5

nonattainment areas is as expeditiously 

as practicable but not later than April 5, 

2010. For any area that is granted a full 

five-year attainment date extension 

under section 172, the attainment date 

would be not later than April 5, 2015. 

Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5

implementation rule addresses the 

attainment date requirement. Section 

51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an 

attainment demonstration justifying its 

proposed attainment date and provides 

that EPA will approve an attainment 

date when we approve that 

demonstration. 

States that request an extension of the 

attainment date under CAA section 

172(a)(2) must provide sufficient 

information to show that attainment by 

April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the 

severity of the nonattainment problem 

in the area and the lack of available and 

feasible control measures to provide for 

faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b). 

States must also demonstrate that all 

RACM and RACT for the area are being 

implemented to bring about attainment 

of the standard by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable for the area. 

72 FR 20586 at 20601. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a 

demonstration that the attainment date 

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

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

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

demonstration is found in Chapter 9 of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and is updated by 

information in Appendix C of the 2011 

Progress Report. 

SJV’s PM2.5 nonattainment problem is 

severe. The area typically records the 

highest ambient PM2.5 levels in the 

nation, with the 2008–2010 design value 

for the annual PM2.5 levels in urban 

Bakersfield area of 21.2 μg/m3. See EPA, 

Air Quality System, Design Value 

Report, June 1, 2011. The PM2.5 problem 

in the San Joaquin Valley is complex, 

caused by both direct and secondary 

PM2.5 and compounded by the area’s 

topographical and meteorological 

conditions that are very conducive to 

the formation and concentration of 

PM2.5 particles. See 2008 PM2.5 plan, 

Chapter 3. 

As discussed in section V.B.2.a. 

above, the District’s strategy for 

attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on 

reductions of direct PM2.5 as well as the 

PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOX and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

SOX. The SJV needs significant 

reductions in direct PM2.5 and NOX to 

demonstrate attainment. Further 

reducing these pollutants is challenging 

because the State and District have 

already adopted stringent control 

measures for most sources of direct 

PM2.5 and NOX emissions. Moreover, 

attainment in the SJV depends upon 

emissions reductions that offset the 

emissions increases associated with 

projected increases in population. 

Reductions of direct PM2.5 are 

achieved primarily from open burning, 

commercial charbroiling, residential 

wood combustion, and in-use truck and 

bus control measures. These types of 

control measures present special 

implementation challenges (e.g., the 

large number of individuals subject to 

regulation and the difficulty of applying 

conventional technological control 

solutions). NOX reductions come largely 

from District rules for fuel combustion 

sources and from the State’s mobile 

source rules. 

Because of the necessity of obtaining 

additional emissions reductions from 

these source categories in the SJV and 

the need to conduct significant public 

outreach if applicable control 

approaches are to be effective, EPA 

agrees with the District and CARB that 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan reflects expeditious 

implementation of the available control 

programs during the 2008–2014 time 

frame. EPA also agrees that the 

implementation schedule for the 

District’s revised stationary source 

controls is expeditious, taking into 

account the time necessary for purchase 

and installation of the required control 

technologies. 

In addition, the State has adopted 

standards for many categories of on-road 

and off-road vehicles and engines, 

gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as 

improvements to California’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program, 

and programs requiring the retrofitting 

and replacement of in-use trucks, buses 

and off-road equipment. The State is 

implementing these rules and programs 

as expeditiously as practicable, and it is 

not feasible to accelerate the schedule 

for new emissions standards under the 

State and Federal mobile source control 

program. 

EPA also expects that the District and 

CARB will continue to investigate 

opportunities to accelerate progress 

toward attainment as new control 

opportunities arise, and that these 

agencies will promptly adopt and 

expeditiously implement any new 

measures found to be feasible in the 

future. 

As discussed in section V.B.3. above, 

we are proposing to approve the RACM/ 

RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 SIP. As discussed below in 

section V.C.6., we are also proposing to 

approve the attainment demonstration 

in the SIP. Based on these proposed 

approvals as well as the Plan’s 

demonstration that April 5, 2015 is the 

most expeditious attainment date 

practicable, EPA is proposing to grant 

an extension of the attainment date for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV to 

April 5, 2015 pursuant to CAA section 

172(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1004(b). 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

Table 7 below summarizes the 

reductions that are relied on in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan to demonstrate attainment by 

April 5, 2015. 

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

[Tons per average annual day] 

Direct 

PM2.5 NOX SO2

A. 2005 emissions level ....................................................................................................................................... 86 .0 575 .4 26 .4 

B. 2014 attainment target .................................................................................................................................... 63 .3 291 .2 24 .6 

C. Total reductions needed by 2014 (A–B) ......................................................................................................... 22 .7 284 .2 1 .8 

D. Adjustments to baseline/reductions from baseline (pre-2007) measures ...................................................... 13.7 258 .1 1 .0 

Percent of total reductions from baseline measures/adjustments ............................................................... 60% 91% 56% 

E. Reductions needed from new measures (C–D) ............................................................................................. 9 .0 26 .1 0 .8 

Percent of total reductions needed from new measures ............................................................................. 40% 9% 44% 

Note: The 2005 emissions level, 2014 attainment target, and total reductions needed by 2014 remain unchanged from the November 30, 2010 

proposal. 

As shown in this table, the majority 

of the emissions reductions that the 

State projects are needed for PM2.5

attainment in the SJV by 2015 come 

from baseline reductions. These 

baseline reductions include not only the 

benefit of numerous adopted District 

and State measures which generally 

have been approved by EPA either 

through the SIP process or the CAA 

section 209 waiver process but also the 

effect of the recent economic recession 

on projected future inventories. See 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix E and 

Appendices A and B of the TSD. The 

remaining reductions needed for 

attainment are to be achieved through 

the District’s and CARB’s commitments 

to reduce emissions in the SJV. Since 

the submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy, the District and 

CARB have adopted measures 

(summarized in Table 8 below) that can 

be credited toward reducing their 

aggregate emissions reduction in their 

enforceable commitments. 

TABLE 8—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT REMAINING AS COMMITMENTS BASED ON SIP-CREDITABLE MEASURES

[Tons per average annual day in 2014] 

Direct 

PM2.5 NOX SOX

A. Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain ................................................ 22.7 284.2 1.8 

B. Reductions from baseline measures .................................................................................................................... 13.7 258.1 1.0 

C. Total reductions from approved/proposed for approval measures ...................................................................... 6.0 13.2 3.6 

Total reductions remaining as commitments (A–B–C) ...................................................................................... 3.0 12.9 0.0 

Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments ........................................................................ 13.2% 4.5% 0.0% 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41355 

27Commitments approved by EPA under CAA 

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

citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304, 

respectively. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 

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

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

imposed. 

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

‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or techniques * * * 

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirement of the Act.’’ Section 

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

nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section 

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

CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any 

‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA determines are 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet CAA 

requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’ 

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved. 

28The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 

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

application of the three factor test in approving 

enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP 

for Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. 

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

29The 2007 State Strategy was developed to 

address both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 

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

due in November 2007, and the development and 

adoption of the State Strategy was timed to 

coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 1. 

30See, for example, our approval of the SJV PM10

Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1-hour 

ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the 

Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 

57160 (November 14, 2001). 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

As shown above, measures already 

adopted by the District and CARB (both 

prior to and as part of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan) provide the majority of emissions 

reductions the State projects are needed 

to demonstrate attainment. The balance 

of the needed reductions is in the form 

of enforceable commitments by the 

District and CARB. 

The CAA allows approval of 

enforceable commitments that are 

limited in scope where circumstances 

exist that warrant the use of such 

commitments in place of adopted 

measures.27 Once EPA determines that 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

an enforceable commitment, it considers 

three factors in determining whether to 

approve the CAA requirement that relies 

on the enforceable commitment: (a) 

Does the commitment address a limited 

portion of the CAA-requirement; (b) is 

the state capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (c) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.28

With respect to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2007 State Strategy, circumstances 

warrant the consideration of enforceable 

commitments as part of the attainment 

demonstration for this area. As shown 

in Table 7 above, the majority of 

emissions reductions that are needed to 

demonstrate attainment and RFP in the 

SJV come from rules and regulations 

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

they come from the baseline measures. 

As a result of these already-adopted 

District and State measures, most 

sources in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area were already subject 

to stringent rules prior to the 

development of the 2007 State Strategy 

and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, leaving fewer 

and more technologically challenging 

opportunities to reduce emissions. In 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2009 

revisions to the 2007 State Strategy, the 

District and CARB identified potential 

control measures that could achieve the 

additional emissions reductions needed 

for attainment. However, the timeline 

needed to develop, adopt, and 

implement these measures went well 

beyond the April 5, 2008 29 CAA 

deadline to submit the PM2.5 plan. As 

discussed above and below, since 2007, 

the District and State have made 

progress in adopting measures to meet 

their commitments, but have not 

completely fulfilled them. Given these 

circumstances, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 

and 2007 State Strategy’s reliance on 

enforceable commitments is warranted. 

We now consider the three factors EPA 

uses to determine whether the use of 

enforceable commitments in lieu of 

adopted measures to meet CAA 

planning requirements is approvable. 

i. The Commitment Represents a 

Limited Portion of Required Reductions 

For the first factor, we look to see if 

the commitment addresses a limited 

portion of a statutory requirement, such 

as the amount of emissions reductions 

needed for attainment in a 

nonattainment area. 

As shown in Table 8, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy are 3.0 tpd direct PM2.5

and 12.6 tpd NOX after accounting for 

measures that are either approved or 

proposed for approval and revisions to 

the future year baseline inventories 

resulting from changes to the Plan’s 

economic forecasts and other factors. 

When compared to the total reductions 

needed by 2014 for PM2.5 attainment in 

the SJV on a per-pollutant basis, these 

remaining commitments represent 

approximately 13.2 percent of the direct 

PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOX

needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. 

We find that the reductions remaining 

as enforceable commitments in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy 

represent a limited portion of the total 

emissions reductions needed to meet 

the statutory requirement for attainment 

in the SJV and therefore satisfy the first 

factor. The level of reductions 

remaining as commitments is 

reasonably close to the 10 percent range 

that EPA has historically accepted in 

approving attainment demonstrations.30

ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its 

Commitment 

For the second factor, we consider 

whether the State and District are 

capable of fulfilling their commitments. 

As discussed above, CARB has adopted 

and submitted a 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report and a 2011 Progress 

Report, which update and revise the 

2007 State Strategy. These reports show 

that CARB has made significant progress 

in meeting its enforceable commitments 

for the San Joaquin Valley and several 

other nonattainment areas in California. 

Additional ongoing programs that 

address locomotives and in-use 

agricultural equipment have yet to be 

quantified but are expected to reduce 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions in the 

SJV by 2014. See 2011 Progress Report, 

Appendix E, page 2. 

The District has already exceeded its 

commitments to reduce NOX emissions 

in 2014 by 9 tpd and SOx emissions by 

0.9 tpd and has substantially met its 

commitment to reduce direct PM2.5

emissions by 6.7 tpd. See Tables 3 and 

4. In addition, it is expecting to adopt 

revisions to District Rule 4702 

(Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines) later this year that are likely to 

achieve substantial NOX reductions by 

2014. See SJVUAPCD, Draft Staff Report 

For Draft Amendments To Rule 4702 

(Internal Combustion Engines–Phase 2), 

September 9, 2010. It is also continuing 

to work to identify and adopt additional 

measures to reduce emissions. Table F– 

5 in the TSD describes a number of the 

feasibility studies currently underway at 

the District. 

Beyond the rules discussed above, 

both CARB and the District have wellfunded incentive grant programs to 

reduce emissions from the on- and offmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

31See SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Table 3–1 Adjusted PM2.5

Emission Inventory; Table 3–2 Adjusted NOX

road engine fleets. See, for examples, 

SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.3. 

Reductions from several of these 

programs have yet to be quantified and/ 

or credited in the attainment 

demonstration but efforts are underway 

to do so. See, for example, ‘‘Statement 

of Principles Regarding the Approach to 

State Implementation Plan Creditability 

of Agricultural Equipment Replaced 

Incentive Programs Implemented by the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District,’’ December 

2010. 

Finally, the SJV is designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. The State must submit 

a plan to address attainment of that 

standard by December 2012. 74 FR 

58688, 58689 (November 13, 2009). 

Given the evidence of the State’s and 

District’s efforts to date and their 

continuing efforts to reduce emissions, 

we find that the State and District are 

capable of meeting their enforceable 

commitments to reduce emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and NOX by 2014 to the 

levels needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the San Joaquin Valley by 

its proposed attainment date of April 5, 

2015. 

iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable 

and Appropriate Timeframe 

For the third and last factor, we 

consider whether the commitment is for 

a reasonable and appropriate period of 

time. 

In order to meet the commitments to 

reduce emissions to the levels needed to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2007 State Strategy included an 

ambitious rule development, adoption, 

and implementation schedules, which 

both the District and CARB have 

substantially met. EPA considers these 

schedules to provide sufficient time to 

achieve by 2014 the few remaining 

reductions needed to attain by the 

proposed attainment date of April 5, 

2015. We, therefore, conclude that the 

third factor is satisfied. 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment 

demonstration, EPA must make several 

findings and approve the plan’s 

proposed attainment date. 

First, we must find that the 

demonstration’s technical bases, 

including the emissions inventories and 

air quality modeling, are adequate. As 

discussed above in sections V.A. and 

V.C.2, we are proposing to approve both 

the emissions inventories and the air 

quality modeling on which the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan’s attainment demonstration 

and other provisions are based. 

Second, we must find that the SIP 

submittal provides for expeditious 

attainment through the implementation 

of all RACM and RACT. As discussed 

above in section V.B., we are proposing 

to approve the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 

Third, EPA must find that the 

emissions reductions that are relied on 

for attainment are creditable. As 

discussed in section V.C.5., the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan relies principally on adopted 

and approved/waived rules to achieve 

the emissions reductions needed to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 

SJV by April 5, 2015. The balance of the 

reductions is currently in the form of 

enforceable commitments that account 

for 13.2 percent of the direct PM2.5 and 

4.5 percent of the NOX emissions 

reductions needed from 2005 levels for 

attainment. See Table 8. 

EPA has previously accepted 

enforceable commitments in lieu of 

adopted control measures in attainment 

demonstrations when the circumstances 

warrant it and the commitments meet 

three criteria. As discussed above in 

section V.C.5., we find that 

circumstances here warrant the 

consideration of enforceable 

commitments and that the three criteria 

are met: (1) The commitments constitute 

a limited portion of the required 

emissions reductions, (2) both the State 

and the District have demonstrated their 

capability to meet their commitments, 

and (3) the commitments are for an 

appropriate timeframe. Based on these 

conclusions, we propose to allow the 

State to rely on these limited 

enforceable commitments in its 

attainment demonstration. 

Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area that cannot attain within five years 

of its designation as nonattainment, EPA 

must grant an extension of the 

attainment date in order to approve the 

attainment demonstration for the area. 

As discussed above in section V.C.4., we 

propose to determine that a five-year 

extension of the attainment date is 

appropriate given the severity of the 

nonattainment problem in the SJV and 

availability and feasibility of control 

measures and, therefore, to grant the 

State’s request to extend the attainment 

date in the SJV to April 5, 2015. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are 

proposing to approve the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5

SIP. 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that 

plans for nonattainment areas shall 

provide for reasonable further progress 

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

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires submittal of an RFP plan at the 

same time as the attainment 

demonstration for any area for which a 

state requests an extension of the 

attainment date beyond 2010. For areas 

for which the state requests an 

attainment date extension to 2015, such 

as SJV, the RFP plan must demonstrate 

that in the applicable milestone years of 

2009 and 2012, emissions in the area 

will be at a level consistent with 

generally linear progress in reducing 

emissions between the base year and the 

attainment year. 40 CFR 51.1009(d). 

States may demonstrate this by showing 

that emissions for each milestone year 

are roughly equivalent to benchmark 

emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

addressed in the plan. The steps for 

determining the benchmark emissions 

levels to demonstrate generally linear 

progress are provided in 40 CFR 

51.1009(f). 

The RFP plan must describe the 

control measures that provide for 

meeting the reasonable further progress 

milestones for the area, the timing of 

implementation of those measures, and 

the expected reductions in emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors. See 40 CFR 51.1009(c). 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan 

CARB provided an updated and 

revised RFP demonstration for the SJV 

in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress 

Report. The demonstration addresses 

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

2005 annual average day inventory as 

the base year inventory and 2014 as the 

attainment year. The control strategy 

measures that are relied on to 

demonstrate RFP and the emissions 

reductions from each measure in each 

year are given in the 2011 Progress 

Report, Appendix C, Table C–1 and 

supplemental information provided by 

the District.31 The revised RFP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41357 

Emission Inventory; and Table 3–3 Adjusted SOX

Emission Inventory,’’ March 2011. 32As discussed above in section V.A., CARB has 

recently updated the inventories for several mobile 

source categories and estimates that these updates 

would reduce, if incorporated into those 

inventories, the Plan’s 2005 base year NOX

inventory by approximately 6 percent and the direct 

PM2.5 inventory by approximately 5 percent. CARB 

Progress Report supplement, Attachment 1. EPA 

evaluated the potential impact of revising the 2005 

base year inventories on the RFP demonstration and 

found that the Plan would continue to show the 

RFP. See Section II.H. of the TSD. 

demonstration is shown in Table 9 

below. 

TABLE 9—RFP DEMONSTRATION USING UPDATED CONTROL MEASURES AND BASELINE DATA

[Tons per annual average day] 

Direct 

PM2.5 NOX SO2

2009 

Benchmark emissions level ....................................................................................................................................... 76 449 26 

Revised projected controlled emissions level ........................................................................................................... 73 387 23 

Emissions below benchmark emissions level ........................................................................................................... ¥3 ¥62 ¥3 

Percent below benchmark emissions level ............................................................................................................... ¥4% ¥14% ¥12% 

2012 

Benchmark emissions level ....................................................................................................................................... 68 354 25 

Revised projected controlled emissions level ........................................................................................................... 71 336 20 

Emissions above/below benchmark emissions level ................................................................................................ +3 ¥18 ¥5 

Percent above/below benchmark emissions level .................................................................................................... +4% ¥5% ¥20% 

Source: Table H–4 in the TSD. 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

EPA has reviewed the revised RFP 

demonstration in the 2011 Progress 

Report and has determined that it was 

prepared consistent with applicable 

EPA regulations and policies. See 

Section II.H of the TSD. As can be seen 

from Table 9, controlled emissions 

levels for direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX

were below the benchmarks for 2009, 

demonstrating that the SJV met its RFP 

targets in that year. For 2012, the 

projected controlled emissions levels for 

direct PM2.5 are only slightly above the 

benchmark (by about 4 percent) and the 

projected controlled levels for NOX and 

SOX are substantially below the 

benchmarks. We find that, overall, these 

projected controlled emissions levels 

represent generally linear progress for 

2012. 

Based on our evaluation, which is 

summarized above and discussed in 

detail in section II.H. of the TSD, and 

our proposed concurrence (discussed 

above in section V.C.3.) with the State’s 

determination that SOX and NOX are 

and VOC and ammonia are not 

attainment plan precursors per 40 CFR 

51.1002(c), we propose to find that the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP provides for 

reasonable further progress as required 

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

51.1009 and that the SJV has met its 

2009 RFP benchmarks.32

E. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

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

PM2.5 attainment plans must include 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to meet RFP 

(RFP contingency measures) and 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date (attainment contingency 

measures). These contingency measures 

must be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that are ready to be 

implemented quickly without 

significant additional action by the 

state. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also 

be measures not relied on in the plan to 

demonstrate RFP or attainment and 

should provide SIP-creditable emissions 

reductions equivalent to approximately 

one year of the emissions reductions 

needed for RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 20642– 

43. Finally, the SIP should contain 

trigger mechanisms for the contingency 

measures and specify a schedule for 

their implementation. Id. 

Contingency measures can include 

Federal, State and local measures 

already adopted and implemented or 

scheduled for implementation that 

provide emissions reductions in excess 

of the reductions needed to provide for 

RFP or expeditious attainment. EPA has 

approved numerous SIPs under this 

interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 

15844 (April 3, 1997) direct final rule 

approving Indiana ozone SIP revision; 

62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), final 

rule approving Illinois ozone SIP 

revision; 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001), 

direct final rule approving Rhode Island 

ozone SIP revision; 66 FR 586 (January 

3, 2001), final rule approving District of 

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia 

ozone SIP revisions; and 66 FR 634 

(January 3, 2001), final rule approving 

Connecticut ozone SIP revision. The 

State may use the same measures for 

both RFP and attainment contingency if 

the measures will provide reductions in 

the relevant years; however, should 

measures be triggered for failure to make 

RFP, the State would need to submit 

replacement contingency measures for 

attainment purposes. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan 

There are several types of contingency 

measures in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP: A new 

commitment to an action by the District, 

surplus reductions in the RFP 

demonstration, post-2014 emissions 

reductions, a contingency provision in 

an adopted rule, and reductions from 

incentive funds and control strategy 

measures that are not relied on in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. We 

discuss each of these types of 

contingency measures below. 

The Plan does not calculate the 

emissions reductions that are equivalent 

to one year’s worth of RFP. Based on 

information in the Plan, we have 

calculated one year’s worth of RFP to be 

2.5 tpd direct PM2.5, 31.6 tpd NOX, and 

0.2 tpd SO2.. See section II.I. of the TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

33See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

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

at 13512 (April 16, 1992). 

34Personal communications, Jessica Ferrio, 

SJVUAPCD, to Frances Wicher, EPA, August 27, 

2010. 

Request CARB To Accelerate State 

Measure Implementation—This 

proposed contingency measure (which 

could function as both a RFP and 

attainment contingency measure), 

requires the District’s Governing Board 

to adopt a resolution requesting CARB 

to accelerate the adoption and/or 

implementation of any remaining CARB 

control measures that have not yet been 

adopted or fully implemented. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, p. 9–7. 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 

EPA’s policies 33 interpreting this 

section, contingency measures must 

require minimal additional rulemaking 

by the state and take effect within a few 

months of a failure to make RFP or to 

attain. This proposed contingency 

measure would require additional 

rulemaking at the District level and 

potentially substantial and lengthy 

additional rulemaking at the State level 

to be implemented. For these reasons, 

this proposed measure does not meet 

CAA requirements for contingency 

measures. 

Surplus Reductions in the RFP 

Demonstration—In the June 2008 

version of the Plan, the method used to 

calculate emissions reductions needed 

to meet RFP benchmarks withheld a 

certain percentage of those reductions 

for contingency purposes: 1 percent of 

the baseline PM2.5 inventory and 3 

percent of the baseline NOX inventory. 

These percentages equate to roughly 1 

tpd PM2.5 and 17 tpd NOX being 

reserved for contingency. No reserve 

was included for SOX because SOX

emissions levels were projected to be 

below the applicable benchmarks and 

these excess reductions served as 

contingency measures. See 2008 PM2.5

Plan, p. 8–4. 

The 2011 Progress Report updates the 

RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. See 2011 Progress Report, Table 

C–1. The updated demonstration does 

not include a contingency measure 

reserve but rather shows that expected 

controlled emissions levels of NOX and 

SOx will be below the required RFP 

benchmarks. SOX reductions that are in 

excess of those needed to meet RFP and 

contingency are reserved for PM2.5

contingency measures at an 

interpollutant trading ratio of 1 tpd SOX

to 1 tpd direct PM2.5. See 2011 Progress 

Report, Appendix A, p. 2 and (for the 

trading ratio), SJV PM2.5 Progress 

Report, Table 2–2. These excess 

reductions are from SIP-approved or 

otherwise SIP-creditable adopted 

measures and therefore may be used to 

meet the contingency measure 

requirement. We do not, however, agree 

at this time with the use of a SOX to 

direct PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio 

of 1:1 as the State has not provided an 

adequate technical justification for such 

a ratio. See Section V.D.2 above and 

section II.B.4. 

Post-Attainment Year Emissions 

Reductions—The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies 

on the incremental emissions reductions 

that will occur from existing controls in 

2015 to provide for contingency 

measures for failure to attain. See p. 9– 

9. CARB estimates these incremental 

emissions reductions, including 

reductions expected from its In-use 

Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road 

Engine Rules, are 3 tpd SO2 and 21 tpd 

NOX. CARB Progress Report 

supplement, Attachment 2. These 

excess reductions are from SIPapproved or otherwise SIP-creditable 

adopted measures and therefore may be 

used to meet the contingency measure 

requirement. 

Contingency Provision in Rule 4901 

‘‘Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood 

Burning Heaters’’—In October, 2008, the 

District revised Rule 4901 to incorporate 

a contingency provision in section 5.6.5. 

This provision requires that 60 days 

after EPA finds the SJV nonattainment 

area has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the District will lower the level 

at which mandatory curtailment of 

residential wood burning is required 

from a predicted level of 30 μg/m3 to 20 

μg/m3. EPA approved this rule, 

including the contingency provision, on 

November 10, 2009. 74 FR 57907. 

This attainment contingency 

provision in Rule 4901 meets the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for attainment contingency measures: It 

is triggered by a failure to attain, 

requires no additional rulemaking by 

the District, will be fully implemented 

within 60 days of being triggered, and 

is SIP approved. The District has 

preliminarily quantified the emissions 

reductions expected from this 

contingency provision at 1.6 tons of 

PM2.5 per winter average day.34

Control Strategy Reductions Not 

Included in the RFP and/or Attainment 

Demonstrations—In its resolution 

approving the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB 

required the District to adopt two 

additional contingency measures. See 

CARB Resolution No. 08–28, 

Attachment A. These measures are 

revisions to SJVUAPCD’s Rule 4307 

(Boilers, 2 to 5 MMBtu) and Rule 4702 

(Internal Combustion Engines). While 

the District had already included these 

rule revisions as Measures S–COM–2 

and S–COM–6 in the Plan’s control 

strategy, it had not estimated or 

included the NOX emissions reductions 

from the measures in either the Plan’s 

RFP or attainment demonstration. 

The District adopted revisions to Rule 

4307 in October 2008. Reductions from 

these rule revisions are now included in 

the revised RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the 2011 Progress 

Report and are no longer in excess of 

those demonstrations and, therefore, 

cannot be used to meet the contingency 

measure requirement. 

Revisions to Rule 4702 are not yet 

adopted. As discussed above, 

contingency measure must be fullyadopted measures. Therefore, expected 

emissions reductions from revisions to 

Rule 4702 cannot currently be used to 

meet the contingency measure 

requirement. 

Emissions Reductions From Incentive 

Funds—As noted previously, the 

District has several incentive grant 

programs that have the potential to 

generate considerable emissions 

reductions. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

suggests the use of these reductions as 

contingency measures for failure either 

to meet RFP or to attain. While neither 

the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of 

emissions reductions from incentive 

programs to meet all or part of an area’s 

contingency measure obligation, the 

incentive programs must assure that the 

reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent in 

accordance with EPA guidance. See 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01– 

001 (January 2001). 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify 

the incentive grant programs expected 

to generate the emissions reductions, 

nor the quantity of the emissions 

reductions, that the District intends to 

use to meet the contingency measure 

requirement. Therefore, we are unable 

to determine if they are SIP creditable, 

surplus to attainment and/or RFP needs, 

or sufficient to provide the one-year’s 

worth of RFP needed. For these reasons, 

this proposed measure does not 

currently meet the CAA requirements 

for contingency measures. 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

We are not evaluating the provisions 

in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP that address 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

the 2009 RFP benchmarks. Information 

in the 2011 Progress Report shows that 

SJV has met its 2009 benchmarks for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOX. See 2011 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41359 

35 In the 2011 Progress Report, the State asserts 

that these reductions are equal to at least one-year’s 

worth of RFP when considered on a PM2.5

equivalency basis; that is, an air quality basis. To 

make this showing, the State relies in part on an 

interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton of SOX

reductions to 1 ton of PM2.5 reductions. As 

discussed in section V.D.2. of this notice and V.B.4. 

of the TSD, EPA has found that the technical 

demonstration submitted in support of this ratio is 

not adequate and is not allowing its use as part of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. EPA may consider additional 

technical information submitted by the State to 

support an appropriate trading ratio and will 

provide an opportunity for public comment on such 

new information. 

Progress Report, Table C–1. Therefore, 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer have 

any meaning or effect under the CAA 

and do not require any further review or 

action by EPA. In addition, as noted 

above, the purpose of RFP contingency 

measures is to provide a continued 

progress while the SIP is being revised 

to meet a missed RFP milestone. Failure 

to meet the 2009 benchmark would have 

required California to revise the SJV 

PM2.5 Plan to assure that the next 

milestone was met and that the Plan 

still provided for attainment. California 

has already prepared and submitted a 

revision to the SJV PM2.5 SIP that shows 

that the SIP continues to provide for 

RFP in 2012 and for attainment by April 

5, 2015. This revision is the 2011 

Progress Report, which is one of the 

submittals that EPA is proposing action 

on in this notice. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes 

suggestions for several potentially 

approvable contingency measures as 

well as several measures that do not 

currently meet the CAA’s minimum 

requirements. The Plan does not, 

however, provide sufficient information 

for us to determine if the emissions 

reductions from some of the potentially 

approvable measures are SIP creditable 

(e.g., those from incentive grant 

programs) and does not quantify the 

expected emissions reductions. 

The 2011 Progress Report does show 

that there are surplus reductions in the 

RFP demonstration for 2012. Appendix 

C, Table C–1. As shown on Table 10, 

these reductions, however, do not 

provide emissions reductions equivalent 

to one year’s worth of RFP when 

considered on a per-pollutant basis.35

The continuing implementation of the 

State’s mobile source program in 

combination with the District’s 

contingency measure in Rule 4901, if 

triggered, will reduce emissions 

substantially in 2015 (the year after the 

attainment year of 2014). However, as 

shown on Table 10, these reductions do 

not provide emissions reductions 

equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP 

when considered on a per-pollutant 

basis. 

Based on this evaluation, EPA 

proposes to disapprove the RFP and 

attainment contingency measures in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP pursuant to CAA 

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

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS FROM CONTINGENCY MEASURES IN THE SJV 2008 PM2.5 PLAN

[Tons per average annual day] 

Direct 

PM2.5 NOX SOX

Excess reductions in the RFP demonstration that are available to meet the 2012 RFP contingency requirements (excess reduction in the 2012 RFP demonstration) ............................................................................. 0 18 5 

Reductions from contingency provision in Rule 9401 and new 2015 reductions available to meet the attainment contingency requirement ......................................................................................................................... 1 .6 21 3 

Reductions equivalent to 1-year’s worth of RFP ................................................................................................. 2 .5 31 .6 0 .2 

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, 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 (RTPs) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIPs) conform to the applicable SIPs. 

This is typically determined by showing 

that estimated emissions from existing 

and planned highway and transit 

systems are less than or equal to the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB 

or budgets) contained in the SIP. An 

attainment or RFP SIP should include 

MVEB for the attainment year and each 

required RFP year, as applicable. 

An MPO must use budgets in a 

submitted but not yet approved SIP, 

after EPA has determined that the 

budgets are adequate. Budgets in 

submitted SIPs may not be used before 

they are found adequate or are 

approved. In order for us to find a 

budget adequate, the submittal must 

meet the conformity adequacy 

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

(5). Additionally, motor vehicle 

emissions budgets cannot be approved 

until EPA completes a detailed review 

of the entire SIP and determines that the 

SIP and the budgets will achieve their 

intended purpose (i.e., RFP, attainment 

or maintenance). The budget must also 

reflect all of the motor vehicle control 

measures contained in the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(v). 

PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans 

should identify budgets for direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. 

Direct PM2.5 SIP MVEB should include 

PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from 

tailpipes, brake wear, and tire wear. 

States 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. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 

§ 93.122(f) and the conformity rule 

preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031–40036 

(July 1, 2004). The applicability of 

emission trading between conformity 

budgets for conformity purposes is 

described in 40 CFR 93.124(c). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan included MVEB 

for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the 

attainment year of 2014 and the RFP 

years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

36See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division 

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

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

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable Further 

Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets,’’ dated April 23, 2010. 

37See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division 

Director, EPA Region 9, June 3, 2011. 

Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C. 

The direct PM2.5 budgets include 

tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear 

emissions but do not include paved 

road, unpaved road, and road and 

transit construction dust because these 

are not considered to be significant 

contributors to PM2.5 levels in the 

Valley. No budgets for SO2 are included 

because on-road emissions of SO2 are 

also considered insignificant. No 

budgets for ammonia or VOC are 

included because these pollutants are 

not considered attainment plan 

precursors for the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

in the San Joaquin Valley. Id. 

In April 2010, based on our initial 

preliminary review of the Plan, EPA 

found the RFP budgets in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan as submitted in 2008 adequate and 

the attainment budgets inadequate for 

transportation conformity purposes.36

We published a notice of our findings at 

75 FR 26749 (May 12, 2010). 

3. Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in the 2011 Progress Report and 

Additional Revisions 

CARB submitted updated MVEB for 

the San Joaquin Valley in the 2011 

Progress Report, Appendices A and D. 

The updated MVEB were for direct 

PM2.5 and NOX for the RFP year of 2012 

and the attainment year of 2014. No 

updated budgets were included for the 

RFP year of 2009 because there are no 

applicable conformity analysis years 

prior to 2012. 

The submittal 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 9:1. 

Transportation conformity trading 

mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR 

93.124. The basis for the trading 

mechanism is the SIP attainment 

modeling which establishes the relative 

contribution of each PM2.5 precursor 

pollutant. 

As proposed in the 2011 Progress 

Report, this trading mechanism would 

only be used, if needed, for conformity 

analyses for years after 2014. To ensure 

that the trading mechanism does not 

impact the ability of the SJV to meet the 

NOX budget, the NOX emission 

reductions available to supplement the 

PM2.5 budget would only be those 

remaining after the 2014 NOX budget 

has been met. Clear documentation of 

the calculations used in the trade would 

be included in the conformity analysis. 

See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, 

footnote to Table D–2. 

On June 20, 2011, CARB posted on its 

website technical revisions to the 

updated MVEBs in the 2011 Progress 

Report that were referenced in a June 

3rd letter to EPA.37 See CARB, 

‘‘Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State 

Implementation Plan Revisions and 

Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the South Coast 

and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,’’ 

Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/ 

2007sip/2007sip.htm. These revised 

updated MVEBs are shown in table 11 

below. The technical revisions correct 

data entry errors in the budget 

calculations and remove the emission 

reductions attributed to SJVAPCD’s Rule 

9510, ‘‘Indirect Source Review’’ (ISR). 

EPA recently approved Rule 9510 into 

the California SIP but disallowed the 

use of emissions reductions from the 

rule for any SIP purpose including 

transportation conformity. See 75 FR 

28509 (May 21, 2010) and 76 FR 26609 

(May 9, 2011). 

TABLE 11—REVISED UPDATED PM2.5 MVEB FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per average annual day] 

County 

2012 2014 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Fresno ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 35.7 1.1 31.4 

Kern (SJV) ............................................................................................................................................... 1.9 48.9 1.2 43.8 

Kings ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.4 10.5 0.3 9.3 

Madera ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.4 9.2 0.3 8.1 

Merced ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.8 19.7 0.6 17.4 

San Joaquin ............................................................................................................................................. 1.1 24.5 0.9 21.6 

Stanislaus ................................................................................................................................................ 0.7 16.7 0.6 14.6 

Tulare ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.7 15.7 0.5 13.8 

4. Proposed Action on the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

EPA has evaluated the revised 

updated budgets against our adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4) as part of 

our review of the budgets’ approvability. 

The results of this review are 

documented in Section II.J. of the TSD. 

We are also posting a notice of 

availability on our transportation 

adequacy Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. EPA is not 

required under its Transportation 

Conformity rules to find budgets 

adequate prior to proposing approval of 

them. We will ultimately complete the 

adequacy review of these budgets. That 

could occur when we take a final action 

on this SIP or it could happen at an 

earlier date. 

As discussed in sections V.C. and 

V.D., we have completed our detailed 

review of the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP and 

supplemental submittals including the 

2011 Progress Report. Based on this 

thorough review of these submittals, we 

are proposing to approve the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 SJV 

PM2.5 SIP. As discussed above, CARB 

has recently posted revisions to the 

updated budgets that were submitted in 

the 2011 Progress Report and intends to 

present these budgets for adoption as a 

SIP revision at its July 21, 2011 Board 

meeting. After reviewing these revised 

updated MVEBs, we are proposing to 

find them to be consistent with the 

approvable attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and to find that they 

meet all other applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements including the 

adequacy criteria in § 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 

the revised updated MVEB based on the 

assumption that we will receive the 

revised budgets as a complete SIP 

revision from the State prior to our final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41361 

38EPA cannot approve or find adequate the 

updated budgets included in the 2011 Progress 

Report because they include uncreditable 

reductions from the District’s ISR rule and because 

of the technical error in the budget calculations. 

action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP. If CARB is 

unable to adopt and submit the revised 

updated budgets, then EPA intends to 

find inadequate and disapprove the 

updated MVEB contained in the 2011 

Progress Report.38 If we disapprove the 

MVEB, a conformity freeze would take 

effect upon the effective date of the 

disapproval (usually 30 days after 

publication of the final action in the 

Federal Register). A conformity freeze 

means that only projects in the first four 

years of the most recent conforming RTP 

and TIP can proceed. During a freeze, no 

new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP 

amendments can be found to conform. 

See 40 CFR 93.120. 

5. Proposed Action on the Trading 

Mechanism 

As noted above, CARB included a 

trading mechanism to be used in 

transportation conformity analyses that 

use the proposed budgets as allowed for 

under 40 CFR 93.124. This trading 

mechanism would allow future 

decreases in NOX emissions from onroad mobile sources to offset any onroad increases in PM2.5, using a 

NOX:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by 

CARB, the trading mechanism would 

only be used, if needed, for conformity 

analyses for years after 2014. To ensure 

that the trading mechanism does not 

affect the ability of the SJV to meet the 

NOX budget, the NOX emissions 

reductions available to supplement the 

PM2.5 budget would only be those 

remaining after the 2014 NOX budget 

has been met. The trading mechanism 

will be implemented with the following 

criteria. The trading applies only to: 

• Analysis years after the 2014 

attainment year. 

• On-road mobile emission sources. 

• Trades using vehicle NOX emission 

reductions in excess of those needed to 

meet the NOX budget. 

• Trades in one direction from NOX

to direct PM2.5. 

• A trading ratio of 9 tpd NOX to 

1 tpd PM2.5. 

Clear documentation of the 

calculations used in the trade would be 

included in the conformity analysis. See 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, 

footnote to Table D–2. 

EPA has reviewed the 9:1 NOX:PM2.5

ratio and finds it is an appropriate ratio 

for trading between NOX and direct 

PM2.5 for transportation conformity 

purposes in the San Joaquin Valley for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The method 

discussed in the documentation appears 

to be adequate for purposes of assessing 

the effect of area-wide emissions 

changes, such as are used in conformity 

budgets. See section V.D.2. above and 

II.B.4. of the TSD. 

EPA believes that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

as revised by the 2011 Progress Report 

includes an approvable trading 

mechanism for determining 

transportation conformity after 2014. 

EPA is proposing to approve the trading 

mechanism and all of the criteria 

included in the footnote to Table D–2 as 

enforceable components of the 

transportation conformity program for 

the SJV for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the use of 

this ratio in transportation conformity 

determinations for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS but only until EPA finds 

adequate or approves budgets developed 

specifically for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. Until that time, conformity 

will be determined using the budgets for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Actions and 

Potential Consequences 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and 

Disapprovals 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

proposes to approve, with the exception 

of the contingency measures and one 

commitment by the SJVUAPCD, 

California’s SIP for attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

and to grant the State’s request for an 

extension of the attainment date. This 

SIP is composed of the SJVUAPCD’s 

2008 PM2.5 Plan as revised in 2010 and 

2011 and the SJV-specific portions of 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy as revised in 

2009 and 2011 addressing CAA and 

EPA regulations for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to approve 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

following elements of the SJV PM2.5

attainment SIP: 

1. The 2005 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.1008; 

2. The reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

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

3. The reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 40 CFR 51.1009; 

4. The attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

51.1007; 

5. The air quality modeling as meeting 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance; 

6. The revised updated 2012 RFP year 

and 2014 attainment year motor vehicle 

emissions budgets as posted by CARB 

on June 21, 2011 contingent upon our 

receipt of a SIP revision because they 

are derived from approvable RFP and 

attainment demonstrations and meet the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A and CARB’s 

trading mechanism to be used in 

transportation conformity analyses as 

allowed under 40 CFR 93.124; 

7. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to the 

adoption and implementation schedule 

for specific control measures listed in 

Table 6–2 (amended June 15, 2010) of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to the extent that 

these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled, and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

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

in Table 6–3 of the PM2.5 Plan, except 

for the commitment to adopt revisions 

to Rule 4702; and 

8. CARB’s commitments to propose 

certain defined measures, as listed in 

Table B–1 on page 1 of Appendix B of 

the 2011 Progress Report and to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions by 2014 

sufficient to provide for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as described in 

CARB Resolution 07–28, Attachment B. 

EPA also proposes to concur with the 

State’s determination under 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) that SOX and NOX are and 

VOC and ammonia are not attainment 

plan precursors for the attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

EPA proposes to grant, pursuant to 

CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.1004(a), California’s request to 

extend the attainment date for the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to April 5, 2015. 

EPA proposes to disapprove under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) the contingency 

measures provisions of the SJV PM2.5

attainment SIP as failing to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and 40 CFR 51.1012. 

Finally, EPA proposes to disapprove 

the commitment by the SJVUAPCD to 

adopt revisions to Rule 4702 

‘‘Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines’’ by December 2010 because 

that date has passed and the District has 

not adopted revisions to the rule. We 

will not finalize this proposed 

disapproval, however, if the District 

adopts revisions to the rule that fulfill 

the commitment by the time of EPA’s 

final action on the Plan. 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final 

Disapproval 

EPA is committed to working with the 

District, CARB and the SJV MPOs to 

resolve the remaining issues that make 

the current PM2.5 attainment SIP for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

41362 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

SJV not fully approvable under the CAA 

and the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

However, should we finalize the 

proposed disapproval of the 

contingency measure provisions in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan or finalize a 

disapproval of the MVEB, the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 

would apply in the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area 18 months after the 

effective date of a final disapproval. The 

highway funding sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) would apply in the 

area six months after the offset sanction 

is imposed. Neither sanction will be 

imposed under the CAA if California 

submits and we approve prior to the 

implementation of the sanctions, SIP 

revisions that correct the deficiencies 

identified in our proposed action. In 

addition to the sanctions, CAA section 

110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan addressing the deficient elements 

in the PM2.5 SIP for the SJV 

nonattainment area, two years after the 

effective date of any disapproval should 

we not approve a SIP revision correcting 

the deficiencies within the two years. 

Neither sanctions nor a FIP would be 

imposed should EPA disapprove the 

District’s discretionary commitment to 

revise Rule 4702. Sanctions would not 

be imposed because the District’s 

decision to include the commitment in 

its Plan was discretionary (i.e., not 

required to be included in the SIP), and 

EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this 

instance because the disapproval does 

not reveal a deficiency in the PM2.5 SIP 

that such a FIP must correct. This is 

because the failure of the District to 

adopt revisions to Rule 4702 would not 

adversely affect the 2008 PM2.5 SIP’s 

compliance with the CAA’s mandated 

requirements for RACM/RACT, RFP, 

and/or attainment demonstrations nor 

would it prevent EPA from granting an 

extension of the attainment date under 

CAA section 172(b). 

Because we are proposing to approve 

the RFP and attainment demonstrations 

and the motor vehicle emission budgets, 

we are proposing to issue a protective 

finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the 

disapproval of the contingency 

measures. Without a protective finding, 

final disapproval would result in a 

conformity freeze, under which only 

projects in the first four years of the 

most recent conforming Regional 

Transportation Plan and Transportation 

Improvement Programs can proceed. 

During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or 

RTP/TIP amendments can be found to 

conform. See 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). 

Under a protective finding, however, 

final disapproval of the contingency 

measures would not result in a 

transportation conformity freeze in the 

San Joaquin PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

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

in reviewing SIP submittals, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

proposed SIP partial approval and 

partial disapproval under CAA section 

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

collection burdens but simply approves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP and disapproves others. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the SIP under 

CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements but simply approves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP and disapprove others. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from a 

final disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

action proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41363 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely partially approves and partially 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

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

itself create any new regulations but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D and to disapprove 

others will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements. Accordingly, it 

does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17196 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2