44494 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the Wheeling Area under subpart 4. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the NH3 and VOC emissions inventories 

submitted by the State, in conjunction 

with the NOx, direct PM2.5, and SO2

emissions inventories that EPA 

previously proposed to approve as fully 

meeting the comprehensive inventory 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the Wheeling Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. See (77 FR 7357, 

December 11, 2012). Since EPA’s prior 

proposal addressed other precursor 

emissions inventories, EPA in this 

supplemental proposal is seeking 

comment only with respect to the 

additional inventories for NH3 and VOC 

that West Virginia has submitted. 

IV. Proposed Action 

After fully considering the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA 

on EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

rule, EPA in this supplemental notice is 

proposing to proceed with approval of 

the request to redesignate the Wheeling 

Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the associated 

maintenance plan. EPA in this 

supplemental notice is also proposing to 

approve the 2008 NH3 and VOC 

emissions inventory as meeting, in 

conjunction with the direct PM2.5, NOX

and SO2 emissions inventory that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. In addition, EPA in this 

supplemental action is proposing to 

proceed with the approval of the 

insignificance determination of the 

onroad motor vehicle contribution of 

PM2.5, NOX and SO2. EPA is seeking 

comment only on the issues raised in its 

supplemental proposal, and is not reopening comment on other issues 

addressed in its prior proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• 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 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to the redesignation of the 

West Virginia portion of the Wheeling 

WV–OH 1997 annual PM2.5

nonattainment area, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 

81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17704 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0877; FRL–9837–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM10; 

Redesignation of Sacramento to 

Attainment; Approval of PM10

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for Sacramento 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

as a revision of the California state 

implementation plan, the State’s request 

to redesignate the Sacramento 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour particulate matter of ten 

microns or less (PM10) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve the PM10 maintenance plan and 

the associated motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for use in transportation 

conformity determinations necessary for 

the Sacramento area. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory. EPA is 

proposing these actions because the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance for 

such plans and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0877, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky 

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

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

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

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44495 

1See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 7, 

2010, with attachments. 

2An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/ 

m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 

mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value of 155 mg/m3

would be an exceedance since it would be rounded 

to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, 

section 1.0. 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. Background 

A. The PM10 NAAQS 

B. PM10 Planning Requirements 

III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

V. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation 

Request for the Sacramento PM10

Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM10 NAAQS. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Clean Air Act Section 110 and Part D 

1. Basic SIP Requirements under Section 

110 

2. SIP Requirements under Part D 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under Clean Air Act 

Section 175A 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

4. Contingency Provisions 

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

6. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the 

Act’’) section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s request 

to redesignate the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’). We are doing so based on 

our conclusion that the area has met the 

five criteria for redesignation under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) That the 

area has attained the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in the 2010–2012 time period 

and that the area continues to attain the 

PM10 standard since that time; (2) that 

relevant portions of the California state 

implementation plan (SIP) are fully 

approved; (3) that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions; (4) 

that California has met all requirements 

applicable to the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area with respect to 

section 110 and part D of the CAA; and 

(5) that the PM10 Implementation/ 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for Sacramento County 

(October 28, 2010) (‘‘Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 1 meets 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

In addition, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan including the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) in the 2008 Sacramento PM10

Plan as a revision to the California SIP 

because we find the MVEBs meet the 

applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

EPA finds that the maintenance 

demonstration shows how the area will 

continue to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond 

redesignation (i.e., through 2023) and 

that the contingency provisions 

describing the actions that the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD) will 

take in the event of a future monitored 

violation meet all applicable 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

related contingency provisions in CAA 

section 175A. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to approve the attainment year 

emissions inventory under CAA section 

172(c)(3). 

EPA is proposing these actions 

because the SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance for such plans and budgets. 

II. Background 

A. The PM10 NAAQS 

EPA sets the NAAQS for certain 

ambient air pollutants at levels required 

to protect public health and welfare. 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

ten micrometers, or PM10, is one of these 

ambient air pollutants for which EPA 

has established health-based standards. 

EPA revised the NAAQS for 

particulate matter on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 

24633), replacing standards for total 

suspended particulates (TSP less than 

30 microns in diameter) with new 

standards applying only to particulate 

matter up to 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10). At that time, EPA established 

two PM10 standards, an annual standard 

and a 24-hour standard. 

In an October 17, 2006 p.m. NAAQS 

revision, the 24-hour PM10 standards 

were retained but the annual standards 

were revoked effective December 18, 

2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 

On January 15, 2013, EPA announced 

that it was again retaining the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS as a 24-hour standard of 

150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/ 

m3). See 78 FR 3086. This SIP submittal 

addresses the 24-hour PM10 standard as 

originally promulgated in 1987 and 

reaffirmed on January 15, 2013. An area 

attains the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) 

when the expected number of days per 

calendar year with a 24-hour 

concentration in excess of the standard 

(referred to as an exceedance), is equal 

to or less than one.2

B. PM10 Planning Requirements 

Effective January 20, 1994, EPA 

designated Sacramento County as a 

moderate nonattainment area for the 

PM10 NAAQS. See 58 FR 67334 

(December, 21, 1993). The designation, 

classification, and boundaries of the 

Sacramento nonattainment area are 

codified at 40 CFR 81.305. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44496 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3 In 1990, the Sacramento County Air Pollution 

Control District changed its name to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

Beginning in the 1970’s and 

continuing to the present, the 

SMAQMD 3 and CARB have adopted a 

number of rules and prepared a number 

of nonattainment plans to address 

planning requirements under the CAA, 

as amended in 1977. CARB submitted 

these rules and plans to EPA at various 

times, and EPA approved a number of 

them into the California SIP. Examples 

of rules adopted by SMAQMD and 

approved by EPA as revisions to the 

California SIP as part of the PM10

control strategy in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area include: Rule 403— 

Fugitive Dust; Rule 405—Dust and 

Condensed Fumes; Rule 412— 

Stationary Source Internal Combustion 

Engines at Major Stationary Sources of 

NOX; and Rule 414—Natural Gas Fired 

Water Heaters. Examples of rules 

adopted by CARB and approved by EPA 

as revisions to the California SIP that 

have reduced PM10 in the Sacramento 

PM10 nonattainment area include: 

California Code of Regulations (CCR) 

Title 13, Section 1956.8—Heavy Duty 

Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards; 

CCR, Section 2262—California 

Reformulated Gasoline Phase 2 and 

Phase 3 Standards; and CCR, Sections 

2420–2427—Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle 

Engines. 

On February 15, 2002, EPA 

determined under section 179(c) of the 

CAA that the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area had attained the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS by its December 31, 

2000 attainment date, based on 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data that 

showed the area monitored attainment 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 1998– 

2000. (67 FR 7082). Because EPA 

determined that the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area met its attainment 

date, no PM10 serious nonattainment 

area requirements apply in the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. In 

this action, we are updating the 

determination of attainment to account 

for PM10 monitoring data since 2001, 

including more recent years consistent 

with the applicable criterion for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i). 

On December 7, 2010, CARB 

submitted the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan and requested that 

EPA redesignate the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS. We are 

proposing action today on CARB’s 

December 7, 2010 submittal, including 

the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and redesignation request. 

III. Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP 

Revisions 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the 

Act require states to provide reasonable 

notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption of SIP revisions. In this action, 

we are proposing action on CARB’s 

December 7, 2010 submittal of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

dated October 28, 2010, as a revision to 

the California SIP. The submittal 

documents the public review process 

followed by SMAQMD and CARB in 

adopting the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan prior to submittal to 

EPA as a revision to the California SIP. 

The documentation provides evidence 

that reasonable notice of a public 

hearing was provided to the public and 

that a public hearing was conducted 

prior to adoption. 

CARB’s submittal includes a letter 

dated October 28, 2010 from Larry 

Greene, Executive Director/Air 

Pollution Control Officer to the Board of 

Directors for the SMAQMD. In addition, 

Enclosure 1, Attachment 3 of CARB’s 

submittal includes a copy of the notice 

to the public published on September 

27, 2010, announcing a public hearing 

to be held on October 28, 2010. These 

materials document the public review 

process followed by SMAQMD in 

adopting the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan prior to transmittal to 

CARB and provide evidence that 

reasonable notice of a public hearing 

was provided to the public and that a 

public hearing was conducted prior to 

adoption. Specifically, the notice for the 

Board hearing was published in the 

Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general 

circulation, on September 27, 2010 and 

sent to over 2000 email addresses. The 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan was 

also made available for viewing on the 

District’s Web site and at the District 

office on and after September 27, 2010. 

Enclosure I, Attachment 1 of CARB’s 

submittal documents the adoption of the 

Sacramento PM10 Plan by the SMAQMD 

Board of Directors. On October 28, 2010, 

the SMAQMD Board of Directors 

approved the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan and directed 

SMAQMD staff to forward the Plan to 

CARB, the Governor of California’s 

designee for SIP matters. 

Enclosure IV of CARB’s submittal 

documents CARB’s board resolution 

regarding the Sacramento PM10 Plan. On 

December 7, 2010, CARB submitted the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan to 

EPA for approval as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

Based on the documentation included 

in CARB’s submittal, we find that the 

submittal of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision 

satisfies the procedural requirements of 

sections 110(l) of the Act for revising 

SIPs. 

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 we have not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete six 

months after the day of submittal by 

operation of law. A completeness 

review allows us to determine if the 

submittal includes all the necessary 

items and information we need to act on 

it. 

We make completeness 

determinations using criteria we have 

established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

V. These criteria fall into two categories: 

administrative information and 

technical support information. The 

administrative information provides 

documentation that the State has 

followed basic administrative 

procedures during the SIP-adoption 

process and thus we have a legallyadopted SIP revision in front of us. The 

technical support information provides 

us the information we need to 

determine the impact of the proposed 

revision on attainment and maintenance 

of the air quality standards. 

We notify a state of our completeness 

determination by letter unless the 

submittal becomes complete by 

operation of law. A finding of 

completeness does not approve the 

submittal as part of the SIP nor does it 

indicate that the submittal is 

approvable. It does start a 12-month 

clock for EPA to act on the SIP 

submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2). 

The Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

became complete by operation of law on 

June 7, 2011. 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

The CAA establishes the requirements 

for redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that the following criteria are 

met: (1) EPA determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44497 

4For PM10, a complete set of data includes a 

minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

K, section 2.3(a). 

5Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006, this document 

discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard. See 71 FR 61144; (October 17, 2006). 

6EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient 

air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 

58 on October 17, 2006. (See 71 FR 61236.) The 

requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were 

revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 

58.20. 

7Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, 

Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB 

(October 29, 2010) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2010 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small 

Districts in California’’); Letter from Matthew Lakin, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality 

Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support 

Division, CARB (November 1, 2011) (approving 

CARB’s ‘‘2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for 

the Small Districts in California’’); Letter from 

Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, 

Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and 

Technical Support Division, CARB (April 19, 2013) 

(approving CARB’s ‘‘2012 Annual Monitoring 

Report for the Small Districts in California’’). 

8Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, 

SMAQMD (November 1, 2010) (approving the 

‘‘Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District’s 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’); 

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry 

Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD 

Continued 

enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has 

fully approved a maintenance plan for 

the area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A; and (5) the State 

containing such area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in a document entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 

13498), and supplemented on April 28, 

1992 (57 FR 18070) (referred to herein 

as the ‘‘General Preamble’’). Other 

relevant EPA guidance documents 

include: ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

September 4, 1992 (referred to herein as 

the ‘‘Calcagni memorandum’’); ‘‘Part D 

New Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, October 14, 1994 (Nichols 

memorandum); and ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans for Serious PM10

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment 

Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment 

Areas Generally; Addendum to the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 

41998 (August 16, 1994) (PM10

Addendum). 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA applies these policies to the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

taking into consideration the specific 

factual issues presented. For the reasons 

set forth below in section V of this 

document, we propose to approve 

CARB’s request for redesignation of the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS based on our conclusion that 

all of the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. 

V. Evaluation of the State’s 

Redesignation Request for the 

Sacramento PM10 Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM10 NAAQS 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) states that 

for an area to be redesignated to 

attainment, EPA must determine that 

the area has attained the relevant 

NAAQS. In this case, the relevant 

NAAQS is the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

Generally, EPA determines whether 

an area’s air quality is meeting the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS based upon 

complete,4 quality-assured, and certified 

data gathered at established state and 

local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in 

the nonattainment area and entered into 

the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state, local, or tribal 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendices J and K; 40 CFR part 53; 

and, 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, 

D, and E.5 EPA will also consider air 

quality data from other air monitoring 

stations in the nonattainment area 

provided those stations meet the federal 

monitoring requirements for SLAMS, 

including the quality assurance and 

quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. See 40 CFR 58.14 

(2006) and 58.20 (2007); 6 71 FR 61236, 

61242; (October 17, 2006). All valid data 

are reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard is determined by calculating 

the expected number of exceedances of 

the standard in a year. The 24-hour 

PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of exceedances 

averaged over a three-year period is less 

than or equal to one at each monitoring 

site within the nonattainment area. 

Generally, three consecutive years of air 

quality data are required to show 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and 

appendix K. 

To demonstrate attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 standard at a monitoring site, 

the monitor must provide sufficient data 

to perform the required calculations in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The 

amount of data required varies with the 

sampling frequency, data capture rate, 

and the number of years of record. For 

PM10, a ‘‘complete’’ set of data includes 

a minimum of 75 percent of the 

scheduled PM10 samples per quarter. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 

2.3(a). In all cases, three years of 

representative monitoring data that meet 

the 75 percent criterion should be 

utilized, if available. More than three 

years may be considered if all additional 

representative years of data meeting the 

75 percent criterion are utilized. Data 

not meeting these criteria may also 

suffice to show attainment; however, 

such exceptions must be approved by 

the appropriate Regional Administrator 

in accordance with EPA guidance. See 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3. 

In the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area, the agencies 

responsible for assuring that the area 

meets air quality monitoring 

requirements include CARB and 

SMAQMD. Both CARB and SMAQMD 

submit annual monitoring network 

plans to EPA. SMAQMD network plans 

describe the monitoring network 

operated by SMAQMD and CARB in 

Sacramento County, and CARB’s 

network plans describe the monitoring 

sites CARB operates. These plans 

discuss the status of the air monitoring 

network, as required under 40 CFR 

58.10. 

EPA regularly reviews these annual 

plans for compliance with the 

applicable reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 58. With respect to PM10, EPA 

has found that the area’s network plans, 

submitted by CARB and SMAQMD, 

meet the applicable requirements under 

40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB 

and SMAQMD approving their annual 

network plans for years 2010, 2011, and 

2012.7 8 EPA also concluded from its 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44498 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(October 31, 2011) (approving the ‘‘Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s 

2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’); Letter 

from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air 

Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD (March 1, 

2013) (approving the ‘‘Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District’s 2012 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan’’). 

9See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ‘‘System 

Audit of the Ambient Monitoring Program: 

California Resources Board, June–September: 

2011,’’ with enclosure, October 22, 2012. 

10See, e.g., letter from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, 

Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 

Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2012 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, May 16, 2013. 

11A map of the locations of Sacramento County 

monitoring stations is found in Figure 3.2 of the 

Sacramento PM10 Plan. 

12See footnotes 7 and 8. 

Technical System Audit of the CARB 

Primary Quality Assurance Organization 

(PQAO) (conducted during the summer 

of 2011), that the combined ambient air 

monitoring network operated by CARB 

and the local air districts in their PQAO 

(which includes SMAQMD) currently 

meets or exceeds the requirements for 

the minimum number of SLAMS for 

PM10 in the Sacramento nonattainment 

area.9 CARB annually certifies that the 

data it submits to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured.10

There are two types of PM10 monitors 

used throughout the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area monitoring network: 

the Federal Reference Method (FRM) 

filter-based high-volume size-selective 

inlet sampler (hi-vols or SSI), and the 

Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) 

tapered element oscillating 

microbalance (TEOM), which measures 

PM10 on a continuous basis. The 

schedule for PM10 sample collection is 

one in six days for the FRM filter-based 

high volume samplers, while the FEM 

TEOM monitors operate on a daily 24- 

hour schedule. 

There were six PM10 monitoring sites 

within the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area in calendar years 

2010, 2011, and 2012. SMAQMD 

operates five of the monitoring sites: 

Goldenland Court, North Highlands, Del 

Paso Manor, Branch Center Rd #2, and 

Stockton Blvd. CARB operates the T 

Street monitoring site. FRM filter-based 

high-volume samplers are located at all 

of the six sites listed above. Del Paso 

Manor and the Stockton Blvd. utilize 

both the FRM filter-based samplers and 

FEM TEOM monitors.11 EPA defines 

specific monitoring site types and 

spatial scales of representativeness to 

characterize the nature and location of 

required monitors. For the six sites, the 

spatial scale is neighborhood scale, and 

the monitoring objective is population 

exposure, except the T Street site, which 

has a monitoring objective of highest 

concentration.12

Consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has 

reviewed the quality-assured, and 

certified PM10 ambient air monitoring 

data as recorded in AQS for the 

applicable monitoring period collected 

at the monitoring sites in the 

Sacramento nonattainment area and 

determined that the data are complete. 

Table 1 summarizes the site-specific 

highest 24-hour PM10 concentrations for 

the period of 2001–2012. As shown in 

Table 1, only one of the highest 

concentrations exceeded the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS standard of 150 mg/m3. 

Table 2 summarizes the expected 

number of exceedances occurring over 

three-year periods dating back to EPA’s 

previous clean data determination. See 

67 FR 7082 (February 15, 2002). The 24- 

hour PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of exceedances 

averaged over a three-year period is less 

than or equal to one at each monitoring 

site within the nonattainment area. The 

highest value in Table 2 is 0.3 

exceedances over a three-year period, 

and the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area did not violate the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS during the 2001– 

2012 period. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine, based on the 

complete, quality-assured data for three 

most recent years (2010–2012) that the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area 

has attained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 

There are six PM10 monitors currently 

operating in the nonattainment area. 

Preliminary SLAMS data for 2013 from 

these monitors are also consistent with 

continued attainment. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HOUR PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3) FROM AMBIENT DATA COLLECTED WITHIN

THE SACRAMENTO PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA, 2001–2012.a

Site AQS Monitor ID 

Highest concentration (μg/m3) 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

North Highlands-Blackfoot .............. 06–067–0002–1 64 53 62 44 110 65 56 97 33 48 65 34 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor ......... 06–067–0006–1 68 86 53 38 71 63 70 71 45 44 62 41 

06–067–0006–3 65 43 43 101 49 132 66 92 39 19 NA NA 

Branch Center Road #1 b ............... 06–067–0283–1 78 77 75 45 61 38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Branch Center Road #2 b ............... 06–067–0284–1 NA NA NA NA NA 81 56 89 76 62 69 60 

Sacramento-Airport Road c ............. 06–067–0013–1 73 144 NA 35 56 90 94 71 NA NA NA NA 

06–067–0013–2 51 73 57 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Sacramento Health Dept.-Stockton 

Blvd ............................................. 06–067–4001–2 58 85 53 44 64 56 56 88 45 45 60 34 

06–067–4001–3 122 103 73 91 70 159 51 92 44 50 73 37 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court c ..... 06–067–0014–1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 56 48 42 63 32 

06–067–0014–3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 55 69 76 

Sacramento-T Street ...................... 06–067–0010–1 89 77 65 58 53 109 53 73 47 53 38 36 

06–067–0010–2 73 86 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

06–067–0010–3 48 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

aThe data in this table are from AQS QuickLook Reports dated January 10, 2013 and June 7, 2013. 

bThe Branch Center Road #1 monitor was replaced by the Branch Center Road #2 monitor, located .25 mi to the north, in early 2006. cThe Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. 

NA: data are not available. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44499 

13Sacramento’s portion of the California SIP may 

be found at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/ 

Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES 3-YR AVERAGE FROM AMBIENT DATA COLLECTED WITHIN THE

SACRAMENTO PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA, 2001–2012.A

Site name Site (AQS Monitor 

ID) 

Expected Exceedances 3-yr Average 

1999– 

2001 

2000– 

2002 

2001– 

2003 

2002– 

2004 

2003– 

2005 

2004– 

2006 

2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 

2009– 

2011 

2010– 

2012 

North HighlandsBlackfoot ............. 06–067–0002–1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sacramento-Del 

Paso Manor ........ 06–067–0006–1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

06–067–0006–3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Branch Center 

Road #1 b ............ 06–067–0283–1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 

Branch Center 

Road #2 b ............ 06–067–0284–1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sacramento-Airport 

Road c ................. 06–067–0013–1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA 

06–067–0013–2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Sacramento Health 

Dept.-Stockton 

Blvd ..................... 06–067–4001–2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

06–067–4001–3 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 

SacramentoGoldenland 

Court c ................. 06–067–0014–1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

06–067–0014–3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 

Sacramento-T 

Street .................. 06–067–0010–1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

06–067–0010–2 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

06–067–0010–3 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

aThe data in this table are from AQS QuickLook Reports dated January 10, 2013 and June 7, 2013. 

bThe Branch Center Road #1 monitor was replaced by the Branch Center Road #2 monitor, located .25 mi to the north, in early 2006. cThe Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. 

NA: data are not available. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Clean Air Act 

Section 110 and Part D 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved applicable SIP under 

section 110(k) that meets all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D for the purposes of redesignation. 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under 

Section 110 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by the State after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provision for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) provisions; 

provisions for the implementation of 

part D requirements for nonattainment 

new source review (nonattainment NSR) 

NSR permit programs; provisions for air 

pollution modeling; and provisions for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

We note that SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). The section 110 

(and part D) requirements that are 

linked to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. 

Requirements that apply regardless of 

the designation of any particular area on 

the State are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation, and the State will remain 

subject to these requirements after the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area is 

redesignated to attainment. 

For example, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain 

certain measures to prevent sources in 

a state from significantly contributing to 

air quality problems in another state, 

known as ‘‘transport SIPs.’’ Because the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for 

transport SIPs are not linked to a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification but rather 

apply regardless of the attainment 

status, these are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

Similarly, EPA believes that other 

section 110 (and part D) requirements 

that are not linked to nonattainment 

plan submissions or to an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

section 110 (and part D) requirements 

that relate to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

view is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability of the conformity 

SIP requirement for redesignations. See 

discussion in 75 FR 36023, 36026 (June 

24, 2010). 

On numerous occasions, CARB and 

SMAQMD have submitted and we have 

approved provisions addressing the 

basic CAA section 110 provisions. The 

Sacramento portion of the California 

SIP 13 contains enforceable emission 

limitations; requires monitoring, 

compiling and analyzing of ambient air 

quality data; requires preconstruction 

review of new or modified stationary 

sources; provides for adequate funding, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44500 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

staff, and associated resources necessary 

to implement its requirements; and 

provides the necessary assurances that 

the State maintains responsibility for 

ensuring that the CAA requirements are 

satisfied in the event that Sacramento is 

unable to meet its CAA obligations. 

There are no outstanding or 

disapproved applicable SIP submittals 

with respect to the Sacramento portion 

of the SIP that prevent redesignation of 

the Sacramento PM10 nonattainment 

area for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 

Therefore, we propose to conclude that 

CARB and SMAQMD have met all SIP 

requirements for Sacramento applicable 

for purposes of redesignation under 

section 110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements). 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of 

the CAA contain air quality planning 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for all nonattainment areas 

of any pollutant, including PM10, 

governed by a NAAQS. The subpart 1 

requirements include, among other 

things, provisions for the reasonable 

available control measures (RACM), 

reasonable further progress (RFP), 

emissions inventories, contingency 

measures, and conformity. Subpart 4 

contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas. Section 189(a), (c), 

and (e) requirements apply specifically 

to moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

and include: (1) An approved permit 

program for construction of new and 

modified major stationary sources; (2) 

provisions for RACM; (3) an attainment 

demonstration; (4) quantitative 

milestones demonstrating RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date; and (5) provisions to ensure that 

the control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the NAAQS 

in the area. 

As noted above, in 2002, EPA 

determined that the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area attained the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS based on 1998–2000 data. 

(67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002). In 

accordance with EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy, we have determined that the 

following requirements do not apply to 

the State for so long as Sacramento 

continues to attain the PM10 standard or 

until the area is redesignated to 

attainment: an attainment 

demonstration under section 

189(a)(1)(B); RACM provisions under 

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

reasonable further progress provisions 

under section 189(c)(1); and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9). For other rulemaking actions 

applying the Clean Data Policy in the 

context of PM10, see 77 FR 31271–72 

(proposed Determination of Attainment 

for Paul Spur/Douglas, Arizona); 76 FR 

10821–22 (proposed Determination of 

Attainment for Truckee Meadows, 

Nevada); 75 FR 13712–14 (proposed 

Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction, California); 75 FR 36027 

(proposed Redesignation for Coso 

Junction, California); 73 FR 22313 

(proposed Redesignation for San 

Joaquin Valley). See also, 40 CFR 

51.918. 

Moreover, in the context of evaluating 

the area’s eligibility for redesignation, 

there is a separate and additional 

justification for finding that 

requirements associated with attainment 

are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Prior to and 

independently of the Clean Data Policy, 

and specifically in the context of 

redesignations, EPA interpreted 

attainment-linked requirements as not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. In the General Preamble, 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992), EPA stated: [t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans * * * 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. See also 

Calcagni memorandum at 6 (‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’). Thus, even if the 

requirements associated with attainment 

had not previously been suspended, 

they would not apply for purposes of 

evaluating whether an area that has 

attained the standard qualifies for 

redesignation. EPA has enunciated this 

position since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago, 

and it represents the Agency’s 

interpretation of what constitutes 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E). The Courts have 

recognized the scope of EPA’s authority 

to interpret ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

in the redesignation context. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir.2004). 

The remaining applicable Part D 

requirements for moderate PM10 areas 

are: (1) An emission inventory under 

section 172(c) (3); (2) a permit program 

for the construction and operation of 

new and modified major stationary 

sources of PM10 under sections 172(c)(5) 

and 189(a)(1)(A); (3) control 

requirements for major stationary 

sources of PM10 precursors under 

section 189(e), except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area; (4) requirements under 

section 172(c)(7) that meet the 

applicable provisions of section 

110(a)(2); and (5) provisions to ensure 

that federally supported or funded 

projects conform to the air quality 

planning goals in the applicable SIP 

under section 176(c). We discuss each of 

these requirements below. 

• Emissions Inventory 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states 

to submit a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of relevant PM10

pollutants for the baseline year from all 

sources within the nonattainment area. 

The inventory is to address direct and 

secondary PM10 emissions, and all 

stationary (generally referring to larger 

stationary source or ‘‘point’’ sources), 

area (generally referring to smaller 

stationary and fugitive sources), and 

mobile (on-road, nonroad, locomotive 

and aircraft) sources are to be included 

in the inventory. We interpret the Act 

such that the emission inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) are 

satisfied by the inventory requirements 

of the maintenance plan. See 57 FR 

13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). Thus, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

attainment inventories submitted as part 

of the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan as satisfying the requirements of 

sections 172(c)(3) for the purposes of 

redesignation of the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The attainment 

inventories are described in V.D.1 of 

this notice. 

• Permits for New and Modified Major 

Stationary Sources 

CAA Sections 172(c)(5) and 

189(a)(1)(A) require the State to submit 

SIP revisions that establish certain 

requirements for new or modified 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas, including provisions to ensure 

that major new sources or major 

modifications of existing sources of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44501 

14PSD requirements control the growth of new 

source emissions in areas designated as attainment 

for a NAAQS. 

15See letter, Larry Greene, Executive Officer, 

SMAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, US EPA, Region 9, dated June 28, 2013. 

16California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) 

Version 1.06 Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 

Rf#980. 

17The following SMAQMD measures were 

previously implemented to reduce sulfur dioxide 

emissions: Rule 406—Specific Contaminants and 

Rule 420—Sulfur Content of Fuels. These measures 

were approved into the SIP on December 5, 1984 

(49 FR 47490). Adjusting for the past decrease in 

SOX emissions, current ambient ammonium sulfate 

concentrations are estimated to be about 1 mg/m3. 

nonattainment pollutants incorporate 

the highest level of control, referred to 

as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER), and that increases in emissions 

from such stationary sources are offset 

so as to provide for reasonable further 

progress towards attainment in the 

nonattainment area. The process for 

reviewing permit applications and 

issuing permits for new or modified 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas is referred to as ‘‘nonattainment 

New Source Review’’ (nonattainment 

NSR). 

EPA has previously approved 

SMAQMD Rule 203 (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) and partially 

approved and partially disapproved 

SMAQMD Rule 214 (Federal New 

Source Review). 76 FR 43183 (July 20, 

2011). Because of the partial 

disapproval, SMAQMD does not 

currently have a fully-approved 

nonattainment NSR program. 

The NSR deficiencies identified in 

EPA’s partial approval and partial 

disapproval of Rule 214 are limited to 

the following issues: (1) A small number 

of definitions: ‘‘begin actual 

construction,’’ ‘‘federally enforceable,’’ 

and ‘‘necessary preconstruction 

approvals or permits’’; (2) the rule is 

missing adequate public notice 

requirements for minor sources; (3) the 

rule is missing provisions meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) 

and 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2); and (4) the 

rule contains a cross reference to Rule 

207—Title V—Federal Operating Permit 

Program, which is not SIP approved. 

The limited disapproval triggered an 

obligation on EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) to 

remedy the NSR deficiencies by August 

19, 2013. See 76 FR 43184 (July 20, 

2011). To correct the deficiencies, on 

September 26, 2012, CARB submitted 

amended SMAQMD Rule 214 for 

inclusion in the SIP. On February 14, 

2013, a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to approve revised Rule 214 was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

78 FR 10589. On April 25, 2013, 

Regional Administrator Jared 

Blumenfeld signed a notice of final 

rulemaking to approve revised Rule 214. 

It is currently awaiting publication in 

the Federal Register. If the final 

rulemaking for revised Rule 214 

becomes effective prior to EPA 

finalizing the area’s redesignation to 

attainment for PM10, the 172(c)(5) and 

189(a(1)(A) requirements would be 

fulfilled prior to redesignation. 

If EPA does not approve revised Rule 

214 prior to EPA finalizing the area’s 

redesignation to attainment for PM10, it 

would not affect EPA approval of the 

redesignation request because upon 

redesignation the requirements of 

SMAQMD’s PSD program would apply 

to PM10 and PM10 precursor emissions 

of new major sources or major 

modifications. Thus, new major sources 

with significant PM10 emissions and 

major modifications of PM10 at major 

sources as defined under 40 CFR 51.21 

will be required to obtain a PSD permit 

or include PM10 emissions in their 

existing PSD permit. Since PSD 

requirements 14 will apply after 

redesignation, an area being 

redesignated to attainment need not 

comply with the requirement that a 

nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation as long 

as the state demonstrates maintenance 

of the NAAQS in the area without 

implementation of nonattainment NSR. 

A more detailed rationale for this view 

is described in a memorandum from 

Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 

1994, titled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also, 

redesignation rulemakings for Detroit, 

Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 

1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

(61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 

1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 

53665, October 23, 2001); and, Grand 

Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, 

June 21, 1996). 

Based on our review of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, we 

conclude that the maintenance 

demonstration does not rely on 

implementation of nonattainment NSR 

because the Plan applies standard 

growth factors to stationary source 

emissions and does not rely on NSR 

offsets to reduce the rate of increase in 

emissions over time from point 

sources.15 In addition, the PM10

Maintenance Plan adds emission 

reduction credits (ERCs) for PM10, NOX, 

and SOx to future projected emissions to 

ensure that the use of ERCs will not be 

inconsistent with the future PM10

maintenance goals. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that a fully-approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

necessary for approval of the State’s 

redesignation request for the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. 

We conclude that Sacramento’s 

portion of the California SIP adequately 

meets the requirements of section 

172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes 

of this redesignation. 

• Control Requirements for PM10

Precursors 

Section 189(e) of the CAA requires 

that the control requirements applicable 

under the part D SIP for major stationary 

sources of PM10 also apply to major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors, 

except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

which exceed the standard in the area. 

Sacramento’s PM10 Maintenance Plan 

states that NOX is a PM10 precursor in 

the secondary formation of atmospheric 

ammonium nitrates, which are a 

significant component of PM10

concentrations in the Sacramento area. 

SMAQMD also determined, based on 

analyses of inventories 16 from CARB 

and Chemical Mass Balance modeling, 

that emissions of sulfur oxides 17 (SOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from sources in the Sacramento 

nonattainment area are an insignificant 

contributor to secondary particulate 

formation in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area. Therefore, SOX and 

VOC emissions are not included in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

See pages 4–1 and 5–4 in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. To 

satisfy ozone nonattainment 

requirements in CAA section 182(b), 

SMAQMD has adopted Reasonably 

Available Control Technology rules to 

reduce NOX emissions from existing 

sources. See Rules 411, 412, and 413 in 

Table 3 in this action. These rules also 

address the control requirements in 

CAA section 189(e) because they control 

NOX emissions from major stationary 

sources. Major stationary sources of 

NOX are also controlled by Rules 202 

and 203, which are the District’s 

nonattainment NSR and PSD permitting 

programs. 

• Compliance with Section 110(a)(2) 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

conclude the California SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of this 

redesignation. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44502 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

18See Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

section 3.5, page 3–10. 

• General and Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, states are 

required to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. Section 176(c) further 

provides that state conformity 

provisions must be consistent with 

federal conformity regulations that the 

CAA requires EPA to promulgate. EPA’s 

conformity regulations are codified at 40 

CFR part 93, subparts A (referred to 

herein as ‘‘transportation conformity’’) 

and B (referred to herein as ‘‘general 

conformity’’). Transportation conformity 

applies to transportation plans, 

programs, and projects developed, 

funded, and approved under title 23 

U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, and 

general conformity applies to all other 

federally-supported or funded projects. 

SIP revisions intended to address the 

conformity requirements are referred to 

herein as ‘‘conformity SIPs.’’ 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d) because state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

Thus, EPA proposes to determine 

that, if EPA later finalizes its approval 

of the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan described in today’s proposal and 

also finalizes its approval of the 

emissions inventory and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for SMAQMD, the 

State has a fully-approved SIP meeting 

all requirements applicable under 

section 110 and part D for the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area 

for purposes of redesignation. CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA 

to determine that the improvement in 

air quality is due to emission reductions 

that are permanent and enforceable 

resulting from the implementation of 

the applicable SIP and applicable 

Federal air pollution control regulations 

and other permanent and enforceable 

regulations in order to approve a 

redesignation to attainment. Under this 

criterion, the State must be able to 

reasonably attribute the improvement in 

air quality to emissions reductions 

which are permanent and enforceable. 

Attainment resulting from temporary 

reductions in emissions rates (e.g., 

reduced production or shutdown due to 

temporary adverse economic 

conditions) or unusually favorable 

meteorology would not qualify as an air 

quality improvement due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

Calcagni memorandum, p. 4. 

Historically, exceedances of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS in the Sacramento 

nonattainment area occur in late 

November and December. The Chemical 

Mass Balance (CMB) model was used to 

identify source contributions for 

ambient air quality samples collected 

during the winter months (i.e., 

November through January) for 1991– 

1996. CMB uses known chemical 

‘‘fingerprints’’ of various source types 

together with measurements of the 

chemical components of ambient PM10

to find the contribution of those sources 

to PM10 concentrations. CMB results 

show the main components of 

wintertime PM10 in the Sacramento 

nonattainment area were secondary 

ammonium nitrate particles (29%), 

motor vehicle exhaust from cars, trucks, 

and buses (23%), wood smoke (17%), 

and fugitive dust (12%).18 The CMB 

analysis indicates how reductions in 

emissions of primary PM10 and PM10

precursors (e.g., NOX) will reduce 

ambient PM10 concentrations; each of 

the ambient components can be ‘‘rolled 

back’’ in proportion to the emission 

changes in the corresponding source 

categories. The Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan credits control 

measures adopted and implemented by 

SMAQMD and CARB and approved into 

the SIP by EPA as reducing emissions to 

attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

The SMAQMD has jurisdiction over 

air quality planning requirements for 

Sacramento County. The SMAQMD has 

adopted numerous plans, rules, and 

revisions for Sacramento County in 

order to reduce PM10 and PM10

precursor emissions. The Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan includes a list 

of control measures adopted and 

implemented by SMAQMD and 

approved into the SIP by EPA as 

reducing emissions to attain the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS. Table 3 lists SMAQMD 

rules contributing towards attainment 

and/or continued attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. 

TABLE 3—SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AQMD CONTROL MEASURES AND PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS

ATTAINMENT AND/OR CONTINUED ATTAINMENT OF THE 24-HOUR PM10 NAAQS. 

Rule Title 

Date 

approved into 

SIP 

Citation 

401 ............................ Ringelmann Chart/Opacity ................................................................................................... 02/01/1984 49 FR 3987. 

403 ............................ Fugitive Dust ........................................................................................................................ 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

404 ............................ Particulate Matter ................................................................................................................. 07/13/1987 52 FR 

26148. 

405 ............................ Dust and Condensed Fumes ............................................................................................... 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

406 ............................ Specific Contaminants .......................................................................................................... 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

407 ............................ Open Burn ............................................................................................................................ 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

417 ............................ Wood Burning Appliances .................................................................................................... 04/11/2013 78 FR 

21540. 

408 ............................ Incinerator Burning ............................................................................................................... 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44503 

21See ‘‘Air Resources Board’s Proposed State 

Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan,’’ release date: April 26, 2007 (2007 State 

Strategy). 

22The 2007 Proposed State Strategy can be found 

at: http://arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 

apr07draft/sipback.pdf. Page 38 of the Proposed 

State Strategy lists forty-five actions; thirty-five of 

these actions provide NOX reductions. 

23On 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 and 

adopted April 24, 2009 (‘‘2009 State Strategy Status 

Report’’). This submittal updated the 2007 State 

Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 

and 2008. See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 

24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, 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 of the report is for 

informational purposes only. See Attachment A to 

CARB Resolution No. 09–34. 

24Technical Support Document and Responses to 

Comments, Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 

2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, September 

30, 2011. This document can be found at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAR09-OAR-2010-0516-0175. 

TABLE 3—SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AQMD CONTROL MEASURES AND PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS

ATTAINMENT AND/OR CONTINUED ATTAINMENT OF THE 24-HOUR PM10 NAAQS.—Continued 

Rule Title 

Date 

approved into 

SIP 

Citation 

409 ............................ Orchard Heaters ................................................................................................................... 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

411 ............................ NOX from Boilers, Process Heaters, and Steam Generators .............................................. 08/01/2007 72 FR 

41894. 

412 ............................ Stationary Source Internal Combustion Engines at Major Stationary Sources of NOX ...... 04/30/1996 61 FR 

18959. 

413 ............................ Stationary Gas Turbines ...................................................................................................... 02/11/1999 64 FR 6803. 

414 ............................ Natural Gas Fired Water Heaters ........................................................................................ 04/20/1999, 

11/01/2011 

64 FR 19277 

76 FR 

67366. 

420 ............................ Sulfur Content of Fuels ........................................................................................................ 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

501 ............................ Agricultural Burning .............................................................................................................. 12/05/1984 49 FR 

47490. 

Other SMAQMD measures or programs not in the SIP19 20

421 ............................ Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning. .......................... Wood Stove/ 

Fireplace 

Change Out 

Incentive 

Program. 

Spare The 

Air. 

19On September 26, 2012, Rule 421 was submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The Wood Stove/Fireplace Change Out Incentive Program, Spare The Air public education program, and Sacramento Valley Air Basin Smoke Management Program have not been submitted for inclusion in the SIP. 20Sacramento County also participates in the State’s Sacramento Valley Air Basin Smoke Management Program. The program describes the 

policies and procedures used with hourly and daily measurements of air quality and meteorology to determine how much open biomass burning 

can be allowed in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The program ensures that agricultural burning is prohibited on days meteorologically conducive to potentially elevated PM10 concentrations. The area covered by the program is referred to as the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and includes all or parts of the following counties: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer (portion), Sacramento, Shasta, Solano (portion), Sutter, Tehama, Yolo 

and Yuba. See Title 17 California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 2, Section 80100 et. seq. The regulations can be viewed at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/smp/regs/RevFinRegwTOC.pdf. 

Source: Categories for which CARB 

has primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. 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 measures have 

helped reduce primary PM10 and PM10

precursors in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area and throughout the 

State. 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy and 2009 

and 2011 updates to the State Strategy 

provide a recent summary of the 

measures adopted and implemented by 

the State.21 From 1994 to 2006, the State 

promulgated more than thirty-five rules 

that have achieved significant emission 

reductions contributing to attainment 

and continued attainment in the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. 

See 2007 State Strategy, p.38.22 23 These 

measures include new emission 

standards and in-use requirements that 

have resulted in significant reductions 

in emissions of PM10 and PM10

precursors (e.g., NOX) from categories 

such as passenger cars, trucks, buses, 

motorcycles, locomotives, cargo 

handling equipment, and large off-road 

equipment. EPA has generally approved 

into the SIP all of the State’s measures 

that are not subject to the CAA section 

209 waiver process. See EPA’s final 

approval of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 

2011) and accompanying Technical 

Support Document and Responses to 

Comments.24 Finally, in addition to the 

local district and State rules discussed 

above, the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area has also benefitted 

from emission reductions from federal 

measures. These federal measures 

include EPA‘s national emissions 

standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks 

(66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)), certain 

emissions standards for new 

construction and farm equipment (Tier 

2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 

FR 56968 (October 23, 1998) and Tier 4 

diesel non-road engine standards, 69 FR 

38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotive 

engine standards (63 FR 18978 (April 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44504 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

25See Appendix A in the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

26EPA’s February 2002 determination that the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area had attained 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS was based on complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for 1998–2000. 

16, 1998) and 73 FR 37096 (June 30, 

2008)). 

The on-road and off-road vehicle and 

engine standards cited above have 

contributed to improved air quality 

through the gradual, continued turnover 

and replacement of older vehicle 

models with newer models 

manufactured to meet increasingly 

stringent emissions standards. 

We note that many of the control 

measures cited above and in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

have provided emissions reductions 

since 1990, and thus, the improvement 

in air quality since 1990 may reasonably 

be attributed to them. 

A sense of the effectiveness of the 

control measures to reduce PM10 and 

PM10 precursor emissions can be gained 

by comparing emissions in 1990 (a 

nonattainment year), 2000 (the year EPA 

determined the area met its attainment 

date) and 2008 (an attainment year).25 In 

1990, area-wide PM10 and NOX

emissions in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area were estimated to be 

approximately 37 and 133 tons per day 

(winter day), respectively. In 2000, 

despite an increase in population and 

vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) of 

approximately 14% and 15%, 

respectively, area-wide emissions of 

PM10 dropped to 33 tons per day and 

NOX declined to 100 tons per day 

compared. Despite increases between 

1990 and 2008 in population (29%) and 

VMT (35%), area-wide emissions of 

direct PM10 decreased slightly to 35 tons 

per day. NOX emissions decreased 

significantly to 82 tons per day, a 

reduction of approximately 38% 

compared to 1990 levels. 

With respect to the connection 

between the emissions reductions and 

the improvement in air quality, we also 

conclude that the air quality 

improvement in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area since 1990 through 

2011 is not the result of a local 

economic downturn or unusual or 

extreme weather patterns. Our 

conclusion is based on the air quality 

data in Table 1 and recognition that the 

fluctuation in economic and 

meteorological conditions since 1998 

did not result in a violation of the 24- 

hour PM10 standard.26 We do recognize 

that a significant economic slowdown 

occurred nationally starting in 2008, but 

we note that the downward PM10 trend 

had already been established before that 

time (see Figure 3.3 on page 3–7 of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan). 

Thus, we find that the improvement 

in air quality in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area is the result of 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions from a combination of EPAapproved local and State control 

measures and federal control measures. 

As such, we propose to find that the 

criterion for redesignation set forth at 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is satisfied. 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

Clean Air Act Section 175A 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. We 

interpret this section of the Act to 

require, in general, the following core 

elements: attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration plus a 

commitment to submit a second 

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and contingency plan. See Calcagni 

memorandum, pages 8 through 13. 

Under CAA section 175A, a 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after redesignation, the State 

must submit a revised maintenance plan 

that demonstrates continued attainment 

for the subsequent ten-year period 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency provisions that EPA deems 

necessary to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. Based on our 

review and evaluation of the plan, as 

detailed below, we are proposing to 

approve the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan because we believe 

that it meets the requirements of CAA 

section 175A. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the nonattainment area. In 

demonstrating maintenance in 

accordance with CAA section 175A and 

the Calcagni memorandum, the State 

should provide an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area sufficient to attain 

the NAAQS. Where the State has made 

an adequate demonstration that air 

quality has improved as a result of the 

SIP, the attainment inventory will 

generally be an inventory of actual 

emissions at the time the area attained 

the standard. EPA’s primary guidance in 

evaluating these inventories is the 

document entitled, ‘‘PM–10 Emissions 

Inventory Requirements,’’ EPA, OAQPS, 

EPA–454/R–94–033 (September 1994) 

which can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ 

pm10eir.pdf. 

A maintenance plan for the 24-hour 

PM10 standard must include an 

inventory of emissions of PM10 and its 

precursors (NOX, sulfur oxides, and 

volatile organic compounds) in the area 

to identify a level of emissions sufficient 

to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. This 

inventory must be consistent with EPA’s 

most recent guidance on emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas 

available at the time and should 

represent emissions during the time 

period associated with the monitoring 

data showing attainment. The inventory 

must also be comprehensive, including 

emissions from stationary point sources, 

area sources, and mobile sources. 

SMAQMD selected year 2008 as the 

year for the attainment inventory in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

Year 2008 is a current, accurate, and 

comprehensive inventory during a 

period which the area continued to 

attain the 24-hour PM10 standard prior 

to adoption and submittal of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan. The attainment inventory will 

generally be the actual inventory during 

the time period the area attained the 

standard. EPA previously made an 

attainment determination for the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. 

See 67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002. 

Thus, Sacramento Metropolitan’s 

selection of 2008 for the attainment 

inventory is acceptable. 

Based on our review of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, we 

find that the emissions inventories in 

the Plan are comprehensive in that they 

include estimates of PM10 and its 

precursors from all of the relevant 

source categories, which the Plan 

divides among stationary, area wide, onroad motor vehicles, and other mobile. 

The Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan includes inventories for total 

primary PM10 and for NOX as a PM10

precursor. See tables 4–1 and 4–2 in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

Appendix A to the PM10 Maintenance 

Plan contains additional details of the 

emission inventories for 2008 (and 

1990, 1995, 2000, 2012, and 2022). As 

previously described in section V.B.2, 

SMAQMD determined, based on 

analyses of inventories from CARB and 

Chemical Mass Balance modeling, that 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44505 

27The 2009 Almanac contains information about 

current and historical air quality and emissions in 

California. In addition, forecasted emissions are 

presented. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/ 

almanac09/almanac09.htm 

28The CEIDARS database consists of two 

categories of information: source information and 

utility information. Source information includes the 

basic inventory information generated and collected 

on all point and area sources. Utility information 

generally includes auxiliary data, which helps 

categorize and further define the source 

information. Used together, CEIDARS is capable of 

generating complex reports based on a multitude of 

category and source selection criteria. 

29For more information on emissions from the 

area-wide source category, see the CARB Web site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/areameth.htm. 

30EMFAC software and detailed information on 

the vehicle emission model can be found on the 

CARB Web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/ 

onroad/on-road.htm. 

31Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 

Program 2009/12, Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments, August 21, 2008. 

32See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/ 

offroad.htm 

emissions of SOx and VOCs from 

sources in the Sacramento 

nonattainment area are an insignificant 

contributor to secondary particulate 

formation in the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area. Therefore, SOx and 

VOC emissions are not included in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

The stationary source category 

includes non-mobile, fixed sources of 

air pollution. Examples of sources 

included in this category include fuel 

combustion (e.g., electric utilities), 

waste disposal (e.g., landfills), and oil 

and gas production. SMAQMD’s 2008 

(and subsequent year inventories) for 

stationary sources were developed using 

methods in CARB’s 2009 Almanac 27

and information reported by emission 

sources to SMAQMD and entered into 

the California Emission Inventory 

Development and Reporting System 

(CEIDARS) database.28 For area wide 

sources, SMAQMD calculated emissions 

based on reported data for fuel usage, 

product sales, population, employment 

data, and other parameters covering a 

wide range of activities.29

The on-road mobile source category 

consists of trucks, automobiles, buses, 

and motorcycles. The on-road emissions 

inventory estimates in the Sacramento 

PM10 Plan were prepared by CARB 

using EMFAC2007 (version 2.3), a 

California model for on-road motor 

vehicle emissions.30 The vehicle miles 

traveled were developed from 

Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments-supplied activity data 

using transportation modeling prepared 

for the Sacramento region’s August 2009 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Program.31

With respect to nonroad mobile 

sources (or other mobile as categorized 

in the PM10 Plan), the category includes 

aircraft, trains, boats, and off-road 

vehicles and equipment used for 

construction, farming, commercial, 

industrial, and recreational activities. 

CARB used its OFFROAD2007 to 

calculate the nonroad emissions.32 In 

general, emissions are calculated using 

equipment population, engine size and 

load, usage activity, and emission 

factors. 

Table 4 presents the direct PM10 and 

PM10 precursor emissions (i.e., NOX) 

estimates contained in the Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan for 2008. Based 

on the estimates in table 4, the areawide category of emissions accounted 

for 86% of the direct PM10, with 

residential fuel combustion making up 

28%, construction and demolition 20%, 

and paved road dust 17% of the total 

direct PM10 inventory for 2008. Mobile 

source emissions accounted for 90% of 

the NOX emissions generated within the 

PM10 nonattainment area in 2008 with 

on-road motor vehicle emissions 

comprising approximately 61% and offroad equipment 20% of the total NOX

inventory for 2008. 

TABLE 4—2008 ACTUAL PM10 EMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES IN THE SACRAMENTO PM10

NONATTAINMENT AREA, TOTAL DAILY EMISSIONS

[Tons per day, average winter day]a

Category Emission source 

2008 

PM10 NOX

Stationary ...................................................................... Fuel Combustion .......................................................... 0 .5 3 .9 

Industrial Processes ..................................................... 1 .0 0 .1 

Area wide ...................................................................... Residential Fuel Combustion ....................................... 9 .9 4 .4 

Farming Operations ...................................................... 2 .4 ........................

Construction and Demolition ........................................ 7 .0 ........................

Paved Road Dust ......................................................... 6 .1 ........................

Unpaved Road Dust ..................................................... 3 .6 ........................

Managed Burning and Disposal ................................... ........................ 0 .1 

Other ............................................................................. 1 .2 ........................

On-Road Motor Vehicles .............................................. On-Road Motor Vehicles .............................................. 2 .2 49 .6 

Other Mobile ................................................................. Aircraft .......................................................................... 0 .1 2 .0 

Trains ............................................................................ 0 .1 3 .4 

Boats ............................................................................. 0 .1 0 .5 

Equipment (Off-Road/Farm) ......................................... 1 .1 17 .8 

Totals ....................................................................................... 35 82 

aFrom Appendix A in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

Based on our review of the emissions 

inventories (and related documentation) 

from the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, we find that the inventories for 

2008 are comprehensive, that the 

methods and assumptions used by 

CARB and SMAQMD to develop the 

emission inventories are reasonable, and 

that the 2008 inventory reasonably 

estimates actual PM10 emissions in the 

attainment year. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the 2008 

inventory, which serves as the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan’s 

attainment year inventory, as satisfying 

the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of 

the CAA for the purposes of 

redesignation of the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires 

that the maintenance plan ‘‘provide for 

the maintenance of the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44506 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

33See Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

section 4.7, page 4–10. 34See Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

section 4.7, page 4–11. 

35The 2022 emission inventory includes 

emissions reductions from State measures adopted 

through 2006. Because the measures in Table 3 

were adopted after 2006, the 2022 inventory is a 

conservative estimate of the projected emissions. 

December 27, 2012 email from Martin Johnson of 

CARB to John Ungvarsky, EPA. 

least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ 

Generally, a state may demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS by modeling to show that the 

future mix of sources and emissions 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS. A showing that future 

emissions will not exceed the level of 

the attainment year inventory can also 

be used to further support of a 

maintenance demonstration. For areas 

that are required under the Act to 

submit modeled attainment 

demonstrations, the maintenance 

demonstration should use the same type 

of modeling. Calcagni memorandum, 

page 9. 

In addition to accounting for areawide growth trends, SMAQMD included 

growth in airport emissions to 

accommodate future airport expansions 

within the Sacramento County Airport 

System.33 The portion of the 2012 and 

2022 inventories associated with 

airports is detailed in table 5. 

TABLE 5—AIRPORT EMISSIONS FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY ONLY, TOTAL DAILY EMISSIONS

[Tons per day, average winter day] a

Emission source 

NOX PM10

2012 2022 2012 2022 

Aircraft Operations Only .................................................................................. 2.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 

Ground Support Equipment ............................................................................. 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 

aFrom table 4–4 in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

SMAQMD also included emissions 

reduction credits (ERCs) from pre-2008 

ERCs, future bankable rice burning 

ERCs, and the wood stove/fireplace 

change out incentive program in the 

event that the ERCs are used for the 

purposes of issuing permits for new or 

modified stationary sources in the air 

quality planning area.34

We have reviewed the methods and 

assumptions, as described in connection 

with the attainment inventory, that 

SMAQMD used to project emissions to 

2012 and 2022 for the various source 

categories and find them to be 

reasonable. The Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan’s maintenance 

demonstration is based on the use of 

Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) with 

proportional rollback (69 FR 5412, 

5424–5425 and 69 FR 30006) to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 

PM10 standard until 2022. See Plan, pp. 

6–1—6–5. Under proportional rollback, 

changes in source categories’ emissions 

are added in proportion to their 

corresponding component from CMB. In 

proportional rollback, a 1% change in 

direct PM10 emissions causes a 1% 

change in the direct PM10 ambient 

component. However, because 

ammonium nitrate is secondary PM, 

that is, it is formed from chemical 

reactions in the air, it does not 

necessarily scale one-to-one with the 

precursor NOX emissions. The Plan 

relied on photochemical modeling 

results showing that a 1% change in 

NOX emission causes only a 0.7% 

change in ammonium nitrate. See Plan, 

p. 6–3. 

The results of the modeling show that 

all monitoring sites in the Sacramento 

PM10 nonattainment area will be below 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 2022, with 

the projected value of 99 mg/m3 at the 

T Street site, which had the peak 

monitored value from 2006–2008 in the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. 

See Plan, Table 6.3. 

In addition to the CMB rollback 

modeling in the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan, it also demonstrates 

that the 2022 maintenance year 

inventory is well below the 2008 

attainment year inventory for PM10

precursors (i.e., NOX) and flat for direct 

PM10. Thus, even without the rollback 

analysis previously described, the Plan 

clearly demonstrates maintenance of the 

PM10 NAAQS through 2022. Tables 6, 7 

and 8 compare inventory estimates for 

direct PM10 and PM10 precursor (i.e., 

NOX) for various years, including the 

2008 attainment year, 2012, and the 

2022 maintenance year. Since current 

ambient concentrations are well below 

the NAAQS, the slight increase in 

projected direct PM10 emissions is 

consistent with maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Even if all ambient PM10 were 

directly emitted (i.e., without 

accounting for the benefit of NOx 

reductions), the 2008 measured ambient 

level of 109 mg/m3 could increase by 

37% and remain below the NAAQS, so 

direct PM10 emissions could also 

increase by 37% and the area would 

remain in attainment. In fact, direct 

PM10 is projected to increase by only 

3% (or 7% considering potential 

increases in road dust allowed for in the 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget). This 

is a very conservative conclusion, 

because is assumes NOx emissions are 

constant, whereas they are actually 

projected to decrease by 50%, with an 

accompanying reduction in the 

ammonium nitrate component of PM10. 

The effects of the declining NOx and 

slightly increasing PM constitute a 

variant of simple rollback modeling, and 

can be considered a second, supporting 

maintenance demonstration method in 

addition to the CMB proportional 

rollback demonstration. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF 2008 ACTUAL

AND 2012 AND 2022 PROJECTED

PM10 AND NOX EMISSIONS IN THE

SACRAMENTO PM10 NONATTAINMENT

AREA

[Tons per day, average winter day]a

Pollutants 2008 2012 2022 

PM10 .............................. 35 35 36 

NOX .............................. 82 67 42 

aFrom Appendix A in the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan; includes Emission Reduction Credits in 2012 and 2022 for PM10 and 

NOX in table 4–5 of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

Based on our review of the 2012 and 

2022 emissions inventories and related 

documentation from the Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, we find that 

the 2012 and 2022 emissions 

inventories in the PM10 Maintenance 

Plan reflect the latest planning 

assumptions and emissions models 

available at the time the Plan was 

developed, and provide a 

comprehensive and reasonably accurate 

basis upon which to forecast direct PM10

and PM10 precursor emissions for years 

2012 and 2022.35 These inventories 

further support maintenance through 

2022. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44507 

TABLE 7—2008 ACTUAL AND 2012 AND 2022 PROJECTED PM10 EMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES IN THE

SACRAMENTO PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA, TOTAL DAILY EMISSIONS

[Tons per day, average winter day] a

Category Emission source 

PM10

2008 2012 2022 

Stationary ........................................................ Fuel Combustion ............................................ 0 .5 0 .5 0 .6 

Industrial Processes ....................................... 1 .0 0 .9 1 .1 

Area wide ........................................................ Residential Fuel Combustion ......................... 9 .9 9 .2 10 .2 

Farming Operations ....................................... 2 .4 2 .3 2 .1 

Construction and Demolition .......................... 7 .0 7 .2 7 .8 

Paved Road Dust ........................................... 6 .1 6 .2 6 .4 

Unpaved Road Dust ....................................... 3 .6 3 .6 3 .6 

Other .............................................................. 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 

On-Road Motor Vehicles ................................ On-Road Motor Vehicles ................................ 2 .2 2 .1 2 .1 

Other Mobile ................................................... Aircraft ............................................................ 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 

Trains ............................................................. 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 

Boats .............................................................. 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 

Equipment (Off-Road/Farm) ........................... 1 .1 1 .0 0 .4 

Totals ....................................................... ......................................................................... 35 35 36 

aFrom Appendix A in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

TABLE 8—2008 AND PROJECTED 2012 AND 2022 NOX EMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES IN THE

SACRAMENTO PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA, TOTAL DAILY EMISSIONS

[Tons per day, average winter day] a

Category Emission source 

NOX

2008 2012 2022 

Stationary ........................................................ Fuel Combustion ............................................ 3 .9 4 .0 4 .2 

Industrial Processes ....................................... 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 

Areawide ......................................................... Residential Fuel Combustion ......................... 4 .4 4 .3 4 .4 

Managed Burning and Disposal ..................... 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 

On-Road Motor Vehicles ................................ On-Road Motor Vehicles ................................ 49 .6 37 .6 18 .1 

Other Mobile ................................................... Aircraft ............................................................ 2 .0 2 .3 3 .0 

Trains ............................................................. 3 .4 3 .3 3 .6 

Boats .............................................................. 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 

Off-Road Equipment ...................................... 16 .0 13 .6 7 .6 

Farm Equipment ............................................. 1 .8 1 .4 0 .6 

Totals ....................................................... ......................................................................... 82 67 42 

aFrom Appendix A in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

Taking the CMB results into account 

gives an even stronger conclusion with 

respect to the acceptability of the slight 

increase of direct PM10 emissions. 

According to the CMB proportional 

rollback, direct PM10 contributes 81 mg/ 

m3 of the 2008 total. See Plan, Table 6.3, 

p. 6–5. Considering the measured 109 

mg/m3, that component could increase 

by 41 mg/m3, or 50%, and the sum 

would remain below the NAAQS. When 

combined, the projected slight PM10

emissions increase and substantial NOX

emissions decrease are well below the 

levels consistent with attainment 

through the 2022 maintenance period 

and thereby adequately demonstrate 

maintenance through that period. 

a. Showing That Maintenance Plan 

Provides for Ten Years of Maintenance 

Through 2023 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ September 4, 1992 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, AQMD, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ p. 9. 

As discussed in detail above, the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

expressly documents that the area’s 

emissions inventories will remain below 

the attainment year inventories through 

2022. In addition, for the reasons set 

forth below, EPA believes that the 

State’s submission, in conjunction with 

additional supporting information, 

further demonstrates that the area will 

continue to maintain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS at least through 2023. Thus, if 

EPA finalizes its proposed approval of 

the redesignation request and 

maintenance plans in 2013, it will be 

based in part on a showing, in 

accordance with section 175A, that the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

provides for maintenance for at least ten 

years after redesignation. EPA believes 

the area will continue to maintain the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS at least through 

2023 for the following reasons. 

1. Significant emissions controls 

remain in place and will continue to 

provide reductions that keep the area in 

attainment. Because the Sacramento 

area is currently nonattainment for the 

1997 and 2008 ozone standards and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, it is 

expected that not only will existing 

emissions controls remain in place, but 

the Sacramento area may need 

additional reductions (e.g., NOX) to 

attain the aforementioned standards. In 

addition, the emissions controls that 

brought the area into attainment cannot 

be removed from the SIP unless the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44508 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

36 2011 records from CARB’s inspection and 

maintenance program indicate approximately 20% 

of the fleet had not yet turned over after 15 years. 

It is reasonable to assume that because the LEV 2 

standards were not fully implemented until 2009, 

the reductions from the program will continue 

through 2023, which would represent the 14 years 

of turnover affected by the LEV 2 standards. Thus, 

it is reasonable to conclude reductions from fleet 

turnover would continue even beyond 2023. To see 

the report, go to: http://www.bar.ca.gov/ 

80_BARResources/04_Miscellaneous/ 

USEPA%202010%20Calendar%20Year.pdf. 

37See Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan, Figure 

3.3, page 3–7. 

38EPA’s requirements for annual review of 

monitoring networks are found at 40 CFR 58.10. 

State demonstrates that the removal 

would be consistent with sections 110(l) 

and 193 of the CAA. 

2. The 2022 projected emissions 

inventory for PM10 precursors is well 

below the 2008 attainment year level 

and is expected to decline or remain 

stable during the 2022 to 2023 period. 

It is extremely improbable that 

emissions would increase between 2022 

and 2023 such that they would exceed 

the 2008 attainment year levels. As 

shown in table 7, while primary PM10

emissions have remained relatively flat, 

by 2022 NOX emissions are projected to 

decline by approximately 70% and 49% 

when compared to 1990 and 2008, 

respectively. The majority of these 

reductions resulted from cleaner fuels, 

tighter emission standards, and fleet 

turnover in the mobile source sector. 

The 2022 emission inventory is 

conservative in that it does not include 

reductions from State measures adopted 

after 2006. Because Sacramento is 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone standards and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard, SMAQMD and the State 

may need to adopt additional measures 

that will further reduce emissions 

between 2013 and 2023. Because 

fundamental relaxations or changes to 

the existing SIP-approved measures, 

mobile source fleet, and infrastructure 

cannot be easily made or reversed 

during the 2022–2023 period, it is 

highly unlikely that PM10 and PM10

precursor emissions would increase 

significantly between 2022 and 2023 to 

the extent it would jeopardize a 

showing of maintenance for a 10-year 

period after redesignation. 

3. Fleet turnover supports a continued 

gradual decrease in emission levels 

beyond 2025. Specifically, California’s 

Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program 

sets gasoline and vehicle emissions 

standards for passenger cars, light 

trucks, and larger passenger vehicles. 

The program was designed to reduce 

emissions, including NOX, responsible 

for the ozone and particulate matter 

impacts from these vehicles. The LEV 2 

standards were phased in between 2004 

and 2010, have been replaced by the 

LEV 3 standards adopted in 2012. The 

LEV 3 standards represent a further 

strengthening of the program and are 

planned to be phased in between 2015 

and 2025. Consequently, the full 

emission reduction benefits from the 

LEV 2 and 3 standards will not be 

achieved until after 2022 and continue 

beyond 2023.36 The relationship 

between the LEV standards and fleet 

turnover is just one example of a 

measure providing continued NOX

emissions reductions between 2022 and 

2023 because of continued fleet 

turnover. 

4. Air quality concentrations are well 

below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and, 

when coupled with the emissions 

inventory projections through 2022, 

clearly show it would be very unlikely 

for a PM10 violation to occur in 2023. 

The Sacramento PM10 nonattainment 

area has not violated the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS since 1990. Air quality 

concentrations for the three most recent 

years (2009–2011) of complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data show the highest 

monitored PM10 concentration to be 76 

mg/m3, approximately half of the PM10

NAAQS. The historical trend of the 

maximum 24-hour PM10 peak 

concentrations between 1989 and 2011 

indicates a steady decline.37 As shown 

in table 7, by 2022 PM10 precursor 

emissions (NOX) will drop significantly 

compared to 2008, and direct PM10

emissions will remain relatively flat. 

The combination of the air quality 

concentrations well below the standard 

and the declining inventory as 

described above indicate it is highly 

unlikely that the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area will violate the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS during the 2022 to 

2023 period. 

For the above reasons, EPA believes 

the area will continue to maintain the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS at least through 

2023 and that the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan shows maintenance 

for a period of ten years following 

redesignation. Thus, if EPA finalizes its 

proposed approval of the Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan in 2013, it is 

based on a showing, in accordance with 

section 175A, that the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

In demonstrating maintenance, 

continued attainment of the NAAQS can 

be verified through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network. The Calcagni memorandum 

states that the maintenance plan should 

contain provisions for continued 

operation of air quality monitors that 

will provide such verification. Calcagni 

memorandum, p. 11. As discussed in 

section V.A. of this document, PM10 is 

currently monitored by SMAQMD (five 

sites) and CARB (one site) within the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area. In 

the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

(see Plan, p. 7–1), SMAQMD indicates 

its intention to continue operation of an 

air quality monitoring network that 

meets or exceeds the minimum 

monitoring requirements and that 

ambient PM10 concentrations will be 

monitored appropriately to verify 

continued attainment of the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS. The Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan also notes that a 

review of the entire monitoring network 

will be undertaken annually as required 

by federal regulations.38 We find the 

SMAQMD’s commitment for continued 

ambient PM10 monitoring as set forth in 

the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

to be acceptable. 

Second, the transportation conformity 

process, which would require a 

comparison of on-road motor vehicle 

emissions that would occur under new 

or amended regional transportation 

plans and programs with the MVEBs in 

the PM10 Maintenance Plan, represents 

another means by which to verify 

continued attainment of the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS in Sacramento County. 

See page 8–1 of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

Lastly, while not cited in the Plan, 

CARB and SMAQMD must inventory 

emissions sources and report to EPA on 

a periodic basis under 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A (‘‘Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements’’). These emissions 

inventory updates will provide a third 

way to evaluate emissions trends in the 

area and thereby verify continued 

attainment of the NAAQS. These 

methods are sufficient for the purpose of 

verifying continued attainment. 

4. Contingency Provisions 

Section 175A(d) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that maintenance plans include 

contingency provisions, as EPA deems 

necessary, to promptly correct any 

violations of the NAAQS that occur after 

redesignation of the area. Such 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned that were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. These contingency 

provisions are distinguished from those 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44509 

39See letter, Larry Greene, Executive Officer, 

SMAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, US EPA, Region 9, dated June 28, 2013. 

40Additional information associated with the 

motor vehicle emission budget calculations is 

Continued 

generally required for nonattainment 

areas under section 172(c)(9) in that 

they are not required to be fully-adopted 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the state in order for 

the maintenance plan to be approved. 

However, the contingency plan is 

considered to be an enforceable part of 

the SIP and should ensure that the 

contingency measures are adopted 

expeditiously once they are triggered by 

a specified event. 

Under section 175A(d), contingency 

measures identified in the contingency 

plan do not have to be fully adopted at 

the time of redesignation. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered by a specified event. The 

maintenance plan should clearly 

identify the measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific 

timeline for action by the State. As a 

necessary part of the plan, the State 

should also identify specific indicators 

or triggers, which will be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, SMAQMD has adopted a 

contingency plan to address possible 

future PM10 air quality problems. The 

contingency provisions in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan are 

contained in section 7.3 of the Plan and 

were clarified in a subsequent letter 

from the District.39 After verification of 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS violation, 

including allowing sufficient time for 

sample weighing and processing, 

SMAQMD commits to the following 

steps. 

(1) Examine the violation to 

determine if it qualifies as a natural or 

exceptional event. 

(2) If the violation was not a natural 

or exceptional event, SMAQMD will 

analyze the event to determine its 

plausible causes. Any applicable 

emission reductions from already 

adopted rules that have not yet been 

implemented would be evaluated to 

determine if these new emission 

reductions would be sufficient to 

prevent future PM10 exceedances. These 

already adopted controls could include 

CARB and SMAQMD PM2.5 and NOX

measures to address ozone and PM2.5

SIP requirements. In addition, the 

SMAQMD would evaluate applicable 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) that could potentially provide 

the corrective action needed. This 

evaluation step will take no more than 

18 months. 

(3) If the additional emission 

reductions from already adopted rules 

are insufficient, the SMAQMD would 

proceed with selecting specific RACM 

measures for adoption and 

implementation that would be 

applicable to addressing the seasonal 

PM10 problem. Appendix B in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

contains potential RACM measures to be 

evaluated for future adoption and 

implementation. This adoption and 

implementation step will take no more 

than 12 months. 

In their June 28, 2013 letter, 

SMAQMD clarified that all three of the 

aforementioned steps will be completed, 

including the implementation of 

additional control measures, within 24 

months. 

Upon our review of the Plan, as 

summarized above, we find that the 

contingency provisions of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

clearly identify specific contingency 

measures, contain tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to determine 

when contingency measures are needed, 

contain a description of the process of 

recommending and implementing 

contingency measures, and contain 

specific timelines for action. Thus, we 

conclude that the contingency 

provisions of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan are adequate to 

ensure prompt correction of a violation 

and therefore comply with section 

175A(d) of the Act. For the reasons set 

forth above, EPA is proposing to find 

that the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan is consistent with the maintenance 

plan contingency provision 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance. 

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

Section 175A(b) of the CAA provides 

that eight years after redesignation, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

continued attainment for the subsequent 

ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. The 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

includes a SMAQMD commitment to 

prepare and submit a revised 

maintenance plan in 2020, seven years 

after redesignation to attainment. See 

page 6–7 of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

In light of the discussion set forth 

above, EPA is proposing to approve the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 175A. 

6. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

a. Requirements for Transportation 

Conformity and Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in the nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the 

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program are deemed to conform to the 

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting 

from the implementation of that 

transportation plan and program are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) established 

in the SIP for the attainment year, 

maintenance year and other years. See, 

generally, 40 CFR part 93 for the federal 

conformity regulations and 40 CFR 

93.118 specifically for how budgets are 

used in conformity. 

The budgets serve as a ceiling on 

emissions that would result from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

The budget concept is further explained 

in the preamble to the November 24, 

1993, transportation conformity rule (58 

FR 62188). Maintenance plan submittals 

must specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related PM10 and NOX

emissions allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period, i.e., the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). 

(MVEBs may also be specified for 

additional years during the maintenance 

period.) The submittal must also 

demonstrate that these emissions levels, 

when considered with emissions from 

all other sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

b. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

The Sacramento PM10 Maintenance 

Plan contains PM10 and NOX MVEBs for 

the Sacramento PM10 nonattainment 

area for 2008, 2012, and 2022. The 

MVEBs are the on-road mobile source 

primary PM10 and NOX (as a PM10

precursor) emissions for Sacramento 

County for 2008, 2012 and 2022. The 

MVEBs are compatible with the 2008, 

2012, and 2022 on-road mobile source 

PM10 and NOX emissions included in 

SMAQMD’s 2008, 2012, and 2022 p.m.10

and NOX emission inventories, as 

summarized above in tables 6, 7 and 8. 

The derivation of the MVEBs is 

thoroughly discussed in section 8 of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan.40


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44510 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

provided in a technical analysis accompanying June 

2013 letters from ARB and SMAQMD to EPA. 

41See Table 8.1, page 8–4 of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

42See 40 CFR 93.124(a). 

43EMFAC (EMission FACtor) is California’s 

model for estimating emissions from on-road 

vehicles operating in California. EPA approved 

EMFAC2007 on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464). 

CARB’s latest release is EMFAC 2011 which EPA 

approved on March 6, 2013 (78 FR 14533) was not 

approved when this plan was developed. 

44AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, is a document published by EPA as the 

primary collection of EPA approved emission factor 

information. The emission factors have been 

developed and compiled from source test data, 

material balance studies, and engineering estimates. 

EPA has publishes supplements and updates to the 

each of the chapters available in Volume I, 

Stationary Point and Area Sources at the following 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. 45 Ibid. 46The Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

includes PM10 MVEB safety margins of 1.3 tons per 

day (tpd) for 2012 and 2.4 tpd for 2022. This 

additional increase may be needed for the 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments to make 

a transportation conformity determinations, 

including for a horizon year of 2035 or later for 

transportation planning purposes when using the 

latest year of motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(2022) in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

See letter, Larry Greene, Executive Officer, 

SMAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, US EPA, Region 9, dated June 28, 2013. 

Also see letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, US EPA, Region 9, dated June 13, 2013. 

47See letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, US EPA, Region 9, dated June 13, 2013. 

See Letter, Larry Greene, Executive Director/Air 

Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD, to Deborah 

Jordan, Director Air Division, US EPA, Region 9, 

dated June 28, 2013. 

The motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

Sacramento are summarized in table 9. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TONS PER

DAY, AVERAGE WINTER DAY) IN THE

SACRAMENTO PM10 MAINTENANCE

PLAN 41

Budget year PM10 NOX

2008 ...................................... 15 50 

2012 ...................................... 15 38 

2022 ...................................... 17 19 

The details for each component of the 

budgets are shown in table 10 and are 

comprised of direct on-road mobile 

source emissions, road construction 

emissions, fugitive emissions from 

paved and unpaved roads, and safety 

margins. A state may choose to apply a 

safety margin under our transportation 

conformity rule so long as such margins 

are explicitly quantified in the 

applicable plan and are shown to be 

consistent with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS (whichever 

is relevant to the particular plan).42 In 

this instance, the safety margin has been 

explicitly quantified and shown to be 

consistent with continued maintenance 

of the PM10 NAAQS through the 

applicable maintenance period, through 

2023. The MVEBs incorporate: (1) Onroad motor vehicle emission inventory 

factors of EMFAC2007 43 and AP–42; 44

and (2) updated recent vehicle activity 

data from Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments’ Sacramento ActivityBased Travel Demand Simulation Model 

transportation modeling system. 

TABLE 10—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND EMISSIONS COMPRISING THE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TONS PER

DAY, AVERAGE WINTER DAY) IN THE SACRAMENTO PM10 MAINTENANCE PLAN 45

Category 

2008 2012 2022 

NOX PM10 NOX PM10 NOX PM10

Direct Exhaust a ............................................................... 49 .6 2 .2 37 .6 2 .1 18 .1 2 .1 

Paved Road Dust ............................................................. .................... 6 .1 .................... 4 .9 .................... 5 .5 

Unpaved Road Dust ........................................................ .................... 3 .6 .................... 3 .6 .................... 3 .6 

Road Construction Dust ................................................... .................... 2 .7 .................... 2 .8 .................... 2 .8 

Safety Margin 46 ............................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1 .3 .................... 2 .5 

Totals (rounded up to nearest ton) .................................. 50 15 38 15 19 17 

a Direct Exhaust includes PM10 from tire and brake wear. 

c. Initial Adequacy Review of Budgets 

On September 1, 2011, EPA 

announced the availability of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

with MVEBs and a 30-day public 

comment period on EPA’s Adequacy 

Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

reg9sips.htm#ca. The comment period 

for this notification ended on October 3, 

2011, and EPA received no comments 

from the public. On November 23, 2011, 

EPA published in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 72404) a finding of adequacy for 

the PM10 MVEBs for the years 2008, 

2012, and 2022. 

d. Updated Technical Review 

As described earlier, the budgets were 

developed using emission factors 

generated by CARB’s EMFAC2007 

model and AP–42. The paved road 

emissions were originally calculated 

using the 2006 version of AP–42 by 

estimating the 2008 paved road 

emissions and projecting them to 2012 

and 2022. The calculation relied on a 

California profile of silt loading, 

weather, and growth in roadway 

centerline miles. 

EPA released an update to 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP–42) in January of 2011, 

which revised the equation for 

estimating paved road dust emissions 

based on an updated regression that 

included new emission tests results. 

CARB staff conducted an additional 

technical analysis of the Sacramento 

County paved road emission projections 

using the updated AP–42 equation and 

growth in vehicle miles traveled, to 

ensure that the motor vehicle emission 

budgets were still consistent with the 

currently approved modeling tools and 

data and the maintenance 

demonstration. The technical analysis 

showed that the updated paved road 

emissions provided safety margins in 

2012 and 2022 as compared to the 

attainment inventory emissions of 

paved road dust which was used in 

establishing the MVEBs in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan.47

Therefore, the total MVEBs are 

consistent with maintenance of the 

standard. 

e. Proposed Actions on the Budgets 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MVEBs for 2008, 2012 and 2022 as part 

of our approval of Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan. EPA has determined 

that the MVEB emission targets are 

consistent with emission control 

measures in the SIP and that 

Sacramento County can maintain 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

Because the budgets EPA found 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44511 

adequate in 2011 are the same budgets 

EPA is proposing to approve in this 

action, if EPA approves the MVEBs in 

the final rulemaking action, it would not 

change the budgets currently in use for 

future transportation conformity 

determinations for Sacramento County. 

As discussed in section V.D.2.a of this 

notice, EPA is proposing that if this 

approval is finalized in 2013 the area 

will continue to maintain the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS through at least 2023. 

Consistent with this proposal, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs 

submitted by the State in the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

EPA is proposing that the submitted 

budgets, when combined with EPA’s 

additional analysis for the 2022–2023 

time period, are consistent with 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS through 2023. 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Based on our review of the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan 

submitted by the State, air quality 

monitoring data, and other relevant 

materials, EPA is proposing to find that 

the State has addressed all the necessary 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Sacramento nonattainment area to 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, 

pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) 

and 175A. 

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

we are proposing to approve CARB’s 

request, which accompanied the 

submittal of the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the 

Sacramento PM10 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. We are doing so based on our 

conclusion that the area has met the five 

criteria for redesignation under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion is 

based on our proposed determination 

that the area has attained the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS; that relevant portions of 

the California SIP are fully approved; 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions; that California 

has met all requirements applicable to 

the Sacramento PM10 nonattainment 

area with respect to section 110 and part 

D of the CAA; and is based on our 

proposed approval of the Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan as part of this 

action. 

Second, in connection with the 

Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

EPA’s analysis showing maintenance 

through 2023, EPA finds that the 

maintenance demonstration showing 

how the area will continue to attain the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 10 years 

beyond redesignation (i.e., through 

2023) and the contingency provisions 

describing the actions that SMAQMD 

will take in the event of a future 

monitored violation meet all applicable 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

related contingency provisions in 

section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in the Sacramento 

PM10 Maintenance Plan because we find 

they meet the applicable transportation 

conformity requirements under 40 CFR 

93.118(e). Lastly, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2008 inventory, which 

serves as the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan’s attainment year 

inventory, as satisfying the requirements 

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

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for 30 days following 

publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. Redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

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 submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely propose to approve a 

State plan and redesignation request as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those by State law. For these reasons, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. In addition, there are no 

federally recognized tribes located 

within the Sacramento PM10

nonattainment area. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17825 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1