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; PM 2.5

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 (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air

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

nonattainment area. The submitted SIP revisions are the SJV 2008

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment plan2

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 PM 2.5 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 be4

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.htmand

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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Nonattainment

Area5

II. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address

PM 2.5 Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley

A. California’s SIP Submittals

1. SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP

Submittals

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM 2.5 Attainment SIPs

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 SIP

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

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

c. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis6

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 PM 2.5 Plan

3. PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan

3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity7

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Nonattainment

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

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 , particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less,

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

average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations and 24-hour (daily)

standards of 65 μg/m 3 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 PM 2.5 concentrations

above the levels of these standards.8

Epidemiological studies have shown statistically

significant correlations between elevated PM 2.5 levels and

premature mortality. Other important health effects associated

with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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.

PM 2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid

or liquid particle (primary PM 2.5 or direct PM 2.5 ) 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

PM 2.5 ). 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, based on air quality9

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 PM 2.5 standards. 40 CFR §

81.305. The SJV PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5
nonattainment area, see 40 CFR § 81.305. The local air district

1 On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 μg/m 3 . At the same time, it retained the level of the annual PM 2.5 standards at 15.0 μg/m 3 . 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/m 3 24

- h o ur standards no late r 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standards of 65 μg/m 3 and annual standards of 15 μg/m 3 as codified in 40 CFR § 50.7.10

with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the

PM 2.5 NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District (SJVAPCD or District).

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 levels in the urban

Bakersfield area in the southern SJV are the highest recorded in

the United States at 22.6 μg/m 3 and 70 μg/m 3 , respectively, for

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

ambient PM 2.5 differ by season. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Figures H-4 and

H-5. Higher PM 2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between

late November and February, when ambient PM 2.5 is dominated by

ammonium nitrate, formed from NO x 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, PM 2.5 levels generally

remain below 15 μg/m 3 , the level of the annual standards. 2008

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, these SIPs were due no later than April

5, 2008.

California has made several SIP submittals to address the

CAA’s PM 2.5 attainment planning requirements in the San Joaquin

Valley. The two principal ones are the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

(2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan

The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

Plan also includes the District’s demonstration that attainment

of the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV will require significant

reductions in NO x and PM 2.5 emissions (50 percent and 25 percent

from 2005 levels, respectively) and that the most expeditious

date for attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan's control strategy to extend the

adoption date for one control measure. 4 Future references to the

2008 PM 2.5 Plan in this proposal will be to the Plan as revised

in 2010.

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy

To demonstrate attainment, the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only

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

nonattainment areas such as the South Coast Air Basin and the

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

15 defined State measures 6 and to obtain specific amounts of

aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM 2.5 , 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

(NO x ), 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 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Attainment SIPs

EPA is implementing the 1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 20586,

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM 2.5 implementation

rule). The PM 2.5 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 which18

PM 2.5 precursors must be addressed by the state in its PM 2.5 attainment SIP, applicable attainment dates, and the requirement

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

regulatory requirements for PM 2.5 attainment plans in more detail

below.

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO x and SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan and those portions of the 2007 State

Strategy as revised in 2009 specific to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor that must

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

demonstrations, and for other PM 2.5 SIP control requirements. The

Plan as submitted does not treat VOC as a PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursor.
We are proposing to disapprove the air quality modeling

analysis on which the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor and our proposed disapproval of the20

air quality modeling, we are proposing to disapprove the 2008

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule requires a state to include direct PM 2.5

emissions and emissions of all PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 includes

condensable particulate matter. 40 CFR § 51.1000. PM 2.5
precursors are NO X , SO 2 , 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 RFP22

plans for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR § 51.1008(b).

EPA has provided additional guidance for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 SIP
The baseline planning inventories for direct PM 2.5 and all

PM 2.5 precursors for the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area together

with additional documentation for the inventories are found in

Appendix B of the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan, p. B-1 and 2007

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

because the majority of high PM 2.5 days in the SJV occur during

the winter months between November and February. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan,

Figures H-4 and H-5.

Table 1 is a summary of the average annual day inventories

of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors for the baseline year of 2005

and the projected attainment year of 2014. These inventories23

provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP

and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.

As a starting point for the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors for the 2005 Base Year and 2014 Attainment Year (annual average day emissions in tons per day) Emissions Inventory Category PM 2.5 NO x SO 2 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 Inventories24

We have reviewed the emissions inventories in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the inventory methodologies used by SJVAPCD and CARB

for consistency with CAA requirements, the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

and PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 attainment25

as expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus,

what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and all of its attainment plan

precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c).

For PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule, RACT and

RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to26

attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific

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

Specifically, the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment plans and EPA’s guidance for it

can be found in the PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble (72 FR

20586 at 20609-20633) and in section II.D. of the TSD.

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP27

The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble (72 FR 20586

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

measures suggested by the public during development of the 200828

PM 2.5 Plan. 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , NO x and SO 2 . See 2008

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , NO x ,
and SO 2 , 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 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan.29

In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the SJVAPCD developed and implemented comprehensive plans

to address attainment of the PM 10 standards (2003 PM 10 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 PM 2.5 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 emission30

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the District identified and

committed to adopting and implementing 13 new control measures

for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and/or SO 2 . 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 PM 2.5 , NO x ,
and SO 2 shown. See 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO x , PM, and VOC.31

Table 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 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 2 nd 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) 3 rd 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) 3 rd 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) 4 th Q – 2009 December 2009 2011 January 2011 2011 January 2011

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

S-COM-6 Rule 4702 - Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 4 th Q – 2010 Scheduled for December 2010 2012 TBD 2012 TBD

S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces 3 rd Q - 2008 October 2008 Under 2009 PM 10 & SO x – January 2011
NO x limits 2009 PM 10 & SO x – June

2009
NO x limits32

revision – January 2014-2018 – January 2011

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

S-COM-10 4905 - Natural GasFired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces 4 nd Q – 2014 TBD Attrition TBD 2015 TBD

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 3 rd Q – 2009 October 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008

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

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

M-TRAN-1 9410 - Employer Based Trip Reduction Program 4 th Q – 2009 December 2009 2012 January 2012 2012 January 2012 Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6-2. “Act u al” 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 PM 2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments (tons per average annual day) NO x 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 1.5233

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 NO x Reductions 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 8.82 8.97 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Reductions 1.60 2.96 4.46 1 6.69 6.70 6.70 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 (October 21, 2009)

Rule 4702 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (2010 revisions) Under development, expected adoption December 2010 Most current revision of rule approved: January 18, 2007 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008)

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces (2008 revisions) Not Submitted Most current revision of rule approved: August 17, 2006 at 72 FR 41894 (August 1, 2007) Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010)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 categories36

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 the37

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 PM 10 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 PM 2.5 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 2007­ 2008 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010)

Expanded Vehicle Retirement Both 2008­ 2014 Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of Automotive Repair September 2010. Revisions to Reformulated Gasoline Program Both 2007 Approved, see 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 2010)

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

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other Clean Technologies SC 2007­ 2008 Adopted December 2007

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels SC Fuel: 2007 Engines: 2009 Adopted July 2007

Port Truck Modernization SC 2007­ 2008 Adopted December 2007 and December 2008 Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives Both 2007­ 2008 In progress

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts SC 2007 Adopted November 2007, revised June 2010Cleaner 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 at40

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 PM 2.5 , NO x , and VOC emissions reductions

from mobile source categories that are crucial for attainment of

the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. For the SJV, the 2007

State Strategy includes State commitments to achieve 5 tpd of

direct PM 2.5 , 76 tpd of NO x , 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 PM 2.5 NO x 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 Analysis42

The local jurisdictions’ RACM analysis was conducted by the

SJV’s eight MPOs. 14 This analysis focused on potential NO x 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 PM 2.5 Plan.

It addressed NO x but not direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , or VOC.

For the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO x , 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7-11.

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted

Control Strategy

Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the set

of measures necessary for expeditious attainment. The measures

must address emissions of PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursors that are necessary for such expeditious attainment.

Thus, in order for a PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan include all RACM/RACT that will provide for

attainment of the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursor in the SJV nonattainment area. Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, States must address all PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 identified45

in Table 6-2 (as amended June 15, 2010) in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan,

to the extent that these commitments have not yet been

fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emissions

reductions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x and SO x by specific years as given

in Table 6-3 of the 2008 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 , 76 tpd NO x, 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 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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, PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan

The PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit an attainment demonstration

showing that the area will attain the annual and 24-hour47

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.” A brief

description of the modeling in 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 emphasis49

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 PM 2.5 Plan.

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan uses multiple modeling analyses to

demonstrate attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. It mainly

relies on several variants of an approach based on receptor

modeling for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. This approach begins with

Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which distinguishes the

ambient PM 2.5 contributions of several broad emissions source

categories based on how they match the chemical species

components of PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 standard.

The receptor modeling approaches are supplemented with an

attainment demonstration using photochemical modeling with the

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. This modeling50

incorporates data collected during CRPAQS. The CMAQ modeling

addresses both the annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 will51

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

117.

The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 is52

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 at
other locations that have no monitor but that might have

baseline (and future) ambient PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 no53

areas with steep gradients that would result in higher design

values than those measured at monitors.” 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 the54

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. PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors

EPA recognizes NO x , SO 2 , VOCs, and ammonia as the main

precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary PM 2.5 in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM 2.5 precursors undergo

chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form secondary

particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 precursor pollutants. 72

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

overall contribution of different precursors to PM 2.5 formation

and the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures55

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

regulate to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some extent

from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 20589.

In the PM 2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a finding

that all potential PM 2.5 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 SO 2 in addition to

sources of direct PM 2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR §

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

measures for sources of NO x unless the state and/or EPA determine

that control of NO x emissions would not significantly reduce PM 2.5 concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR §

51.1002(c)(2). In contrast, EPA has determined in the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 sources56

in the area would be projected to provide a significant

reduction in PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels are

estimated to result in worthwhile public health benefits. Id.

EPA further explained that a technical demonstration to

reverse the presumption for NO x , 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule.

The SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify the

pollutants that have been selected as PM 2.5 attainment plan

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

only NO x and SO 2 in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and in

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

identifies NO x and SO 2 , but not VOC or ammonia, as attainment

plan precursors. It does include supporting documentation for57

the inclusion of NO x 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

PM 2.5 attainment, even though other information in the Plan

indicates that controlling VOC, in addition to SO 2 and NO x , may
contribute significantly to reductions in ambient PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan contains

numerous qualitative statements that San Joaquin Valley’s

ambient PM 2.5 levels are dominated by ammonium nitrate, and that

NO x reductions are more effective at reducing ambient PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan contains some qualitative descriptions of precursor ambient

contributions. For example, the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan states on p. 2-8

that annual concentrations are driven by wintertime

concentrations and further, that the highest short term58

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 PM 2.5 concentration could be attributed to a high

PM 2.5 period occurring from November to January. At nonurban sites, the elevated PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , and if

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

importance of NO x , one source of the nitrate in ammonium nitrate,

as a precursor that significantly contributes to annual PM 2.5

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 PM 2.5 , which is formed from

both ammonia and NO x , 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

PM 2.5 concentrations. Among the findings cited in the 2008 PM 2.5

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 NO x 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 NO x emission rates and

the other species, including VOCs and background ozone,

which control the rate of NO x 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 PM 2.5 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, NO x 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 NO x
emissions on PM 2.5 concentrations annually and in shorter

seasonal episodes. For the annual concentration, the NO x reduction resulted in a predicted 5 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 reduction, while

for the winter episode the NO x reduction resulted in a predicted

28 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 reduction. 2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent reduction

in ammonia emissions, on the other hand, predicted PM 2.5 reductions of only 0.1 μg/m 3 on an annual basis and 0.3 μg/m 3

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

annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 μg/m 3 , respectively, the

effect of NO x reductions appears to be significant while the

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

modeling results presented in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, as well as the

results of the cited studies, support the identification of NO x61

and the exclusion of ammonia as PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors,

consistent with the EPA presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation

rule.

EPA’s presumption in the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

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

PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor based on the weight of evidence

of available technical and scientific information. Id.

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan contains substantial information

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

considered as a potential PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 . This organic

PM 2.5 can be further divided into vegetative burning (9-19

percent of total annual PM 2.5 ), direct VOC PM 2.5 emissions (also

9-19 percent of total annual PM 2.5 ), and secondary organic

aerosols (SOA) (2-5 percent of total annual PM 2.5 ). RMD at 19.62

This SOA contribution to overall PM 2.5 levels appears to be nonnegligible.

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan states: “Secondary organic aerosols

(SOA) contribute to a significant fraction of PM 2.5 . 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 precursor not
just via formation of SOA, but also via its participation in the63

oxidant chemistry that leads to nitrate formation, a necessary

step in the formation of ammonium nitrate PM 2.5 . NO x 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 PM 2.5 Plan regarding ammonium

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

identified as one of the controlling factors in NO x oxidation

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

nitrate and ammonium nitrate PM 2.5 ): “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 PM 2.5 reductions.

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains sensitivity analyses

for VOC, similar to the ones described above for NO x and ammonia.

According to the sensitivity analysis, a 50 percent reduction in

VOC emissions was predicted to reduce PM 2.5 levels by 1.3 μg/m 3

annually and 8.7 μg/m 3 for the winter episode. When compared to

18 Lurmann, F. et. al. , 2006, op cit. , p. 1688.64

the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m 3 and 24-hour NAAQS of 65

μg/m 3 , 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 PM 2.5 as NO x or SO 2 reductions” and that “[a]ll

of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS and prior assessments of

regional particulate models have indicated that NO x is the

dominant factor and VOC and ammonia are not.” 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan indicating that

VOC may contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the

SJV.
As explained above, although EPA’s presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule is that VOC need not be a PM 2.5 attainment

plan precursor, this presumption may not be technically

justified for certain nonattainment areas. Indeed, technical

information in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan strongly suggests that VOC65

reductions can significantly reduce ambient PM 2.5 concentrations

and contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in

the SJV.

Other statements in the 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 VOC66

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 PM 2.5 ? How Much PM 2.5 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 NO x , 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 PM 2.5 . Three later studies use more sophisticated

photochemical grid models and find VOC control to be effective,

though generally less so than NO x control. One study predicts VOC

control to be about two-thirds as effective as NO x control. The

Stockwell, W.R., Watson, J.G., Robinson, N.F., Steiner, W., and Sylte, W.W., 2000, “The Ammonium Nitrate Particle Equivalent of NO x 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 PM 10 /PM 2.5 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 NO x control. While the models, input data, and

results differ between these studies, they provide ample

evidence that control of VOC can significantly reduce PM 2.5 concentrations in the SJV. EPA is, therefore, proposing to find

that these studies constitute a technical demonstration that VOC

is a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, necessitating the

evaluation of controls for VOC for PM 2.5 attainment in the SJV.

EPA proposes to concur with the evaluation in the 2008 PM 2.5
Plan that, at this time, ammonia does not need to be considered

an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining the 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 20 However, because the Plan and

independent scientific studies contain substantial information

indicating that VOC significantly contributes to PM 2.5

20 EPA’s proposed concurrence on excluding ammonia as an attainment plan precursor is limited to the attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24-hour PM 2.5 standards in 2006 to lower them to 35 μg/m 3 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 PM 2.5 levels in the Valley.69

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

a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor for the SJV PM 2.5 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 attainment and that it had a lower effectiveness than NO x control in reduction PM 10 . 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule, which has an explicit criterion for determining which PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 10 standards rather than the PM 2.5 standards. The levels of the 24­ hour and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS (65 μg/m 3 and 15 μg/m 3 ) are much lower than those for the 24-hour and (revoked) annual PM 10 standards (150 μg/m 3 and 50 μg/m 3 ). A given concentration change is therefore likely to be more significant for the PM 2.5 standards than for the PM 10 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

PM 2.5 standards is April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial

attainment date for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 information71

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan and is

derived from the air quality modeling in the Plan.

SJV’s degree of PM 2.5 nonattainment can fairly be

characterized as severe. The area typically records the highest

ambient PM 2.5 levels in the nation, with 2007-2009 design values

for the annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 levels in urban Bakersfield area

of 22.6 μg/m 3 and 70 μg/m 3 , respectively. See EPA, Air Quality

System, Design Value Report, August 9, 2010. The PM 2.5 problem in

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

secondary PM 2.5 and compounded by the area’s topographical and72

meteorological conditions that are particularly conducive to the

formation and concentration of PM 2.5 particles. See 2008 PM 2.5
plan, Chapter 3.

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

strategy for attaining the PM 2.5 standard relies on reductions of

direct PM 2.5 as well as the PM 2.5 precursor pollutants NO X and SO 2 . The SJV needs significant reductions in PM 2.5 and NO X 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 PM 2.5 and NO X, 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 PM 2.5 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). NO x 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 reevaluate74

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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan in part because it does not consider RACM/RACT

for VOC sources. As stated in the PM 2.5 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 necessary75

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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration76

(tons per average annual day) PM 2.5 NO x SO 2 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 PM 2.5 Plan, pp. 8-2 and 9-3

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

State projects are needed for PM 2.5 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 to77

be achieved through the District’s and CARB’s commitments to

reduce emissions in the SJV. Since the submittal of the 2008

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan and SJV Portion of the 2007 State Strategy (tons per average annual day) PM 2.5 NO x SO X 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 PM 2.5 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 adopted78

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), whichstarts 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan,

leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities

to reduce emissions. In the 2008 PM 2.5 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, 2008 24 deadline to submit the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan and

the 2007 State Strategy are 9.4 tpd direct PM 2.5 , 79.8 tpd NO x and

0.8 tpd SO 2 . When compared to the State’s current estimate of the

reductions needed by 2014 for PM 2.5 attainment in the SJV, the

remaining portion of the enforceable commitments represents

approximately 41 percent of the needed PM 2.5 reductions, 28

24 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 PM 2.5 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 NO x reductions, and 44 percent of the

needed SO 2 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 PM 10 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 PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2 relied upon in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and

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

portion of the State’s current estimate of total emissions82

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 PM 2.5 and NO x 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 District83

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 PM 2.5 , 85 tpd NO x , and 0.9 tpd

SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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. The84

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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 reductions, 28

percent of the NO x reductions, and 44 percent of the SO 2 emissions reductions (30 percent of the combined emissions

reductions of all pollutants) currently estimated to be required

for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 in86

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 the87

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 PM 2.5 and each PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR §

51.1009(c).

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 8 of the 2008 PM 2.5

Plan. The demonstration addresses direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2, uses
the 2005 annual average day inventory as the base year

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

that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan depends on for RFP and the emissions

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

of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.

The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan. This88

demonstration reserves 1 percent of the direct PM 2.5 baseline

(0.8 tpd) and 3 percent of the NO x baseline (12-15 tpd NO x ) as

contingency measures by decreasing the cumulative emissions

reductions in each milestone year by these amounts. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 8-3. The Plan does not include a contingency reserve

for SO 2 . 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 PM 2.5 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) PM 2.5 NO x SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 in both 2009 and 2012 and well

below the benchmark emissions levels for SO 2 in both years.

However, for NO x , 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 NO x is especially problematic given

the nature of the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV.

Ammonium nitrate contributes 40 percent of the Valley’s annual

PM 2.5 levels. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. H-12. Available information

indicates that NO x is one of the limiting compounds in the

reaction that forms ammonium nitrate, making NO x control an

effective approach to reducing ambient PM 2.5 levels in the SJV.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 9-1. Hence, the shortfalls in NO x emissions

reductions in the RFP demonstration are likely to adversely

affect progress in reducing ambient PM 2.5 levels in the SJV, an

effect that will likely not be compensated for by excess

reductions of SO 2 . As discussed above, we are proposing to find that VOC is a

PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor for which the state must evaluate

RFP, among other things. The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO x emissions reductions, especially in 2012, and the

lack of an RFP demonstration for VOC. The District and State91

should address both these issues in any revision to the SJV PM 2.5

Plan’s RFP demonstration.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 FR92

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 PM 2.5 Plan

Contingency measures are described in Section 9.2. of the

2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , 31.6 tpd

NO x , and 0.3 tpd SO 2 using information in the Plan. See section

II.I. of the TSD. This calculation is based on the State’s93

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 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 9-7. Under CAA section

172(c)(9) and EPA’s long-standing policies 25 interpreting this

section, contingency measures must require minimal additional

rulemaking by the State and take effect within a few months of a

failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency

measure would require additional rulemaking at the District

level and potentially substantial and lengthy additional

rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. For these

reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements

for contingency measures.

Surplus Emissions Reductions from the Ozone Nonattainment

Area Fee – This proposed contingency measure (which could

function as an RFP contingency measure for the 2012 milestone

and as an attainment contingency measure) would use fees

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 PM 2.5 RFP targets or

to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, a minimum requirement for

contingency measures for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , NO x , VOC, and/or SO 2 , then the District may rely on those reductions to fulfill the contingency measure requirement for the PM 2.5 plan to the extent that the reductions meet SIP creditability requirements and are not otherwise needed for expeditious attainment or RFP for the PM 2.5 NAAQS.95

guidance. See “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive

Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001).

The 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan reserves for RFP contingency

measure purposes about 1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 and 17 tpd of NO x reductions from the total reductions expected from the District

and State measures. No reserve is needed for SO 2 because SO 2 emissions levels were projected to be below the applicable

benchmarks. See 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan provides for RFP. We have

also identified concerns with the lack of an RFP demonstration

for VOC and the shortfall in NO x emissions reductions needed to

show generally linear progress toward attainment. Because of96

these issues, we cannot determine, at this time, if there are

any excess reductions of direct PM 2.5 and NO x 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 PM 2.5 Plan. CARB estimates the

NO x reductions in 2015 from its existing (baseline) mobile source

program are 21 tpd (CARB Staff Report, Analysis of the San

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 29), and we have estimated an

0.7 tpd PM 2.5 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 of97

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

PM 2.5 NAAQS, the District will lower the level at which mandatory

curtailment of residential wood burning is required from a

predicted level of 30 μg/m 3 to 20 μg/m 3 . 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO x 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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, provide99

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 PM 2.5 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 to100

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).

PM 2.5 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for

direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors. All direct PM 2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 a101

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO x for the attainment year of 2014 and the RFP years of 2009 and

2012. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C. The

direct PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels in the Valley. No

budgets for SO 2 are included because on-road emissions of SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 not102

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan’s attainment demonstration. See section IV.D.

above.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to find that VOC is a

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,” dated April 23, 2010.103

for VOC as well as for direct PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

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 PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors contributing to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 to104

prepare its PM 2.5 MCR. EPA will work closely with the District,

CARB, and other interested parties to assure that the MCR

addresses the elements required by the PM 2.5 implementation rule.

We encourage both agencies to use the opportunity afforded by

the MCR to address the proposed disapprovals of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and SJV portions of the revised 2007 State Strategy.

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM 2.5 Offsets

EPA has issued an implementation rule establishing the

requirements for New Source Review (NSR) programs in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (PM 2.5 NSR

rule). Under the PM 2.5 NSR rule, during the interim period after

designation of an area as nonattainment but before a state has

amended its NSR SIP to address PM 2.5, the NSR permitting

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply for PM 2.5

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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area is required to submit NSR SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the PM 2.5 NSR rule by May 16, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28342.105

offsetting reductions of direct PM 2.5 emissions. They may also

currently be satisfied by offsetting reductions of emissions of

a PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

emission source is allowed to offset its direct PM 2.5 and/or PM 2.5 precursor emission increases with reductions in other PM 2.5 precursor emissions only in accordance with a trading ratio

approved by EPA. 30

The PM 2.5 NSR rule preamble states that precursors that are

significant contributors to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 implementation rule, namely that emissions

reductions of the precursor would be projected to provide a

significant change in PM 2.5 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 SO 2

and NO x should be considered precursors, whereas ammonia and VOC

30 Note that several provisions of the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the

area’s PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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. SO 2 for primary PM 2.5 ,

SO 2 for NO x , etc.
EPA completed a technical assessment to develop preferred

interpollutant trading ratios that may be used for the purposes

of PM 2.5 offsets, where appropriate. 31 Based on this assessment,

EPA disallowed trading directly between NO x and SO 2 and set

preferred trading ratios at 100:1 for NO x to primary PM 2.5 trades

and 40:1 for SO 2 to primary PM 2.5 trades. See 73 FR 28321 at

28339. The PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify PM 2.5 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 scientific109

demonstration of an adequate trading ratio. These caps

[on the use of pre-baseline credits] also apply to the

use of VOC, NO x , and SO x [emission reduction credits]

in their application as offsets for direct emissions

and in their use as PM 2.5 precursor interpollutant

offsets.

See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-4.

It appears from this discussion that the District considers

VOC, NO x , and SO 2 to be “regulated NSR pollutants” for PM 2.5 NSR
purposes and that the District intends to allow for

interpollutant trading to satisfy PM 2.5 permit requirements. 32 The

SJV PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 . It also appears from the Plan (at Appendix D, p. D-4) that

the District intends to allow for interpollutant trades to

satisfy PM 2.5 offset requirements on a case-by-case basis, which

is not permissible under the PM 2.5 NSR rule. If the District

intends to seek EPA approval of alternative interpollutant

32 This identification of VOC as a regulated NSR pollutant for PM 2.5 is contrary to the District’s assertions in the Plan that controls on VOC sources are not important for PM 2.5 attainment but supports EPA’s proposal to determine that VOC should be considered a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in addition to NO x and SO 2 . See section IV.C. above.110

offset ratios for purposes of meeting PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of the SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the portions of CARB’s revised 2007 State Strategy that

address CAA and EPA regulations for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area.

EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the

following elements of the SJV PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Plan to the extent that

these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to achieve

specific aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x and111

SO 2 by year, as listed in Table 6-3 of the PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 , 76 tpd NO x , 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment SIP.

EPA is proposing to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3)

the following elements of the SJV PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 attainment SIP for the SJV not fully approvable under the CAA

and the PM 2.5 implementation rule. We firmly believe that such

solutions are available and that expeditious attainment of the

1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 of114

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-profit115

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 or116

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 local117

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 substantial118

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