ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516; FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

State of California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley State

Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter; 2007 State

Strategy; PM2.5 

AGENCY: U.S. 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 the 

State of California to provide for attainment of the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 

nonattainment area. The submitted SIP revisions are the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan as revised in 2010 and portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy as revised in 2009. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the emissions inventories as meeting the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act and EPA’s fine particulate implementing rule. 

EPA is also proposing to approve commitments to implement 

specific measures and meet specific aggregate emissions 

reductions by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District and the California Air Resource Board because the 

commitments strengthen the SIP. In addition, we are proposing to 

find that volatile organic compounds are a PM2.5 attainment plan 
2 

precursor in the SJV for which controls should be evaluated. EPA 

is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration 

primarily because it does not provide sufficient emissions 

reductions from adopted and EPA-approved measures to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to disapprove the 

reasonably available control measures/reasonably available 

control technology demonstration, the air quality modeling, the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, and the 

contingency measures. EPA is also proposing to not grant 

California's request to extend to April 5, 2015 the deadline for 

the SJV nonattainment area to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

because, under its fine particulate implementation rule, EPA 

cannot grant an attainment date extension without first 

approving the attainment demonstration. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP and the attainment year 

because they are derived from currently-unapprovable RFP and 

attainment demonstrations. 

DATE: Any comments must arrive by [Insert date 60 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

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. 
3 

•	 E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov 

•	 Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at 

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 website 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 IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some may be 
4 

publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material) and some may not be publicly available at 

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

please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with 

the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 

section below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for 

inspection at the following locations: 

•	 California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, 

California 95812 

•	 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 

1990 E. Gettysburg, California 93726. 

The SIP materials are also electronically available at: 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm and 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning 

Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

(415) 972-3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov
 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, we, us and 

our refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 
5 

II. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address 

PM2.5 Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submittals 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

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

Revised 2007 State Strategy 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

B. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Demonstration and the Adopted Control 

Strategy 

1. Requirement for RACM/RACT 

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

a. SJVAPCD’s RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy 

c. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 
6 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

i. Commitment must Represent a Limited Portion of Required 

Reductions 

ii. The State must be Capable of Fulfilling its Commitment 

iii. The Commitment must be for a Reasonable and Appropriate 

Period of Time 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration 

E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity 
7 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 

4. Proposed Finding and Action on the Budgets 

H. Mid-Course Review 

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2.5 Offsets 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions and Potential Consequences 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

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

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, 

including annual standards of 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and 24-hour (daily) 

standards of 65 μg/m3

 based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 40 CFR § 50.7. EPA 

established the standards based on substantial evidence from 

numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health 

effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations 

above the levels of these standards. 
8 

Epidemiological studies have shown statistically 

significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important health effects associated 

with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, 

and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and 

increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for more 

subtle indicators of cardiovascular health. Individuals 

particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, 

people with heart and lung disease, and children. See, EPA, Air 

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF 

and EPA/600/P–99/002bF, October 2004. 

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid 

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

formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical 

reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). 

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is 

required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA published initial air quality 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on air quality 
 

9 

monitoring data for the three-year periods of 2001-2003 or 2002­

2004. 70 FR 944. These designations became effective on April 5, 

2005.1
 

EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), in the 

southern part of California’s Central Valley, nonattainment for 

both the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 40 CFR § 

81.305. The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is home to 4 million 

people and is the nation’s leading agricultural area. Stretching 

over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, 

it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the 

west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra 

Nevada range to the east. It encompasses over 23,000 square 

miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the 

valley portion of Kern. For a precise description of the 

geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
 

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR § 81.305. The local air district 

1 On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5
 

NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 μg/m3. At the same time, it

retained the level of the annual PM2.5 standards at 15.0 μg/m3

. 71 

FR 61144. On November 13, 2006, EPA designated areas, including

the SJV, with respect to the revised 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688.

California is now required to submit an attainment plan for the

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

effective date of the designation, that is, no later than

December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5
 

NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
 

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

codified in 40 CFR § 50.7.
 
 

10 

with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD or District). 

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in the urban 

Bakersfield area in the southern SJV are the highest recorded in 

the United States at 22.6 μg/m3 and 70 μg/m3, respectively, for 

the 2007-2009 period.2 In the SJV, the levels and composition of 

ambient PM2.5 differ by season. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-4 and 

H-5. Higher PM2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between 

late November and February, when ambient PM2.5 is dominated by 

ammonium nitrate, formed from NOx and ammonia emissions, and 

directly-emitted particulates, such as wood smoke. During the 

winter, the SJV experiences extended periods of stagnant weather 

with cold, damp, foggy conditions which are conducive to the 

formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particulates and 

encourage wood burning. During the summer, PM2.5 levels generally 

remain below 15 μg/m3, the level of the annual standards. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-6 and H-7. 

2 See EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, August

9, 2010. These values are the highest design values in the SJV.

A design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a

specific methodology from monitored air quality data and is used

to compare an area’s air quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies

for calculating design values for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
 

NAAQS are found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N Sections 1(c)(1)

and (c)(2), respectively. 
11 

II. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address 

PM2.5 Nonattainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process 

for a state to develop and submit to EPA a state implementation 

plan (SIP) under title 1, part D of the CAA. This SIP must 

include, among other things, a demonstration of how the NAAQS 

will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the date required by the CAA. 

Under CAA section 172(b), a state has up to three years after an 

area’s designation as nonattainment to submit its SIP to EPA. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, these SIPs were due no later than April 

5, 2008. 

California has made several SIP submittals to address the 

CAA’s PM2.5 attainment planning requirements in the San Joaquin 

Valley. The two principal ones are the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(2008 PM2.5 Plan or Plan) and the California Air Resources 

Board’s (CARB) State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (2007 State Strategy). 

In addition to these submittals, the District and State 

have also submitted numerous rules that contribute to improving 

air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. EPA has approved many of 

these rules. See Appendices A and B of the technical support 

document (TSD) for this proposal. 
 

12 

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 

demonstration, commitments by the SJVAPCD to adopt control 

measures to achieve emissions reductions from sources under its 

jurisdiction (primarily stationary sources), and motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for transportation conformity purposes. 

The attainment demonstration includes air quality modeling, a
 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, an analysis of 

reasonably available control measures/reasonably available 

control technology (RACM/RACT), base year and projected year 

emissions inventories, and contingency measures. The 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan also includes the District’s demonstration that attainment 

of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV will require significant 

reductions in NOx and PM2.5 emissions (50 percent and 25 percent 

from 2005 levels, respectively) and that the most expeditious 

date for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

is April 5, 2015. On September 15, 2010, CARB submitted a minor 

3 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District Governing Board Resolution: In the Matter of Adopting

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

2008 PM2.5 Plan, April 30, 2008 (SJVAPCD Governing Board

Resolution), CARB Resolution No. 08-28, May 22, 2008; and

letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 30, 2008,

with enclosures. 
 

13 

revision to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan's control strategy to extend the 

adoption date for one control measure.4

 Future references to the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan in this proposal will be to the Plan as revised 

in 2010. 

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

To demonstrate attainment, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies in 

part on measures in CARB’s 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State 

Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted 

to EPA on November 16, 2007.5

 It discusses CARB’s overall 

approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans, 

attainment of both the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only 

in the San Joaquin Valley but also in California’s other 

nonattainment areas such as the South Coast Air Basin and the 

Sacramento area. It also includes CARB’s commitments to propose 

15 defined State measures6 and to obtain specific amounts of 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, nitrogen oxides 

4 See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,

September 15, 2010, with enclosures. 

5 See 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. 

6 The 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. 
 

14 

(NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the SJV from 

sources under the State’s jurisdiction, which are primarily onand off-road motor vehicles and engines. 

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the “Status Report on 

the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,” dated March 24, 

2009, adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State Strategy Status Report)7
 

which updates the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its 

implementation during 2007 and 2008.8
 

In today's proposal, we are only evaluating those portions 

of the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 that are relevant 

for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submittals 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state 

to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public 

7 See 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. 

8

 We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised

in 2009 as the revised 2007 State Strategy. 
15 

hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP 

revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should 

include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a 

public hearing was held on it consistent with EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102. 

Both the SJVAPCD and CARB have satisfied applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. The District conducted public workshops, provided 

public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2008. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix J and SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB 

provided the required public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the Plan. 

See CARB Resolution No. 08-28. The District also provided the 

required public notice and hearing on the 2010 revision to the 

Plan. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 10-06-18. 

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment 

periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 

2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB Resolution 

No. 07-28. CARB also provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing prior to 

its April 24, 2009 adoption of the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report. See CARB Resolution No. 09-34. 
 

16 

The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices 

of SJVAPCD and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all 

hearings were properly noticed. We find, therefore, that each of 

the four submittals that comprise the SJV PM2.5 SIP meets the 

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

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether 

a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This 

section also provides that any plan that EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will 

become complete six months after the date of submittal by 

operation of law. EPA’s SIP completeness criteria are found in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan became 

complete by operation of law on December 30, 2008. We found the 

2010 revision to the Plan complete on September 23, 2010.9 The 

November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 

August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy 

became complete by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 

12, 2010, respectively. 

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment SIPs 

EPA is implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Title 1, Part 

D, subpart 1 of the CAA, which includes section 172, 

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

CARB, September 23, 2010. 
17 

“Nonattainment plan provisions.” Section 172(a)(2) requires that 

a PM2.5 nonattainment area attain the NAAQS as “as expeditiously 

as practicable” but no later than five years from the date of 

the area's designation as nonattainment. This section also 

allows EPA to grant up to a five-year extension of an area’s 

attainment date based on the severity of the area's 

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of controls. 

EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment effective April 5, 2005, 

and thus the applicable attainment date is no later than April 

5, 2010 or, should EPA grant a full five-year extension, no 

later than April 5, 2015. 

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 
 

18 

PM2.5 precursors must be addressed by the state in its PM2.5
 

attainment SIP, applicable attainment dates, and the requirement 

for mid-course reviews.10 We will discuss each of these CAA and 

regulatory requirements for PM2.5 attainment plans in more detail 

below. 

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

Revised 2007 State Strategy 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

10 In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was

filed on behalf of several public health and environmental

groups requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2.5
 

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, Petition for

Reconsideration, “In the Matter of Final Clean Air Fine Particle

Implementation Rule,” June 25, 2007. These provisions are 1) the

presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule

satisfies the NOx and SO2 RACT requirements for electric

generating units; 2) the deferral of the requirement to

establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter

(CPM) until January 1, 2011; 3) revisions to the criteria for

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

out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP. These 

provisions are found in the PM2.5 implementation rule and

preamble at 20623-20628, 40 CFR § 51.1002(c), 20619-20620, and

20636, respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the petition

with respect to the fourth issue. Letter, Gina McCarthy, EPA, to

David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is

currently considering the other issues raised in the petition. 

Neither the District nor the State relied on the first,

third, or fourth of these provisions in preparing the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan or the 2007 State Strategy. The District has deferred some,

but not all, CPM limits in its rules. EPA does not believe this

deferral affects its proposed disapproval actions on the SIP’s

RACM/RACT or expeditious attainment demonstrations. See section

II.D.3 of the TSD for this proposal. We will evaluate any rule

adopted or revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to

assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. 
19 

EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and those portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy as revised in 2009 specific to PM2.5 attainment in the 

SJV. 

We are proposing to approve the emissions inventories in 

these SIP revisions as meeting the applicable requirements of 

the CAA and PM2.5 implementation rule. We are also proposing to 

approve the District’s and CARB’s commitments to specific 

measures and specific aggregate emissions reductions in these 

SIP revisions as strengthening the SIP. 

In addition, we are proposing to find that volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) are a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor that must 

be addressed in the RACM/RACT analysis, RFP and attainment 

demonstrations, and for other PM2.5 SIP control requirements. The 

Plan as submitted does not treat VOC as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor. 

We are proposing to disapprove the air quality modeling 

analysis on which the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment, RACM/RACT, 

and RFP demonstrations and the State’s attainment date extension 

request are based because the Plan does not currently include 

sufficient documentation and analysis for EPA to determine the 

modeling’s adequacy. 

Based on our proposed finding that VOC should be a PM2.5
 

attainment plan precursor and our proposed disapproval of the 
 

20 

air quality modeling, we are proposing to disapprove the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan’s RACM/RACT analysis and the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and related contingency measures as not meeting 

the applicable requirements of the CAA and PM2.5 implementation 

rule. We are also proposing to disapprove the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone 

years of 2009 and 2012 and the attainment year of 2014.11 We are 

proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration for the 

additional reason that it relies too extensively on commitments 

to emissions reductions in lieu of fully adopted and submitted 

rules. Rules that have either not been adopted in final form or 

have not been submitted to and approved by EPA cannot be 

credited toward the attainment demonstration. Finally, we are 

proposing to not grant the State’s request to extend the 

attainment date for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV to April 5, 2015. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are summarized below and are 

described in more detail in the TSD for this proposal which is 

available online at www.regulations.gov in the docket, EPA-R09­

OAR-2010-0516, or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning 

of this notice. 

B. Emissions Inventories
 

11 While the attainment date for PM2.5 areas with a full 

five-year extension would be April 5 2015, reductions must be

implemented by 2014 to achieve attainment by that date. See 40

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

year and April 5, 2015 as the attainment date. 
21 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a 

“comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant pollutant.” The PM2.5
 

implementation rule requires a state to include direct PM2.5 

emissions and emissions of all PM2.5 precursors in this inventory, 

even if it has determined that control of any of these 

precursors is not necessary for expeditious attainment. 40 CFR § 

51.1008(a)(1) and 72 FR 20586 at 20648. Direct PM2.5 includes 

condensable particulate matter. 40 CFR § 51.1000. PM2.5
 

precursors are NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. Id. The inventories 

should meet the data requirements of EPA’s Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) 

and include any additional inventory information needed to 

support the SIP’s attainment demonstration and (where 

applicable) RFP demonstration. 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1) and (2). 

A baseline emissions inventory is required for the 

attainment demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. As 

determined on the date of designation, the base year for this 

inventory should be the most recent calendar year for which a 

complete inventory was required to be submitted to EPA. The 

baseline emissions inventory for calendar year 2002 or other 

suitable year should be used for attainment planning and RFP 
22 

plans for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM2.5
 

NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR § 51.1008(b). 

EPA has provided additional guidance for PM2.5 emissions 

inventories in “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze 

Regulations,” November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001). 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

The baseline planning inventories for direct PM2.5 and all 

PM2.5 precursors for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area together 

with additional documentation for the inventories are found in 

Appendix B of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Both average winter day and 

average annual day baseline inventories are provided for the 

year 2005 (the reference year for the air quality modeling) and 

each year from 2009 to 2014. These baseline inventories 

incorporate reductions from federal, State, and District 

measures adopted prior to 2007. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1 and 2007 

State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. A winter inventory is provided 

because the majority of high PM2.5 days in the SJV occur during 

the winter months between November and February. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Figures H-4 and H-5. 

Table 1 is a summary of the average annual day inventories 

of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for the baseline year of 2005 

and the projected attainment year of 2014. These inventories 
 

 

 

23 

provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

As a starting point for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s inventories, 

the District used CARB’s 2002 base year inventory. An example of 

this inventory and CARB’s documentation for its inventories can 

be found in Appendices A and F, respectively, of the 2007 State 

Strategy. The 2002 inventory for the SJV was projected to 2005 

and future years using CARB’s California emissions forecasting 

system (CEFSv 1.06). 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1. Both base year and 

baseline inventories use the most current version of 

California’s mobile source emissions model approved by EPA for 

use in SIPs, EMFAC2007, for estimating on-road motor vehicle 

emissions. 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Off-road inventories 

were developed using the CARB off-road model. 

Table 1 

San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory Summary for PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 Precursors for the 2005 Base Year and 2014 Attainment Year 

(annual average day emissions in tons per day)

Emissions 

Inventory

Category 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 VOC Ammonia 

2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 

Stationary

Sources 

13.3 14.4 80.1 56.5 20.4 22.0 121.5 129.5 19.8 23.0 

Area Sources 51.5 45.2 13.5 10.7 0.9 0.9 140.7 128.0 355.9 423.1 

On-Road 

Mobile 

Sources 

12.1 8.9 327.9 206.7 2.6 0.7 94.8 57.2 6.2 4.8 

Off-Road 

Mobile 

Sources 

9.0 6.6 153.9 102.2 2.4 0.8 62.7 48.5 0 0 

Total 86.0 75.0 575.4 376.2 26.4 24.5 419.8 363.2 382.0 451.0 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories 
24 

We have reviewed the emissions inventories in the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan and the inventory methodologies used by SJVAPCD and CARB 

for consistency with CAA requirements, the PM2.5 implementation 

rule, and EPA’s guidance. We find that the base year and 

projected baseline year inventories are comprehensive, accurate, 

and current inventories of actual or projected emissions of PM2.5
 

and PM2.5 precursors in the SJV nonattainment area as of the date 

of their submittal. We propose, therefore, to approve these 

inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(3), the PM2.5 implementation rule and applicable EPA 

guidance. We provide more detail on our review of the 

inventories in section II.A. of the TSD. 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan 

“provide for the implementation of all reasonably available 

control measures [RACM] as expeditiously as practicable 

(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in 

the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, 

of reasonably available control technology [RACT]), and shall 

provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air 

quality standards.” EPA defines RACM as measures that a state 

finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment 
25 

as expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, 

what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5 attainment plan is closely 

tied to that plan’s expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR 

§ 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. States are required to evaluate 

RACM/RACT for direct PM2.5 and all of its attainment plan 

precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c). 

For PM2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined 

approach to RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. 

Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, does not identify specific 

source categories for which EPA must issue control technology 

documents or guidelines, or identify specific source categories 

for state and EPA evaluation during attainment plan development. 

72 FR 20586 at 20610. Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers 

RACT to be part of an area's overall RACM obligation. Because of 

the variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in different 

nonattainment areas which may require states to develop 

attainment plans that address widely disparate circumstances, 

EPA determined not only that states should have flexibility with 

respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in areas needing 

significant emission reductions to attain the standards, 

RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach 

attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 

20612, 20615. Thus, under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACT and 

RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to 
26 

attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. 

Specifically, the PM2.5 implementation rule requires that 

attainment plans include the list of measures a state considered 

and information sufficient to show that the state met all 

requirements for the determination of what constitutes RACM/RACT 

in a specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1010(a). In 

addition, the rule requires that the state, in determining 

whether a particular emissions reduction measure or set of 

measures must be adopted as RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative 

impact of implementing the available measures and to adopt as 

RACM/RACT any potential measures that are reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility if, 

considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date 

by one year or more. Any measures that are necessary to meet 

these requirements which are not already either federally 

promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or otherwise creditable in 

SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of 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 
27 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy are the 

latest in a series of air quality plans that the District and 

CARB have developed to provide for attainment of the federal air 

quality standards in the SJV. These planning efforts have 

resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and programs that 

address the vast majority of emissions sources in the Valley. 

Many of these District and State rules are among the most 

stringent in the nation. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the 

District, CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV’s eight 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a 

process to identify and evaluate potential reasonably available 

control measures that could contribute to expeditious attainment 

of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. We describe each agency’s 

efforts below. 

a. SJVAPCD’s RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy 

The District’s RACM/RACT analysis, which focuses on 

stationary and area source controls, is described in Chapter 6 

and Appendix I of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. To identify potential 

RACM/RACT, the District reviewed potential measures from a 

number of sources including EPA’s list of potential control 

measures in the PM2.5 implementation rule preamble (72 FR 20586 

at 20621), measures in other nonattainment areas’ plans, and 

measures suggested by the public during development of the 2008 
28 

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. 
 

29 

In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan, the SJVAPCD developed and implemented comprehensive plans 

to address attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 PM10 Plan, 

approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 1-hour ozone standards 

(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 10420 (March 

8, 2010)), and the 8-hour ozone standards (2007 Ozone Plan, 

submitted November 16, 2007). These plans for other NAAQS have 

resulted in the adoption by the District of many new rules and 

revisions to existing rules for stationary and area sources in 

the SJV. In general, the SJVAPCD’s current rules are equivalent 

to or more stringent than those developed by other air 

districts. In addition to these stationary and area source 

measures, the District has also adopted an indirect source 

review rule, Rule 9510, to address increased indirect emissions 

from new industrial, commercial and residential developments. 

See SJVAPCD Rule 9510 “Indirect Source Review,” adopted December 

15, 2005. EPA proposed to approve this rule as a revision to the 

California SIP on May 21, 2010. 75 FR 28509. The District also 

operates incentive grant programs including the Carl Moyer 

program,12 to accelerate turnover of existing stationary and 

mobile engines to cleaner units. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Section 6.5. 

12 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment

Program provides incentive grants for engines, equipment and

other sources of pollution that are cleaner than required by

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

30 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District identified and 

committed to adopting and implementing 13 new control measures 

for direct PM2.5, NOx, and/or SO2. In Table 2 below, we list these 

measures, which mostly involve strengthening existing District 

rules, along with their anticipated and actual adoption, initial 

implementation, and final compliance dates. As can be seen from 

Table 2, the District has met its intended rulemaking schedule 

and has only two rule actions remaining (S-COM-6 and S-COM-10). 

On Table 3, we list the expected emissions reductions from each 

measure. We note, however, that the District’s commitment is 

only to the aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOx, 

and SO2 shown. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-9 and SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution, p. 5. The reductions listed on Table 3 are 

those anticipated to be achievable from each measure at the time 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted. Actual reductions from each 

measure once adopted may be greater or less than those 

anticipated. Finally, on Table 4 we give the current SIP 

submittal and approval status of the measures in the Plan. 

reductions. Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road,

marine, locomotive and stationary agricultural pump engines. The

program achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOx, PM,

and VOC. 
 

31 

Table 2 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments 

Measure 

Number & 

Description District Rule Number 

Rule 

Making

Completion 

Date 

Actual 

Adoption

Date 

Compliance

Date 

Actual 

Compliance

Date 

Year 

Reduction 

s Start 

Actual 

Year 

Reduction 

s Start 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning 2nd Q –

2010 

April

2010 2010 June 2010 2009 2010 

S-COM-1 

4320 – Advanced 

Emissions Reductions 

for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process 

Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

3rd Q –

2008 

October 

2008 2012 

July 2012

to January

2014 

2012 July 2011 

S-COM-2 

4307 - Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process 

Heaters (2 to 5

MMBtu/hr) 

3rd Q –

2008 

October 

2008 2012 

July 2010

to January

2016 2012 July 2010 

S-COM-3 

4308 - Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process 

Heaters (0.075 to < 2

MM Btu/hr) 

4th Q –

2009 

December 

2009 2011 January2011 2011 January2011 

S-COM-5 4703 - Stationary Gas

Turbines 

3rd Q –

2007 

September

2007 2012 January2012 2012 July 2009 

S-COM-6 

Rule 4702 -

Reciprocating Internal

Combustion Engines 

4th Q –

2010 

Scheduled 

for 

December 

2010 

2012 TBD 2012 TBD 

S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting

Furnaces 

3rd Q -

2008 

October 

2008 

Under 

2009 

PM10 & SOx 

– January

2011 

NOx limits 

2009 

PM10 & SOx 

– June 

2009 

NOx limits 
32 

revision – January

2014-2018 

– January

2011 

S-COM-9 4902 - Residential 

Water Heaters 

1st Q –

2009 

March 

2009 Attrition Attrition 2011 January2010 

S-COM-10 

4905 - Natural GasFired, Fan Type

Residential Central 

Furnaces 

4nd Q –

2014 TBD Attrition TBD 2015 TBD 

S-COM-14 

4901 - Wood Burning

Fireplaces and Wood

Burning Heaters 

3rd Q –

2009 

October 

2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 

S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial 

Charbroiling 

2nd Q –

2009 

September

2009 2011 January2011 2011 January2011 

S-IND-21 4311 – Flares 2nd Q –

2009 June 2009 2010 July 2011 2010 July 2011 

M-TRAN-1 9410 - Employer Based

Trip Reduction Program 

4th Q –

2009 

December 

2009 2012 January2012 2012 January2012 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2. “Actual” information is taken from the individual rules as adopted or 

revised. 

Table 3 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments

(tons per average annual day)

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning 1.21 1.95 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.65 

S-COM-1 

4320 – Advanced Emissions 

Reductions for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process Heaters 

(> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 1.49 1.50 1.52 
33 

S-COM-3 

4308 - Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process Heaters 

(0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0.12 0.27 0.39 0.55 

S-COM-5 4703 - Stationary Gas Turbines 0 0 0 2.21 2.21 2.21 

S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.60 1.67 1.58 

S-COM-9 4902 - Residential Water 

Heaters 0 0 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.40 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 

Commitment to Total NOx Reductions 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 8.82 8.97 

PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning 1.60 2.57 3.53 3.52 3.50 3.49 

S-COM-1 

4320 – Advanced Emissions 

Reductions for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process Heaters 

(> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 0.23 0.24 0.24 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.39 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69 

S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 2.17 2.21 2.25 2.28 

Commitment to Total PM2.5 Reductions 1.60 2.96 4.461 6.69 6.70 6.70 

SO2 Emissions Reductions 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

S-COM-1 

4320 – Advanced Emissions 

Reductions for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process Heaters 

(> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 0.76 0.76 0.76 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 

M-TRAN-1 9410 – Employer Based Trip

Reduction Programs TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 

Commitment to Total SO2 Reductions 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.92 1

 This column sums to 6.46 tpd. Because the 4.46 tpd figure is given in Table 6-3b in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

used in the attainment demonstration in Table 9-1 in the Plan, we are assuming that it reflects the

District’s intended emissions reductions commitment.
 
34 

Table 4 

SIP Submittal and Approval Status of SJVAPCD Rules

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Rule 4103 - Open

Burning (Phase IV) 

Not 

submitted 

Most current revision 

of rule approved: May

17, 2007 at 74 FR 57907

(November 10, 2009) 

4320 – Advanced Submittal date: March 

Emissions Reductions 17, 2009

for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Submitted Submittal found 

complete: April 20,

Process Heaters (> 5 2009 

MMBtu/hr) New rule 

Rule 4307 Boilers,

Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (2 to

5 MMBtu/hr) 

Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13,

2010) 

Rule 4308 Boilers,

Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters 

(0.075 to < 2 MM

Btu/hr) 

Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17,

2010 

Submittal found 

complete: June 8, 2010

Most current revision 

of rule approved:

October 20, 2005 at 72

FR 29887 (May 30, 2007) 

Rule 4703 Stationary

Gas Turbines Approved 74 FR 53888 (October21, 2009) 

Rule 4702 

Reciprocating

Internal Combustion 

Engines (2010

revisions) 

Under 

development, 

expected

adoption

December 

2010 

Most current revision 

of rule approved:

January 18, 2007 73 FR

1819 (January 10, 2008) 

Rule 4354 Glass 

Melting Furnaces

(2008 revisions) 

Not 

Submitted 

Most current revision 

of rule approved:

August 17, 2006 at 72

FR 41894 (August 1,

2007)

Rule 4902 

Residential Water 

Heaters 

Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5,

2010) 
35 

4905 - Natural GasFired, Fan Type

Residential Central 

Furnaces 

Adoption

scheduled 

for 2014 

Most current version of 

the rule approved:

October 20, 2005 at 72

FR 29886 (May 30, 2007) 

Rule 4901 Wood 

Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning

Heaters 

Approved 74 FR 57907 (November

10, 2009) 

Rule 4692 Commercial 

Charbroiling Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17,

2010 

Submittal found 

complete: June 8, 2010

Most current revision 

of rule approved: March

21, 2002 at 68 FR 33005

(June 3, 2003) 

Rule 4311 Flares Submitted 

Submittal date: January

10, 2010

Submittal found 

complete: February 4,

2010 

Most current revision 

of rule approved: June

20, 2002 at 68 FR 8835

(February 26, 2003) 

Rule 9410 Employer

Based Trip Reduction

Program 

Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17,

2010 

Submittal found 

complete: June 8, 2010

New rule. 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility 

for reducing emissions in California include most new and 

existing on- and off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a waiver by EPA) to 

adopt and implement new emission standards for many categories 
36 

of on-road vehicles and engines and new and in-use off-road 

vehicles and engines. 

Given the need for significant emissions reductions from 

mobile and area sources to meet the NAAQS in California 

nonattainment areas, the State of California has been a leader 

in the development of some of the most stringent control 

measures nationwide for on-road and off-road mobile sources and 

the fuels that power them. These standards have reduced new car 

emissions by 99 percent and new truck emissions by 90 percent 

from uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, p. 37. The State 

is also working with EPA on goods movement activities and is 

implementing programs to reduce emissions from ship auxiliary 

engines, locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo handling 

equipment. In addition, the State has standards for lawn and 

garden equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other 

off-road sources that require newly manufactured equipment to be 

80-98 percent cleaner than their uncontrolled counterparts. Id.
 

Finally, the State has adopted many measures that focus on 

achieving reductions from in-use mobile sources that include 

more stringent inspection and maintenance requirements in 

California’s Smog Check program, truck and bus idling 

restrictions, and various incentive programs. Since 1994 alone, 

the State has taken more than 45 rulemaking actions and achieved 

most of the emissions reductions needed for attainment in the 
 

37 

State’s nonattainment areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 36-40. 

As is noted in the 2007 State Strategy, EPA has approved 

California’s mobile source program as representing best 

available control measures. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 

69 FR 5412 (February 4, 2004) and 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(proposed and final approval of SJV 2003 PM10 Plan). 

CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an 

extensive public consultation process to identify potential SIP 

measures. This process is described in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 7­

11.13 From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 

15 new defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the 

in-use fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. Many, if not most, of these measures are being 

proposed for adoption for the first time anywhere in the nation. 

They build on CARB’s already comprehensive program described 

above that addresses emissions from all types of mobile sources 

and consumer products, through both regulations and incentive 

programs. See Appendix A of the TSD. Table 5 below lists the new 

defined measures in the 2007 State Strategy, which also include 

one measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair 

13 More information on this public process including

presentations from the workshops and symposium that proceeded

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. 
38 

and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. As shown 

in this table, the State has adopted many of the measures. 

Table 5 

2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Scheduled for

Consideration and Current Status 

Defined State 

Measure 

Primary

Area 

(SC

and/or

SJV) 

Adoption 

Year Current Status 

Smog Check

Improvements Both 2007­2008 

Elements approved

75 FR 38023 (July

1, 2010) 

Expanded Vehicle

Retirement Both 2008­2014 

Adopted CARB June

2009; Bureau of

Automotive Repair

September 2010.

Revisions to 

Reformulated 

Gasoline Program 

Both 2007 Approved, see 75 FR

26653 (May 2, 2010) 

Cleaner In-use 

Heavy Duty Trucks Both 2008 

Adopted 2008,

pending revisions 

Auxiliary Ship Cold

Ironing and Other

Clean Technologies 

SC 2007­

2008 

Adopted December

2007 

Cleaner Main Ship

Engines and Fuels SC 

Fuel: 

2007 

Engines: 

2009 

Adopted July 2007 

Port Truck 

Modernization SC 2007­2008 

Adopted December

2007 and December 

2008 

Accelerated 

Introduction of 

Cleaner Locomotives 

Both 2007­

2008 In progress 

Clean Up Existing

Harbor Crafts SC 2007 

Adopted November

2007, revised June

2010 

Cleaner In-Use OffRoad Engines Both 2007 Adopted 2007,

pending revisions,

Cleaner In-Use 

Agricultural

Equipment 

SJV 2009 

On-going through

incentive grant

programs

New Emissions Both 2009­ Partial adoption, 
39 

Standards for 

Recreational Boats 

2010 2008; additional

regulation in

public review

Expanded Off-Road

Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions 

Standards 

Both By 2010 Adopted November

2008 

Enhanced Vapor

Recovery for Above

Ground Storage

Tanks 

Both 2007 Adopted June 2007 

Additional 

Evaporative

Emissions Standards 

Both By 2010 Partial adoption,

2008 

Consumer Products 

Program (I & II) Both 

2008 & 

2010­

2012 

Phase I – Approved

74 FR 57074 

(November 4, 2009) 

Department of

Pesticide 

Regulation 

SJV 2008 Adopted 2008,

amended 2009 

SC = South Coast Air Basin. Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 

(footnotes in original not included) 

Appendix A of the TSD includes a list of all measures 

adopted by CARB between 1990 and the beginning of 2007. These 

measures, reductions from which are reflected in the Plan’s 

baseline inventories, fall into two categories: measures that 

are subject to a waiver of Federal pre-emption under CAA section 

209 (section 209 waiver measures or waiver measures) and those 

for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (nonwaiver measures). Emissions reductions from waiver measures are 

fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and may be 

used to meet other CAA requirements, such as contingency 

measures. See EPA’s proposed approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final approval at 
40 

75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). The State’s baseline non-waiver 

measures have generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP 

and as such are fully creditable for meeting CAA requirements. 

In addition to the State’s commitments to propose defined 

measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable 

commitments for direct PM2.5, NOx, and VOC emissions reductions 

from mobile source categories that are crucial for attainment of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. For the SJV, the 2007 

State Strategy includes State commitments to achieve 5 tpd of 

direct PM2.5, 76 tpd of NOx, and 23 tpd of VOC reductions. See 

2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment 

B, p. 6. The 2007 State Strategy indicates that the State 

expects to achieve these emissions reductions in the San Joaquin 

Valley by the projected attainment year of 2014 from the 

measures listed in Table 5 or other similar measures. In the 

2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an estimated emissions 

reduction for each measure to show that, when considered 

together, these measures can meet the total commitment. CARB 

states, however, that its enforceable commitment is to achieve 

the aggregate emissions reductions for each pollutant by the 

given dates and not for a specific level of reductions from any 

specific measure. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58. A summary of 

the estimates from the proposed measures is provided in Table 6 

below. 
41 

As mentioned above, CARB’s commitment is also to propose 

specific new measures that are identified and defined in the 

2007 Strategy State. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64-65 and 2009 

State Strategy revisions, pp. 22-23. 

Table 6 

Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the

2007 State Strategy for the San Joaquin Valley

2014 Tons Per Day.

Measure PM2.5 NOx VOC 

Smog Check Improvements

(BAR) 0.05 3.3 2.9 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 0.01 0.5 0.7 

Modifications to 

Reformulated Gasoline 

Program 

-- -- 2.9 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty

Trucks 3.6 61.4 6.4 

Accelerated Intro. Of 

Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives 

0.2 7.2 0.5 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (>25hp) 0.8 3.7 0.9 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural

Equipment NYQ NYQ NYQ 

New Emission Standards for 

Recreational Boats -- 0.1 1.3 

Expanded Off-Road

Recreational Vehicle 

Emissions Standards 

-- -- 2.2 

Consumer Products Program -- -- 3.2 

Pesticides -- -- 2.5 

Totals: 5 76 23 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined

measures with reductions in the SJV are shown here. 

NYQ = Not yet quantified. 

c. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 
 

42 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM analysis was conducted by the 

SJV’s eight MPOs.14 This analysis focused on potential NOx
 

emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). 

TCMs are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from 

on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles 

traveled or traffic congestion. The analysis’ results are 

described in Chapter 7 (pp. 7-8 to 7-11) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

It addressed NOx but not direct PM2.5, SO2, or VOC. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV MPOs reviewed and updated 

the RACM analysis they performed for the SJV 2007 [8-hour] Ozone 

Plan, based on EPA’s guidance in the preamble to the PM2.5
 

implementation rule. For the 2007 Ozone Plan, they developed a 

local RACM strategy after an extensive evaluation of potential 

RACM for advancing the 8-hour ozone standard attainment date. 

After reviewing the 2007 Ozone Plan’s local RACM analysis, EPA’s 

suggested RACM, 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 

14 These 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. 
43 

measures already adopted, that could advance attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-11. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the set 

of measures necessary for expeditious attainment. The measures 

must address emissions of PM2.5 and all PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors that are necessary for such expeditious attainment. 

Thus, in order for a PM2.5 plan to demonstrate that it provides 

for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate that it provides for 

expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586 at 20612-20623. As discussed 

in section IV.D.2. below, we are proposing to disapprove the air 

quality modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 plan because there is 

insufficient documentation for us to determine its adequacy. Air 

quality modeling establishes the level of emissions reductions 

needed for attainment in an area. Thus, uncertainties about the 

adequacy of the air quality modeling result in uncertainties 

regarding the emissions reductions needed for attainment. 

Without a reliable estimate of the emission reductions needed 

for attainment, we are unable to determine if the measures in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan include all RACM/RACT that will provide for 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as 

expeditiously as practicable. 
44 

In addition, as described in section IV.D.3. below, EPA is 

proposing to determine that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor in the SJV nonattainment area. Under the PM2.5
 

implementation rule, States must address all PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors in their RACM/RACT analyses. See 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c)(3). Neither the District nor the local jurisdictions 

(through the MPOs) evaluated potential RACM/RACT for VOC 

emission sources. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find that the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, together with the revised 2007 State Strategy, does 

not provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1010 and to disapprove the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP’s RACM/RACT demonstration. It appears, however, 

that the State, District, and local jurisdictions have 

identified and otherwise provided for the implementation of a 

comprehensive set of measures that are among the most stringent 

in the nation and, should the District and State correct the 

deficiencies in the attainment demonstration and appropriately 

address VOC as an attainment plan precursor in its RACM/RACT 

demonstration, we may be able to approve the SIP’s RACM/RACT 

demonstration. 

Because they will strengthen the California SIP, we are 

proposing to approve the SJVAPCD's commitments to adopt and 

implement specific control measures on the schedule identified 
45 

in Table 6-2 (as amended June 15, 2010) in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

to the extent that these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, NOx and SOx by specific years as given 

in Table 6-3 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

We are also proposing to approve, as a SIP strengthening 

measure, CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as given on page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 5 tpd direct 

PM2.5, 76 tpd NOx, and 23 tpd VOC in the San Joaquin Valley by 

2014 as given on page 21 of the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report. 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations 

CAA section 172 requires a State to submit a plan for each 

of its nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the 

applicable ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the specified attainment date. 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, this demonstration should 

consist of four parts: 

(1) technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify 

sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS; 
46 

(2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air 

quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, 

state, and local programs and from potential new state and local 

measures to meet the RACM/RACT and RFP requirements in the area; 

(3) adopted emissions reduction measures with schedules for 

implementation; and 

(4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA. 

See 40 CFR § 51.1007; 72 FR 20586 at 20605. 

The requirements for the first two parts are described in 

the sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above 

(sections IV.B. and IV.C.) and in the sections on air quality 

modeling, PM2.5 precursors, extension of the attainment date, and 

attainment demonstration that follow immediately below. 

Requirements for the third and fourth parts are described in the 

sections on the control strategy and contingency measures 

(sections IV.C. and IV.F.), respectively. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The PM2.5 implementation rule requires states to submit an 

attainment demonstration based on modeling results. 

Specifically, 40 CFR § 51.1007(a) states: 

For any area designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5
 

NAAQS, the State must submit an attainment demonstration 

showing that the area will attain the annual and 24-hour 
 

47 

standards as expeditiously as practicable. The 

demonstration must meet the requirements of § 51.112 and 

Appendix W of this part and must include inventory data, 

modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on which 

the State has based its projected attainment date. The 

attainment date justified by the demonstration must be 

consistent with the requirements of § 51.1004(a). The 

modeled strategies must be consistent with requirements in 

§ 51.1009 for RFP and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. The 

attainment demonstration and supporting air quality 

modeling should be consistent with EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.15
 

See also, 72 FR 20586 at 20665. 

Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions 

attainment targets, the combination of emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding 

the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy 

will result in attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality modeling is 

performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring 

data in order to determine model performance. Once the 

15 EPA’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. 
48 

performance is determined to be acceptable, future year changes 

to the emissions inventory are simulated to determine the 

relationship between emissions reductions and changes in ambient 

air quality throughout the air basin. 

The procedures for modeling PM2.5 as part of an attainment 

SIP are contained in EPA's “Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 

for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.” A brief 

description of the modeling in 2008 PM2.5 Plan and our concerns 

regarding it follows. More detailed information about the 

modeling is available in section II.D. of the TSD. 

CARB and the District jointly performed the air quality 

modeling for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Significant time, money, and 

effort by CARB, the District, and many others have gone into 

preparing the air quality modeling to support the attainment 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, 

including support for the multi-million 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 
49 

on collecting sufficient continuous air quality and 

meteorological data, both at the surface and aloft, to support 

receptor and photochemical modeling. Data and modeling results 

based on the CRPAQS study provided solid underpinnings for the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan uses multiple modeling analyses to 

demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. It mainly 

relies on several variants of an approach based on receptor 

modeling for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This approach begins with 

Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which distinguishes the 

ambient PM2.5 contributions of several broad emissions source 

categories based on how they match the chemical species 

components of PM2.5 measurements. The CMB results are then 

refined with emissions inventory data to distinguish additional 

source categories; an area of influence analysis to better 

reflect particular sources affecting a monitor; and information 

from past photochemical modeling to assess how secondarilyformed PM2.5 will respond to changes in precursor emissions. 

Several variants of this approach were used with CMB results 

from different locations and different base case years. This 

modeling only addresses the annual PM2.5 standard. 

The receptor modeling approaches are supplemented with an 

attainment demonstration using photochemical modeling with the 

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. This modeling 
50 

incorporates data collected during CRPAQS. The CMAQ modeling 

addresses both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

EPA recommends that States prepare modeling/analysis 

protocols as part of their modeled attainment demonstrations. 

Guidance, p. 133. The Guidance at pp. 133-134 describes the 

topics to be addressed in this modeling protocol. A modeling 

protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for 

conducting all phases of the modeling analysis, such as 

describing the background and objectives, creating a schedule 

and organizational structure, developing the input data, 

conducting model performance evaluations, interpreting modeling 

results, describing procedures for using the model to 

demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain 

the NAAQS, and producing documentation to be submitted for EPA 

Regional Office review and approval prior to actual modeling. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling protocol is contained in 

Appendix F and includes descriptions of both the receptor 

modeling approaches and the photochemical modeling. Additional 

description of the photochemical modeling is also covered in 

Appendix G, and also in the additional appendix entitled 

“Regional Model Performance Analysis” (RMPA). The protocol 

covers all of the topics recommended in the Guidance, except 

that it does not identify how modeling and other analyses will 
51 

be archived or made available to the public. See Guidance, p. 

117. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s air quality model performance is 

discussed in the RMPA, starting at p. 6. Overall, modeling 

performance is not sufficiently documented for EPA to fully 

evaluate it. While substantial effort went into preparing the 

materials for model evaluation, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan has 

relatively little discussion of the evaluation results and no 

discussion of sensitivity or diagnostic testing, both of which 

are necessary for confidence in the model and the performance 

statistics presented. Without such testing, it cannot be 

determined if the model is adequately simulating the physical 

and chemical processes leading to PM2.5 in the atmosphere and if 

the model will respond in a scientifically reasonable way to 

emissions changes. Also insufficiently documented are the Plan’s 

deviations from EPA’s guidance on performing the Speciated 

Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT). Although, the Plan cites several 

factors as justifying such deviations (e.g., the prevalence of 

ammonia, the dominance of ammonium nitrate, the effect of 

substantial controls on fugitive dust and direct carbon 

emissions (p. G-10 and p. 3-20)), it does not provide 

sufficiently detailed explanations for EPA to understand exactly 

what these deviations are or to judge whether these deviations 

are acceptable. Another example of insufficient documentation is 
52 

that the Relative Reduction Factors, which are the key results 

from the model for use in the attainment test, and details of 

their calculation, are not presented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Given this lack of documentation, EPA cannot determine at this 

time whether the attainment tests are adequate and meet EPA 

guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which 

focuses on locations with an air quality monitor, EPA’s Guidance 

requires an unmonitored area analysis. This analysis is intended 

to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM2.5 at 

other locations that have no monitor but that might have 

baseline (and future) ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS. 

The unmonitored area analysis uses a combination of model output 

and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS 

if monitors were located there. The analysis should include, at 

a minimum, all counties designated nonattainment and the 

counties surrounding the nonattainment area. In order to examine 

unmonitored areas in all portions of the modeling domain, EPA 

recommends use of interpolated spatial fields of ambient data 

combined with gridded modeled outputs. Guidance, p. 29. 

In lieu of an unmonitored area analysis, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

section entitled “Unmonitored peaks” presents a simple screening 

analysis. This consists of a filled concentration contour plot 

(Figure 3 on p. G-20), and the observation that “there are no 
53 

areas with steep gradients that would result in higher design 

values than those measured at monitors.” 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. G15. This analysis departs significantly from the procedures 

recommended in the Guidance and does not adequately substitute 

for an unmonitored area analysis consistent with the procedures 

recommended in the Guidance. Without an unmonitored area 

analysis, EPA cannot determine whether emission reductions in 

the Plan are sufficient for attainment of the NAAQS at locations 

without an air quality monitor. 

In summary, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan lacks or fails to adequately 

document several significant elements of a modeling 

demonstration including: a provision for access to the 

underlying modeling data, the sensitivity and diagnostic testing 

of the air quality model, a discussion of the relative reduction 

factors, and an unmonitored area analysis. While the modeling 

appears to be essentially sound, the documentation provided in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is not sufficient for EPA to fully evaluate 

its adequacy. An attainment demonstration must demonstrate, i.e. 

document with evidence and analyses, that the controls will 

result in attainment. Without sufficient documentation, the Plan 

states but does not adequately demonstrate that it provides for 

attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. Although it is not 

necessary to provide comprehensive documentation on every single 

facet of a modeling analysis, the level of documentation in the 
54 

Plan falls significantly short of what is necessary for a 

reliable attainment demonstration, as described in the EPA’s 

modeling guidance. Given the lack of documentation and the 

absence of an unmonitored area analysis, EPA cannot at this time 

propose to approve the Plan’s air quality modeling. We also 

cannot determine at this time that the modeling provides an 

adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

EPA recognizes NOx, SO2, VOCs, and ammonia as the main 

precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary PM2.5
 

in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM2.5 precursors undergo 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form secondary 

particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM2.5 depends on 

numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; the 

concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric 

conditions including solar radiation, temperature, and relative 

humidity; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting 

particles and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

As discussed previously, a state must submit emissions 

inventories for each of the four PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 

FR 20586 at 20589 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). However, the 

overall contribution of different precursors to PM2.5 formation 

and the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures 
55 

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors that a state should 

regulate to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some extent 

from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

In the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a finding 

that all potential PM2.5 precursors must be controlled in each 

specific nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20589. Instead, 

for reasons explained in the rule’s preamble, a state must 

evaluate control measures for sources of SO2 in addition to 

sources of direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR § 

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

measures for sources of NOx unless the state and/or EPA determine 

that control of NOx emissions would not significantly reduce PM2.5
 

concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c)(2). In contrast, EPA has determined in the PM2.5
 

implementation rule that a state does not need to address 

controls for sources of VOC and ammonia unless the state and/or 

EPA make a technical demonstration that such controls would 

significantly contribute to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the 

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

demonstration is required “if the administrative record related 

to development of its SIP shows that the presumption is not 

technically justified for that area.” 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(5). 

“Significantly contributes” in this context means that a 

significant reduction in emissions of the precursor from sources 
56 

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 

for that precursor in the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify the 

pollutants that have been selected as PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors as defined in 40 CFR § 51.1000. The Plan addresses 

only NOx and SO2 in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and in 

the District’s RACM/RACT analysis, and thereby implicitly 

identifies NOx and SO2, but not VOC or ammonia, as attainment 

plan precursors. It does include supporting documentation for 
57 

the inclusion of NOx as an attainment plan precursor and for the 

exclusion of ammonia. However, as discussed below, it does not 

fully evaluate the impact of controlling VOC as a precursor for 

PM2.5 attainment, even though other information in the Plan 

indicates that controlling VOC, in addition to SO2 and NOx, may 

contribute significantly to reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels in 

the SJV. 

As mentioned above, ambient contribution and ambient 

sensitivity to emissions changes may both be considered in 

determining whether the presumption for an attainment plan 

precursor should be reversed. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains 

numerous qualitative statements that San Joaquin Valley’s 

ambient PM2.5 levels are dominated by ammonium nitrate, and that 

NOx reductions are more effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 than 

reductions in the other precursors. Most of those statements are 

in Chapter 3 and Appendix F, and are based on excerpts of 

findings from CRPAQS. Several of the cited CRPAQS documents are 

available at CARB’s “Central California Air Quality Studies” web 

site (at 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 
 

58 

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 nonurban sites, the elevated PM2.5 was driven by secondary 

[ammonium nitrate].16
 

There are also quantitative data in the Plan’s Appendix G 

(p. G-21, Table 2) and, projected to 2014, in the Receptor 

Modeling Documentation (RMD). Ammonium nitrate for 2000 

monitored data ranges from 24-36 percent of total PM2.5, and if 

projected to 2014, ranges from 36-51 percent, confirming the 

importance of NOx, one source of the nitrate in ammonium nitrate, 

as a precursor that significantly contributes to annual PM2.5
 

levels in the SJV. 

In addition to composition data, ambient sensitivity to 

emissions changes can also be a consideration in determining 

which pollutants should be regulated in the attainment plan for 

a specific area. For ammonium nitrate PM2.5, which is formed from 

both ammonia and NOx, a key issue is whether the control of 

either or both precursors would be effective at reducing ambient 

16 Quote 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. 
 

59 

PM2.5 concentrations. Among the findings cited in the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan that address this issue are that: 

Particulate [ammonium nitrate] concentrations are limited 

by the rate of [nitric acid] formation, rather than by the 

availability of [ammonia]. 

and 

Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid concentrations show 

that ammonia is far more abundant than nitric acid, which 

indicates that ammonium nitrate formation is limited by the 

availability of nitric acid, rather than ammonia.... This 

study's analyses suggest that reductions in NOx emissions 

will be more effective in reducing secondary ammonium 

nitrate aerosol concentrations than reductions in ammonia 

emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will reduce 

secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce 

ammonium nitrate.... The results indicate ammonium nitrate 

formation is ultimately controlled by NOx emission rates and 

the other species, including VOCs and background ozone, 

which control the rate of NOx oxidation in winter, rather 

than by ammonia emissions.17
 

17 Quote 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.
 
60 

These findings are based on the relative abundance of 

ammonia relative to nitrate: there is so much ammonia present 

that significantly reducing its emissions would still leave 

ample ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, NOx is 

scarce (relative to ammonia), so reducing it could reduce 

ammonium nitrate significantly. 

Finally, sensitivity results from photochemical modeling 

were used in conjunction with the CMB results mentioned above. 

The 2014 RMD section on “Review of control strategy 

effectiveness supported by CMAQ nitrate particulate evaluation” 

shows the projected effect of a 50 percent reduction of NOx
 

emissions on PM2.5 concentrations annually and in shorter 

seasonal episodes. For the annual concentration, the NOx
 

reduction resulted in a predicted 5 μg/m3 PM2.5 reduction, while 

for the winter episode the NOx reduction resulted in a predicted 

28 μg/m3 PM2.5 reduction. 2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent reduction 

in ammonia emissions, on the other hand, predicted PM2.5
 

reductions of only 0.1 μg/m3 on an annual basis and 0.3 μg/m3
 

during the winter episode. RMD, p. 81. When compared to the 

annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 μg/m3

, respectively, the 

effect of NOx reductions appears to be significant while the 

effect of ammonia reductions does not. Thus, the data and 

modeling results presented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as well as the 

results of the cited studies, support the identification of NOx
 
61 

and the exclusion of ammonia as PM2.5 attainment plan precursors, 

consistent with the EPA presumption in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule. 

EPA’s presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule is that 

VOC need not be an attainment plan precursor. 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3). As explained in the preamble to the rule, this 

presumption may not be technically justified for a particular 

nonattainment area, i.e., this presumption may be incorrect 

where emissions of VOC significantly contribute to PM2.5 

concentrations in the nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590­

93, 20596-97. States or EPA may conduct a technical 

demonstration to reverse the presumptive exclusion of VOC as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor based on the weight of evidence 

of available technical and scientific information. Id.
 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains substantial information 

indicating that, for the SJV nonattainment area, VOC should be 

considered as a potential PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. On an 

annual basis, Table 2 in Appendix G (p. G-21,) gives an organic 

carbon range of 38-49 percent of the total PM2.5. This organic 

PM2.5 can be further divided into vegetative burning (9-19 

percent of total annual PM2.5), direct VOC PM2.5 emissions (also 

9-19 percent of total annual PM2.5), and secondary organic 

aerosols (SOA) (2-5 percent of total annual PM2.5). RMD at 19. 
62 

This SOA contribution to overall PM2.5 levels appears to be nonnegligible. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan states: “Secondary organic aerosols 

(SOA) contribute to a significant fraction of PM2.5. SOA is 

organic carbon particulate formed in the photochemical oxidation 

of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC precursor gases. Aromatic 

compounds are believed to be efficient SOA producers 

contributing to this secondary particulate.” 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

p.3-8. On a 24-hour episodic basis, the contribution of SOA 

could be higher than the annual 2-5 percent, though it is likely 

lower for the winter episodes of most concern in the SJV, due to 

decreased photochemical activity when fog and clouds (typical 

for the SJV in the winter) partially block sunlight. The 

chemistry of SOA is less well understood than the chemistry of 

other chemical species, so overall these considerations are not 

enough to overcome the negative presumption for VOC. 

But as noted in the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation 

rule at pp. 20592 - 20593, the lightest organic molecules can 

participate in atmospheric chemistry processes that result in 

the formation of ozone and certain free radical compounds (such 

as the hydroxyl radical [OH]) and these in turn participate in 

oxidation reactions to form secondary organic aerosols, 

sulfates, and nitrates. That is, VOC may be a PM2.5 precursor not 

just via formation of SOA, but also via its participation in the 
 

63 

oxidant chemistry that leads to nitrate formation, a necessary 

step in the formation of ammonium nitrate PM2.5. NOx emissions 

must be oxidized to nitric acid before they form particulate 

ammonium nitrate. Two pathways for this to occur are 1) daytime 

oxidation by OH, which VOC radicals help create, and 2) 

nighttime oxidation by ozone.18
 

The discussion in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan regarding ammonium 

nitrate (at p. 3-10, quoted above) also refers to VOC, which is 

identified as one of the controlling factors in NOx oxidation 

(which as noted above is a key process in the formation of 

nitrate and ammonium nitrate PM2.5): “Reductions in VOC emissions 

will reduce secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may 

reduce ammonium nitrate.” The Plan also states: “Relatively low 

non-methane organic compounds/nitrogen oxide ratios indicate the 

daytime photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and background-ozone 

limited in winter.” Id. If nitrate formation is VOC-limited 

under some circumstances, then VOC emission reductions could 

lead to ambient PM2.5 reductions. 

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains sensitivity analyses 

for VOC, similar to the ones described above for NOx and ammonia. 

According to the sensitivity analysis, a 50 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions was predicted to reduce PM2.5 levels by 1.3 μg/m3
 

annually and 8.7 μg/m3 for the winter episode. When compared to 

18 Lurmann, F. et. al., 2006, op cit., p. 1688. 
64 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3 and 24-hour NAAQS of 65 

μg/m3

, these projected reductions appear significant. The 2014 

RMD concludes: “Finding: VOC reduction is effective for the 

annual standard and the winter episode for reduction of total 

carbon secondary particulates.” 

In response to comments submitted during the District’s 

public comment period on the VOC issue, the Plan states that the 

“modeling has shown that VOC reductions are not as effective in 

reducing secondary PM2.5 as NOx or SO2 reductions” and that “[a]ll 

of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS and prior assessments of 

regional particulate models have indicated that NOx is the 

dominant factor and VOC and ammonia are not.” 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

pp.J-9 and p.J-19. These statements about VOC may be true, but 

they state only the relative effectiveness of controlling VOC 

compared to other precursors, do not cite any supporting 

modeling or technical evaluations, and do not address the 

substantial information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan indicating that 

VOC may contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in the 

SJV. 

As explained above, although EPA’s presumption in the PM2.5
 

implementation rule is that VOC need not be a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor, this presumption may not be technically 

justified for certain nonattainment areas. Indeed, technical 

information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan strongly suggests that VOC 
65 

reductions can significantly reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

and contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. 

Other statements in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan clearly indicate the 

State did not intend to reverse the presumption for VOC. 

Nevertheless, the technical information we have identified is 

part of the administrative record related to development of the 

SIP provides evidence that the VOC presumption may not be 

technically justified in the SJV. It also indicates that the 

State should submit a demonstration to either support or reverse 

the presumption under the PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC is 

not an attainment plan precursor. 40 CFR §51.1002(c)(5). 

In the absence of a technical demonstration by the State, 

EPA reviewed the results of several modeling and monitoring 

studies of PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. Some of these 

documents are available on the “Central California Air Quality 

Studies” web site (at 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 
 

66 

precursor issue.19 Further information on these studies as well 

as excerpts from these studies are provided in the TSD. 

19 These studies are: 

Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, “Control

strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in

California's San Joaquin Valley”, Atmospheric Environment, 39:

5325-5341 September 2005. 

Livingstone, P.L., et. al., 2009, “Simulating PM

Concentrations During a Winter Episode in a Subtropical Valley

and Sensitivity Simulations and Evaluation methods”, Atmospheric

Environment, 43: 5971-5977. 

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

P.T., 2006, “Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation

in the San Joaquin Valley During Winter”, Journal of the Air &

Waste Management Association, 56: 1679-1693. 

McCarthy, M., 2005, “The Role of Nighttime Chemistry in

Winter Ammonium Nitrate Formation in the San Joaquin Valley”,

presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research

(AAAR), Supersites Conference, February 2005, Atlanta, GA. 

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 1998, “Conceptual Model of

Particulate Matter Pollution in the California San Joaquin

Valley”, prepared by Atmospheric and Environmental Research for

Pacific Gas & Electric, Document Number CP045-1-98, 8 September

1998 

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

Particulate Matter Nitrate Formation to Precursor Emissions in 

the California San Joaquin Valley”, Environmental Science and

Technology, 35: 2979-2987. 

Pun, B., 2004, “CRPAQS Task 2.7 When and Where Does High O3

Correspond to High PM2.5? How Much PM2.5 Corresponds to

Photochemical End Products?”, prepared by Atmospheric and

Environmental Research, Inc. for the San Joaquin Valleywide Air

Pollution Study Agency. 

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

Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central California”,

Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402-409. 
 

67 

The monitoring studies all contain evidence that the VOC 

pathway for nitrate creation is important at least some of the 

time but differ as to how important it is relative to other 

pathways such as the nighttime ozone pathway, and are not 

conclusive on the efficacy of VOC controls. Unlike the 

monitoring studies, most of the modeling studies explicitly 

assessed the relative effectiveness of precursor controls, 

simulating the effect of 50 percent reductions in NOx, ammonia, 

and VOC. (One study does not explicitly address the issue, but 

states that background ozone is the most important oxidant, 

implying that VOC control would have little effect.) The two 

earliest modeling studies are based on photochemical box 

modeling and differ on whether VOC controls would significantly 

affect PM2.5. Three later studies use more sophisticated 

photochemical grid models and find VOC control to be effective, 

though generally less so than NOx control. One study predicts VOC 

control to be about two-thirds as effective as NOx control. The 

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

and Sylte, W.W., 2000, “The Ammonium Nitrate Particle Equivalent

of NOx Emissions for Continental Wintertime Conditions”,

Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4711-4717. 

Ying, Q., Lu, J., and Kleeman, M., 2009, “Modeling air

quality during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality

Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality

model - Part III. Regional source apportionment of secondary and

total airborne particulate matter”, Atmospheric Environment, 43:

419-430, January 2009. 
 

68 

second study predicted VOC control to be effective, though only 

by a relatively small amount, at most 10 percent for a 50 

percent reduction in VOC emissions, or only on certain days. The 

third grid modeling study predicts VOC control to give slightly 

more benefit than NOx control. While the models, input data, and 

results differ between these studies, they provide ample 

evidence that control of VOC can significantly reduce PM2.5
 

concentrations in the SJV. EPA is, therefore, proposing to find 

that these studies constitute a technical demonstration that VOC 

is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, necessitating the 

evaluation of controls for VOC for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV. 

EPA proposes to concur with the evaluation in the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan that, at this time, ammonia does not need to be considered 

an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.20 However, because the Plan and 

independent scientific studies contain substantial information 

indicating that VOC significantly contributes to PM2.5
 

20 EPA’s proposed concurrence on excluding ammonia as an

attainment plan precursor is limited to the attainment of the

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standards in 2006 

to lower them to 35 μg/m3

 and is currently reviewing both the

annual and 24-hour standards to determine if they should be

further revised to protect public health. See EPA, Policy

Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter NAAQS,

Second External Review Draft, June 2010. Evaluation of ammonia

controls for the attainment of the 2006 standards and any future

revised standards may show that such controls would

significantly contribute to lower PM2.5 levels in the Valley. 
 

69 

concentrations in the SJV, EPA is proposing to find that VOC is 

a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment 

area under 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3) and thus must be evaluated for 

emissions reductions measures.21
 

4. Extension of the Attainment Date 

CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that an area’s attainment 

date “shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the 

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

that for the purposes of section 189(b)(1)(B) and (e) and in the

absence of final data from CRPAQS, VOC does not contribute

significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standards in the 

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

determination, EPA relied on the criteria that VOC control was

not shown to be absolutely necessary for PM10 attainment and that 

it had a lower effectiveness than NOx control in reduction PM10. 

In addition, EPA noted in its 2004 final rule the District’s

intention to re-examine the VOC issue when CRPAQS results were

available. 69 FR 30010. 

Since its 2004 finding, EPA promulgated the PM2.5 

implementation rule, which has an explicit criterion for

determining which PM2.5 precursors must be evaluated for

controls, namely, that a significant change in emissions of the

precursor would be projected to provide a significant change in

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 

at 20590 and 40 CFR § 51.1000. This is a different criterion

than the one relied on in the 2004 determination. Data and 

analyses from CRPAQS have also become available. These

developments since 2004 support a finding different from our

2004 one. 

We also note that the 2004 finding was made for the PM10
 

standards rather than the PM2.5 standards. The levels of the 24­

hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS (65 μg/m3 and 15 μg/m3) are much lower

than those for the 24-hour and (revoked) annual PM10 standards 

(150 μg/m3

 and 50 μg/m3). A given concentration change is

therefore likely to be more significant for the PM2.5 standards 

than for the PM10 standards. 
70 

date such area was designated nonattainment..., except that the 

Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the 

Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater 

than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment 

considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability 

and feasibility of pollution control measures.” 

Because the effective date of designations for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards is April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial 

attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas is as expeditiously 

as practicable but not later than April 5, 2010. For any areas 

that are granted a full five-year attainment date extension 

under section 172, the attainment date would be not later than 

April 5, 2015. 

Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5 implementation rule addresses 

the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires a 

state to submit an attainment demonstration justifying its 

proposed attainment date and provides that EPA will approve an 

attainment date when we approve that demonstration. Thus, our 

approval of an extended attainment date is dependent upon a 

demonstration showing expeditious attainment and likewise, 

dependent upon proper evaluation of what constitutes RACM/RACT 

level controls in the area. 

States that request an extension of the attainment date 

under CAA section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information 
71 

to show that attainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to 

the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area and the 

lack of available and feasible control measures to provide for 

faster attainment. 40 CFR § 51.1004(b). States must also 

demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the area are being 

implemented to bring about attainment of the standard by the 

most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 

FR 20586 at 20601. Thus, the proper evaluation of RACM/RACT 

controls is an integral part of justifying an extension of the 

attainment date. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a demonstration that the 

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

the area qualifies for the full five-year extension of the 

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

demonstration is found in Chapter 9 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and is 

derived from the air quality modeling in the Plan. 

SJV’s degree of PM2.5 nonattainment can fairly be 

characterized as severe. The area typically records the highest 

ambient PM2.5 levels in the nation, with 2007-2009 design values 

for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in urban Bakersfield area 

of 22.6 μg/m3

 and 70 μg/m3, respectively. See EPA, Air Quality 

System, Design Value Report, August 9, 2010. The PM2.5 problem in 

the San Joaquin Valley is complex, caused by both direct and 

secondary PM2.5 and compounded by the area’s topographical and 
72 

meteorological conditions that are particularly conducive to the 

formation and concentration of PM2.5 particles. See 2008 PM2.5
 

plan, Chapter 3. 

As discussed in section IV.C.2.a. above, the District's 

strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on reductions of 

direct PM2.5 as well as the PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOX and SO2. 

The SJV needs significant reductions in PM2.5 and NOX to 

demonstrate attainment. EPA believes that further reduction of 

these pollutants is challenging because the State and local air 

pollution regulations already in place include most of the 

readily available PM2.5 and NOX, control measures. Moreover, 

attainment in the SJV depends upon emissions reductions that 

offset the emissions increases associated with the projected 

increases in population and emissions levels for this highgrowth area. 

Reductions of direct PM2.5 are achieved primarily from open 

burning, commercial charbroiling, and residential wood 

combustion control measures. These types of control measures 

present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large 

number of individuals subject to regulation and the difficulty 

of applying conventional technological control solutions). NOx
 

reductions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion 

sources and from the State’s mobile source rules. 
73 

Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions 

reductions from these source categories in the SJV and the need 

to conduct significant public outreach if applicable control 

approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and 

CARB that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan reflects expeditious implementation 

of the available control programs during the 2008-2014 time 

frame. EPA also agrees that the implementation schedule for 

enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into 

account the time necessary for purchase and installation of the 

required control technologies. Finally, we believe that it is 

not feasible at this time to accelerate the emission reduction 

schedule for the State and Federal mobile source requirements 

which must rely on fleet turnover over the years to ultimately 

deliver the anticipated emission reductions. The District's 

control strategies are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, and in section IV.C.2.a. above. 

In addition, the State has adopted standards for many 

categories of on-road and off-road vehicles and engines, and 

gasoline and diesel fuels, and included commitments to develop 

rules for Smog Check Improvements, Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Trucks, and Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment. 

EPA believes that the District and State are implementing 

these rules and programs as expeditiously as practicable. We 

anticipate, however, that the District and CARB will reevaluate 
74 

this conclusion after completion of the mid-course review of the 

PM2.5 attainment SIP for this area, due in April 2011. EPA also 

expects that the District and CARB will continue to investigate 

opportunities to accelerate progress toward attainment as new 

control opportunities arise, and that the agencies will promptly 

adopt and expeditiously implement any new measures found to be 

feasible in the future. 

As discussed in section IV.D.2. above, we are proposing to 

disapprove the air quality modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 plan 

because it is insufficiently documented for us to evaluate its 

adequacy. Without adequate air quality modeling, it is not 

possible to determine the reductions needed to attain the PM2.5
 

NAAQS in the SJV and, in turn, to evaluate, as required by CAA 

section 172(a)(2), the availability and feasibility of controls 

needed to attain. 

As discussed in section IV.C.3. above, we are also 

proposing to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan in part because it does not consider RACM/RACT 

for VOC sources. As stated in the PM2.5 implementation rule (72 

FR 20586 at 20601), EPA cannot grant an extension of the 

attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by 

section 172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not adequately considered 

and evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT in the area. 

By definition, RACM/RACT are those controls that are necessary 
75 

to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to 

meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Without an 

adequate evaluation of potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC 

sources, EPA is unable to determine whether the State’s 

requested attainment date is as expeditious as practicable in 

accordance with CAA 172(a)(2). 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to not grant 

California’s request for an attainment date extension to April 

5, 2015 for the San Joaquin Valley. Given the severity of the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV, an extension of the 

attainment date would most likely be appropriate and approvable 

if it were supported by the necessary analysis and part of an 

attainment plan that meets the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements including RACM/RACT and an expeditious 

attainment demonstration. 

5. Attainment Demonstration 

Table 7 below summarizes the reductions that are relied 

upon in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to demonstrate attainment by April 5, 

2015. The attainment target numbers in this table should be 

considered preliminary because they are derived from the Plan’s 

air quality modeling analysis, which we are proposing to 

disapprove. 

Table 7 

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s PM2.5 Attainment 

Demonstration 
76 

(tons per average annual day)

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

A. 2005 emissions 

level 86.0 575.4 26.4 

B. 2014 attainment 

target 63.3 291.2 24.6 

C. Total reductions 

needed by 2014 (A -

B) 

22.7 284.2 1.8 

D. Reductions from 

baseline(pre-2007)

measures 

11.0 199.2 0.9 

Percent of total 

reductions from 

baseline measures 

49.5% 70.8% 50% 

E. Reductions needed 

from new measures (C

- D) 

11.7 85.0 0.9 

Percent of total 

reductions needed 

from new measures 

50.5% 29.2% 50% 

New District 

reductions 6.7 9.0 0.9 

Percent of total 

reductions needed 

from new District 

measures 

28.5% 3.2% 50% 

New State reductions 5.0 76.0 0.0 

Percent of total 

reductions needed 

from new State 

measures 

22.0% 26.7% 0% 

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

As shown in this table, the majority of reductions that the 

State projects are needed for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV by 2015 

come from baseline reductions, i.e., from adopted measures that 

have generally been approved by EPA either through the SIP or 

the CAA section 209 waiver process. See Appendices A and B of 

the TSD. The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to 
 

77 

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, SJVAPCD has already adopted 

measures (summarized in Table 8 below) that can be credited 

toward reducing its aggregate emissions reduction in its 

enforceable commitments. 

Table 8 

Summary of Enforceable Commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and SJV Portion of the 2007 State Strategy

(tons per average annual day)

PM2.5 NOx SOX 

Total reductions needed for 

attainment 22.7 284.2 1.8 

Total State and District 

commitment 11.7 85.0 0.9 

Less reductions from currently

creditable measures 2.3 5.2 0.1 

Total remaining commitments 9.4 79.8 0.8 

Total remaining commitments as

a percent of reductions needed

for attainment 

41% 28% 44% 

a. Enforceable Commitments 

As shown above, measures already adopted by the District 

and CARB (both prior to and as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan) 

provide the majority of emissions reductions the State projects 

are needed to demonstrate attainment. The balance of the needed 

reductions is in the form of enforceable commitments by the 

District and CARB. This approach is consistent with past 

practice because the CAA allows approval of enforceable 

commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances exist 

that warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted 
 

78 

measures.22 Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant 

consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three 

factors in determining whether to approve the CAA requirement 

that relies on the enforceable commitment: (a) does the 

commitment address a limited portion of the CAA-requirement; (b) 

22 Commitments 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. 
 

79 

is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is 

the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.23
 

We believe that, with respect to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

revised 2007 State Strategy, circumstances warrant the 

consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the 

attainment demonstration for this area. As shown in Table 9 

above, the majority of emissions reductions that the State 

currently estimates are needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP 

in the SJV come from rules and regulations that were adopted 

prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline measures. 

As a result of these already adopted District and State 

measures, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area were already subject to stringent rules prior to the 

development of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities 

to reduce emissions. In the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State 

Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control 

measures that could achieve the additional emissions reductions 

needed for attainment. However, the timeline needed to develop, 

adopt, and implement these measures went well beyond the April 

23 The 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). 
 

80 

5, 200824 deadline to submit the PM2.5 attainment plan. As 

discussed above and below, since 2007, the District and State 

have made progress in adopting measures to meet their 

commitments, but have not completely fulfilled them. Given these 

circumstances, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s and 2007 State Strategy’s 

reliance on enforceable commitments is warranted. We now 

consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use 

of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures to meet a 

CAA planning requirement is approvable. 

i. The Commitment Must Represent a Limited Portion of 

Required Reductions 

For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment 

addresses a limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as 

the amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment in a 

nonattainment area. As shown in Table 8 above, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

the 2007 State Strategy are 9.4 tpd direct PM2.5, 79.8 tpd NOx and 

0.8 tpd SO2. When compared to the State’s current estimate of the 

reductions needed by 2014 for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV, the 

remaining portion of the enforceable commitments represents 

approximately 41 percent of the needed PM2.5 reductions, 28 

24 The 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. 
81 

percent of the needed NOx reductions, and 44 percent of the 

needed SO2 reductions. Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with 

enforceable commitments in the range of 10 percent or less of 

the total needed reductions for attainment. See, for examples, 

our approval of the SJV PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), 

approval of the SJV 1-hour ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 

2010), and approval of the Houston-Galveston plan at 66 FR 

57160, 57161 (November 14, 2001). 

We note that there are significant emissions reductions 

tied to the Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure and Cleaner 

In-Use Off-Road Engines listed in the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, page 6. EPA understands that the State is currently 

revising these rules for re-adoption in late 2010 and subsequent 

submittal for EPA approval. It is possible that the reductions 

from these measures and several outstanding District rules will 

reduce the percentage of the remaining portion of the 

enforceable commitments to below 10 percent of the total 

emissions reductions needed for attainment. However, until these 

(or other) measures are adopted, submitted, and EPA approved, we 

believe that the percentages of enforceable commitments for 

direct PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 relied upon in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy are too high and do not represent a limited 

portion of the State’s current estimate of total emissions 
82 

reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for 

attainment in the SJV. 

ii. The State Must be Capable of Fulfilling its Commitment 

For the second factor, we consider whether the District and 

State are capable of fulfilling their commitments. As discussed 

above, following the adoption and submittal of the 2007 State 

Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report which shows the State’s progress in achieving its 

enforceable commitments for the SJV. The 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report shows that during 2007 and 2008, the State has 

adopted rules for ten measures identified in the 2007 State 

Strategy and three rules that were not identified in the 

Strategy that will contribute to the needed PM2.5 and NOx
 

reductions. The 2009 State Strategy Status Report includes a 

table with estimates of the reductions that may fulfill the 

CARB’s full commitment. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 18. 

EPA believes that the District has also made good progress 

in meeting its enforceable commitments as show in Table 2 above. 

We also believe that the District’s continued efforts in 

committing to and adopting measures for sources under its 

jurisdiction will help it meet its commitments. In addition, 

beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District 
83 

have well-funded incentive grants programs to reduce emissions 

from the on- and off-road engine fleets. 

While progress has been made by the District and State to 

achieve their enforceable commitments, there are still 

significant reductions that must be addressed in order to 

satisfy the commitments. As discussed above, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments is 28 to 44 percent for 

the relevant pollutants. Given the evidence of the State's and 

District’s efforts to date and their continuing efforts to 

reduce emissions, we believe that the State and District are 

capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to achieve 

total reductions of 11.7 tpd direct PM2.5, 85 tpd NOx, and 0.9 tpd 

SO2 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014. 

iii. The Commitment must be for a Reasonable and 

Appropriate Timeframe 

Finally, for the third factor, we consider whether the 

commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. 

In order to meet the commitments by 2014, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy include an ambitious rule development, 

adoption, and implementation schedules. EPA considers these 

schedules to provide sufficient time to achieve the committed 

reductions by 2014. As we have noted previously, many of the 

scheduled measures have been adopted. See Tables 2 and 5 above 

and the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 4, 17 and 23. The 
84 

State and District are continuing to evaluate their adopted 

measures and the need for additional emissions reductions from 

new measures in this area. While we believe the State and 

District have provided reasonable and appropriate schedules for 

achieving their commitments by 2014, as discussed above, EPA is 

not proposing to grant the attainment date extension for the San 

Joaquin Valley. Thus, we cannot currently conclude that the 

third factor is satisfied. 

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment demonstration, EPA 

must make several findings and approve the plan’s proposed 

attainment date. 

First, we must find that the demonstration’s technical 

bases, including the emissions inventories and air quality 

modeling, are adequate. As discussed above in sections IV.B. and 

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

but to disapprove the air quality modeling on which the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan’s attainment demonstration and other provisions are 

based. 

Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for 

expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM 

and RACT. As discussed above in section IV.C., we are proposing 

to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 
85 

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are 

relied on for attainment are creditable. While EPA has 

previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted 

control measures in attainment demonstrations, EPA has done so 

only when the circumstances warranted it and the commitments met 

three criteria. We believe that circumstances here warrant the 

consideration of enforceable commitments. We also believe that 

both the State and the District have demonstrated the capability 

to meet their commitments. However, the commitments do not 

constitute a limited portion of the required emissions 

reductions needed for attainment and are not for an appropriate 

timeframe. The State’s and District’s unfulfilled commitments 

currently represent 41 percent of the PM2.5 reductions, 28 

percent of the NOx reductions, and 44 percent of the SO2
 

emissions reductions (30 percent of the combined emissions 

reductions of all pollutants) currently estimated to be required 

for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. These 

percentages are well above the 10 percent figure generally 

accepted by EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that 

relies in part on enforceable commitments. 

Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that cannot attain 

within five years of its designation as nonattainment, EPA must 

grant an extension of the attainment date in order to approve 

the attainment demonstration for the area. As discussed above in 
86 

section IV.D.4., while we believe that an extension of the 

attainment date would be appropriate if supported by the 

necessary analysis, we are not at this time proposing to grant 

the State’s request to extend the attainment date in the SJV to 

April 5, 2015. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to disapprove 

the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment 

areas shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP 

is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are 

required by this part or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.” 

The PM2.5 implementation rule requires submittal of an RFP 

plan at the same time as the attainment demonstration for any 

area for which a 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 
87 

base year and the attainment year. 40 CFR § 51.1009(d). States 

may demonstrate this by showing that emissions for each 

milestone year are roughly equivalent to benchmark emissions 

levels for direct PM2.5 and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

addressed in the plan. The steps for determining the benchmark 

emissions levels to demonstrate generally linear progress are 

provided in 40 CFR § 51.1009(f). 

The RFP plan must describe the control measures that 

provide for meeting the reasonable further progress milestones 

for the area, the timing of implementation of those measures, 

and the expected reductions in emissions of directly-emitted 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR § 

51.1009(c). 

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 8 of the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan. The demonstration addresses direct PM2.5, NOx, and SO2, uses 

the 2005 annual average day inventory as the base year 

inventory, and assumes 2014 as the attainment year. The measures 

that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan depends on for RFP and the emissions 

reductions from each measure in each year are given in Table 6-3 

of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan presents the RFP demonstration in terms 

of cumulative emissions reductions and percent of emissions 

reductions per year. See Table 8-4 in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. This 
88 

demonstration reserves 1 percent of the direct PM2.5 baseline 

(0.8 tpd) and 3 percent of the NOx baseline (12-15 tpd NOx) as 

contingency measures by decreasing the cumulative emissions 

reductions in each milestone year by these amounts. 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan, p. 8-3. The Plan does not include a contingency reserve 

for SO2. We discuss this contingency reserve below in the section 

on contingency measures. However, for the purposes of our 

evaluation of the RFP demonstration as presented in Table 9 

below, we have not included it. This allows us to evaluate if 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan would demonstrate the required RFP without 

the contingency reserve. We note that the RFP demonstration 

presented in Table 9 is based on the State’s current estimate of 

the emissions levels needed for attainment in the SJV. 

Table 9 

Benchmark RFP Demonstration using Plan Data

No Contingency Measure Reserve

(tons per annual average day)

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

2009 

Benchmark emissions level 75.9 449.1 25.2 

Projected emissions level 78.2 498.5 22.9 

Emissions above benchmark 

emissions level 2.3 49.4 -2.2 

Percent above benchmark 

emissions level 3.0% 11.0% -8.9% 

2012 

Benchmark emissions level 68.3 354.4 24.2 

Projected emissions level 70.3 415.8 22.9 

Emissions above benchmark 

emissions level 2.0 61.5 -1.3 

Percent above benchmark 

emissions level 2.9% 17.3% -5.4% 
89 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove the air 

quality modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan because there is 

insufficient documentation for us to determine its adequacy. 

Because of this, we are also proposing to disapprove the RFP 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Air quality modeling 

establishes the emissions levels needed for attainment in an 

area. Thus, uncertainties about the adequacy of the air quality 

modeling result in uncertainties about the emissions levels 

needed for attainment. These uncertainties also affect the RFP 

demonstrations because in order to determine what constitutes 

“generally linear progress” towards attainment in an area, we 

must first know the target level of emissions that the area 

needs to attain. 

Assuming that the State’s current estimates of the 

emissions levels needed for attainment are correct and that EPA 

will ultimately be able to grant an extension of the SJV’s 

attainment date to April 5, 2015, Table 9 shows that the SJV 

area is projected to be only slightly above its benchmark 

emissions levels for direct PM2.5 in both 2009 and 2012 and well 

below the benchmark emissions levels for SO2 in both years. 

However, for NOx, the gap between the projected emissions and 

benchmark levels is over 10 percent in 2009 and grows to more 

than 17 percent in 2012. 
90 

The shortfall in RFP for NOx is especially problematic given 

the nature of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV. 

Ammonium nitrate contributes 40 percent of the Valley’s annual 

PM2.5 levels. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. H-12. Available information 

indicates that NOx is one of the limiting compounds in the 

reaction that forms ammonium nitrate, making NOx control an 

effective approach to reducing ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-1. Hence, the shortfalls in NOx emissions 

reductions in the RFP demonstration are likely to adversely 

affect progress in reducing ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV, an 

effect that will likely not be compensated for by excess 

reductions of SO2. 

As discussed above, we are proposing to find that VOC is a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for which the state must evaluate 

RFP, among other things. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not currently 

include an RFP demonstration for VOC. 

Based on our proposed disapproval of the air quality 

modeling analysis and attainment demonstration, we are proposing 

to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for 

failure to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 

CFR § 51.1009. We also note the lack of generally linear 

progress in NOx emissions reductions, especially in 2012, and the 

lack of an RFP demonstration for VOC. The District and State 
91 

should address both these issues in any revision to the SJV PM2.5
 

Plan’s RFP demonstration. 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans must 

include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails 

to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and contingency measures 

to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date (attainment contingency 

measures). These contingency measures must be fully adopted 

rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented 

quickly without significant additional action by the state. 40 

CFR § 51.1012. They must also be measures not relied on in the 

plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should provide SIPcreditable emissions reductions equivalent to approximately one 

year of the emissions reductions needed for RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 

20642-43. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for 

the contingency measures and specify a schedule for their 

implementation. Id. 

Contingency measures can include Federal, State and local 

measures already scheduled for implementation that provide 

emissions reductions in excess of those reductions needed to 

provide for RFP or expeditious attainment. EPA has approved 

numerous SIPs under this interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 
92 

15844 (April 3, 1997) direct final rule approving Indiana ozone 

SIP revision; 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), final rule 

approving Illinois ozone SIP revision; 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 

2001), direct final rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP 

revision; 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001), final rule approving 

District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP 

revisions; and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001), final rule approving 

Connecticut ozone SIP revision. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Contingency measures are described in Section 9.2. of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan (pp. 9-5 to 9-9) and are composed of a new 

commitment by the SJVAPCD to request that CARB accelerate 

adoption and implementation of its measures and surplus 

reductions from State and District measures. In late 2008, the 

SJVAPCD adopted a further contingency measure as part of its 

wood burning rule, Rule 4901. CARB identified two additional 

contingency measures for the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan during its 

public hearing on the Plan. We discuss each of these contingency 

measures below. 

The Plan does not calculate the emissions reductions that 

are equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP. We have, however, 

calculated one year’s worth of RFP to be 2.5 tpd PM2.5, 31.6 tpd 

NOx, and 0.3 tpd SO2 using information in the Plan. See section 

II.I. of the TSD. This calculation is based on the State’s 
 

93 

current estimate of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment by 2015. 

Request CARB to Accelerate State Measure Implementation – 

This proposed contingency measure (which could function as both 

a RFP and attainment contingency measure), requires the 

District’s Governing Board to adopt a resolution requesting CARB 

to accelerate the adoption and/or implementation of any 

remaining CARB control measures that have not yet been adopted 

or fully implemented. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-7. Under CAA section 

172(c)(9) and EPA’s long-standing policies25 interpreting this 

section, contingency measures must require minimal additional 

rulemaking by the State and take effect within a few months of a 

failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency 

measure would require additional rulemaking at the District 

level and potentially substantial and lengthy additional 

rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. For these 

reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements 

for contingency measures. 

Surplus Emissions Reductions from the Ozone Nonattainment 

Area Fee – This proposed contingency measure (which could 

function as an RFP contingency measure for the 2012 milestone 

and as an attainment contingency measure) would use fees 

25 See “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990,” 57 FR 13498 at 13510 (April 16, 1992). 
 

94 

generated from the District Rule 3170, Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Fee, to achieve emissions reductions. The implementation of Rule 

3170 is triggered solely by a failure of the SJV to attain the 

1-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date (which 

can occur no earlier than November 15, 2010, see CAA section 

181(a)(1)) and not by any failures to meet PM2.5 RFP targets or 

to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, a minimum requirement for 

contingency measures for PM2.5 SIPs. For this reason, this 

proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency 

26 measures.

Surplus Emissions Reductions from Incentive Funds – As 

noted previously, the District has several incentive grant 

programs that have the potential to generate considerable 

emissions reductions. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan suggests the use of 

these reductions as contingency measures for failure either to 

meet RFP or to attain. While neither the CAA nor EPA policy bar 

the use of emissions reductions from incentive programs to meet 

all or part of an area’s contingency measure obligation, the 

incentive programs must assure that the reductions are surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent as required by EPA 

26 Should the rule’s requirements be triggered and the

collected fees used in an incentive program to reduce emissions

of direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and/or SO2, then the District may rely

on those reductions to fulfill the contingency measure

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

meet SIP creditability requirements and are not otherwise needed

for expeditious attainment or RFP for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 
95 

guidance. See “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001). 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant 

programs expected to generate the emissions reductions programs, 

nor the quantity of the emissions reductions, that the District 

intends to use to meet the contingency measure requirement. 

Therefore, we are unable to determine if they are SIP 

creditable, surplus to attainment and/or RFP needs, or 

sufficient to provide the one-year’s worth of RFP needed. For 

these reasons, this proposed measure does not currently meet the 

CAA requirements for contingency measures. 

Excess Reductions in the RFP Demonstration - The RFP 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan reserves for RFP contingency 

measure purposes about 1 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 17 tpd of NOx
 

reductions from the total reductions expected from the District 

and State measures. No reserve is needed for SO2 because SO2
 

emissions levels were projected to be below the applicable 

benchmarks. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 8-3. 

As discussed above in section IV.E., we have proposed to 

disapprove the RFP demonstration in part because we are unable 

to determine if the 2008 PM2.5 Plan provides for RFP. We have 

also identified concerns with the lack of an RFP demonstration 

for VOC and the shortfall in NOx emissions reductions needed to 

show generally linear progress toward attainment. Because of 
96 

these issues, we cannot determine, at this time, if there are 

any excess reductions of direct PM2.5 and NOx in the RFP 

demonstration that can be used for RFP contingency measures. 

Post-Attainment Year Emissions Reductions – Additional 

emissions reductions resulting from turnover in the on- and offroad mobile source fleet in 2015, the year after the attainment 

year of 2014, may be used to meet the attainment contingency 

measure requirement. No estimates of the additional emissions 

reductions are given in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. CARB estimates the 

NOx reductions in 2015 from its existing (baseline) mobile source 

program are 21 tpd (CARB Staff Report, Analysis of the San 

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 29), and we have estimated an 

0.7 tpd PM2.5 reduction using information in the 2007 State 

Strategy, Appendix A, p. 100, although this figure is in a tons 

per summer planning day metric and not the average annual day 

metric that is used in the Plan’s RFP demonstration. These 

emissions reductions are from already implemented, fully 

creditable measures and no further actions are required by the 

State to implement them. They are not relied on to demonstrate 

either attainment or RFP. For these reasons, these post-2014 

emissions reductions may be used to fulfill the attainment 

contingency measure requirement, although based on existing 

estimates of the reductions needed to show one year’s worth of 
 

97 

RFP, they are insufficient by themselves to fully meet the 

requirement. 

Contingency Provision in Rule 4901 “Wood Burning Fireplace 

and Wood Burning Heaters” – In October, 2008, the SJVAPCD 

revised Rule 4901 to incorporate a contingency provision in 

section 5.6.5. This provision requires that 60 days after EPA 

finds the SJV nonattainment area has failed to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the District will lower the level at which mandatory 

curtailment of residential wood burning is required from a 

predicted level of 30 μg/m3

 to 20 μg/m3. EPA approved this rule, 

including the contingency provision, on November 10, 2009. 74 FR 

57907. 

This attainment contingency provision in Rule 4901 meets 

the statutory and regulatory requirements for attainment 

contingency measures: it is triggered by a failure to attain, 

requires no additional rulemaking by the District, will be fully 

implemented within 60 days of being triggered, and is SIP 

approved. The District has preliminarily quantified the 

emissions reductions expected from this contingency provision at 

1.6 tons of PM2.5 per winter average day.27
 

Control Strategy Reductions Not Included in the RFP and/or 

Attainment Demonstrations
 

27 Personal communications, Jessica Ferrio, SJVAPCD to

Frances Wicher, EPA, August 27, 2010. 
98 

In its resolution approving the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB 

requested that the District adopt two additional contingency 

measures. See CARB Resolution No. 08-28, Attachment A. These 

measures are revisions to SJVACD’s Rule 4307 (Boilers, 2 to 5 

MMBtu) and Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines). While the 

District had already included these rule revisions as Measures 

S-COM-2 and S-COM-6 in the Plan’s control strategy, it had not 

estimated or included the NOx emissions reductions from the 

measures in either the Plan’s RFP or attainment demonstration. 

The District adopted revisions to Rule 4307 in October 2008 and 

is scheduled to adopt revisions to Rule 4702 in December 2010. 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove both the 

RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan in part 

because we are unable at this time to determine if the Plan 

provides sufficient emissions reductions to meet these 

requirements. Until it can be shown that the reductions from 

these two measures are not needed to demonstrate either RFP or 

attainment, EPA cannot approve them as contingency measures. 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes suggestions for several 

potentially approvable contingency measures as well as several 

measures that do not currently meet the CAA’s minimum 

requirements (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to 

attainment and RFP needs). The Plan does not, however, provide 
99 

sufficient information for us to determine if the emissions 

reductions from some of the potentially approvable measures are 

SIP creditable (e.g., those from incentive grant programs) or 

does not quantify the expected emissions reductions so we can 

gauge if they provide reductions equivalent to the current 

estimate of one year’s worth of RFP. Therefore, we are proposing 

to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency measure 

provisions in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the goals of 

SIPs. This means that such actions will not: (1) cause or 

contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of 

an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are 

subject to the EPA’s transportation conformity rule, codified at 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with State and 

local air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and 

FTA to demonstrate that an area’s regional transportation plans 

(RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 
100 

the applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing 

that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) contained in the SIP. An attainment 

or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year and 

each required RFP year, as applicable. 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted SIP, EPA must 

first determine that the budgets are adequate. In order for us 

to find a budget adequate and, eventually approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 

CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all pertinent 

SIP requirements. The budget must reflect all of the motor 

vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP 

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

PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. All direct PM2.5
 

SIP budgets should include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions 

from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. States must also 

consider whether re-entrained paved and unpaved road dust or 

highway and transit construction dust are significant 

contributors and should be included in the direct PM2.5 budget. 

See 40 CFR § 93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the conformity rule 

preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031–40036 (July 1, 2004). In 

determining whether the on-road mobile source emissions of a 
101 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor are significant, state and local 

agencies should use the criteria for insignificance findings 

provided in 40 CFR § 93.109(k). See also 70 FR 24280, 24282­

24287 (May 6, 2005). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOx
 

for the attainment year of 2014 and the RFP years of 2009 and 

2012. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C. The 

direct PM2.5 budgets includes tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear 

emissions but do not include paved road, unpaved road, and road 

and transit construction dust because these are considered to be 

insignificant contributors to PM2.5 levels in the Valley. No 

budgets for SO2 are included because on-road emissions of SO2 are 

also considered insignificant. Id.
 

There are no budgets for ammonia or VOC in the Plan. 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 

On April 23, 2010, we notified CARB that we had found the 

budgets in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the RFP milestone years 2009 

and 2012 adequate and for the attainment year of 2014 inadequate 

for transportation conformity purposes. EPA determined that the 

attainment year budgets are inadequate because they lack 

specificity and are not fully enforceable and, therefore, do not 
 

102 

meet the criteria for adequacy in 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4).28 We 

published a notice of our findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12, 

2010). 

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets 

Our finding that the 2009 and 2012 year RFP budgets are 

adequate for transportation conformity purposes was based on our 

preliminary review of the RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan. After a more in-depth review of these demonstrations and 

the Plan as a whole, we are proposing to disapprove the Plan’s 

RFP demonstration for the reasons discussed above in section 

IV.E. Based on this proposed disapproval, we are now proposing 

to disapprove the 2009 and 2012 year RFP budgets because they 

are not consistent with requirements for RFP as required by 40 

CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(iv). We are also proposing to disapprove the 

budgets for the attainment year of 2014, which we have already 

found to be inadequate, based on our proposed disapproval of the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment demonstration. See section IV.D. 

above. 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to find that VOC is a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the San Joaquin Valley. Should 

we finalize this determination, the State should include budgets 

28 See 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. 
103 

for VOC as well as for direct PM2.5 and other attainment plan 

precursors as applicable in future revisions to the Plan. 

H. Mid-Course Review
 

Any State that submits to EPA an attainment plan for a PM2.5
 

nonattainment area with an attainment date of 2014 or 2015 must 

also submit to EPA a mid-course review (MCR) by April 2011. 40 

CFR § 51.1011. The MCR for an area should include: (1) a review 

of emissions reductions and progress made in implementing 

control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
 

attainment plan precursors contributing to PM2.5 concentrations 

in the area; (2) an analysis of changes in ambient air quality 

data for the area; (3) a revised air quality modeling analysis 

to demonstrate attainment; and (4) any new or revised control 

measures adopted by the State, as necessary to ensure attainment 

by the attainment date in the EPA-approved SIP for the 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1011(b). 

In its resolution adopting the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the 

SJVAPCD’s Governing Board acknowledges the requirement to 

prepare a mid-course review consistent with 40 CFR § 51.1011 by 

April 2011. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, page 4. In 

its resolution adopting the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB commits to 

submitting a MCR in 2011. See CARB Resolution 08-28, May 22, 

2008, p. 4. 

SJVAPCD is already taking the initial steps necessary to 
 

104 

prepare its PM2.5 MCR. EPA will work closely with the District, 

CARB, and other interested parties to assure that the MCR 

addresses the elements required by the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

We encourage both agencies to use the opportunity afforded by 

the MCR to address the proposed disapprovals of the 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan and SJV portions of the revised 2007 State Strategy. 

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2.5 Offsets 

EPA has issued an implementation rule establishing the 

requirements for New Source Review (NSR) programs in PM2.5
 

nonattainment areas. See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (PM2.5 NSR 

rule). Under the PM2.5 NSR rule, during the interim period after 

designation of an area as nonattainment but before a state has 

amended its NSR SIP to address PM2.5, the NSR permitting 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply for PM2.5
 

purposes.29 40 CFR § 52.24(k); 73 FR 28321 at 28342. These 

Appendix S requirements currently apply in the SJV area. 

The NSR program requires, among other things, that new or 

modifying major stationary sources offset significant net 

emission increases with creditable emissions reductions. 40 CFR 

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

IV.G.5, these offset requirements may currently be satisfied by 

29 A state with a PM2.5 nonattainment area is required to

submit NSR SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of

the PM2.5 NSR rule by May 16, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28342. 
 

105 

offsetting reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions. They may also 

currently be satisfied by offsetting reductions of emissions of 

a PM2.5 precursor (i.e., by an interpollutant trade) but only if 

such offsets comply with an interprecursor trading hierarchy and 

ratio approved by the Administrator. That is, a new PM2.5
 

emission source is allowed to offset its direct PM2.5 and/or PM2.5
 

precursor emission increases with reductions in other PM2.5
 

precursor emissions only in accordance with a trading ratio 

approved by EPA.30
 

The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble states that precursors that are 

significant contributors to PM2.5 concentrations should be 

considered regulated NSR pollutants. 73 FR 28321 at 28326. It 

then describes “significant contribution” in the same terms as 

are used in the PM2.5 implementation rule, namely that emissions 

reductions of the precursor would be projected to provide a 

significant change in PM2.5 concentrations in the area. See 72 FR 

20586 at 20590 and 73 FR 28321 at 28326. The two rules also have 

the same presumption, for essentially the same reasons, that SO2
 

and NOx should be considered precursors, whereas ammonia and VOC 

30 Note that several provisions of the PM2.5 NSR rule are 

currently under reconsideration, including EPA’s preferred

interpollutant trading ratios. See Letter, from Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, EPA, to Paul R. Cort, Earthjustice, April 24,

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

74 FR 48153 (September 22, 2009); and 75 FR 6827 (February 11,

2010). 
106 

should not. See 72 FR 20586 at 20590-20596 and 73 FR 28321 at 

28326-28331. 

In order for precursors to be eligible for NSR 

interpollutant offset trading in a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the 

area’s PM2.5 SIP must state which combinations of pollutants are 

eligible for interpollutant trading and define and provide the 

basis for the trading ratios between them that will be used for 

interpollutant offsets. In the 73 FR 28321 at 28339, EPA stated 

that 

[T]he final rules allow interpollutant trading [for 

offset purposes] only based on a trading ratio 

established in the SIP as part of the attainment 

demonstration approved for a specific nonattainment 

area.... [T]he final rules do not allow interpollutant 

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

individual [nonattainment area] NSR permitting 

process. ... If States choose to develop their own 

hierarchies/trading ratios, they will have to 

substantiate by modeling and/or other technical 

demonstrations of the net air quality benefit for PM2.5
 

ambient concentrations, and such a trading program 

will have to be approved by EPA. 
 

107 

“Hierarchy” refers to an identification of which combinations of 

pollutants are eligible for trading, e.g. SO2 for primary PM2.5, 

SO2 for NOx, etc. 

EPA completed a technical assessment to develop preferred 

interpollutant trading ratios that may be used for the purposes 

of PM2.5 offsets, where appropriate.31 Based on this assessment, 

EPA disallowed trading directly between NOx and SO2 and set 

preferred trading ratios at 100:1 for NOx to primary PM2.5 trades 

and 40:1 for SO2 to primary PM2.5 trades. See 73 FR 28321 at 

28339. The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble also states at 28340 that: 

th[e] rule allows interpollutant and 

interprecursor trading of offsets according to a SIPapproved trading program. To be approved, the trading 

program must either adopt EPA’s recommended trading 

ratios or be supported by regional-scale modeling that 

demonstrates a net air quality benefit using 

appropriate overall offset ratios for such trades for 

a specified nonattainment area, State, or multi-State 

region. 

The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble at 28339 describes factors that 

should be considered by a State in developing area-specific 

31 These factors are in addition to the overall goal of the

NSR permitting to show net air quality benefit and the

underlying rationale for offsets to provide progress toward

NAAQS attainment while allowing new sources to be constructed

and existing sources to expand. 
108 

ratios. Additional considerations for developing such ratios for 

the SJV are discussed in section II.K. of the TSD. 

In summary, interpollutant trades for purposes of meeting 

the NSR offset requirement for PM2.5 emissions are permissible 

only in accordance with trading ratios established in the SIP as 

part of the attainment demonstration approved for the 

nonattainment area. The SIP must explicitly identify which 

precursors are “regulated NSR pollutants”, which combinations 

are eligible for interpollutant trading, and the trading ratios 

between the pollutants. A state may either adopt EPA’s 

recommended trading ratios (73 FR 28321 at 28339) or seek to 

establish alternative ratios, using modeling and/or other 

technical demonstrations showing that the trading ratios provide 

a net air quality benefit, which must be approved by EPA. A 

state must establish these ratios as part of an approved 

attainment demonstration for its area; EPA will not allow caseby-case demonstrations on an individual source permit basis.
 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify PM2.5
 

precursors that are subject to NSR permitting. The Plan states, 

however, that: 

[SJVAPCD] Rule 2201 [New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review] allows the use of interpollutant 

trading amongst criteria pollutants and their 

precursors upon the appropriate scientific 
 

109 

demonstration of an adequate trading ratio. These caps 

[on the use of pre-baseline credits] also apply to the 

use of VOC, NOx, and SOx [emission reduction credits] 

in their application as offsets for direct emissions 

and in their use as PM2.5 precursor interpollutant 

offsets. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-4. 

It appears from this discussion that the District considers 

VOC, NOx, and SO2 to be “regulated NSR pollutants” for PM2.5 NSR 

purposes and that the District intends to allow for 

interpollutant trading to satisfy PM2.5 permit requirements.32 The 

SJV PM2.5 Plan does not, however, provide a technical 

demonstration to support any conclusion as to the precursor 

combinations that should be eligible for interpollutant trading 

or the appropriate trading ratio for use in NSR permitting for 

PM2.5. It also appears from the Plan (at Appendix D, p. D-4) that 

the District intends to allow for interpollutant trades to 

satisfy PM2.5 offset requirements on a case-by-case basis, which 

is not permissible under the PM2.5 NSR rule. If the District 

intends to seek EPA approval of alternative interpollutant 

32 This identification of VOC as a regulated NSR pollutant

for PM2.5 is contrary to the District’s assertions in the Plan

that controls on VOC sources are not important for PM2.5
 

attainment but supports EPA’s proposal to determine that VOC

should be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in

addition to NOx and SO2. See section IV.C. above. 
110 

offset ratios for purposes of meeting PM2.5 NSR offset 

requirements, it must submit an adequate technical demonstration 

to support its proposed ratios, together with an approvable 

attainment demonstration, consistent with EPA regulatory 

requirements. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions and Potential Consequences 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to 

approve in part and disapprove in part California’s attainment 

SIP for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5
 

Plan and the portions of CARB’s revised 2007 State Strategy that 

address CAA and EPA regulations for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
 

NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area. 

EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

following elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment SIP: 

1. the SIP’s base year and baseline emissions inventories 

as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

§ 51.1008. 

2. SJVAPCD's commitments to the adoption and implementation 

schedule for specific control measures listed in Table 6-2 

(amended June 15, 2010) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to the extent that 

these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to achieve 

specific aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOx and 
111 

SO2 by year, as listed in Table 6-3 of the PM2.5 Plan, as a SIP 

strengthening; and 

3. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as listed on page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report 

and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 5 tpd direct 

PM2.5, 76 tpd NOx, and 23 tpd VOC in the San Joaquin Valley by 

2014, as listed in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21, 

as a SIP strengthening; and to submit a mid-course review on the 

SJV PM2.5 Plan as stated in the CARB Resolution 08-28, p. 4. 

EPA is also proposing to find pursuant to 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c), that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for the 

SJV and, therefore, controls on sources of VOC must be evaluated 

as part of the control strategy in the SJV PM2.5 attainment SIP. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3) 

the following elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment SIP: 

1. the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology demonstration as failing to meet 

the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1010; 

2. the reasonable further progress demonstrations for 

failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 

CFR § 51.1009; 

3. the attainment demonstration for failing to meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) and 40 CFR § 

51.1007; 
112 

4. the contingency measures for failing to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR § 51.1012; and 

5. the RFP and attainment years motor vehicle emissions 

budgets because they are derived from unapprovable RFP and 

attainment demonstrations. 

Finally, we are proposing to not grant, pursuant to CAA 

section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR § 51.1004(a), California's 

request to extend the attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. 

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval 

EPA is committed to working with the SJVAPCD, CARB and the 

SJV MPOs to resolve the problems that make the current PM2.5
 

attainment SIP for the SJV not fully approvable under the CAA 

and the PM2.5 implementation rule. We firmly believe that such 

solutions are available and that expeditious attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley is achievable. 

However, should we finalize the disapprovals as proposed 

here, a conformity freeze will take effect once the action 

becomes effective (usually 30 days after publication of the 

final action in the Federal Register). A conformity freeze means 

that only projects in the first four years of the most recent 

conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. During a freeze, no new 

RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform. See 40 

CFR § 93.120. 
113 

Should we finalize the disapprovals proposed here, in 

addition to the effect on conformity, the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) would apply in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 

18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval. The 

highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply 

in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. 

Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if California 

submits and we approve prior to the implementation of the 

sanctions, SIP revisions that correct any and all disapproval 

issues with the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and applicable portions of the 

revised 2007 State Strategy that we identify in our final 

action. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan 

addressing the deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP for the SJV 

nonattainment area, two years after the effective date of any 

disapproval should we not approve a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within the two years. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR § 

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submittals, EPA’s role is to 

approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of 
114 

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 in-and-of itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
115 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 

of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by 

the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed
 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on 

small entities. This proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the SIP under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, 

part D will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 

simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into 

the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or 

part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various 

consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow 

from a final disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or 
116 

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 
117 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism 

implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government.” 

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

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 
118 

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 No. 104-113, 12(d) 
119 

(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. 
 

 

120 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove State 

choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to partially approve and partially 

disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part D and will not inand-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.
 

__November 8, 2010______ ___/s/ Jared Blumenfeld____ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

EPA Region IX