The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blum enfeld, signed the following proposed rule on Janua ry 28, 2016, and

EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accu racy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the officia l version of the rule for purposes of compliance. P lease refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys w ebsite ( http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action ) and on Regulations.gov ( http://www.regulations.gov ) in Docket No. EPAR09-OAR-2015-0432. Billing Code: 6560-50-P

1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and Part 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432; FRL- ] Approval and Disapproval of California Air Plan; Sa n Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan and

Attainment Date Extension for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is propo sing to approve, conditionally approve, and disapprove state implementation plan ( SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 199 7 24-hour and annual fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area. As part of this action, the EPA is proposing to grant extensions of the Serious ar ea attainment dates for the 1997 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV to December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2020, respectively, based on a conclus ion that the State has satisfied the statutory crit eria for these extensions of the Serious area attainment date. The EPA is also proposing to approve interpollutant trading ratios for use in transportation conformity analyses. DATES: Any comments must arrive by [Federal Register Office: insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]

. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432 at http://www.regulations.gov , or via email to mays.rory@epa.gov . For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. F or either manner of submission, the EPA mayThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (C BI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audi o, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the offi cial comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. , on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person ident ified in the “ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effecti ve comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets

. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” ref er to the
EPA. Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan
III. Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan
IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM 2.5 Serious Area Plans

A. PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan Requirements
B. Implementation of Best Available Control Measures
C. Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Meas ures D. Extension of the Serious Area Attainment Date Beyon d 2015This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan and Extension Application
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Adequate Monitoring Network
C. PM 2.5 Precursors
D. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures
E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section 188(e)
1. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
2. Demonstration that Attainment by Serious Area Attai nment Date is Impracticable
3. Compliance with all Requirements and Commitments in the Implementation Plan
4. Demonstration that the Implementation Plan Includes the Most Stringent Measures 5. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious Alternative Date Practicable
F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milest ones G. Contingency Measures
H. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements under CAA Section 189(e)
I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On July 18, 1997, the EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (μm ) in diameter (PM 2.5 ), including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 6 5 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of 98th percentileThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations. 1 The EPA established these standards after consider ing substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM 2.5 concentrations above these levels. Epidemiological studies have shown statistically si gnificant correlations between elevated PM 2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important hea lth effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disea se (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work , and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as wel l as new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sen sitive to PM 2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children. 2
PM 2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a s olid or liquid particle (primary PM 2.5 or direct PM 2.5 ) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxid es, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary PM 2.5 ). 3 Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, t he EPA is required under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published initial air q uality designations for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM 2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the t hree-year periods of 2001–2003 and 2002–

1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effec tive December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hou r PM 2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 μg/m 3 . 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m 3 while retaining the secondary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS at the level of 15.0 μg/m 3 . 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. I n this preamble, all references to the PM 2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standards (65 μg/m 3 ) and annual standards (15.0 μg/m 3 ) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 2 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/002bF, Octo ber 2004. 3 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 2004. 4 These designations became effective April 5, 2005. 5 The EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area as nonattainment for both the 1997 annua l PM 2.5 standard (15.0 μg/m 3 ) and the 1997 24-hour
PM 2.5 standard (65 μg/m 3 ). 6
The SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Me rced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. 7 The area is home to 4 million people and is the na tion’s leading agricultural region. Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and a veraging 80 miles wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The San Joaquin Valley Unified A ir Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District) has primary responsibility for developing plans to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in th is area. The District works cooperatively with the Cal ifornia Air Resources Board (CARB) in preparing attainment plans. Authority for regulating sources under State jurisdiction in the SJV is split betwee n the District, which has responsibility for regulating s tationary and most area sources, and CARB, which ha s responsibility for regulating most mobile sources. Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP subm issions to address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 8 We refer to these submissions collectively as the “2008 PM 2.5 Plan.” On November 9, 2011, the EPA approved all e lements of the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which th e EPA disapproved. 9 As part of that

4 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 5 Id

. 6 40 CFR 81.305. The 2001-2003 design values for the San Joaquin Valley were 21.8 μg/m3 for the annual standard and 82 μg/m3 for the 24-hour standard. See EPA design value workbook dated August 12, 2014, wo rksheets “Table 3a” and “Table 3b.” 7 For a precise description of the geographic bounda ries of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 8 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 9 Id . at 69924.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 action and pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), th e EPA granted California’s request for an extension of the attainment date for the SJV area to April 5, 2015. 10 The EPA took these actions in accordance with the “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Ru le,” which the EPA issued in April 2007 to assist states in their development of SIPs to meet the Act ’s attainment planning requirements for the 1997
PM 2.5 NAAQS (hereafter “2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule”). 11 In July 2013, the State submitted a revised PM 2.5 contingency measure plan for the SJV, which the EP A fully approved in May 2014. 12 On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for t he D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) issued its decision in a challenge by the Natural Resources De fense Council (NRDC) to the EPA’s 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. 13 In NRDC , the court held that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM 2.5 standards solely pursuant to the general implementa tion requirements of subpart 1, without also considering the requirements specific to nonattainm ent areas for particles less than or equal to 10 μm in diameter (PM 10 ) in subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA. The c ourt reasoned that the plain meaning of the CAA requires implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards under subpart 4 because PM 2.5 particles fall within the statutory definition of PM 10 and are thus subject to the same statutory require ments as
PM 10 . The court remanded the rule, without vacatur, and instructed the EPA “to repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion. ” 14

10 Id . Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment da te for a nonattainment area is “the date by which a ttainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no la ter than five years from the date such area was des ignated nonattainment,” except that EPA may extend the attainment date as a ppropriate for a period no greater than ten years f rom the date of designation as nonattainment, considering the sever ity of nonattainment and the availability and feasi bility of pollution control measures. CAA section 172(a)(2)(A); see also 40 CFR 51.1004(a) and (b). 11 72 FR 20583 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR p art 51, subpart Z. This rule was premised on EPA’s prior interpretation of the Act as allowing for implementation of the PM 2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the general nonattainment area provisions of subpart 1 and not the more specific provisions f or particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpar t 4 of part D, title I of the Act. 12 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 13 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“ NRDC ”). 14 Id

.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 Consistent with the NRDC decision, on June 2, 2014, the EPA published a fin al rule classifying all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 and /or 2006 PM 2.5 standards as “moderate” nonattainment under subpart 4. 15 Because this rulemaking did not affect any action that the EPA had previously taken under section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the April 5, 2015 attainment date that the EPA had approved for the SJV area in November 2011 remained in effect. 16 On April 7, 2015, the EPA published a final rule r eclassifying the SJV area as “serious” nonattainment under subpart 4, based on the EPA’s d etermination that the area could not practicably attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards by the April 5, 2015 attainment date. 17 This reclassification was based upon the EPA’s evaluation of ambient air quality da ta from the 2003-2014 period, including the 2012– 2014 design value, indicating that it was not pract icable for certain monitoring sites within the SJV area to show PM 2.5 design values at or below the level of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015. 18 As a consequence of its reclassification as a Serio us PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the SJV area became subject to a new attainment date under CAA s ection 188(c)(2) and the requirement to submit a Serious area plan that satisfies the requirements o f part D of title I of the Act, including the requi rements of subpart 4, for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 19 Under subpart 4, the attainment date for an area c lassified as Serious is as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year follo wing designation. As explained in the EPA’s final reclas sification action, the Serious area plan for SJV mu st include provisions to assure that the best availabl e control measures (BACM) for the control of direct

15 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). As part of this rulema king, EPA established a December 31, 2014 deadline for states to submit attainment-related and nonattainment new sou rce review (NNSR) SIP elements required for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas pursuant to subpart 4. Id. 16 Id . at 31569. 17 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). 18 Id. at 18529; see also proposed rule, 80 FR 1482 (January 12, 2015). Air q uality data for 2012-2014 indicated that the highest monitors in the SJV area had design values of 19.7 μg/m 3 for the annual standard and 71 μg/m 3 for the 24-hour standard. 19 80 FR 18258 at 18530-18532.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 ye ars after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)), and a demonstration (includi ng air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no l ater than December 31, 2015, which is the latest permissible attainment date under CAA section 188(c )(2). 20 Given the December 31, 2015 outermost attainment de adline for the SJV area under section 188(c)(2), the EPA noted its expectation that the S tate would adopt and submit a Serious area plan for the SJV well before the statutory SIP submission de adlines in CAA section 189(b)(2). 21 The EPA also noted that, in light of the available ambient air q uality data and the short amount of time available before the December 31, 2015 attainment date, California m ay choose to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA se ction 188(e) simultaneously with its submission of a Serious area plan for the area. 22 II. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan We are proposing action on two California SIP submi ssions that address the 1997 annual and 24- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. The first submiss ion is the “2015 Plan for the 1997
PM 2.5 Standard,” which the State submitted to the EPA on June 25, 2015. 23 The second submission is the “2018 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement,” which the State submitted to the EPA on August 13, 2015. 24 We refer to these SIP submissions collectively herein as the “2015 PM 2.5 Plan” or “the Plan.” The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan is a PM 2.5 Serious area plan for the SJV and includes a request to extend t he applicable attainment dates for the annual and 2 4-

20 Id. 21 Id. at 18531. 22 Id. 23 Letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, Ex ecutive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosur es. 24 Letter dated August 13, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, w ith enclosures.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 hour PM 2.5 standards by five and three years, respectively, o n the basis that attainment by December 31, 2015 is impracticable, in accordance with CAA secti on 188(e). The first submission includes two sets of documents : the “2015 Plan for the PM 2.5 Standard,” adopted by the SJVUAPCD Governing Board on April 16 , 2015 and the “Staff Report, ARB Review of San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” adopted by CARB on May 21, 2015 (“CARB Staff Report”). Both sets of documents include Appe ndices A and B. To distinguish between the two sets of appendices, we refer to those adopted by th e SJVUAPCD Governing Board simply as “Appendix A” (“Ambient PM 2.5 Data Analysis”) and “Appendix B” (“Emission Invent ory Tables”), and we refer to the additional appendices that accompany CARB’s Sta ff Report as “WOEA” for Appendix A (“San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Weight of Evidence Analysis”) and “CARB Staff Repo rt, Appendix B” for Appendix B (“San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 SIP Additional Emission Reductions Towards Meeting Aggregate Commitment”). The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes an Executive Summary and a descripti on of air quality standards and requirements applicable to the SJV (Chapter 1), PM 2.5 challenges and trends (Chapter 2, including a summary of the District’s determination regarding a ir pollutant precursors to PM 2.5 ), and health impacts and risk reduction strategy (Chapter 3). 25 Chapter 4 presents the SJVUAPCD’s request for an e xtension of the PM 2.5 Serious area attainment date; summary arguments fo r how the SJVUAPCD claims it has met the extension requirements of CAA section 188(e ), including a demonstration that attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 is impracticable; a dem onstration, as detailed in Appendix F (“Attainment Demonstration (Provided by ARB)”), of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable; and financial commitments to achi eve further emission reductions by replacing heavy

25 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix A, regarding trends.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 duty trucks and residential wood burning devices th rough the District’s truck replacement incentive program and Burn Cleaner Incentive Program, respect ively. Chapter 5, Appendix C (“BACM and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources”), and Appendix D (“BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources (Provided by ARB) ”) provide analyses of District and State rules to address the statutory requirements for Bes t Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) and the District’s calcula tion of de minimis thresholds for directly emitted
PM 2.5 (direct PM 2.5 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), and sulfur oxides (SO x ). Chapters 6 and 7 present the District’s summary ana lysis to address the planning requirements for PM 2.5 Serious nonattainment areas under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, including the statutory requirements for extension requests under CAA section 188(e). These include the District’s analysis and demonstration, in Chapter 6, of its co mpliance with the requirements and commitments in the implementation plan for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, reasonably available control measures (RACM ), reasonable further progress (RFP) and quantitative milestones, contingency measures, transportation conformity budgets for 2014, 2017, and 2020, and pe rmitting of new and modified major stationary sources ( i.e. , nonattainment new source review (NSR)). 26 Chapter 7 describes the State’s and District’s regulatory control strategy, incentive programs, te chnology advancement program, legislative strategy, and public outreach. 27 Finally, Chapter 8 presents the District’s commitm ents to evaluate opportunities for additional emission reductions in general, and specifically from three source categories: flares, asphalt, and conservation management practices.

26 See also, 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B and Appendix G (“New Source Revie w (NSR) and Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs)”). 27 See also , 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix E (“Incentive and Other Non-regulat ory Strategies”).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 The additional documents adopted by CARB on May 21, 2015 supplement the analysis and demonstrations of those adopted by SJVUAPCD. In par ticular, the CARB Staff Report presents estimated emission reductions by 2018 and 2020 from specific District control measures; an accounting of how the State has complied with its control meas ure and emission reduction commitments in the 2008
PM 2.5 Plan; analysis of ammonia effects on reasonable fu rther progress planning; and 2021 attainment year contingency reductions from specific measures. 28 These additional documents also include the methodology and results for the attainment demonstr ation, 29 a weight of evidence analysis for the attainment demonstration (WOEA), a discussion of ad ditional emission reductions achieved towards the aggregate tonnage commitments of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan (CARB Staff Report, Appendix B), and technical clarifications for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan as a whole (Technical Clarifications). 30 Finally, transportation conformity budgets for 2018 are pres ented in a supplemental SIP revision adopted July 23, 2015 and entitled “Transportation Conformity Bu dgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 SIP Plan Supplement.” We present our evaluation of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan in section V of this proposed rule. Given the overlap of some control and planning requirements b etween a PM 2.5 Serious area plan and a request for extension of the PM 2.5 Serious area attainment date, we generally address these requirements together rather than separately. For example, we address the BACM requirement for Serious area plans and the MSM requirement for extension requests together in section V.D. of this proposed rule. Similarly, we address the requirement for a Serious area attainme nt demonstration and the requirement to demonstrate

28 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, “Staff Report, ARB Review of San Joaquin Val ley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” release date April 20, 2015, pp. 9, 17-22, 25-26, and 26-27, respectiv ely. 29 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, “Attainment Demonstration for the San Joaqui n Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan for the Annual (15 μg/m 3 ) and 24-hour (65 μg/m 3 ) Standards.” 30 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, “Technical Clarifications to the 2015 San Jo aquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan.”This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable, for purposes of requesting an extensi on of the attainment date, together in section V.E.5 o f this proposed rule. III. Completeness Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require e ach state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the ado ption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to th e EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public he aring was provided consistent with the EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable sta tutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adopt ion and submission of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. The District conducted a public workshop, provided a pu blic comment period, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the main SIP submission on April 16, 2015. 31 CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public comment pr ior to its May 21, 2015 public hearing and adoption of the main SIP submission. 32 CARB then adopted its supplemental SIP submission pertaining to 2018 transportation conformity motor vehicle emission bu dgets at its July 23, 2015 Board meeting after reasonable public notice. 33 Each submission includes proof of publication of n otices for the respective public hearings. We find, therefore, that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan meets the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) an d 110(l).

31 SJVUAPCD, “Notice of Public Workshop [on] Draft Pl an for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard,” March 2, 2015; SJVUAPCD, “Notice of Public Hearing [to] Adopt Proposed 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard,” March 17, 2015; and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, “In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Poll ution Control District 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard,” April 16, 2015. 32 CARB, “Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approv al of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” April 20, 2015; and CARB Board Resolution 15-9, “Sa n Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” May 21, 2015. 33 CARB, “Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Ap proval of Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” June 19, 2015; and CAR B Board Resolution 15-39, “San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” July 23, 2015.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determ ine whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provid es that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA’s SIP completeness crit eria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The initial SIP submission, dated June 25, 2015, became complete by operation of law on December 25, 2015 and we find that the SIP submission pertaining to 2018 transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets, dated August 13, 2015, satisfies the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. IV. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM 2.5 Serious Area Plans
A. PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan Requirements Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment a rea as a Serious nonattainment area under subpart 4, the CAA requires the State to submit the following Serious area SIP elements: 34
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of act ual emissions from all sources of PM 2.5 and
PM 2.5 precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
2. Provisions to assure that the best available contro l measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT), for the control of direc t PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) th at the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than Dece mber 31, 2015, or where the State is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 1 88(e), a demonstration that attainment by

34 80 FR 18528, 18531 (April 7, 2015)

.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14 December 31, 2015 is impracticable and that the pla n provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable (CAA secti ons 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
4. Plan provisions that require reasonable further pro gress (RFP) (CAA section 172(c)(2)); 5. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved ev ery 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainm ent by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c)); 6. Provisions to assure that control requirements appl icable to major stationary sources of PM 2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 2.5 precursors, except where the State demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area (CAA section 189(e) );
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. A revision to the nonattainment new source review ( NSR) program to lower the applicable “major stationary source” 35 thresholds from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)). Serious area PM 2.5 plans must also satisfy the requirements for Moder ate area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the extent those requirements ha ve not already been satisfied in the Moderate area plan submitted for the area; the general requiremen ts applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA; the requirement to provide necessary as surances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under sec tion 110(a)(2)(E); and the requirements concerning enforcement provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C).

35 For any Serious area, the terms “major source” and “major stationary source” include any stationary s ource that emits or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of PM 10 (CAA section 189(b)(3)).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15 The EPA provided its preliminary views on the CAA’s requirements for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following g uidance documents: (1) “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (hereafter “General Preamble ”); (2) “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the C lean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental,” 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) (hereafter “Supplement ”); and (3) “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment D ate Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (hereafter “Addendum”). Additionally, in a proposed rule published March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15340 ), the EPA provided further interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to are as designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 standards (hereafter “Proposed PM 2.5 Implementation Rule”). We discuss these preliminar y interpretations of the Act as appropriate in our evaluation of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan in section V of this proposed rule. B. Implementation of Best Available Control Measure s Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any se rious PM 2.5 nonattainment area that the State submit provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM) for the control of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than four years after the date the area is reclassified as a serious area. The EPA defines BACM as, among o ther things, the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or source categor y, which is determined on a case-by-case basis considering energy, environmental, and economic imp acts. 36 We generally consider BACM a control level that goes beyond existing RACM-level controls , for example by expanding the use of RACM

36 Addendum at 42010, 42013.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16 controls or by requiring preventative measures inst ead of remediation. 37 Indeed, as implementation of BACM and BACT is required when a Moderate nonattain ment area is reclassified as Serious due to its inability to attain the NAAQS through implementatio n of “reasonable” measures, it is logical that “bes t” control measures should represent a more stringent and potentially more costly level of control. 38 The EPA has historically provided an exemption from BACM and BACT for source categories that contribute only de minimis levels to ambient PM 10 concentrations in a Serious nonattainment area. The Addendum discusses the following steps for dete rmining BACM:
1. Develop a detailed emission inventory of the source s of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors; 2. Evaluate source category impacts;
3. Evaluate alternative control techniques and their t echnological feasibility; and
4. Evaluate the costs of control ( i.e., economic feasibility). 39 Once these analyses are complete, the State must u se this information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to the EPA for eva luation under CAA section 110. We use these steps as guidelines in our evaluation of the BACM measure s and related analyses in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. C. Implementation of Reasonably Available Control M easures When the EPA reclassifies a Moderate area to Seriou s under subpart 4, the requirement to implement reasonably available control measures (RA CM) in section 189(a)(1)(C) remains. Thus, a Serious area PM 2.5 plan must also provide for the implementation of R ACM as expeditiously as practicable, to the extent that the RACM requiremen t has not been satisfied in the area’s Moderate are a plan. 40

37 Id. at 42011, 42013. 38 Id. at 42009-42010. 39 Id. at 42012-42014. 40 EPA previously approved California’s RACM demonstr ation for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011). On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circu it Court of Appeals remanded this final rule to EPA on the groundsThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17 However, the EPA does not normally conduct a separa te evaluation to determine whether a Serious area plan’s measures also meet the RACM req uirements. As explained in the Addendum, we interpret the BACM requirement as generally subsumi ng the RACM requirement – i.e., if we determine that the measures are indeed the “best available,” we have necessarily concluded that they are “reasonably available.” 41 Therefore, a separate analysis to determine if the measures represent a RACM level of control is not necessary. A proposed appro val of a Plan’s provisions concerning implementatio n of BACM is also a proposed finding that the Plan pr ovides for the implementation of RACM. D. Extension of the Serious Area Attainment Date Be yond 2015 Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years, whic h the EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainmen t date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the State must: (1) apply for an extension of the attai nment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2 ) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attain ment date is impracticable; (3) have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the “most stringent measures” th at are included in the implementation plan of any Stat e or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. 42

that the California mobile source “waiver measures” upon which the plan relied were not federally enfo rceable components of the approved SIP. Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA , 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). On November 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve the relevant waiver measures in to the SIP and to thereby make them federally enfor ceable under the CAA. 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015). Final approva l of these waiver measures would cure the deficienc y in California’s RACM demonstration for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 41 Addendum at 42010. 42 For a discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the re quirements of section 188(e), see Addendum at 42002 (August 16, 1994); 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on PM 10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252 (O ctober 2, 2001) (proposed action on PM 10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (J uly 25, 2002) (final action on PM 10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA , 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remandingThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18 In addition to establishing these preconditions for an extension of the Serious area attainment date, section 188(e) provides that the EPA may cons ider a number of factors in determining whether to grant an extension and the appropriate length of ti me for any such extension. These factors are: (1) t he nature and extent of nonattainment in the area, (2) the types and numbers of sources or other emitting activities in the area (including the influence of uncontrollable natural sources and trans-boundary emissions from foreign countries), (3) the populati on exposed to concentrations in excess of the stand ard in the area, (4) the presence and concentrations of potentially toxic substances in the mix of particu late emissions in the area, and (5) the technological an d economic feasibility of various control measures. 43 Notably, neither the statutory requirements nor the discretionary factors identified in section 188(e) include the specific ambient air quality conditions in section 188(d)(2), which must be met for an are a to qualify for an extension of a Moderate area attainm ent date. The EPA has previously interpreted section 188(e) i n approving an extension of the PM 10 Serious area attainment date for the Phoenix Metrop olitan area in Maricopa County, Arizona. 44 We propose to generally follow the steps provided in t hat rulemaking action for addressing the statutory requirements for an extension of the Serious area a ttainment date under section 188(e) as described below. Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment by the statutor y Serious area attainment date is impracticable.

EPA action on PM 10 Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but generally up holding EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 188(e)). 43 CAA section 188(e). 44 See 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on Ma ricopa County Serious Area Plan, annual PM 10 standard); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on Maricop a County Serious Area Plan, 24-hour PM 10 standard); and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa County Se rious Area Plan).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19 Section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to grant a state request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date if, among other things, attainment by the date established under section 188(c) would be impracticable. In order to demonstrate impracticabi lity, the plan must show that the implementation of BACM and BACT on relevant source categories will no t bring the area into attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date. For the SJV, the Seri ous area attainment date under section 188(c)(2) is December 31, 2015. 45 BACM, including BACT, is the required level of con trol for serious areas that must be in place before the Serious area attainment date. Therefore, we interpret the Act as requiring that a state provide for at least the implementatio n of BACM, including BACT, before it can claim impracticability of attainment by the statutory dea dline. The statutory provision for demonstrating impracticability requires that the demonstration be based on air quality modeling. 46 This interpretation parallels our interpretation of the impracticability option for Moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas in section 189(a)(1)(B), under which implementation of a RACM/RACT control strategy, at a minimum, is a prerequisite for appro val of a Moderate area plan demonstrating impracticability of attainment by the Moderate area attainment date. 47 Step 2: Comply with all requirements and commitment s in the applicable implementation plan

. A second precondition for an extension of the Serio us area attainment under section 188(e) is a showing that the State has complied with all requir ements and commitments pertaining to that area in the implementation plan. We interpret this criterio n to mean that the State has implemented the contro l measures and commitments in the SIP revisions it ha s submitted to address the applicable requirements

45 Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment date f or a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as pra cticable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning a fter the area’s designation as nonattainment....” EPA designated the SJV area as nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards effective April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 956- 957, January 5, 2005). Therefore, the latest permissible attainment date under sectio n 188(c)(2), for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in this area, is December 31, 2015. 46 CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). 47 General Preamble at 13544; see also 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20 in CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. For a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted simultaneously wi th the initial Serious area attainment plan for the area, the EPA proposes to read section 188(e) not t o require the area to have a fully approved Moderat e area attainment plan and to allow for extension of the attainment date if the area has complied with a ll Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaini ng to that area in the State’s submitted Moderate area implementation plan. This interpretation is ba sed on the plain language of section 188(e), which requires the State to comply with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan. 48 Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of the most strin gent measures. A third precondition for an extension of the Seriou s area attainment under section 188(e) is for the State to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the im plementation plan of any state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemen ted in the area. The EPA has interpreted the term “most stringent measure” (MSM) to mean the maximum degree of emission reduction that has been required or achieved from a source or source catego ry in any other attainment plan or in practice in a ny other state and that can feasibly be implemented in the area seeking the extension. 49 The Act does not specify an implementation deadline for MSM. Because the clear intent of section 188(e) is to minimize the length of any attainment date extension, we pro pose that the implementation of MSM should be as expeditiously as practicable.

48 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this int erpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt , 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). 49 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also Addendum at 42010.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21 An MSM demonstration should follow a process simila r to a BACM demonstration, but with one additional step, as follows:
1. Develop a detailed emission inventory of the source s of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors; 2. Evaluate source category impacts;
3. Identify the potentially most stringent measures in other implementation plans or used in practice in other states for each relevant source c ategory and, for each measure, determine their technological and economic feasibility in the nonattainment area;
4. Compare the potential MSM for each relevant source category to the measures, if any, already adopted for that source category in the Ser ious nonattainment area to determine whether such potential MSM would further reduce emi ssions; and 5. Provide for the adoption and expeditious implementa tion of any MSM that is more stringent than existing measures or, in lieu of adoption, pro vide a reasoned justification for rejecting the potential MSM ( i.e., provide an explanation as to why such measures cann ot feasibly be implemented in the area). 50 The level of control required under the MSM standa rd may depend on how well other areas have chosen to control their sources. If a source catego ry has not been well controlled in other areas then MSM could theoretically result in a low level of co ntrol. This contrasts with BACM which is determined independently of what other areas have d one and depends only on what is the best level of control feasible for an area. 51 On the other hand, given the strategy in the nonat tainment provisions of the Act to offset longer attainment timeframes with more stringent emission control requirements, we interpret the MSM provision to assure that it resul ts in additional controls beyond the set of measure s

50 65 FR 19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000); see also Proposed PM 2.5 Implementation Rule at 15420 (March 23, 2015). 51 Id

.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22 adopted as BACM. Two ways to do this are (1) to req uire that more sources and source categories be subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis, that is, by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected during th e BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the area given the longer attainment timeframe. 52 Notably, the “to the satisfaction of the Administr ator” qualifier on the MSM requirement indicates that Congress granted the EPA considerabl e discretion in determining whether a plan in fact includes MSM, recognizing that the overall intent o f section 188(e) is that we grant as short an exten sion as practicable. For this reason, the EPA will apply greater scrutiny to the evaluation of MSM for sour ce categories that contribute the most to the PM 2.5 problem in the SJV and less scrutiny to source cate gories that contribute little to the PM 2.5 problem. Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the most expediti ous alternative date practicable. Section 189(b)(1)(A) requires that the Serious area plan for the SJV area demonstrate attainment, using air quality modeling, by the most expeditious date practicable after December 31, 2015. Because the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 standards are independent standards, section 189(b) (1)(A) requires a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious date practicable for each standard. 53
Evaluation of a modeled attainment demonstration co nsists of two parts: evaluation of the technical adequacy of the modeling itself and evalu ation of the control measures that are relied on to demonstrate attainment. The EPA’s determination of whether the plan provides for attainment by the

52 65 FR 19964, 19968-19969. 53 Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that the CAA r equires independent treatment of the annual and 24- hour PM 10 standards in an implementation plan).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23 most expeditious date practicable depends on whethe r the plan provides for implementation of BACM and BACT no later than the statutory implementation deadline, MSM as expeditiously as practicable, and any other technologically and economically feas ible measures that will result in attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Step 5: Apply for an attainment date extension. Finally, the State must apply in writing to the EPA for an extension of a Serious area attainment date, and this request must accompany the modeled a ttainment demonstration showing attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. Addi tionally, the State must provide the public reasona ble notice and opportunity for a public hearing on the attainment date extension request before submitting it to the EPA, in accordance with the requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110. V. Review of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Serious Area Plan and Extension Application A. Emissions Inventory 1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP includ e a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of t he relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area . . . .” By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area , this section provides for the base year inventory t o include all emissions that contribute to the form ation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, this includes direct PM 2.5 as well as the main chemical precursors to the formation of second ary PM 2.5 : NO x , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH 3 ). Primary PM 2.5 includes condensable and filterable particulate matter.
A state must include in its SIP submission document ation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissi ons, a state should use the latest emissions modelsThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24 and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. States are also required to use t he
EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP–42) 54 road dust method for calculating reentrained road dust emissions from paved roads. 55 The latest EPA-approved version of California’s mobile source emission factor model is EMFAC2014. 56 In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must also submit future “basel ine inventories” for the projected attainment year and each reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone ye ar, and any other year of significance for meeting applicable CAA requirements. 57 By “baseline inventories” (also referred to as “pr ojected baseline inventories”), we mean projected emissions inventor ies for future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The SIP should include documentation to explain how the emi ssions projections were calculated.
2. Emissions Inventories in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan The planning inventories for direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 precursors (NO x , SO x , VOC, and ammonia) for the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area together with documentation for the inventories are found in SJV Appendix B of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. Annual average inventories and winter daily average inventories, representing conditions in the period November through April, are provided for the base year of 2012 and each baseline year from 2013 to 20 20. The winter daily average inventory is useful to evaluate sources of emissions during the portion of the year when the vast majority of exceedances of

54 EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011, w hich revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based on an updated data regression that included n ew emission tests results. 55 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). 56 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). 57 40 CFR 51.1007(a), 51.1008(b), and 51.1009(f); see also U.S. EPA, “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Impleme ntation of Ozone [and Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regula tions,” available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/d ocuments/2014revisedeiguidance_0.pdf

.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25 the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS occur. Baseline inventories reflect all con trol measures adopted prior to January 2012. Growth factors used to project the se baseline inventories are derived from data obtained from a number of sources such as the Calif ornia Energy Commission (CEC), the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and the California Department of Finance, as well as studies commissioned by the SJV’s metropolitan plan ning organizations. 58 Each inventory includes emissions from point, area, on-road, and non-road sources. The inventories use EMFAC2014 for estimating on-road mo tor vehicle emissions. 59 Re-entrained paved road dust emissions were calculated using the EPA’s AP-4 2 road dust methodology. 60 Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the annual aver age and winter daily average inventories of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors for the base year of 2012. The District provides its reasons for selecting 2012 as the base year in Appendix B of th e Plan. 61 These inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. Table 1. San Joaquin Valley Annual Average Emission s Inventory for Direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors for the 2012 Base Year (tons/day) Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x VOC Ammonia Stationary Sources 8.8 38.3 6.9 99.2 13.6 Area Sources 44.1 8.2 0.3 152.1 311.2 On-Road Mobile Sources 7.3 198.0 0.6 54.0 4.7 Off-Road Mobile Sources 5.9 87.7 0.2 35.3 0.0 Total 66.0 332.2 8.1 340.7 329.5 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5.

58 2015 PM2.5 Plan, SJV Appendix B, pp. B-23 to B-29. 59 Id. at B-31. 60 Id. at B-27. 61 Id. At B-20, B-21.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26 Table 2. San Joaquin Valley Winter Daily Average Em issions Inventory for Direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors for the 2012 Base Year (tons/day) Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x VOC Ammonia Stationary Sources 8.5 34.6 6.6 98.7 13.5 Area Sources 40.7 11.7 0.5 156.5 291.8 On-Road Mobile Sources 7.3 204.1 0.6 55.6 4.7 Off-Road Mobile Sources 4.6 68.0 0.2 26.8 0.0 Total 61.0 318.5 7.9 337.5 310.0 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
The inventories in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan are based on the most current and accurate in formation available to the State and District at the time the Plan and its inventories were being developed in 2 014 and 2015, including the latest version of Californi a’s mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2014. 62 The inventories comprehensively address all source categories in the SJV and were developed consistent with the EPA’s inventory guidance. For these reason s, we are proposing to approve the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 17 2(c)(3). We are also proposing to find that the baseline invent ories in the Plan provide an adequate basis for the BACM, MSM, impracticability, RFP, and attainment de monstrations in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. B. Adequate Monitoring Network We discuss the adequacy of the monitoring network i n this preamble to support our finding that the plan appropriately evaluates the PM 2.5 challenges in the San Joaquin Valley. Reliable amb ient data is

62 CARB submitted the EMFAC2014 model to the EPA on M ay 21, 2015 and EPA recently approved that model fo r use in California SIPs. 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27 necessary to validate the base year air quality mod eling which in turn is necessary to assure sound attainment demonstrations. Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality for all criteria pollutants. Our regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish specific requirements for operati ng air quality surveillance networks to measure ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 , including requirements for measurement methods, n etwork design, quality assurance procedures, and in the case of la rge urban areas, the minimum number of monitoring sites designated as State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). A good spatial distribution of sites, correct siting, and quality-assured and qual ity-controlled data are the most important factors we consider when evaluating the monitoring network for air quality modeling. Under 40 CFR part 58, states are required to submit Annual Network Plans (ANPs) for ambient air monitoring networks for approval by the EPA. Th e most recent ANP, entitled “2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan,” summarizes the state of the ambient air monitoring network in the San Joaquin Valley as it operated from January 2013 through May 2014. 63 During this time, there were 20 monitoring sites operated by either the District or CARB that collec ted PM 2.5 data, including 14 monitors designated as SLAMS, ten monitors designated as special purpose m onitors (SPMs), four supplemental speciation monitors, and eight non-regulatory monitors. 64 On June 16, 2015, the EPA approved those portions of the State’s and District’s 2014 Air Monitoring Netw ork Plan that pertain to the adequacy of the networ k
for PM 2.5 monitoring purposes. 65

63 SJVAPCD, “2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan,” Janua ry 28, 2015. 64 Id. , Table 17, p. 25 and Table 19, p. 27. 65 Letter dated June 16, 2015, from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office , to Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28 Similarly, the District’s previous ANP, entitled “A nnual Air Monitoring Network Plan, June 25, 2013,” summarizes the state of the ambient air moni toring network in the San Joaquin Valley as it operated from January 2012 through March 2013. 66 During this time, there were 21 monitoring sites operated by either the District or CARB that collec ted PM 2.5 data, including 14 monitors designated as SLAMS, 12 monitors designated as special purpose mo nitors (SPMs), two supplemental speciation monitors, and eight non-regulatory monitors. 67 On May 8, 2014, the EPA approved those portions of the State’s and District’s 2014 Air Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to the adequacy of the network fo r PM 2.5 monitoring purposes. 68
In sum, the PM 2.5 monitoring network operated by the District and CAR B from January 2012 through May 2014 is adequate to support the air qua lity modeling in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan.
C. PM 2.5 Precursors 1. Requirements for the Control of PM 2.5 Precursors The composition of PM 2.5 is complex and highly variable due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM 2.5 to total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible che mical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous SO 2 , NO x , VOC, and ammonia to PM 2.5 , making them precursors to PM 2.5 . 69 Formation of secondary PM 2.5 may also depend on atmospheric conditions, includi ng solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the interactions of prec ursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or fog droplets. 70

66 SJVAPCD, “Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan,” Jun e 25, 2013. 67 SJVAPCD, “Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan,” Jun e 25, 2013, Tables 15-17, pp. 25-32. 68 Letter dated May 8, 2014, from Meredith Kurpius, M anager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD. 69 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter ( EPA/600/P-99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3. 70 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revi sions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA/452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29 The 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule contained rebuttable presumpti ons concerning the four
PM 2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and cont rol measures related to those plans. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Although the rule included presumptions that states should address SO 2 and NO x emissions in their attainment plans, it also included presump tions that regulation of VOCs and ammonia was not necessary. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002(c), the EPA provided, among other things, that a state was “not required to address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the state for control measures,” unless the state or the EPA provided an appropriate technical demonstration sho wing that emissions from sources of these pollutant s “significantly contribute” to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 71
In NRDC , however, the D.C. Circuit remanded the EPA’s 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule in its entirety, including the presumptions concerning VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002. 72 Although the court expressly declined to decide the specific cha llenge to these presumptions concerning precursors, 73 the court cited CAA section 189(e) 74 to support its observation that “[a]mmonia is a pr ecursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both P M 2.5 and PM 10 ” and that “[f]or a PM 10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is presumpt ively regulated.” 75 Consistent with the NRDC decision, the EPA now interprets the Act to require that under subpart 4, a state must evaluate all PM 2.5 precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM 2.5 precursor, it demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction that such precursor does not contribut e significantly to PM 2.5 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment area.

71 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3), (4). See also 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 at 20589-97 (Apri l 25, 2007). 72 NRDC v. EPA , 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 73 Id. at 437, n. 10. 74 Section 189(e) of the CAA states that “[t]he contr ol requirements applicable under plans in effect un der this part for major stationary sources of PM 10 shall also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute sign ificantly to PM 10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” 75 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2013).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM 2.5 , nor do they explicitly require the control of any specifically identified particulate matter (PM) precursor. The statutory definition of “air pollutant,” however, p rovides that the term “includes any precursors to t he formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the A dministrator has identified such precursor or precu rsors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘air pollutant’ is used.” CAA section 302(g). The EPA ha s identified SO 2 , NO x , VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the formation o f PM 2.5 . Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four precursor pollutants and dire ct
PM 2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile sour ces, except as otherwise provided in the Act ( e.g., CAA section 189(e)). Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute sign ificantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control requirements under subpart 4 ( e.g., requirements for reasonably available control meas ures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control measures (BACM) and best available control technology (BACT), most stringent measures (MSM), and new sour ce review (NSR)) for sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions. Although section 189(e) explic itly addresses only major stationary sources, the EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate circumstanc es, that regulation of specific PM 2.5 precursors from other source categories in a given nonattainment area is not necessary. For example, under the EPA’s longsta nding interpretation of the control requirements th at apply to stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM 10 precursors area-wide under CAA section 172(c)(1)This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31 and subpart 4, 76 a state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that c ontrol of a certain precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant cont ribution to ambient PM 10 levels in the nonattainment

area. 77 We are evaluating the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan in accordance with the presumption embodied w ithin subpart 4 that all PM 2.5 precursors must be addressed in the State’s evalua tion of potential control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that emissions of a particular precursor or precurs ors do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the State to exclude a PM 2.5 precursor from the required evaluation of potential control measures, we consider both the magnitude of the precursor’s contribution to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the s ensitivity of ambient
PM 2.5 concentrations in the area to reductions in emissi ons of that precursor. 2. Evaluation of Precursors in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan In the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, the State and District identify NO x and SO x as the precursors that are the focus of its control strategy to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley. 78 Although no technical demonstration is necessary to support a c onclusion consistent with the statutory requirement to regulate specific PM 2.5 precursors under subpart 4, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan nevertheless provides supporting evidence describing the effectiveness of NO x and SO x emission controls. 79 By contrast, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes statements that further reductions in VOC and ammonia emissions would not contribute to

76 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539-42 (April 1 6, 1992). 77 Courts have upheld this approach to the requiremen ts of subpart 4 for PM 10 . See , e.g. , Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al ., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 78 This identification is made in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A-3. See also Chapter 2 (“PM 2.5 Trends and Challenges in the San Joaquin Valley”), for more regarding the St ate and District’s analysis that NO x is a significant precursor (p. 2-8), and that VOC and ammonia are insignificant precursors ( pp. 2-19 and 2-27, respectively). 79 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-24 and Figure 2-19, p. 2-26 (for NO x ) and SJV Appendix A, p. A-47 (for SO x ).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32 attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area 80 and provides CARB’s and SJVUAPCD ‘s analyses to support these positions. CARB and the SJVUAPCD base these conclusions on var ious air quality monitoring and modeling studies, modeling done by CARB for the 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan and for the 2012 plan for attaining the 2006 PM 2.5 standard in the SJV (“2012 PM 2.5 Plan”), and other technical information. We discus s below the technical bases provided in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan to support these positions with respect to SO 2 , NO x , VOC, and ammonia, as well as EPA’s analyses of th is information. For more detail on EPA’s analyses, please refer to section II of our “Genera l Technical Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Rule on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS,” January 2016 (“General TSD”).

a. SO 2 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan recognizes that emissions of SO 2 contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM 2.5 concentrations are sensitive to reductions in
SO 2 . It shows the measured contribution of SO 2 emissions to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in pie charts portraying the contribution of various pollutant sp ecies. For 2010-2012, depending on location, the three-year annual average PM 2.5 chemical composition was 11-14% ammonium sulfate, while for 2011- 2013, the three-year average high day PM 2.5 chemical composition was 4-6% ammonium sulfate. 81 The Plan further describes the formation of ammonium su lfate as SO x -limited, given that ammonia is about 80 times more abundant than SO x for both annual and winter average emission invent ories. 82 The

80 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-19. 81 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, respectively, p. A-16

. See also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Figure F-2, pp. F8 to F-9, which shows how ammonium sulfate has decr eased slightly at three of the four monitoring site s from the 2004-2006 period to the 2011-2013 period. 82 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A-41. This is on a molar or mass-eq uivalent basis: there are 80 times as many ammonia molecules emitted as would be required to combine w ith all the emitted SO 2 molecules to form ammonium sulfate, accounting for the emissions in tons per day, the m olecular masses, and the chemical formula for ammon ium sulfate.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33 ammonium sulfate contribution levels are substantia l, particularly with respect to the annual average concentration, although smaller than the contributi ons of some other PM 2.5 components ( i.e. , ammonium nitrate and organic matter). Ambient PM 2.5 sensitivity to reductions of SO 2 emissions is also presented in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan in the form of modeling results. The results f rom the sensitivity modeling are cited and discusse d below in the NO x subsection. The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan infers from the modeling that there is an amb ient
PM 2.5 concentration decrease of 0.08 μg/m 3 at the projected design value monitoring site in 2 019 (Bakersfield-California) per ton of SO 2 reduction in the SJV area. 83 While the 2019 winter average emissions inventory for SO x (7.6 tpd) is much smaller than that for NO x (208.0 tpd) in the SJV, the 0.08 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 decrease per ton of emissions reduction is the sam e for SO 2 as it is for NO x . 84 Even though the relatively small SO 2 contribution to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations may leave less scope for reductions, the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 to SO 2 emission reductions indicates that SO 2 emissions contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels above the standards in the SJV area. Based on the technical analyses provided in the Pla n, the EPA agrees with the State’s and District’s conclusion that SO 2 controls must be included in the evaluation of pot ential control measures for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV, consistent with the requirem ents of subpart 4. b. NO x The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan recognizes that emissions of NO x contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM 2.5 concentrations are sensitive to reductions in
NO x . The Plan discusses NO x in conjunction with ammonia, because these precurs ors react together to

83 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, p. A-27. 84 Id. See also, 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-8 and B-11.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34 create ammonium nitrate, the largest component of a mbient PM 2.5 particles by species in the SJV. 85 The chemical products of ammonia and NO x (ammonium and nitrate) combine in a 1:1 molecular ratio, but as discussed below, this ratio does not mean that e missions controls for the two precursor pollutants would be equally effective at reducing ambient PM 2.5 . The Plan provides several forms of evidence to indicate that reductions in NO x emissions are effective in reducing PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the standard, and also that they are more effective tha n reductions in ammonia emissions. The evidence includes speciated data from ambient PM 2.5 monitors, model simulations of NO x emission reductions, historical trends, and the relative amounts of NO x and ammonia. The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan indicates that the ambient contribution of NO x to PM 2.5 levels in the SJV is substantial. According to available speciation data, ammonium ni trate is the largest chemical component of ambient PM 2.5 in the SJV, as measured in the southern (Bakersfie ld), central (Fresno), and northern (Modesto) portions of San Joaquin Valley. It compri ses 38-41% of the 2010-2012 average annual PM 2.5 concentrations and 53-64% of the 2011-2013 average peak 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, the highest percentages being observed in Bakersfield. 86 Using the 2011-2013 annual average PM 2.5 design value of 17.3 μg/m 3 at the Bakersfield-Planz site, 87 the ammonium nitrate concentration is approximatel y 7.1 μg/m 3 . If only nitrate itself is considered ( i.e. , the nitrate part of the ammonium nitrate molecule s), the

85 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. A-16. 86 Id. 87 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A-9. The design value for the Bakersfield-Planz site for 2011-2013 is given as a rounded value of 17.0 μg/m 3 in Table A-6 in Appendix A of the Plan. For greater precision in estimating species contributions, we have used the unrounded value of 17.3 μg/m 3 , which we calculated as the average of the 98th pe rcentiles values for each year (14.5, 14.7, and 22.8) as listed in Appendix A, Tab le A-5. We used the Bakersfield-Planz site (the sec ond highest 2011-2013 annual average) in lieu of the Madera-City site (hi ghest average), consistent with the Plan’s weight o f evidence for the attainment demonstration. Similarly consistent with the attainment demonstration, this 17.3 μg/m3 valu e excludes the data from May 5, 2013 for Bakersfield-Planz. Section V.E .5 of this proposed rule has further discussion of these matters. For calculating the ammonium nitrate concentration, we used the 41% value from the Bakersfield pie chart i n the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, p. A-16.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35 contribution of NO x represents 5.5 μg/m 3 , which is approximately 31.8 % of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration. 88 Similarly, using the 2011-2013 24-hour PM 2.5 design value of 64.6 μg/m 3 at the BakersfieldCalifornia site, 89 the 24-hour average ammonium nitrate concentration on peak PM 2.5 days is approximately 41.3 μg/m 3

. If only nitrate itself is considered ( i.e. , the nitrate part of the ammonium nitrate molecules), the contribution of NO x represents 32.0 μg/m 3 , which is approximately 49.6 % of the average peak 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration. Whether considered as ammonium nitr ate or simply as nitrate, NO x is clearly a significant contributor to ambient PM 2.5 levels above the standard in the SJV. In addition to this evidence concerning the contrib ution of NO x to PM 2.5 concentrations, the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan provides evidence that ambient PM 2.5 concentrations are sensitive to NO x reductions ( i.e. , nitrate PM 2.5 concentrations decrease when NO x emissions are reduced). The evidence is from modeling, historical trends, and relative proportions of NO x and ammonia. The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides evidence from past and current photochemical modeling simula tions that ambient ammonium nitrate is sensitive
to NO x reductions. The Plan describes past modeling studies that were documented in academic journals. 90 In the various studies, when NO x emissions were reduced by 50%, ambient ammonium nitrate decreased by 25-50%, depending on the episo de modeled and the geographic location. 91 In

88 The nitrate fraction of ammonia nitrate (5.5 μg/m 3 ) is calculated as molecular weight of nitrate (62) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80) and equal s 77.5 percent. 89 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix A, p. A-8. The design value for Bak ersfield-California (the high site for monitors wit h complete data for the three years) for 2011-2013 is given as a rounded value of 65 μg/m 3 in Table A-4 in Appendix A of the Plan. For greater precision in estimating species c ontributions, we have used the unrounded value of 6 4.6 μg/m 3 , which we calculated as the average of the 98th percentiles v alues for each year (65.5, 56.4, and 71.8) as liste d in Table A-3. For calculating the ammonium nitrate concentration, we used the 64% value from the Bakersfield pie chart i n the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 7, p. A-16. 90 The academic journal papers are described in 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Section 5 (“Secondary Ammonium Nitrate Formation”), pp. A-23-A-29. 91 Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., Klee man, M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal Modeling of PM 2.5 in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Enviro nment, 92, 182-190, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04. 030. Kleeman, M.J., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., Control strategie s for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 2005, 39, 5325-5341. Liang, J., Gürer, K., Allen, P.D., Zhang , K.M., Ying, Q.,This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36 addition, modeling for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, whose results were relied on for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, also shows substantial sensitivity of ambien t PM 2.5 concentrations to reductions in NO x emissions. The State modeled the effect of a 25% r eduction in NO x emissions on ambient 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations in 2019 and combined this with the emission mass (tons per day) to determine that the PM 2.5 concentrations would be reduced by 0.08 μg/m3 at t he BakersfieldCalifornia site (the design value site for 2019) and decreases of a similar order of magnitude ( i.e. , 0.03 to 0.09 μg/m3) at other monitors in the SJV. 92
The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides additional (non-modeling) evidence o n the effectiveness of NO x reductions. The historical downward trends of NO x emissions and of ambient nitrate concentrations ar e discussed in Chapter 2 and the weight of evidence a nalysis (WOEA) of the Plan. 93 Annual average NO x emissions levels are plotted against ammonium nitra te concentrations at Bakersfield and Fresno, and in each case have decreased by about 35-40% from 2004 to 2012. 94 This shows that NO x emissions and ammonium nitrate concentrations are correlated with one another. The conclusion that PM 2.5 nitrate concentrations are more limited by NO x emissions than by ammonia emissions is strengthene d by the fact that this reduction in ambient ammonium nitrat e occurred despite an increase in emissions of ammonia, the other precursor to ammonium nitrate, d uring the same period. 95

Kleeman, M., Wexler, A., and Kaduwela, A., 2006, A photochemical model investigation of an extended wi nter PM episode observed in Central California: Model Performance E valuation, Proceedings of the 5th Annual CMAQ Model s-3 User’s Conference, Chapel Hill, NC. Livingstone, P.L. et. al. , 2009, “Simulating PM Concentrations During a Wint er Episode in a Subtropical Valley and Sensitivity Simulations and Evaluation methods”, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 5 971-5977. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.033. Pun, B.K., Balm ori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, Modeling wintert ime particulate matter formation in Central California, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 402-409. Different models and emi ssion inventories in these studies conducted over the years also contrib ute to the variation in results. 92 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B-2 (“Modeled PM 2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide precurs or emission reductions”), p. A-27. 93 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-8 and 2-9; and CARB’s Staff Report, Appendix A ( i.e., WOEA), pp. A-60 to A-61. 94 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Figure 2-19, p. 2-26; 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 5-6; and WOEA, Figure 44, p. A-60. 95 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-24.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan further describes the effectiveness of NO x controls by characterizing it as the “limiting precursor” in ammonium nitrate format ion, based on the relative amounts of NO x and ammonia. Based on monitored concentrations and the emissions inventory, CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that NO x is the limiting precursor and briefly illustrates this concept in its WOEA. 96 One molecule each of NO x and ammonia is required to form each molecule of a mmonium nitrate. If NO x is in short supply relative to ammonia, then NO x is the limiting factor in ammonium nitrate formati on. 97 The WOEA analysis includes plots 98 of ammonia and nitric acid (which contains nitrate ) concentrations at two monitoring sites in the SJV ( Angiola, a rural site, and Fresno, an urban site) t hat were measured during the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS 99 study and reported in Lurmann et al. (2006). 100 CARB notes that in this study, ammonia concentratio ns are at least an order of magnitude larger than those of nitrate and notes Lurmann et al. ’s conclusion that NO x is the limiting precursor. CARB and the SJVUAPCD did not, however, present more current inf ormation about ammonia concentrations. The WOEA also considers emissions inventories to su pport the argument that NO x is the limiting
precursor. The WOEA normalized NO x emissions using the relative molecular weights of NO x and ammonia, in order to reflect the number of molecule s of each available to react with each other. 101 In 2012, the normalized amount of NO x available was 37-38% of the amount of ammonia for both annual and winter averages, while it is projected to be 21 % of the amount of ammonia in 2020. This shows the

96 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, section 5.b, pp. A-18 to A-19. See also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, section 2.6, pp. 2-18 t o 2- 27. 97 As noted below in the ammonia subsection, the “lim iting precursor” concept is not absolute, and must be used with caution. However, for NO x it does support evidence from the modeling results that NO x significantly contributes to exceedances of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 98 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 11 and 12, pp. A-21 to A-22. 99 CRPAQS is the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study. More information is available about CRPAQS at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/ccaqs.htm. 100 Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Ro berts, P.T., December 2006, Processes Influencing S econdary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter, Journal of Air and Waste Management Associa tion, 56, 1679- 1693. 101 WOEA, Table 1, p. A-20.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38 scarcity of NO x relative to ammonia and implies that NO x is the limiting precursor in the formation of ammonium nitrate. Based on the range of technical analyses provided i n the Plan and other information available to the EPA, we agree with the State’s and District’s c onclusion that NO x controls must be included in the evaluation of potential control measures for the 19 97 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV, consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
c. Ammonia The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan states that, based on modeling, emissions inv entory, and monitoring studies, “[b]ecause of [the] regional surplus in am monia, even substantial ammonia emissions reduction s yield a relatively small reduction in nitrate” 102 and “[a]mmonia emission reductions are approximate ly an order of magnitude less effective” than NO x emission reductions in reducing ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. 103 To support this finding, CARB and the SJVUAPCD dis cuss the ambient contribution of ammonia to measured PM 2.5 levels in the SJV and the sensitivity of ambient P M 2.5 to ammonia reductions. The latter includes discussion of the r elative abundance of NO x and ammonia, and of modeled simulations of further reductions in ammoni a emissions. The Plan indicates that ammonia contributes to ambi ent concentrations of PM 2.5 , in the form of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. As noted abo ve in our discussion of NO x , ammonium nitrate comprises 38-41% of the 2010-2012 average annual PM 2.5 concentrations and 53-64% of the 2011-2013 average peak 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, the highest percentages being obse rved in Bakersfield. 104
Ammonium sulfate contributes an additional 11-14% o f the 2010-2012 average annual PM 2.5

102 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-19. 103 WOEA, p. A-29. 104 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figures 6 and 7, p. A-16.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39 concentrations and 4-6% of the 2011-2013 average pe ak 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations, with the highest percentages similarly being observed in Bakersfield

. 105 Using the highest 2011-2013 annual average PM 2.5 design value of 17.3 μg/m 3 at the Bakersfield-Planz site, the ammonium nitrate concen tration is approximately 7.1 μg/m 3 and the ammonium sulfate concentration is approximately 2.4 μg/m 3

. 106 If only ammonium is considered ( i.e. , the ammonium part of the ammonium nitrate and ammon ium sulfate molecules), the contribution of ammonium represents 2.3 μg/m 3 , or 13.0% of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration. 107 Similarly, using the 2011-2013 24-hour PM 2.5 design value of 64.6 μg/m 3 at the BakersfieldCalifornia site, the 24-hour average ammonium nitra te concentration on peak PM 2.5 days is approximately 41.3 μg/m 3 and the ammonium sulfate concentration is approxim ately 3.9 μg/m 3

. 108 If only ammonium itself is considered ( i.e. , the ammonium part of the ammonium nitrate and amm onium sulfate molecules), the contribution of ammonium re presents 10.4 μg/m 3 , which is approximately 16.0 % of the average peak 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration. 109
Ammonia emissions are essential to the formation of both of these components of the ambient particulate matter, and the EPA finds that these le vels of contribution are a substantial fraction of the SJV’s 2011-2013 annual average design value of 17.3 μg/m 3 , as measured at the Bakersfield-Planz site,

105 Id. 106 See n. 87 supra . In addition, for calculating the ammonium sulfate concentration, we used the 14% ammonium sulfate values from the Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 P M 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, p. A-16. 107 The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate (1.6 μg/ m 3 ) is calculated as the molecular weight of ammonium (18) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5 percent of the mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium sulfate (0.7 μg/m 3 ) is calculated as the molecular weight of the two ammonium molecules (36) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium sulfate (132), which i s 27.3 percent of the mass. 108 See n. 89 supra . In addition, for calculating the ammonium sulfat e concentration, we used the 6% ammonium sulfate values from the Bakersfield pie chart in the 2015 P M 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Figure 6, p. A-16. 109 The ammonium fraction of ammonium nitrate (9.3 μg/ m 3 ) is calculated as the molecular weight of ammonium (18) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate (80), which is 22.5 percent of the mass. The ammonium fraction of ammonium sulfate (1.1 μg/m 3 ) is calculated as the molecular weight of the two ammonium molecules (36) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium sulfate (132), which i s 27.3 percent of the mass.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40 and the 24-hour design value of 64.6 μg/m 3 , as measured at the Bakersfield-California site. T his is evidence that emissions of ammonia contribute signi ficantly to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations that exceed the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. Next we examined information in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan regarding the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 levels in the SJV to potential ammonia emission con trol. On this issue there is conflicting evidence. Based on evidence that ammonia appears not to be th e limiting precursor for ammonium nitrate formation and that modeled ammonia reductions are i neffective relative to NO x reductions, 110 CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that controls for ammonia are not warranted. However, the EPA’s own evaluation of the modeling indicates that ammonia c ontrols can be effective at reducing ambient PM 2.5 in some locations and can be more effective at certain times of year. CARB and the SJVUAPCD ’s evidence discussed above t o support the argument that NO x is the limiting precursor for ammonia nitrate formation is also presented as evidence that ammonia is not the limiting precursor, and thus to argue that ambient PM 2.5 levels would not be sensitive to ammonia reductions. 111 In the Plan, CARB and the SJVUAPCD state that ther e is both an abundance of ambient ammonia relative to ambient nitrate, and an abundan ce of ammonia emissions relative to NO x emissions. CARB and the SJVUAPCD also indicate that there is a n abundance of gaseous ammonia relative to particulate ammonium at multiple locations during t he 2000-2001 winter episode in the CRPAQS study, 112 so that even under conditions favorable to ammoniu m nitrate formation, a substantial amount of unreacted ammonia remains. 113 Based on these multiple pieces of evidence on the abundance of ammonia, CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that ammoni a is not the limiting factor for ammonium

110 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2, pp. 2-2 1 to 2-27 and WOEA, pp. A-23 to A-29. 111 WOEA, pp. A-18 to A-22. 112 WOEA, pp. A-22 and Figure 13, p. A-23. 113 As noted above, NOx emissions have been decreasing and ammonia emissions increasing, so under the Sta te’s reasoning, this relationship would be expected to continue.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41 nitrate formation and, thus, that reducing ammonia emissions would not reduce ambient PM 2.5 in the
SJV. CARB and the SJVUAPCD also considered air quality m odeling analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing ammonia as compared to ot her precursors, and to PM 2.5 decreases needed for attainment. Based on modeling a 25% reduction in am monia emissions, holding direct PM 2.5 and other precursor emissions constant, the Plan states that per ton per day of ammonia emissions reduction, the re would be a 0.005 to 0.010 μg/m 3 decrease in ambient PM 2.5 concentrations across the Valley, including a 0.008 μg/m 3 effect at the Bakersfield-California site. 114 By comparing these sensitivities to the effect of a 25% reduction of NO x emissions, the Plan states that, on a per ton basi s, reducing ammonia is only about 10% as effective as reducing NO x . 115 Thus, based on this air quality modeling, CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that additional ammonia control i s considerably less effective than NO x control. The State and District assume in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan that additional ammonia control, as modeled, would provide limited benefit for attainme nt planning purposes. They also conclude, based upon the various forms of information and analyses described above, that ammonia emission reductions are much less effective than direct PM 2.5 or NO x emission reductions, and thus argue that “[a]mmoni a is not a significant precursor to PM 2.5 values in the Valley.” 116 The EPA finds the modeling and other analyses prese nted and referred to in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan to be credible, but the modeling analyses nonethele ss show that additional reductions in ammonia may reduce ambient PM 2.5 levels to varying degrees. In the various studies, when ammonia emissions were reduced by up to 50%, ambient ammonium nitrate decr eased by a range of approximately 5-25%,

114 WOEA, Table 2, p. A-27. 115 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 27. 116 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-27.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42 depending on the episode modeled and the geographic location evaluated. 117 Modeling conducted by ARB staff for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan for attaining the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS indicated that for emissions reduction within Kern County, a one ton p er day decrease in ammonia would lead to a 0.02 μg/m 3 improvement in the PM 2.5 24-hour design value. 118 If this rate were to remain constant as ammonia emissions decrease, and if this same sensit ivity applied to valley-wide reductions, it would mean that a 50% reduction in the ammonia emissions inventory (estimated in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan at 329.5 tpd annual average in 2012) would be expected to reduce 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations by more than 3 μg/m 3 , an amount that the EPA would not consider insigni ficant. The percentages for ammonia benefits are generally smaller than those for NO x reductions, but a range of modeling results show that reductions in a mmonia emissions under certain circumstances can effectively help to reduce ambient PM 2.5 . The fact that all the modeling studies find at le ast some benefit from ammonia control shows that the concept of NOx as a “limiting precursor” in the formation of ammonium nitrate particles discussed above is not a bsolute. In addition, the test for determining whet her emission reduction measures for a particular precur sor must be evaluated for purposes of timely attainment should not be based exclusively on the c ontrol effectiveness of the precursor relative to o ther precursors, but must also consider whether emission s of the precursor “contribute significantly” to ambient PM 2.5 levels which exceed the PM 2.5 standards in the nonattainment area. In other word s, the fact that control of NO x may be more important than the control of ammonia in relative terms does not mean that a state should not evaluate regulations f or both as part of a comprehensive plan to attain t he
PM 2.5 NAAQS, and to do so expeditiously as required by t he CAA.

117 WOEA, pp. A-24 to A-25. 118 WOEA, p. A-29.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43 Taking into consideration a number of factors, the EPA does not agree with the conclusion in the Plan that the more than 100,000 annual tons of ammo nia emissions from sources in the SJV area do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels exceeding the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. First, the information provided by the State and District in the Plan show s that ammonia contributes to a large fraction of measured PM 2.5 concentrations in the SJV area, in the form of amm onium nitrate and, to a lesser extent, ammonium sulfate. Based on data presented in the 20 15 PM 2.5 Plan, ammonia emissions, in the form of ammonium, are responsible for approximately 13% of the annual average concentration and 16% of the 24-hour average at the design value site for the Sa n Joaquin Valley. Second, modeled evidence submitted by the State and studies available to the EPA indicate that although ammonia control is less effective at reduc ing PM 2.5 concentrations compared to NO x control, reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV would reduce PM 2.5 by varying amounts throughout the nonattainment area. Studies indicate that reducing ammonia does not have a uniform effect across a large nonattainment area during all times of the ye ar; ammonia reductions can be more effective at reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in specific locations during certai n times of the year. Reductions in ammonia in conjunction with reductions of direct PM 2.5, SO 2 , and NO x would help to provide for attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area. Finally, despite the fact that a broad range of emi ssion reduction measures have been implemented to reduce emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, the Plan also indicates that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impr acticable. This underscores the continuing severity of the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV and the need for a robust assessment of potential control measures ( e.g. , BACM and MSM) for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors, including potential ammonia control measures which may be effective in reducing ambient PM 2.5 concentrations.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44 Given the severity of the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV, the high degree to which controls have already been applied to the emission of PM 2.5 and its precursor pollutants, the demonstration that attainment in the SJV by 2015 is impracticable, and the documentation in the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan showing that ammonia emissions are responsibl e for more than 2 μg/m 3 of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site, and f or more than 10 μg/m 3 of the peak day 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-California site, the EPA does not agree at this time with the conclusion in the Plan that ammonia e missions do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels exceeding the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. Although the Plan states that ammonia is not a sign ificant precursor to ambient PM 2.5 levels, and that additional controls for ammonia are not necess ary to attain the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV, the Plan nonetheless provides an evaluation of control measu res currently implemented in the SJV that reduce ammonia emissions and other potential ammonia contr ol measures. We discuss the State’s ammonia control evaluation in section V.D. of this proposed rule. d. VOC The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan states that VOCs are not a significant precur sor to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley and that further reductions in VOC emissions would not contribute to PM 2.5 attainment. To support this finding, CARB and the S JVUAPCD discuss the ambient contribution of VOC to measured PM 2.5 levels in the SJV, the indirect role of VOC in amm onium nitrate formation, and modeled simulations of further reductions in VOC em issions. There are two routes by which VOC can contribute to ambient PM 2.5 . The first is through various chemical reactions leading to the formation of Seco ndary Organic Aerosols (SOA). The second is through photochemical reactions that create oxidant s such as ozone and the hydroxyl radical (OH), which in turn oxidize NO x emissions to nitrate or SO x emissions to sulfate, leading to the formation ofThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45 particulate ammonium nitrate or particulate ammoniu m sulfate. Chapter 2 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan discusses both roles of VOC in PM 2.5 formation, 119 as does the Plan’s weight of evidence analysis. 120
For the direct contribution of VOC to PM 2.5 , the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan states that modeling for annual average PM 2.5 for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan found that anthropogenic SOA were about 3-5% of total organic aerosol, and that SOA were mainly formed during the summer from non-anthropogenic sources. 121 The SJVUAPCD states that the winter anthropogenic contr ibution that is of interest for the 1997 24-hour
PM 2.5 NAAQS would necessarily be lower because less SOA forms at winter temperatures, which are lower than temperatures for the annual average. CAR B and the SJVUAPCD also cite a study by Chen et al. 122 for the winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS episode. This stud y found that the SOA portion of total organic aerosol had a maximum value of 4.26 μg/m 3 with concentrations at Bakersfield of 2.28 μg/m 3 and at Fresno of 2.46 μg/m 3 , which represent 4% and 6% of the total organic ae rosol at those locations. These locations typically represent the highest PM 2.5 concentrations for the southern and central portio ns of the San Joaquin Valley. Applying this roughly 5% SOA proportion to the orga nic carbon portion of the measured 2011- 2013 peak day 24-hour average PM 2.5 composition shows that, by mass, SOA is about 0.9% of total ambient PM 2.5 at Bakersfield-California and 1.5% of ambient PM 2.5 at Fresno. 123 The EPA notes that because anthropogenic SOA is only a portion of the total SOA, the portion due to controllable

119 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-20 to 2-21. 120 WOEA, section 5.d (“Role of VOC in ammonium nitrat e formation”), pp. A-30 to A-39, and section 6 (“Se condary Organic Aerosol Formation”), pp. A-39 to A-40. 121 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-20. 122 Chen, J., Ying, Q., and Kleeman, M.J., 2010, Sourc e apportionment of wintertime secondary organic aer osol during the California regional PM 10 /PM 2.5 air quality study, Atmospheric Environment, 44(10) , 1331-1340. 123 The contribution of Organic Matter to 2011-2013 pe ak day 24-hour PM 2.5 levels was 18 percent at Bakersfield and 30 percent at Fresno ( see WOEA, Figure 7, p. A-16). Five percent of these pr oportions gives 0.90 percent SOA at Bakersfield and 1.5 percent SOA at Fresno. As a fraction of the 2013 design values of 64.6 μg/m 3 at Bakersfield-California and 63.5 μg/m 3 at Fresno-Winery, these percentages give SOA contr ibutions of 0.58 μg/m 3 at Bakersfield-California and 0.95 μg/m 3 at Fresno-Winery.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46 anthropogenic sources would be even less. CARB and the SJVUAPCD conclude that these modeling studies show that SOA is not a substantial componen t of peak day ( i.e. , winter) 24-hour ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the SJV and that the potential fo r reducing ambient PM 2.5 through VOC emission reductions is very limited. We do not have comparab le information at this time to evaluate whether or not SOA is a substantial component of annual averag e PM 2.5 concentrations. For the indirect contribution of VOC to PM 2.5 , nitrate formation via daytime photochemistry, CARB and the SJVUAPCD assert that this route is als o not a substantial contributor, based on modeled sensitivity to VOC reductions. For one such study t here were relatively low modeled concentrations of ozone, which did not appear consistent with nitrate formation via daytime oxidant (ozone) photochemistry, which would be expected to have ele vated ozone levels. 124 The Plan reviews essentially the same studies that the State relied on in the 20 08 PM 2.5 Plan for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, 125 except for one additional 2014 study by Chen et. al. 126 The EPA’s review of these studies and of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan’s examination of the studies is covered in th e technical support document (TSD) for the EPA’s final action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan (“2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD”). 127 The 2014 Chen et. al. paper presented results of modeling the 1st and 4t h quarters of 2007 using the CMAQ model (the same period and model that was used for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan), and also of modeling the winter 2000 CRPAQS episode using the UCD/CIT (University of Cal ifornia, Davis/California Institute of Technology) model. The paper explored the sensitivi ty of PM 2.5 to reductions of the various precursors. The CMAQ modeling showed that reducing anthropogeni c VOC actually increases PM 2.5 design values,

124 Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central California ǁ , Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402-409. doi: 10.101 6/j.atmosenv.2008.08.040 125 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-20 to 2-21; WOEA, p. A-3, a nd section 5.d, pp. A-30 to A-39. 126 Chen, J., Lu, J., Avise, J.C., DaMassa, J.A., Klee man, M.J., Kaduwela, A.P., 2014, Seasonal Modeling of PM 2.5 in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Enviro nment, 92, 182-190, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04. 030. 127 EPA Region 9, “Technical Support Document and Resp onses to Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Val ley 2008 PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan,” September 30, 2011, se ction II.C.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47 while the UCD/CIT modeling showed that is has a neg ligible effect. NO x vs. VOC isopleth diagrams from the paper are reproduced in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, and illustrate these effects. 128 The findings from those reviews remain the same for the current Plan: past modeling studies vary on whether controlling VOC reduces PM 2.5 , but the most reliable ones show VOC control has l ittle benefit, or even a disbenefit. As detailed in the E PA’s 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD and in the Plan’s WOEA, 129
the studies for which VOC control showed a benefit at some times and places are less reliable because they used unrealistic emissions levels, unrealistic control scenarios, or the effect occurred at PM 2.5 concentrations no longer reached in the SJV. The W OEA also suggests that, in this context of indirect
PM 2.5 formation from VOC, the model boundary conditions have sufficient ozone flowing in from outside the SJV area, 130 implying that VOC reductions would have little eff ect on ambient PM 2.5 levels exceeding the standard in the SJV. The overall conclusion is that the effect of reduci ng VOC emissions is somewhat uncertain, but in general produces little benefit or even a disben efit in PM 2.5 concentrations. The modeling for the prior 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, which indicates a disbenefit from controllin g VOC at important geographic locations, adds to the evid ence from past studies, and is incorporated into th e 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. This is shown by negative PM 2.5 sensitivities (that is, decreased VOC emissions re sult in increased PM 2.5 levels) for multiple locations. 131 In addition, a diagram of model PM 2.5 response at the

128 WOEA, p. A-37 to A-38, Figs 23 and 24. PM 2.5 increases when VOC decreases, for any given level of NO x . 129 WOEA, p. A-3, and section 5.d, pp. A-30 to A-39. 130 WOEA, p. A-38. See also , Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, Control strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in California's San Jo aquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 39: 5325-534 1 September 2005. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044; cited in Plan M odeling Protocol.p.F-36). A similar statement is ma de in the 2014 Chen et al. paper, citing Qi Ying, Jin Lu, Michael Kleeman, Mo deling air quality during the California Regional P M 10 /PM 2.5 Air Quality Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-ori ented air quality model - Part III. Regional source apportionment of secondary and total airborne particulate matter, At mospheric Environment, Volume 43, Issue 2, January 2009, Pages 419- 430, ISSN 1352-2310, DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.0 8.033. The Chen paper actually cites “Part I” of th e Ying paper, not this Part III. However, none of these papers gives the basis for the statement that background ozone i s the dominant nitrate oxidant. 131 WOEA, Table 2, p. A-27 ( see VOC columns for Bakersfield, Visalia, and Corcoran ).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48 Bakersfield-California site to various combinations of NO x and VOC reductions show graphically that VOC reductions increase PM 2.5 , for any given level of NO x . 132 For other monitoring sites, such as Fresno and Angiola, these NO x vs. VOC diagrams show mixed effects on PM 2.5 , albeit generally of small magnitude, depending on the level of ambient PM 2.5 as VOC emissions are reduced. The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes additional VOC vs. NOx isopleth diag rams from a 2005 Kleeman et al. paper. 133 The key ones show that the effect of reducing VOC for all sources increases total PM 2.5 nitrate for any given level of NO x emissions. 134 The Plan states that the VOC disbenefit occurs bec ause reducing VOCs can reduce the organic nitrate “sink” that makes nitrate unavailable, thus freeing it fo r ammonium nitrate formation. 135 In sum, the information provided by the State and D istrict in the Plan indicates that: a) wintertime levels of secondary organic aerosol meas ured in the SJV are low and therefore the direct products of VOC emissions do not contribute signifi cantly to PM 2.5 levels above the standard in the SJV; and b) wintertime reductions in VOC emissions in th e SJV, when PM 2.5 concentrations are high, would not reduce ambient PM 2.5 levels, and therefore the indirect products of VOC emissions also do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels above the standard in the SJV. Based on thi s information, we

132 WOEA, Figure 18, p. A-28. This diagram shows the m odel PM 2.5 response at the Bakersfield-California site to red uctions in various combinations of precursors. Subfigure “b )” shows NO x reductions plotted against VOC reductions. For a g iven level of NO x , in decreasing VOC by moving leftward along a hori zontal line (representing constant NO x ), one crosses the lines of constant PM 2.5 (isopleths) into regions of increased PM 2.5. The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan presents similar diagrams for the various monitoring sites. 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Figures 4-15 through 4-2334, pp. 4-31 to 4-40. 133 Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, “ Control strategies for the reduction of airborne pa rticulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley”, Atmospheric Envir onment, 39: 5325-5341 September 2005. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044. This paper was discussed in our TSD for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, though the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan did not include the diagrams. 134 WOEA, upper left quadrant of Figures 19 to 21, pp. A-32 to A-34. 135 WOEA, pp. A-31, citing. Z. Meng, D. Dabdub, and J. H. Seinfeld, "Chemical Coupling Between Atmospheri c Ozone and Particulate Matter", Science 277, 116 (1997); DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5322.116. The Meng paper cites the organic nitrate sink as a possibility in PM chemistry. The Plan pro vides no direct evidence that this reaction is impo rtant in the SJV, though it is plausible.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49 propose to determine that, at this time, VOC emissi ons do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area. e. Recommendations for Further Analyses The EPA believes that several precursor issues warr ant further explanation and exploration in future PM 2.5 plans. For ammonia, an explanation should be provi ded for the apparent conflict between
NO x as a “limiting” precursor for ammonium nitrate for mation and modeling that nevertheless shows some benefits from ammonia emission reductions. In the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, ammonia reductions for Kern County alone were simulated along with reductions f or the area as a whole. Further exploration of the effect of more specific localized controls would in form decisions on whether ammonia controls should be part of the control strategy in the next PM 2.5 plan. For VOC, the apparent conflict between different pa st modeling studies on whether VOC emission reductions are beneficial or not also shou ld be more fully explained. As mentioned above, and discussed further in the EPA’s TSD for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, 136 those studies showing a VOC benefit can be discounted on various grounds, but there does no t appear to be a full explanation of the chemistry differences seen. Differences between the models us ed, their chemical mechanisms, their emissions and meteorological inputs, and the episodes they are ap plied to all cause differences in study results. Wi thout a fuller reconciliation of those results, it is dif ficult to know whether or not chemistry sensitive t o VOC reductions could still be operating today in the SJ V. Also mentioned above, the Plan’s WOEA asserts that background ozone levels are sufficient to prov ide the oxidants needed for nitrate formation, even without the VOC-mediated generation of ozone within the SJV. 137 But little support has been provided

136 EPA Region 9, “Technical Support Document, Propose d Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan and 2014 Supplemental Document and Proposed Reclassification of the San Joaquin Va lley as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 Standard,” December 2014. 137 WOEA, p. A-38.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50 for this assertion, other than similar assertions i n a few journal papers. More concrete evidence on t his issue should be provided in future plans. A related issue is why a VOC disbenefit occurs. One explanation is that VOC can remove nitrate via a “sink” reaction to organic nitrates, so reduc ing VOC frees nitrate to form PM 2.5 . This explanation is provided in a journal paper posing the nitrate s ink as a possibility in PM chemistry. While this is plausible, no evidence has been provided from any s tudies during the ten years since the paper was published that this particular phenomenon is actual ly occurring in the SJV modeling or atmosphere. Some of these issues may be resolved through better documentation and explanation in the SIP submission of what is already known; others may req uire quantitative examination of particular chemical pathways in the modeling or ambient measur ements. Evaluation of the available research and its implic ations for the effectiveness of various precursor emissions controls would also be useful a s part of the next plan. This research includes projects funded by the San Joaquin Valley-wide Air Pollution Study Agency, including “Improve emission estimates for urban ammonia sources,” “Upd ate of CRPAQS conceptual model and synthesis of results,” and “Develop Improvements to the PM 2.5 Inventory to Better Reconcile with Ambient Measurements.” The CARB Staff Report refers to seve ral recent field studies relevant for the SJV, including ARCTAS-CARB, CalNex2010, and DISCOVER-AQ, all of which should be examined for their implications for the SJV’s atmospheric chemis try and the effectiveness of various precursor emissions controls.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51 Some results from the CalNex study are already avai lable in a Synthesis document. 138 While CalNex was conducted during the summer of 2010, som e of its findings may be relevant for PM 2.5 formation in the SJV, even though such formation is greatest in winter. Finding I2b (pp. 63-64) sugges ts that the SJV ammonia inventory is underestimated by a factor of three; if confirmed, this may have implications for modeling, the effectiveness of amm onia controls, and the amount of NO x used in the Plan to offset the ammonia inventory increases. Fin ding I3 (p. 65) highlights ammonia reactions with carboxylic acids and the resulting enhancement of s econdary organic aerosol (SOA); the importance of this pathway in modeling winter PM 2.5 may need to be explored. Several other findings re late to SOA. Finding L2 (p. 75) stated significant SOA formation at night at Bakersfield. Finding N2 (p. 86) stated SOA as 72% of Bakersfield ultra-fine particulate ma tter ( i.e. , PM less than 1 micrometer in diameter) (this contrasts with the 5% of PM 2.5 used in the Plan), and also stated that SOA domina ted daytime particle growth. Findings W3a and W3b (p. 129) stat ed the importance of anthropogenic VOC as the main SOA precursor, and nitrate as a VOC oxidant. W hile many of these findings may be relevant mostly for summer conditions, their implications fo r chemical pathways and controls in winter should b e examined. 3. Proposed Action Based on a review of the information provided in th e 2015 PM 2.5 Plan and other information available to the EPA, we propose to determine that at this time VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels which exceed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and, therefore, that VOCs may be excluded from the State’s evaluation of potential control

138 Synthesis of Policy Relevant Findings from the Cal Nex 2010 Field Study (California Research at the Ne xus of Air Quality and Climate Change): Final Report to the Research D ivision of the California Air Resources Board, Davi d D. Parrish, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, March 27, 2014. A vailable at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/projects/c alnex/.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52 measures for purposes of these standards in this ar ea. Consistent with the statutory requirements unde r subpart 4, all other PM 2.5 precursors ( i.e. , NO x , SO 2 , and ammonia) must be included in the State’s evaluation of potential control measures for the 19 97 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, including nonattainment NSR provisions to implement the requi rements of subpart 4. 139 We discuss the State’s evaluation of potential control measures for NO x , SO 2 , and ammonia, as well as direct PM 2.5 , in section V.D. of this proposed rule. D. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringe nt Measures As discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area that the State submit provision s to assure that the best available control measures (BACM) for reducing emissions of P M 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors will be implemented no later than four years after the date the area is re classified as a serious area. Because the EPA recla ssified the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS effective May 7, 2015, the date four years after reclassification is May 7, 2019. In thi s case, however, the Serious area attainment date f or the SJV area under section 188(c) is no later than Dece mber 31, 2015, and to qualify for an extension of t his date under section 188(e) the State must, among oth er things, demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. Given the se circumstances, we are evaluating the Plan’s cont rol strategy for implementation of BACM as expeditiousl y as practicable. 140

139 Absent a demonstration to EPA’s satisfaction that major stationary sources of ammonia emissions do no t contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the SJV area, unde r CAA section 189(e) major stationary sources of ammonia are subject to the control requi rements that apply to major stationary sources of d irect PM 2.5 , including nonattainment NSR requirements. We intend to evalua te the adequacy of the District’s nonattainment NSR program for PM 2.5 upon submission of the NSR SIP revision due May 7, 2016, which is the date 12 months after EPA’s recla ssification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS became effective. 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015 ). 140 CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline (“no later than four years after the date the area is reclassified”) and does not preclude an earlier imp lementation deadline for BACM where necessary to sa tisfy the attainment requirements of the Act.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

53 In addition, before the EPA may extend the attainme nt date for a Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the State must, among oth er things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes t he most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area (MSM). As discussed above, we have established a process for evaluating BACM in serious area plans and a similar process fo r evaluating MSM. Because of the substantial overlap in the source categories and controls evalu ated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our evaluation of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s provisions for including MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan’s provisions for implementing BACM for each identified source category. We provide a more detailed evaluation of many of the District’s control measures for stationary and area sources in our “Technical Support Document for the EPA’s Evalu ation of Fine Particulate Matter Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures for th e San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,” January 2016 (“SJV Rules TSD”). 1. Identifying the Sources of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 Precursors The first step in determining BACM and MSM is to d evelop a detailed emissions inventory of the sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors that can be used with modeling to deter mine the effects of these sources on ambient PM 2.5 levels. The EPA’s past guidance on Serious area pl ans in the Addendum suggested that the second step is to use m odeling to identify those source categories that have a greater than de minimis impact on ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. 141 As discussed in section V.A of this proposed rule, Appendix B of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan contains the planning inventories for direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 precursors (NO x , SO 2 , VOC, and ammonia) for

141 Addendum at 42012.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

54 the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area together with documentation to support these inventories. The District used available speciation data to identify de minimis thresholds, also referred to in the Plan as “significant emission levels,” for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x . 142 Based on these thresholds, which are described in Chapter 5 of the Plan, the District id entified the following six source categories as emi ssion sources in the SJV that emit pollutants at levels e xceeding its selected de minimis thresholds ( i.e., “significant” source categories):
1. Open Burning; 2. Glass Melting Furnaces; 3. Agricultural Conservation Management Practices; 4. Commercial Charbroiling; 5. Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters; a nd 6. Paved and Unpaved Roads. 143 CARB identified most mobile source categories as “s ignificant” and identified only several ( e.g., cargo handling equipment, motorcycles, recreational boats, off-road recreational vehicles and commercial harbor craft) as de minimis source categories. 144 Separately in Appendix C and Appendix D of the Plan , however, both CARB and the District identified all of the sources of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , SO x and ammonia in the SJV that are subject to State or District emission control measures and provided their evaluations of these regulations for complian ce with BACM and MSM requirements. Table 3 identifies the source categories in SJV that are under State and District jurisdiction, each source category’s 2 012 emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x in tons per day (tpd), and, for each source category, the r egulations that the State and District have relied on in the Plan to satisfy BACM and MSM requirements. Table 3. 2015 PM 2.5 Plan – Source Categories Evaluated for BACM and MS M

142 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4 (“De Minimis Threshol ds for Determining Significant Source Categories”). 143 Id. at Table 5-2 (“Valley Source Category De Minimis De terminations (using 2012 data)”). 144 2015 PM 2.5 Plan at Appendix D.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

55 Source Category Rule Number (if any) * 2012 PM 2.5

(tpd) 2012 NO x

(tpd) 2012 SO x

(tpd)
Stationary and Area Source Categories under Distric t Jurisdiction Open Burning 4103 2.27 1.61 0.05 Reduction of Animal Matter 4104 0.03 0.00 0.00 Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning 4106 0.76 0.07 0.03
Particulate Matter Emissions from the Incineration of Combustible Refuse 4203 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cotton Gins 4204 0.22 0.00 0.00 Fuel Burning Equipment 4301 N/A N/A N/A Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hr 4306/4320 1.27 1.93 0.60 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 to 5.0 MMBtu 4307 0.32 0.49 0.15 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—0.075 to less than 2.0 MMBtu 4308 0.61 0.92 0.28 Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens 4309 0.85 0.20 0.47 Flares 4311 0.16 0.56 0.33 Lime Kilns 4313 0.00 0.00 0.00 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 4352 0.62 2.69 0.56 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 0.33 6.04 1.96 Conservation Management Practices

• Tilling Dust
• Harvest Operations Dust
• Dust from Ag Lands (non-pasture)
• Dust from Pasture Lands 4550 5.17 7.28 6.15

1.09 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 Commercial Charbroiling 4692 2.84 0.00 0.00 Internal Combustion Engines 4702 0.49 13.06 0.12 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 1.22 3.09 0.22 Sulfuric Acid Mist 4802 0.00 0.00 0.75This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56 Source Category Rule Number (if any) * 2012 PM 2.5

(tpd) 2012 NO x

(tpd) 2012 SO x

(tpd) Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 4901 4.48 0.50 0.08
Residential Water Heaters 4902 0.21 2.21 0.06 Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces 4905 0 .20 2.46 0.06 General Requirements 8011 N/A N/A N/A Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities 8021 1.46 0.00 0.00
Bulk Materials 8031 0.04 0.00 0.00 Carryout and Trackout (emission included in Paved and Unpaved Roads, Rule 8061, below) 8041 N/A N/A N/A Open Areas 8051 0.34 0.00 0.00 Paved and Unpaved Roads 8061 7.59 0.00 0.00 Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas 8071 0.59 0 .00 0.00 Agricultural Sources 8081 1.21 0.00 0.00 Lawn and Garden Equipment SC 001 0.04 0.58 0.00 Energy Efficiency SC 002 N/A N/A N/A Fireworks SC 003 N/A N/A N/A Sand and Gravel Operations SC 004 0.09 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Operations (Mineral Processes) SC 005 0.82 0.20 0.36 Almond Hulling/Shelling Operations SC 006 0.38 0.00 0.00 Pistachio Hulling/Shelling Operations (emissions included in Almond Hulling/Shelling above) SC 007 N/A N/A N/A

Agricultural Material Screening/Shaking Operations (emissions included in other control categories) SC 008 N/A N/A N/A

Tub Grinding (emissions included in IC engines, Rule 4702, fugitive emissions accounted for in stationary and area inventory) SC 009 N/A N/A N/A

Abrasive Blasting SC 010 0.33 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source Categories under State Jurisdiction Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles ** 1.9 32.2 ***This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

57 Source Category Rule Number (if any) * 2012 PM 2.5

(tpd) 2012 NO x

(tpd) 2012 SO x

(tpd) Heavy-Duty Vehicles ** 4.8 138.6 *** Off-Road Vehicles and Engines (excludes Cargo Handling Equipment) ** 1.1 19.2 *** Farm Equipment ** 2.9 50.4 *** Cargo Handling Equipment ** 0.0 0.1 *** Other Mobile Sources

• Motorcycles
• Recreational Boats
• Off-Road Recreational Vehicles
• Commercial Harbor Craft ** 0.0 0.4 0.0

0.0 1.0

1.6 0.1

0.7 ***

Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2; Appendix C (“BACM and MSM for Stationary Sources”); and Appendix D (“BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources”), except as otherwise noted. * “SC” refers to a source category that is subject to either several District rules or none. ** See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D for a discussion of the State mea sures that cover these mobile source categories. *** See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B (Emissions Inventory) for SO x emission levels. With respect to ammonia, the District states in App endix C of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan that ammonia is an “insignificant” PM 2.5 precursor in the SJV but also provides an analysis of several SIP-approved District regulations that control ammonia emissions

. 145 We provide our evaluation of these regulations below and further in the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. Because the State and District have evaluated a muc h larger set of emission sources than those identified as “significant” sources in the Plan, an d because the District’s evaluation of de minimis thresholds entirely excludes consideration of ammon ia emission sources, the EPA is not proposing any action with respect to the District’s selected de minimis thresholds for BACM and MSM purposes. Instead, based on the Plan’s more comprehensive eva luation of State and District regulations that appl y to stationary, area, and mobile sources of direct P M 2.5 , NO x , SO x and ammonia in the SJV, we propose

145 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-239 to C-280.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

58 to find that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan appropriately identifies all emission sources and source categories that must be subject to evaluation for potential control measures consistent with the requirements of subpa rt 4. 2. Identification and Implementation of BACM and MS M As part of its process for identifying candidate BA CM and MSM and considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional control meas ures, CARB and the District reviewed the EPA’s guidance documents on BACM, guidance documents on c ontrol measures for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and
SO x emission sources, and control measures implemented in other ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in California and other states. The State’s and Dis trict’s evaluations of potential BACM and MSM for each source category identified in Table 3 above is found in Appendix C and Appendix D of the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan. In the following sections, we review key com ponents of the State’s and District’s demonstrations concerning BACM and MSM for sources of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , SO x and ammonia emissions in the SJV. We provide a more detailed ev aluation of the District’s regulations in the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD, together with recommendations for im provements to these rules. Based on our evaluation of these State and District demonstrations, we propose to determine that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM and M SM for sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, in acc ordance with the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). a. District Measures for Stationary and Area Source s The District’s BACM and MSM process is described in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.3 (“BACM/MSM Evaluation Process”) and in Appendix C. The District followed a process similar to that used by Arizona in the Maricopa County PM 10 Serious Area Plan, the only other air quality plan inThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

59 the nation that includes a BACM and MSM demonstrati on for purposes of requesting an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e). 146 For each identified source category, the District f irst identified potential control measures included in SIPs for other areas, addressed in fede ral regulations or guidance ( e.g. , control technique guidelines (CTGs), alternative control techniques ( ACTs), or new source performance standards (NSPSs)), or addressed in state or local regulation s or guidance ( e.g., Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs). 147 The District evaluated these identified potential control measures to determine whether implementation of the measures would be technologic ally and economically feasible in the SJV. 148 In addition, the District considered other available c ontrol options (beyond those included in other SIPs or identified in federal/state regulations or guidance ), such as measures that the State or District have previously considered “beyond RACT” and measures th at have been implemented in practice in other areas. The District also evaluated these potential control measures to determine whether their implementation would be technologically and economi cally feasible in the SJV. The EPA’s SJV Rules TSD provides a more detailed evaluation of many of these District regulations and our recommendations for rule improvements. Open Burning SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (“Open Burning”), as amended Apr il 15, 2010, is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from open burning of agricultural waste and other materials. 149 The rule restricts the type of materials that may b e burned and establishes other conditions and

146 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on M aricopa County Serious Area Plan); 66 FR 50252 (Oct ober 2, 2001) (proposed action on Maricopa County Serious Area Pl an); and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan). 147 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5; and Appendix C, pp. C-4 to C-6. 148 Id. 149 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15, 2010; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-14 to C-15.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

60 procedures for open burning in conjunction with the District’s Smoke Management Program. 150 The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on J anuary 4, 2012. 151 The District compared Rule 4103 to several other op en burning rules implemented in other parts of California and found no other rules more stringe nt as a whole than those in Rule 4103. According to the District, although the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) implements a rule that restricts burning on residential wood combusti on (RWC) curtailment days (Rule 444) and District Rule 4103 does not contain the same restriction, in practice the District currently bans all burning o n RWC curtailment days through implementation of its Smoke Management Program, which specifically allocates allowable burn acreage for 103 geographic zones based on local meteorology. 152 We note that a restriction on burning on RWC curtailment days by i tself may not consistently reduce wintertime PM 2.5 emission levels as it could shift more waste burnin g activity to days with more favorable meteorology. Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the California Heal th and Safety Code require the District to prohibit open burning of specific crop categories u nless the District determines either that there is no economically feasible alternative means of eliminat ing the waste or that there is no long-term federal or state funding commitment for the continued operatio n of biomass facilities in the SJV or for the development of alternatives to burning. 153 The District has considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternatives to burning several time s in the last several years and concluded that such alternatives are not feasible for selected crop cat egories at this time. 154 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Grea ter than 5.0 MMBtu/hr

150 Id. 151 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012). 152 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-8 to C-10. 153 California Health & Safety Code, sections 41855.5 and 41855.6. 154 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-8 to C-15.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

61 SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (“Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – Phase 3”), as amended October 16, 2008, establishes NO x emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 ppm and relat ed operational requirements for gaseous fuel- or liqui d fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr). 155 The EPA approved Rule 4306 into the California SIP on January 13, 20 10. 156 SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 (“Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, an d Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr”), as adopted October 16, 2008, establishes more strin gent NO x emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and related operational requirements for these units but allows sources to pay an emission fee in lieu of complian ce with the NO x emission limits. 157 The EPA approved Rule 4320 into the California SIP on March 25, 2011 but determined that this rule, as approved, ma y not be credited for attainment planning purposes because the fee provision renders the NO x emission limits unenforceable. 158 The District compared both Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 to several other analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the Sacramento metropolitan area, the South Coast, and the Bay Area. 159 According to the District, the NO x emission limits in Rule 4306 are generally within the same range as, and in some cases are mor e stringent than, those contained in analogous rule s implemented by these other California agencies, exc ept that the SCAQMD implements a rule containing
NO x emission limits that are potentially more stringen t for units of certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended November 1, 2013). 160

155 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October 16, 2008; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35. 156 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). 157 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16, 2008; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35. 158 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 159 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38. 160 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

62 SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 ppm NO x emission limit for larger units ( i.e., those with heated rate inputs above 75 MMBtu/hr), whereas Rule 4320 establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306 establishes a 9 ppm limit for such units. 161 SCAQMD Regulation XX (“Regional Clean Air Incentiv es Market” or “RECLAIM”) also applies to units within the same range of sizes as Rule 4320 but allows sources to comply with emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading Credits. 162 We do not have information about the rated heat input of the units subject to RECLAIM in the South Coast area and therefore cannot conclude that the lower NO x emission limits for larger boilers in SCAQMD Rule 1146 are technically and economically feasible for imple mentation in the SJV at this time. The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternative NO x and PM 2.5 control techniques for this source category, such a s low temperature oxidation and EM x system for NO x control, and alternative fuels, electrostatic preci pitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers for direct PM 2.5 control. 163 Based on its consideration of the technical constr aints and costs associated with each of these control options, the District concluded that these additional controls are not feasible for implementa tion in the SJV at this time. 164 Although the NO x emission limits in Rule 4320 do not satisfy the Ac t’s enforceability requirements because of the option to pay an emissi on fee, we note that the requirement to pay the emission fee itself is an enforceable requirement a nd that the fee provision appears to function effectively as a pollution deterrent. 165

161 Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended November 1, 2013) at s ection (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 at Table 1, cat egory B; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38. 162 RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements for NOx and SOx through, among other t hings, add-on controls, equipment modifications, re formulated products, operational changes, shutdowns, and the p urchase of excess emission reductions. See SCAQMD Rule 2000, section (a). 163 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-39. 164 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-42. 165 See section 3.b.5 of the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

63 Flares SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (“Flares”), as amended June 18, 2009, establishes specific operational and administrative requirements to limit emissions of NO x , SO x , and VOCs from the operation of flares. 166 Under Rule 4311, for each refinery flare and other flare with a capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the operator must submit a flare minimization plan (FMP ) to the District describing relevant equipment and preventative measures and demonstrating that the op erator appropriately minimized flaring activity. 167 The EPA approved Rule 4311 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011. 168 The District compared Rule 4311 with several other analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the South Coast, Bay Area, Ventura County, and Santa Barbara, all of which require regulated sources to submit FMPs to the loc al districts. 169 According to the District, most flares in the SJV occur in the oil and gas production indu stry and operate as emergency control devices, unli ke many flares in the South Coast area and the Bay Are a, which are significantly larger and operate as pa rt of the refinery process. 170 Because of wide variation in flaring operations in the SJV, the District concludes that requirements to submit details FMPs, as in Rule 4311, are the most effective means of reducing NO x and SO x emissions from flaring. 171
The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternative control techniques for flares, such as maximum monthly flar ed gas targets and requirements to capture gas before it is flared. 172 Based on its consideration of the technical constr aints and costs associated with

166 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18, 2009; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-63. 167 Id. 168 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011). 169 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-73. 170 Id. 171 Id. 172 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-82.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

64 these control options, the District concluded that these additional controls are not feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time. 173 Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes a commitment by the District to cond uct a comprehensive review of submitted FMPs to identify effective flare minimization practices; to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of implement ing new and additional flare minimization practices at affected facilities; to have a draft report avai lable for public review and comment by December 1, 2015; to develop a final report by March 31, 2016 a fter addressing public comments on these evaluations; and upon completion of these analyses, to work closely with affected operators to “evalua te and implement, when feasible, the most effective fl are minimization practices through the FMP submittal and approval process under Rule 4311.” 174 The District issued its draft report of FMPs on December 3, 2015, starting a 30-day public comment period. 175
Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (“Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Stea m Generators, and Process Heaters”), as amended December 15, 2011, establishes NO x emission limits and related operational requiremen ts for boilers, steam generators, and process heaters that burn municipal solid waste (MSW), biomass, and other solid fuels. 176 Specifically, the rule establishes NO x emission limits of 165 ppmv for units burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units burning biomass, and 65 ppmv for units burning other solid fuels. 177 The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on Novem ber 6, 2012. 178

173 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-84. 174 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.1 (pg. 8-2). 175 SJVUAPCD, “Draft Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare Mi nimization Plans, 2015,” December 3, 2015. 176 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December 15, 2011; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-87. 177 Id

. 178 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

65 According to the District, the NO x emission limits in Rule 4352 have been lowered sig nificantly over time and are at least as stringent as analogou s requirements implemented in other parts of California. The District compared the provisions of Rule 4352 to potentially more stringent requiremen ts implemented in Sacramento County, the South Coast a rea, and the Bay Area, but these comparisons are of limited value because no affected facilities are subject to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) rule, and no sources are currently complying with the 40 ppmv limit in the SCAQMD’s or Bay Area Air Quality Manag ement District’s (BAAQMD’s) rules. 179 Nonetheless, we note that three other air districts in California implement regulations that apply to active biomass-fueled units: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Manag ement District (YSAQMD), El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) and Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The NO x emission limits in these regulations are all withi n the same range as SJVAPCD’s limit of 90 ppm corrected to 3% O 2 on a 24-hour block average. 180
The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternative control techniques for this source category, such as select ive catalytic reduction (SCR) for NO x control and ESPs or baghouses for direct PM 2.5 control. 181 Based on its consideration of the costs associated with SCR retrofits at units burning biomass, MSW, or oth er solid fuels, the District concluded that SCR for these units is not economically feasible for source s in the SJV at this time. 182 With respect to direct
PM 2.5 control, the District states that sources subject to Rule 4352 are subject to permit limits that require the best feasible controls. 183

179 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-89. 180 SJV Rules TSD at

Section 3. d.2. See also 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012). 181 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-91 to C-101. 182 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-95 – C-96 and C-98. 183 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

66 We note that biomass- and MSW-fired units provide a n environmental benefit by diverting these wastes from landfills and reducing open burning. Glass Melting Furnaces SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (“Glass Melting Furnaces”), as a mended May 19, 2011, establishes NO x , VOC, SO x , and PM 10 emission limits and related operational requiremen ts for glass melting furnaces. 184 Specifically, the rule establishes NO x emission limits of 1.5 to 3.7 lb. NO x /ton glass, depending on glass product and averaging time, and SO x emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. SO x /ton glass. 185 The EPA approved Rule 4354 into the California SIP on Janua ry 31, 2013. 186 According to the District, the NO x emission limits in Rule 4354 require implementatio n of oxyfuel firing or SCR systems, which are the best avai lable NO x control techniques, and are at least as stringent as analogous requirements implemented in the South Coast and Bay Area. 187 We are not aware of prohibitory rules for glass mel ting furnaces in other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4354. We note that the SCAQMD h as found a 1.2 lb./ton NO x emission limit feasible through a Best Available Retrofit Control Technolog y (BARCT) determination under its RECLAIM program, but absent information about how affected sources in the South Coast area have complied with the available compliance options under RECLAIM, it is not clear that these lower NO x emission levels are technically and economically feasible for imple mentation in the SJV. Conservation Management Practices SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (“Conservation Management Practi ces”), as adopted August 19, 2004, establishes requirements for owners and operators o f agricultural sites to implement conservation

184 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-102. 185 SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011, at pp . 5 and 7. 186 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013). 187 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-102.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

67 management practices (CMPs) to control PM 10 emissions from on-field crop and animal feeding operations. 188 Under the rule, each owner/operator of an agricult ural site must select and implement a CMP for each category of operations, including unpa ved roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and submit a CMP application to the District for its review and approval. 189 The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on February 14, 2 006. 190 According to the District, Rule 4550 is the most st ringent rule of its kind. 191 The District compared the provisions of Rule 4550 to analogous r equirements implemented by air agencies in other parts of California (Imperial County, South Coast, and Sacramento County) and in Arizona, and found no requirements more stringent than those in Rule 4 550. 192 We note that it is difficult to directly compare the requirements among these rules because of the widely varying rule structures and operations of the affected agricultural sites. The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of additional control options for this source category, such as misting to reduce PM 10 emissions from disking activity and the use of new almond harvesting equipment. 193 As to misting, the District found that the availab le information was not sufficient to demonstrate that this control technique would achieve its minimum standard of a 10% reduction in PM 10 emissions, so the District did not add this measure to the CMP list. 194 As to the use of newer almond harvesting equipment, the Distr ict noted, based on a 2010-2011 study, that newer equipment would achieve significant PM 10 emission reductions but found it was not necessary to revise the CMP list given use of newer almond harvesting e quipment is already listed under an existing CMP

188 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19, 2004; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-106. 189 Id

. 190 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006). 191 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-114. 192 Id. 193 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-111. 194 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-112.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

68 category. 195 Finally, the District considered adding windblown dust controls to Rule 4550 but determined that such controls would not substantial ly impact PM 2.5 design values in the SJV because windblown dust events typically occur during the sp ring and fall seasons whereas the District asserts that PM 2.5 values are driven by winter-time concentrations; P M 2.5 values recorded during winter stagnation periods are usually much higher than tho se recorded during wind events; and the geologic component of peak PM 2.5 concentration is a fraction of the mass formed by secondary processes and other sources. 196 Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes a commitment by the District to reev aluate Rule 4550, in close coordination with stakeholders (including agricultural industry representatives, CARB, and th e EPA), for additional feasible control options; to h ave a draft report available for public review and comment by May 31, 2016; and to develop a final rep ort by October 15, 2016 after addressing public comments on these evaluations. 197 Commercial Charbroiling SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (“Commercial Charbroiling”), as amended September 17, 2009, establishes control requirements to reduce PM 10 (of which PM 2.5 is a component) and VOC emissions from chain-driven charbroilers. 198 Specifically, the rule requires that chain-driven charbroilers be equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer wit h a control efficiency of at least 83% for PM 10 emissions and 86% for VOC emissions. 199 The EPA approved Rule 4692 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011. 200

195 Id. 196 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-110. 197 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.3 (pg. 8-3). 198 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17, 2009; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-115. 199 Id. 200 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

69 The District compared the requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous requirements for chain-driven charbroilers implemented by the SCAQMD, Ventura Cou nty Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), and BAAQMD and found no requirements in these rules more stringent than those contained in Rule 4692, with one exception in the BAAQMD rule. 201 With respect to under-fired charbroilers (UFCs), t he District found that no cost-effective control techn iques have been demonstrated to date given technica l challenges associated with controlling emissions fr om UFCs, which operate differently from chaindriven charbroilers. 202 Although the BAAQMD has adopted a rule that establ ishes control requirements for both chain-driven and under-fired charbroilers, according to the District, a significant portion o f the UFCs in the BAAQMD are not subject to the rule’s re quirements for UFCs because they fall below the rule’s applicability thresholds. 203 The District also stated that the BAAQMD has been unable to enforce its UFC requirements because no control technologie s have been certified. 204
The District also considered the technical and eco nomic feasibility of alternative control techniques for UFCs, such as catalytic oxidizers, h igh efficiency particulate-arresting filtration sys tem, ESPs, and wet scrubbers. 205 Based on its consideration of the technical diffic ulties and costs associated with installing these control devices at UFCs, the District concluded that these control techniques ar e not technically and economically feasible for sources i n the SJV at this time. 206 The District also stated, however, that it expects to begin testing some of t hese additional control options in mid-2015. The District’s Governing Board approved $750,000 for its Restaurant Charbroiler Te chnology Partnership

201 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-116 to C-117. 202 Id. 203 Id. 204 Id. at p. C-116. 205 Id. at pp. C-117, C-118. 206 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-117 to C-119.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

70 program, which would fund particulate emission cont rol technology demonstration projects for under-fir ed
charbroilers at restaurants in the SJV. 207 As part of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD submitted a commitment to amend Rule 4692 in 2016 to add requirements for UFCs, with an anticipa ted compliance date of 2017. 208 The Plan relies on this commitment for a portion of the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 209 Internal Combustion Engines SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (“Internal Combustion Engines”), as amended November 14, 2013, establishes NO x , CO, VOC, and SO x emission limits and related operational requiremen ts for internal combustion (IC) engines. 210 The rule contains separate emission limits for spa rk-ignited IC engines used in agricultural operations (SI AO engines), spark-i gnited IC engines used in non-agricultural operatio ns (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC eng ines. 211 The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the California SIP on December 2, 2015. 212 The EPA approved a previous version of this rule into the California SIP on January 10, 2008. 213 For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NO x emission limits ranging from 25 to 75
ppmv. 214 According to the District, these NO x emission limits are at least as stringent as many analogous

207 SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2015 Governing Board Meeting, pp. 7-8. 208 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-119 and SJVUAPCD Governin g Board Resolution 15-4-7A (April 16, 2015) at paragraph 7. 209 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9. See also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 7-6, and Append ix C, section C.16, pp. C-115 to C-119, which describe th e charbroiling rule revision commitment in the cont ext of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. 210 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C120. 211 Id. 212 80 FR 75442 (December 2, 2015). 213 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008). 214 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table 1.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

71 control requirements implemented in the Bay Area, S acramento Metro, and Ventura County areas. 215
We also note that Rule 4702 limits are at least as stringent as analogous requirements in the Feather River, Placer County, Mojave Desert, and San Diego areas. 216 Some of the emission limits for SI non-AO engines i n Rule 4702 are, however, less stringent than those implemented in the South Coast, El Dorad o, and Antelope Valley areas for similar engines. Specifically, the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv lim it for all IC engines 217 ; El Dorado has adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI “rich-burn” engines and a 65 p pmv limit for SI “lean-burn” engines (except those used exclusively in agricultural operations); 218 and Antelope Valley has adopted a 36 ppmv limit fo r IC engines (except those used exclusively in agricultu ral operations). 219 The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternative c ontrol techniques for SI non-AO engines that would lower the emission levels for certain engines to 11 , 25, and 65 ppmv, but found that for reasons of bo th technical and economic feasibility, NO x emission limits lower than those in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time

. 220 For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NO x emission limits ranging from 90 to 150 ppmv. 221
These NO x emission limits are more stringent than analogous control requirements implemented in the Sacramento Metro, Placer County, El Dorado, and Ant elope Valley areas, which exempt AO engines from control requirements altogether, and are equiv alent to analogous control requirements implemented

215 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-122 to C-123. 216 Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County APCD R ule 242; Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; and San Dieg o APCD Rule 69.4.1. 217 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008. 218 El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006. 219 Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended Janua ry 21, 2003. 220 See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EP A’s SJV Rules TSD, which provides a more detailed d iscussion of the District’s technical and economic feasibility a nalyses. 221 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table 3.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

72 in the Mojave Desert area. 222 The SCAQMD, however, has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC engines, 223 and the BAAQMD has adopted NO x emission limits ranging from 25-70 ppmv for all sp arkignited IC engines. 224 Thus, Rule 4702’s requirements for SI AO engines a re at least as stringent as most but not all analogous requirements implemented in o ther parts of California. The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternative control techniques for SI AO engines that would lower their emission l evels and found that for reasons of both technical and economic feasibility, NO x emission limits lower than those in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation within SJV’s agricultural indust ry at this time. 225 We note that the SCAQMD, like SJVUAPCD, has provided economic incentive grants fo r agricultural engine retrofits and replacement in recognition of unique economic and technical circum stances in the agricultural industry. 226 Finally, for compression-ignited IC engines (both t hose used in agricultural operations and those used in non-agricultural operations), Rule 4702 req uires that all certified engines meet the EPA’s Tie r 3 and Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel en gines and that non-certified engines meet the same standards or a numerical NO x emission limit based on engine size. 227 Stationary Gas Turbines SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (“Stationary Gas Turbines”), as amended September 20, 2007, establishes NO x emission limits ranging from 5 to 25 ppm and relat ed operational requirements for all stationary gas turbines with greater than 0.3 MW ca pacity. 228 These units operate primarily in the oil and

222 SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; Placer C ounty APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006; Ante lope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21 , 2003; and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as adopted Janu ary 23, 2012. 223 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008. 224 Bay Area AQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8, as amended Jul y 25, 2007. 225 See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EP A’s SJV Rules TSD. 226 SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 200 5, Appendix B: Incentive Funding Available for Agri cultural Engine Emission Reductions. 227 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table 4. 228 SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 20, 2007, at Table 5-3.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

73 gas production and utility industries, with some al so operating in manufacturing and government facilities. 229 The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on October 21, 2009. 230 According to the District, the NO x emission limits in Rule 4703 are more stringent th an analogous control requirements implemented in many other parts of California, including the Sacramento Metro area, South Coast, and Ventura Cou nty. 231 The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternative control techniq ues to reduce emissions further, such as the instal lation of SCR or installation of entirely new turbine syst ems, and concluded that these options are extremely expensive and not economically feasible. 232 The District also considered the potential for ins tallation of EMx system for NO x control and concluded that this technology require s further testing before it will be generally available for implementation in the SJV. 233 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (“Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wo od Burning Heaters”), as amended September 18, 2014, is designed to limit emissions of PM, including PM 2.5 and PM 10 , and other pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fir eplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the SJV. 234 The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the SIP on September 30, 201 5. 235

229 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-142. 230 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009). 231 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-144. 232 Id. 233 Id. 234 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18, 2014. 235 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). Also, EPA approv ed a previous version of Rule 4901, as adopted Octo ber 16, 2008, into the SIP on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

74 Rule 4901 includes a mandatory two-tiered curtailme nt program. During a Level One Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared when th e PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be between 20-65 μg/m 3 , operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregist ered wood burning heaters is prohibited, but properly operated wood burning heaters that mee t certification requirements and have a current registration with the District may be used. During a Level Two Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared when the PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted to be above 65 μg/m 3 or the PM 10 concentration is forecasted to be above 135 μg/m3, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited. 236 According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4901 is at least as stri ngent as analogous rules in other areas, including the South Coast, Bay Area, Sacramento Met ro area, Washoe County, Nevada, and Washington State. 237 We note that SCAQMD Rule 445 includes a mandatory curtailment of all devices when the 24- hour average PM 2.5 concentration is forecasted above 30 μg/m 3 , and SMAQMD Rule 421 bans operation of all wood burning devices when ambient PM 2.5 concentrations are above 35 μg/m 3 . According to the District, however, the small increase in emissions from registered clean burning devices when concentrations are between 20-65 μg/m 3 in the SJV will be more than offset by the decrease in emissions from dirty devices when concentrations are between 20-30 μg/m 3 , which will reduce the build-up of emissions during long periods of stagnation experie nced in the wintertime in the Valley. 238 Rule 4901 incorporates all elements outlined in the EPA’s Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke 239 and includes comparable provisions available in ot her analogous rules. We are not aware of more stringent measures for reducing residential wo od smoke that are technically and economically

236 SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18, 2014, at paragraph 5.6. 237 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-156. 238 Rule 4901 Staff Report, p. 19. 239 “Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,” EPA-456/B-13-001, March 2013.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

75 feasible for implementation in the SJV. Our Technic al Support Document to support our separate proposal on Rule 4901 contains a more detailed disc ussion of this rule in comparison to analogous rule s implemented elsewhere. 240 Paved and Unpaved Roads SJVUAPCD Rule 8061 (“Paved and Unpaved Roads”), as amended August 19, 2004, is designed to limit fugitive dust emissions generated from paved and unpaved roads. The rule establishes control measures and design criteria for existing p ublic and private paved or unpaved roads, road construction projects, and road modification projec ts, such as requirements to stabilize unpaved roads by applying water, a uniform layer of washed gravel, c hemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants, paving, or any other method demonstrated to effecti vely limit visible dust to 20% opacity. 241 The EPA approved this rule into the SIP on February 17, 200 6. 242 The District compared Rule 8061 to SCAQMD Rule 1156 (“Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Fac ilities”); SCAQMD Rule 1157 (“PM-10 Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Related Oper ations”); SMAQMD Rule 403 (“Fugitive Dust”); VCAPCD Rule 55 (“Fugitive Dust”); Clark County Depa rtment of Air Quality Section 91 (“Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpave d Easement Roads”), and Section 93 (“Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment ”). 243 Based on these evaluations, SJVUAPCD concluded that no other areas implemented requireme nts more stringent than those already in Rule 8061.

240 U.S. EPA Region 9, “Technical Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), San Joaquin Valley Unifi ed Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901 Wood Bu rning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,” August 2015. See also section 3.f (Conservation Management Practices) of the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 241 SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 2004, at section 5.2.1. 242 71 FR 8461 (February 17, 2006). 243 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-194 to C-197.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

76 The District also considered the feasibility of re quiring control measures on paved and unpaved roads with less than 26 annual average daily trips (AADT). Such a measure would require more road owners/operators to implement control measures to r educe fugitive emissions from paved and unpaved roads. SJVUAPCD’s analysis of the emission inventor y indicates that the majority of the particulate emissions attributable to unpaved roads are from ro ads with more than 26 AADT. Because these roads are already subject to the mitigation requirements of Rule 8061, the District concluded that the remaining emissions from unpaved roads with less th an 26 AADT provide very little opportunity for additional emissions reductions. Additionally, the District noted that emissions from unpaved roads ar e lowest in the winter months, when exceedances of th e 24-hour PM 2.5 standard tend to occur. For these reasons, SJVUAPCD concluded that additional control measures for paved and unpaved road with less than 26 AADT would not achieve emission reductions. 244 Asphalt/Concrete Operations SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 (“Visible Emissions”), as amende d February 17, 2005, establishes limits on opacity, which is often used as an indicator of PM emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4309 (“Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens”), as amended December 15, 2 005, establishes NO x and CO emission limits for dryers, dehydrators and ovens firing gaseous or liq uid fuel with a total rated heat input of at least 5.0 MMBtu/hr. Under Rule 4309, asphalt/concrete manufac turing plants that operate equipment of this size are subject to NO x emission limits of 4.3 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 12.0 ppm (liquid fuel). 245 The EPA approved Rule 4101 into the California SIP on Augus t 11, 2005 246 and approved Rule 4309 into the California SIP on May 30, 2007. 247

244 Id. at p. C-196. 245 SJVUAPCD Rule 4309, as adopted December 15, 2005, at p. 5. 246 70 FR 46770 (August 11, 2005). 247 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

77 According to the District, there are no state regul ations that apply to this source category and no analogous rules in the Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, or Ventura County areas. 248 The District evaluated analogous rules implemented in the South Coast and found no requirements more stringent than those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 and Rule 4309. 249 We are not aware of more stringent control require ments for visible emissions or NO x emissions in other California districts for asphal t plants. The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of using warm mix asphalt (WMA), a newer substance which is produced at tempe ratures 25 to 90 degrees (Fahrenheit) lower than hot mix asphalt (HMA) and which results in lower em issions because it requires less fuel to heat the asphalt. Although the use of WMA has grown steadily in the U.S., the District concluded that use of WMA at asphalt production facilities in the SJV is not technically and economically feasible at this t ime given the high costs of, and technical difficulties associated with, converting equipment. 250 Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes a commitment by the District to eval uate and promote the use of WMA in the SJV, in close coordination wi th stakeholders (including asphalt plant operators, Caltrans, city and county planning agencies, CARB, and the EPA); to have a draft report available for public review and comment by December 1, 2015; and to develop a final report by March 31, 2016, after addressing public comments. As part of this e valuation, the District committed to (1) evaluate opportunities to further encourage transportation a nd county agencies to continue transitioning from HMA to WMA as feasible, (2) to explore the potentia l feasibility of additional control measures and th e granting of mitigation credits for WMA usage throug h the District’s Indirect Source Review (ISR) program, and (3) to consider outreach and education opportunities for encouraging project developers

248 2015 PM 2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-219, C-220. 249 Id. (citing SCAQMD Rule 1157 and Rule 403). 250 Id. at pp. C-221, C-225.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

78 and construction managers to increase the use of WM A. 251 The District issued its draft report on WMA on December 1, 2015, starting a 30-day public comme nt period. 252 Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs) SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (“Confined Animal Facilities”), as amended October 21, 2010, applies to large dairy, poultry, beef cattle feeding and swine CAFs and requires operators of such facilities to implement measures to control VOC emissions for eac h major stage of operation, e.g., feeding, silage, milking (dairy), housing, waste management, and was te storage/application. 253 According to the District, although Rule 4570 was developed to limit VOC emiss ions, the work practice standards contained in the rule also reduce ammonia emissions – for example th rough mitigation measures for nutritional management, increased cleaning and removal of manur e and litter from housing areas, and land incorporation of manure and litter. 254 The EPA approved Rule 4570 into the California SIP on January 17, 2012. 255 The District compared the requirements of Rule 4570 with those in analogous prohibitory rules implemented in other areas, including the South Coa st, Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, Ventura County, Imperial County, and the State of Idaho, and conclu ded that Rule 4570 is more stringent than all of th ese rules. 256 For example, Rule 4570 contains applicability thre sholds that are more stringent than those in analogous rules implemented in the South Coast (Rul e 233) and Idaho (Rule 58.01.01). 257 We note that it is difficult to directly compare the requirement s among these rules because of the widely varying r ule structures and operations of confined animal facili ties.

251 Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p. 8-3. 252 SJVUAPCD, “Draft Further Study, Warm Mix Asphalt,” December 1, 2015. 253 See generally Rule 4570, as amended October 21, 2010; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240. 254 2015 PM 2.5 Plan at Appendix C, p. C-241. 255 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012). 256 2015 PM 2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-236 to C-267. 257 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

79 The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternative control techniques for CAFs, including episodic application of sodium bisulfate (SBS) on manure at dairies, which converts a greater fraction of ammonia to non -volatile ammonium. 258 Given the costs of SBS application and its potential adverse impacts on wo rker safety and health, cattle health, and water quality, the District concluded that SBS applicatio n this control option is not technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time. 259 The District also evaluated the use of covers to reduce ammonia from lagoons and solid manure storage piles and found no definitive evidence that such techniques would reduce ammonia emissions. To the contrary, the District stated, several studies indicated that anaerobic lagoon cov ers might increase ammonia emissions. 260 Compost Operations SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (“Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations”), as adopted March 15, 2007, establishes requirements for facili ties that landfill, land apply, compost, or co-comp ost biosolids, animal manure, or poultry litter. 261 SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (“Organic Material Composting”) , as adopted August 18, 2011, establishes requirement s for facilities that stockpile and compost greenwaste and foodwaste materials. 262 According to the District, although both of these rules were designed to control VOC emissions, both rules estab lish work practice standards that have the co-benef it of reducing ammonia emissions. 263 The EPA approved Rules 4565 and 4566 into the Cali fornia SIP on January 17, 2012 264 and November 29, 2012, 265 respectively.

258 Id. at pg. C-267. 259 Id. 260 E-mail dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill, SJVU APCD to Andy Steckel, EPA, re: Requested Informatio n, and attachments. 261 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as adopted March 15, 2007; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-276. 262 See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as adopted August 18, 2011; see also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272. 263 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272 and C-276. 264 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012). 265 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

80 The District compared the requirements of Rule 4565 and Rule 4566 with those in an analogous prohibitory rule implemented in the South Coast are a (Rule 1133.2) and found that the SCAQMD rule requires in-vessel composting with 70% to 80% contr ol efficiency for existing and new facilities, respectively, while SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 requires 10% to 80% control efficiency based on annual throughput. 266 According to the District, however, the lower cont rol efficiencies required by SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 are appropriate because in-vesse l composting is not cost-effective for smaller or medium-sized facilities, and SCAQMD does not regula te any facilities of the size that is subject to th e 80% control requirement. 267 Moreover, the District states that Rule 4565 conta ins a more stringent applicability threshold (100 tpy of biosolids, anim al manure or poultry litter) compared to the applicability threshold in SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (1,00 0 tpy VOC). 268
The District also considered the technical and econ omic feasibility of alternative control techniques for compost operations, including finish ed compost covers and water systems, but found that these control techniques are not technically and ec onomically feasible for compost operations in the S JV at this time. 269 The District also noted that it has funded a proje ct through its Technology Advancement Program that could potentially reduce ammonia and o ther emissions at large greenwaste and/or foodwaste composting facilities – specifically, an “extended aerated stack pile (eASP) method” which substitutes diesel-powered loaders with electronic conveyor systems to build piles, uses solar-powered blowers to replace diesel-powered windrow turners, and uses finished compost biofilter covers. 270 According to the District, the study authors note t hat this demonstration project is the first test of this

266 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-272, C-273. 267 Id. 268 Id. 269 Id. at pp. C-275 to C-276 and C-279. 270 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix E, p. E-15.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

81 technology and recommend further testing and evalua tion to assure results on an industry-wide basis. 271
We note that there are other environmental benefits associated with composting operations, including diversion of material from landfills, which should be considered in evaluating the feasibility of additional controls for this source category. b. State Measures for Mobile Sources CARB’s BACM and MSM demonstration for mobile source s is in Appendix D of the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan. CARB has primary responsibility for reducing emissions in California from new and existing on-road and off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer products. Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, CARB has been a leader in the development of stringent control measures for onroad and off-road mobile sources, fuels and consume r products. 272 Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with es tablishing national emission limits for mobile sources. States are generally preempted from establishing such limits except for California, which can establish these limits subject to EPA wai ver or authorization under CAA section 209 (referre d to herein as “waiver measures”). Over the years, th e EPA has issued waivers (for on-road vehicles and engines measures) or authorizations (for non-road v ehicle and engine measures) 273 for many mobile source regulations adopted by CARB. 274 California attainment and maintenance plans, inclu ding the

271 Id. 272 The Plan does not address CARB’s consumer products program because it is primarily designed to reduce emissions of VOCs, which the State has excluded from its control strategy for attaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 273 California regulations use the term “off-road” to refer to “nonroad” vehicles and engines. 274 The Clean Air Act assigns mobile source regulation to EPA through title II of the Act and assigns sta tionary source regulation and SIP development responsibilities to the states. In so doing, the CAA preempts various t ypes of state regulation of mobile sources as set forth in section 209(a)(pr eemption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of state emissions stand ards for nonroad vehicles and engines), and section 211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements for motor ve hicles, i.e. , other than California’s motor vehicle fuel requir ements – see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile source standards, the State of California may reque st a waiver or authorization for state emission standards.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

82 2015 PM 2.5 Plan for the SJV, rely on emissions reductions fro m implementation of the waiver measures through the use of emissions models such as EMFAC20 14. Historically, California has not submitted, and th e EPA has not required that California submit, its mobile source rules that have been granted a wa iver or authorization by the EPA for inclusion in t he California SIP. However, a recent decision by the N inth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the EPA’s longstanding practice in this regard was at odds wi th the CAA requirement that state and local emissio ns limits relied upon to meet the NAAQS be enforceable by the EPA or private citizens through adoption and approval of such limits in the SIP. 275 In response to the Court’s ruling, CARB has submitt ed its mobile source control rules that have been granted waivers or authorizations but have not been included in the SIP, and, in a separate rulemaking, the EPA has proposed to approve these r ules into the SIP. 276 Upon the EPA’s final approval of these rules into the SIP, which the EPA intends to complete before or concurrent with final action on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, the measures will be enforceable by the EPA or private citizens under the CAA.

CAA section 209(b)(1) and (e)(2) give California u nique authority under the CAA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad engines, except for loco motives and engines used in farm and construction e quipment less than 175 horsepower. To exercise its authority, Californ ia must obtain a waiver from EPA demonstrating that the standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public hea lth and welfare as applicable federal standards. Ad ditionally, EPA must grant a waiver unless California’s ‘‘protectiveness deter mination’’ is arbitrary and capricious; California does not need the standards to meet compelling and extraordinary cond itions; or California’s standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA §202(a). EPA has previously stated that consistency with sectio n 202(a) requires that California’s standards must be technologically feas ible within the lead time provided, giving due cons ideration of costs. See, e.g. , 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009) regarding the greenhou se gas waiver. Once a waiver is granted, compliance with California’s new motor vehicle or engine standards is treated as compliance with applicable federal st andards. In the absence of a waiver, the applicable federal mobile source s tandards apply. 275 Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA , 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). 276 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

83 In addition to waiver measures, CARB has adopted op erational requirements for in-use vehicles, rules that limit the amounts of pollutants allowed in transportation fuels, and incentive programs tha t provide funding to replace or retrofit older, dirti er vehicles and equipment with cleaner technologies

. 277 The EPA previously determined that California’s mob ile source control programs constituted BACM for PM 10 purposes in the San Joaquin Valley. 278 Since then, the State has adopted additional mobile source control measures including the Advanc ed Clean Cars program, heavy-duty vehicle idling rules, revisions to the State’s vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, in-use rules for on- road and non-road diesel vehicles, and emissions standar ds for non-road equipment, farm and cargo handling equipment, and recreational vehicles. 279 CARB’s BACM and MSM analysis provides a discussion of the measures adopted and implemented for each of the identified source categ ories. We discuss each of these mobile source categories below. Light and Medium Duty Vehicles This category includes light-duty passenger cars, l ight-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks. The source category’s emissions are 32.2 tpd NO x and 1.9 tpd direct PM 2.5 . 280 CARB has a long history of adopting programs for re ducing emissions from this source category. Light-duty and medium-duty motor vehicles are curre ntly subject to California’s “Low-Emission Vehicle III” (LEV III) standards as well as a “Zero Emission Vehicle” (ZEV) requirement. The LEV III standards are consistent, or harmonized, with the s ubsequently adopted national Tier 3 standards for t he

277 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-9 to D-11. 278 69 FR 5412 at 5419 (February 4, 2004). 279 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pages D-4 to D-19. 280 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-5.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

84 same vehicles. California’s ZEV program, however, d oes not have a national counterpart and results in additional emissions reductions as it phases in a r equirement that 15% of new light-duty vehicle sales consist of ZEV or partial ZEV. 281 Taken as a whole, California’s standards for light and medium-duty vehicles are more stringent than the federal standa rds. California has also adopted regulations for gasolin e fuel (California Reformulated Gasoline or CaRFG) which reduce emissions from light-duty and m edium-duty vehicles. On July 10, 2009, the EPA approved the CaRFG regulations into the California SIP. 282 Heavy-Duty Vehicles This category includes heavy-duty gas and diesel tr ucks, heavy-duty gas and diesel urban buses, school buses and motor homes. The emissions from th is category are 130.6 tpd NO x and 4.8 tpd direct
PM 2.5 . 283 California has the most stringent heavy-duty vehicl e emissions control measures in the nation, including engine standards for diesel and gasoline vehicles, idling requirements, certification procedures, on-board diagnostic requirements, and v erification measures for emissions control devices. Many of these control measures are subject to the C AA waiver process and have also been submitted for inclusion in the SIP. 284 California has also adopted many in-use requirement s to help reduce emissions from the vehicles already on the road, which may remain in use for ma ny years. The most recently adopted in-use requirement is the Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure (“Truck and Bus Regulation and

281 78 FR 2112 at 2119 (January 9, 2013). 282 74 FR 33196 (July 10, 2009). 283 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8. 284 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8 to D-12. See also 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

85 Drayage Truck Regulation”), which became effective in 2011 and the EPA approved into the SIP in
2012. 285 The Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Reg ulation are designed to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter, NO x , and other pollutants from in-use trucks and buses and establish, among other things, phased-in PM control requirements fro m 2014 through 2023. Finally, California has adopted regulations for die sel fuel that further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The EPA approved these diesel fu el regulations into the California SIP on July 10, 2009. 286 Off-Road Vehicles and Engines This category includes off-road compression igniti on (diesel) engines and equipment, small spark ignition (gasoline) off-road engines and equi pment less than 25 horsepower (hp) ( e.g. , lawn and garden equipment), off-road large gasoline engines and equipment greater than 25 hp ( e.g. , forklifts, portable generators), and airport ground service eq uipment. The emissions from this category total 19. 2 tpd NO x and 1.1 tpd direct PM 2.5 . 287 As it has done for the on-road categories discusse d above, CARB has adopted stringent new emissions standards subject to EPA authorization un der CAA section 209(e) and in-use measures or requirements for this source category ( e.g. , incentives for early introduction of cleaner engi nes and equipment and requirements to limit vehicle idling) . CARB has been regulating off-road equipment since the 1990s and its new engine standards for of f-road vehicles and engines are generally as string ent as the corresponding federal standards. For larger off-road equipment, which can have a slow turnover

285 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012.

287 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-12 to D-14.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

86 rate, CARB adopted an in-use off-road regulation in 2007 that requires owners of off-road equipment in the construction and other industries to retrofit o r replace older engines/equipment with newer, clean er models. The off-road regulation also imposes idling limitations. 288 Farm Equipment The farm equipment category includes agricultural equipment such as tractors, harvesting equipment and sprayers. The category’s emissions ar e 50.4 tpd NO x and 2.9 tpd PM 2.5 . CARB has adopted standards identical to the EPA’s standards for this off-road engine category. CARB notes also that State, District, and federal incentive funds h ave resulted in the replacement of over 3,000 piece s of agricultural equipment earlier than required by sta te and federal regulations. 289 Other Mobile Source Categories Other mobile source categories identified by CARB i n the Plan include cargo handling equipment, motorcycles, recreational boats, off-roa d recreational vehicles and commercial harbor craft

. The emissions from all of these categories total 3. 5 tpd NO x and 0.5 tpd direct PM 2.5 . Although CARB considers these categories “insignificant” for BACM purposes in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB provided a discussion of the emission standards and other meas ures it has adopted to control emissions from these categories. 290 c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation Control Measur es (TCMs) TCMs are, in general, measures designed to reduce e missions from on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or tra ffic congestion. TCMs can reduce PM 2.5 emissions in both the on-road motor vehicle exhaust and paved ro ad dust source categories by reducing vehicle miles

288 Id. 289 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15. 290 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15 to D-18.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

87 traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. They can also red uce vehicle exhaust emissions by relieving congestion. EPA guidance states that where mobile s ources contribute significantly to PM 2.5 violations, “the state must, at a minimum, address the transpor tation control measures listed in CAA section 108(f ) to determine whether such measures are achievable i n the area considering energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs.” 291 The current efforts by the SJV’s eight local jurisd iction metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) 292 to implement cost-effect transportation control me asures (TCM) are described in Chapter 6.5.6 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. 293 The Plan includes a discussion of the on-going imp lementation of a broad range of TCMs in the Valley. There is also a discussion of the MPOs’ Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding policy, which is a s tandardized process across the Valley for distributing 20% of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. 294 Each Valley MPO is required to update its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) at least once every four years. 295 The RTP is a long-term regional transportation pla n that provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the Valley. T o further illustrate the eight SJV MPOs’ commitment to the implementation of TCMs, the RTPs contain a host of improvements to the regional multimodal transportation system including: active transportation ( e.g. , biking and walking), transportation demand management, transportation sy stem management, transit, passenger rail, goods movement, aviation and airport ground access, highw ays, arterials, and operations and maintenance.

291 Addendum at 42013. 292 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in t he San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin Co uncil of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno Co unty Governments, Kings County Association of Gover nments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and Kern C ouncil of Governments. 293 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6.5.6, p. 6-19. 294 For an example of the CMAQ funding policy implemen ted by the eight SJV MPOs, see “Resolution To Adopt The Local Cost-Effectiveness Congestion Mitigation And Air Qu ality (CMAQ) Program Policy,” San Joaquin Council O f Governments (SJCOG), R-08-03, July 26, 2007,” and “Exhibit A, L ocal Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ Policy,” SJCOG. 295 23 CFR 450.322(c)This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

88 Included within these transportation system improve ments are TCM projects that reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions, such as: improved transit, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic flow improvements, park and ride lots, ride sharing/trip reduction programs, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 296 These projects are listed in each MPO’s conformity analysis for the 2014 RTP and 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Pro gram (FTIP). 297 The FTIP is a four-year spending plan that lists every transportation proje ct that will receive federal funds or that is subje ct to a federally required action, such as a review and app roval of environmental documents. The SJV has a long history of adopting and then enh ancing programs to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles by reducing vehicle miles tr aveled, vehicle trips, and/or congestion. For example, Rule 9410 (“Employer Based Trip Reduction” or “eTRIP”), requires larger employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan to encourage employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing emissions, i ncluding PM 2.5 and NO x , associated with work

commutes. 298 The MPOs implement public outreach programs to enc ourage people to reduce driving, programs to improve bicycling and pedestrian travel , and an extensive program to synchronize traffic lights. In our approval of California’s Serious area plan f or the 1987 PM 10 NAAQS in the SJV 299 (“2003 PM 10 Plan”), we determined that the measures in the “Re gional Transportation Planning Agency

296 See , e.g., Fresno Council of Government’s Conformity A nalysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Stra tegy, adopted June 26, 2014, Appendix D, Timely Implementation Documentation for Transportat ion Control Measures. The 2014 RTP is combined with the Sustainable Communities St rategy to integrate land use and transportation pla nning to achieve, where feasible, regional greenhouse gas (GHG) targe ts set by the CARB pursuant to Senate Bill 375, whi ch identifies specific GHG reduction goals for each of California ’s MPOs in 2020 and 2035. 297 Id. 298 EPA, Final rule, “Approval and Promulgation of Imp lementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley U nified Air Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Red uction Programs,” pre-publication notice signed Dec ember 11, 2015; see also 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015) (proposed rule). 299 SJVUAPCD, “2003 PM 10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal St andards for Particulate Matter of 10 Microns and Smaller,” submitted August 19, 2003 as amended by subsequent submission of December 30, 2003.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

89 Commitments for Implementation Document” (April 200 2) 300 satisfied the PM 10 BACM requirement for
TCMs. 301 In May 2003, the San Joaquin Valley MPO Executive Directors committed to conduct feasibility analyses as part of each successive RTP in support of the 2003 PM 10 Plan. The MPOs retained this commitment in the PM 10 maintenance plan for the SJV area adopted Septembe r 20,
2007. 302 In accordance with their commitment and in prepara tion for their 2014 RTPs, the MPOs reviewed several PM 10 Plans adopted in other areas since 2009. 303 From their reviews, the MPOs concluded no additional on-road fugitive dust contr ols measures were available for consideration. In consultation with CARB and the District, however, t he MPOs considered priority funding allocations in the 2014 RTPs for PM 10 and NOx emission reduction projects for the measur es listed below.

• Paving or Stabilizing Unpaved Roads and Alleys

• Curbing, Paving, or Stabilizing Shoulders on Paved Roads

• Frequent Routine Sweeping or Cleaning of Paved Road s ( i.e. , funding allocation for the purchase of PM 10 efficient street sweepers for member jurisdictions ); and

• Repave or Overlay Paved Roads with Rubberized Aspha lt. 304 In their implementation of the Congestion Mitigatio n and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, the SJV MPOs evaluate and prioritize the r eduction of PM 10 emissions in the CMAQ scoring criteria. The MPOs continue to implement the adopte d San Joaquin Valley CMAQ Policy, which was

300 SJVUAPCD, “Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document,” April 20 02. 301 69 FR 30006 at 30020, 30035 (May 26, 2004). 302 SJVUAPCD, “2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation,” s ubmitted November 16, 2007. Chapter 7, p. 21. 303 PM 10 Plans reviewed included: Puerto Rico, Municipality of Guaynabo, PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan; Nogales, AZ, PM 10 Attainment Demonstration; Coso Junction, CA, PM 10 Maintenance Plan, May 17, 2010; Sacramento, CA, PM 10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan, October 28, 2010; Truckee Meadows, NV, PM 10 Maintenance Plan, May 2009; and Eagle River, AK, PM 10 Maintenance Plan, adopted August 2010. 304 See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government’s Conformi ty Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted June 26, 2014, Chapter 4, Section E, p. 42.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

90 included in the District’s plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 305 and the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. The CMAQ policy includes a standardized process for distribu ting 20% of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost effectiveness beginning in fiscal year 2011. This policy focuses on achieving the most cost effective emissions reductions, while maintain ing flexibility to meet local needs. The 2015 FTIP includes a listing of all transportation-related pr ojects requiring federal funding or other approval by the federal transportation agencies. The aggregate fund ing allocated 306 for TCMs in the eight SJV 2015 FTIPs includes:

• improved transit; ($928,000,000)

• traffic flow improvements ($499,381,000)

• park and ride lots; ($2,666,346)

• ridesharing/trip reduction programs; ($7,630,000)

• bicycle/pedestrian facilities ($6,650,000)
3. Conclusion Based on all of these evaluations, we propose to fi nd that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM and MSM for sources of direc t PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date under CAA Section 188(e)

305 SJVUAPCD, “2007 Ozone Plan,” April 30, 2007, which EPA approved on March 1, 2012. (78 FR 12652). 306 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Figure 6-2 Illustration of Valley MPO Funding for Sample TCM Categories, p. 6-20. The funding in the 2015 FTIPs covers the federal fi scal years ( i.e. , October 1 – September 30) 2014/2015 through 2017/ 2018. An example 2015 FTIP, the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program , Fresno Council of Governments, is included in the docket for today’s action and avail able at http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/public ations/FTIP/2015_FTIP/FINAL_2015_FTIP_8-13-14.pdf.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

91 Section 188(e) of the Act allows the EPA to extend the attainment date for a serious area for up to five years if attainment by the applicable date is impracticable. However, before we may grant an extension of the attainment date, the State must fi rst: 1) apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM 2.5 attainment date beyond 2015, 2) demonstrate that attainment by 2015 is impracticabl e, 3) have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to the area in its implementation plan, 4) demonstrate to our satisfaction that its serious ar ea plan includes the most stringent measures that are achieved in practice in any state and are feasi ble for the area, and 5) submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. We evaluate the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s compliance with each of these requirements below. 1. Application for an Attainment Date Extension As discussed in section IV.D of this proposed rule, for the SJV, the Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31, 2015. The first criterion of an extension of the attainment date beyond this statut ory attainment date is that the State must apply fo r such extension. In the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD submit a complete applicat ion for an extension of the Serious area attainment date for t he SJV to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual
PM 2.5 standard and to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24- hour PM 2.5 standard. 307 2. Demonstration that Attainment by Serious Area At tainment Date is Impracticable

307 2015 PM 2.5 Plan: CARB Resolution 15-9, May 21, 2015 (submitti ng the Plan to EPA as a SIP revision); SJVAPCD, Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 1 (ad opting the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan); and Chapter 4, p. 4-1.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

92 Despite the implementation of BACM as expeditiously as practicable, as discussed in section V.D. above, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan shows that attainment by the Serious area att ainment date is impracticable. We discuss below the air quality dat a that support the State’s and District’s demonstra tion of impracticability. Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan presents data showing that the SJV area canno t attain the 1997 PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards by December 31, 2015. 308 Specifically, the District provided ambient PM 2.5 air quality data from monitoring sites in the SJV, including 2013 measured concentrations and 2014 measured and estimated conc entrations, and then calculated the maximum 2015 annual average and 24-hour concentrations for each monitoring site that would result in a 3-year avera ge PM 2.5 concentration of 15.0 μg/m 3 ( i.e. , annual design value), and 3-year average 98 th percentile concentration of 65 μg/m 3 ( i.e. , 24-hour design value), at each monitoring site. The District states that several of the maximum allowable 2015 concentration s are so low, and in one instance a negative number, that attaining the standards by December 31 , 2015 is impracticable. 309 A separate analysis is presented for the annual and 24-hour standards and we have evaluated each with respect to demonstrating impracticability of attaining the 199 7 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The annual average value for a given year is calcul ated using the quarterly average concentrations for that year, while the 24-hour val ue for a given year is calculated using the 98 th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations for th at year. 310 At the time the District compiled monitoring data for this purpose in January 2015, a ctual PM 2.5 measurements were available for 2013 and most of 2014 from the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. For the remainder of the 2014

308 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-1 to 4-5. 309 Id. at pp. 4-3 to 4-5. 310 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, sections 4.4 and 4.5, respe ctively.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

93 data, preliminary monitoring measurements were used for the latter portion of 2014 and, for four of th e 16 monitors used in the analysis, the District used 2013 4 th quarter data for the 2014 4 th quarter data, since the 2014 filter data from those monitors were not yet available. 311 Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 Standard by December 31, 2015 According to the District, the maximum 2015 annual average concentration at the BakersfieldPlanz site (which recorded the area’s highest annua l average in 2013, and is estimated to have the highest annual average in 2014) that will enable th e site to show a design value at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 for 2015 is negative 2.4 μg/m 3

. 312 In addition, the District calculates that the Hanf ord, Visalia-Church, and Bakersfield-California monitoring sites (which are in the three southern-most counties in the SJV) would have to each average under 10 μg/m 3 , and states that such concentrations are unlikely given historical PM 2.5 concentrations in the SJV. 313 Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan concludes that it is impracticable for the Ha nford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-California, and Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites, to show an annual PM 2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2015. The EPA independently evaluated 2013 and 2014 PM 2.5 air quality data that had been uploaded to AQS as of June 30, 2015, and as of January 20, 2 016, to assess the District’s representations. 314 Table 4 shows the annual average PM 2.5 concentrations that were recorded in 2013 and 2014 and that the EPA estimated for 2015 at selected monitoring sites. Th e average annual concentrations in 2013 and 2014 were higher than in 2012, and in several cases the 2013 and 2014 values were significantly higher than

311 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-1, p. 4-4. 312 Id

. 313 Id. at p. 4-4. 314 See Section III (“Analysis of Practicability of Attain ment”) and Appendix A (“Data Worksheets for Analysi s of Practicability of Attainment”) of the EPA’s General TSD.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

94 the 2012 value, especially at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, whose annual average concentratio ns for 2013 and 2014 were each over 20 μg/m 3

. 315 Based on the annual average concentrations observe d in 2013 and 2014, the EPA calculated the maximum annua l average concentration for seven monitoring sites that would enable each site to show a 2015 an nual average PM 2.5 design value at or below 15.04 μg/m 3

. 316 The EPA found that four monitoring sites located in the three southern-most counties of the SJV would have to have 2015 annual mean concentrations 35% or more below their corresponding historical lows in order to attain by the end of 2015. 317 The most extreme example is the Bakersfield-Planz Rd. monitoring site, which would require approximately 95% below the previously recorded low. Table 4. 2013 and 2014 Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentrations (in μg/m 3 ) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Annual Average Maximum to Attain in 2015

Annual Average in 2013 a Annual

Average in 2014 a EPA Estimate

for Max. 2015 Annual Average Allowed to Attain b Lowest

Recorded Annual Average 1999-2014 (year) b Max. 2015 %

Below Lowest Recorded Annual Average Hanford 18.18 17.47 9.47 14.79 (2012) 36% Visalia 18.90 17.88 8.34 13.58 (2010) 39% Bakersfield – California 19.95 18.55 6.62 13.03 (2012) 49%

315 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan cites weather conditions associated with the extreme drought in California, including low precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversio ns, among the reasons for the high PM 2.5 concentrations observed in the winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5. 316 The small differences between the District’s and E PA’s calculations of “maximum 2015” values are due to EPA’s use of certified, rather than preliminary, 2014 data and d ifferent rounding conventions. EPA’s calculations o f maximum 2015 values are based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, which provides that intermediate c alculations are not rounded, and that a design value with a decimal low er than 15.05 μg/m 3 is rounded down to 15.0 μg/m 3

. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.3. In computing the maximum 2 015 concentration consistent with attainment and co nsistent with 2013 and 2014 annual mean concentrations, EPA did not ro und the 2013 and 2014 means in the intermediate ste ps of the calculation, and used 15.04 μg/m 3 as the highest design value consistent with the st andard. In contrast, the calculations presented in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan rounded the 2013 and 2014 means to one decima l place initially, and used 15.00 μg/m 3 as the highest attaining design value. 317 See section III and Appendix A of the EPA’s General TS D.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

95 Bakersfield – Planz 22.79 21.61 0.72 14.45 (2011) 95%

a 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480. b See Appendix A of the EPA’s General TSD. In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period i ndicate that it is not practicable for the Hanford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-California, an d Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites to show an annual PM 2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2015. While our analyses resulted in slightly different numbers for the maxi mum annual average concentrations allowed to attain for 2015, they are consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan that attainment is impracticable at these sites. As such, we propose t o determine that the SJV area cannot practicably at tain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of Decembe r 31, 2015. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 24-Hour PM 2.5 Standard by December 31, 2015 According to the District, the maximum 2015 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site (which recorded the area’s h ighest 24-hour average in 2013 and was estimated to have recorded the highest 24-hour average concentra tion in 2014) that will enable the site to show a design value at or below 65 μg/m 3 for 2015 is 15.9 μg/m 3

. 318 In addition, the District states that other monitoring sites in the southern portion of the SJV would have to record improbably low 2015 average concentrations, of which the lowest are the Hanford and Bakersfield-California sites at 44.6 μg/m 3 and 44.4 μg/m 3 , respectively. 319 Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan concludes that it is not possible for the Bakersfie ld-Planz monitoring site, and extremely unlikely fo r the Hanford and Bakersfield-California sites, to show a 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 65 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2015.

318 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-2, p. 4-5. 319 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

96 As with the annual standard, the EPA independently evaluated 2013 and 2014 PM 2.5 air quality data available in AQS as of June 30, 2015, and as o f January 20, 2016, to assess the District’s representations. 320 Table 5 shows the 98 th percentile 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentrations that were recorded in 2013 and 2014 and the maximum concentra tions allowed to attain that the EPA estimated for 2015 at selected monitoring sites. The 98 th percentile 24-hour concentrations in 2013 and 2014 were higher than in 2012, and in some cases the 2013 and 2014 values were significantly higher than the 201 2 value, especially at the Bakersfield-Planz monitori ng site, whose 98 th percentile concentration for 2013 was over 95 μg/m 3

. 321 Based on the 98 th percentile values observed in 2013 and 2014, the E PA calculated the maximum 98 th percentile 24-hour concentration for six monitorin g sites that would enable the site to show a 2015 24-hour PM 2.5 design value at or below 65.4 μg/m 3

. The EPA found that the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site would have to have a 2015 annual mean concentration recorded at 44% below its corres ponding historical low in order to attain by the en d of 2015. 322

Table 5. 2013 and 2014 24-hour PM 2.5 Concentrations (in μg/m 3 ) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Maximum 98 th Percentile Concentrations for 2015

98 th Percentile in 2013 a 98 th

Percentile in 2014 a EPA Estimate

for Max. 2015 98 th Percentile Allowed to Attain b Lowest

Recorded 98 th Percentile 1999-2014 (year) b Max. 2015 %

Below Lowest Recorded Annual Average Hanford 67.6 81.9 46.7 48.3 (2012) 3% Bakersfield – California 71.8 79.9 44.5 53.3 (2010) 17%

320 See section III and Appendix A of the EPA’s General TS D. 321 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan cites weather conditions associated with the extreme drought in California, including low precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversio ns, among the reasons for the high PM 2.5 concentrations observed in the winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5. 322 See Appendix A of the EPA’s General TSD.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

97 Bakersfield – Planz 96.7 76.7 22.8 40.6 (2012) 44%

a 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480. b Appendix A of the EPA’s General TSD. For these three sites, the EPA’s analysis largely c onfirms the analysis presented in the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan of the maximum 98 th percentile concentration allowed for the SJV to at tain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 2015 ( e.g. , EPA estimated maximum is 22.8 μg/m 3 at BakersfieldPlanz compared to District estimated maximum of 15. 9 μg/m 3 , both of which are well below the historic low). For the Bakersfield-California site, the esti mated maximum 98 th percentile concentrations are 17% below the historic low, which is quite low, while t he estimated maximum 98 th percentile concentration at Hanford site is not drastically different than its historic low. However, such values would appear ver y unlikely given the 98 th percentile values in 2013 and 2014 and do not alte r the clear impracticability of attaining the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard at the Bakersfield-Planz site. In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period i ndicate that it is not practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an annual PM 2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2015. While our analysis resulted i n slightly different numbers for the maximum annual average concentrations for 2015, they are co nsistent with the Plan’s analysis and conclusion th at attainment is impracticable at this site. As such, we propose to determine that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of Decembe r 31, 2015. 3. Compliance with All Requirements and Commitments in the Implementation Plan We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172 and 189 for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. For a Serious area attainment date extension request being submitted simultaneously with the initial Ser ious area attainment plan for the area, the EPAThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

98 proposes to read section 188(e) not to require the area to have a fully approved Moderate area attainm ent plan and to allow for extension of the attainment d ate if the area has complied with all Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaining to that are a in the State’s submitted Moderate area implementation plan. This interpretation is based o n the plain language of section 188(e), which requi res the State to comply with “all requirements and comm itments pertaining to [the] area in the implementation plan.” 323
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP subm issions to address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, 324 which we refer to collectively as the
“2008 PM 2.5 Plan.” On November 9, 2011, the EPA approved all e lements of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which the EPA disappr oved. 325 As part of this action, the EPA approved, among other things, commitments by CARB and the SJV UAPCD to take specific actions with respect to identified control measures and to achieve specific amounts of NO x , SO x , and direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2014. 326 In July 2013, the State submitted a revised PM 2.5 contingency measure plan for the SJV, which the EPA fully approved in May 2014. 327 On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in a challenge to the EPA’s November 9, 2011 action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 328 In Committee for a Better Arvin et. al v.
EPA , 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) ( CBA ), the court held that the EPA violated the CAA by approving the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan even though the plan did not include certain state-adopted mobile source emission

323 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this int erpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt , 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). 324 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 325 Id . at 69924. 326 Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 2 ), 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)( 2 ), and 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)( 2 )). 327 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 328 Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA , 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

99 standards on which the plan relied to achieve its e mission reduction goals. 329 The CBA court remanded the EPA’s action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan for further proceedings consistent with the d ecision but did not vacate the EPA’s action. 330 Thus, absent an EPA rulemaking to withdraw or revi se the EPA’s November 2011 approval of the control measure and emission r eduction commitments in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, all of these commitments remain enforceable components of the California SIP. 331 The specific State and District commitments that th e EPA approved into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan are as follows: (1) A commitment by the District to “adopt and implemen t the rules and measures in the 2008
PM 2.5 Plan” in accordance with the timetable specified i n Table 6-2 of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, as amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB for transmittal to the EPA as SIP revisions; 332 (2) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures i dentified in Appendix B of the “Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Propose d SIP Revisions,” dated April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report), in accordance with the time table specified therein; 333

329 Id. 330 Id. 331 As a consequence of the CBA decision, EPA recently proposed to withdraw its May 2014 approval of the District’s PM 2.5 contingency measure submission and to disapprove th is submission in its entirety. 80 FR 49190 (August 17, 2015). Upon EPA’s final withdrawal of this action and disapprov al of the PM 2.5 contingency measure submission, the measures and commitments in this submission will no longer be re quired components of the California SIP. 332 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)( 2 ), SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (J une 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). 333 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)( 2 ), CARB Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B (Septemb er 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011); see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921-69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

100 (3) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of NO x emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO x emission reductions by 2014 as described in Table 6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c , respectively, of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan; and (4) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 ton s per day (tpd) of NO x emission reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2014 as described in CARB Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2 009 and 2011. 334
As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA’s final action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied substantial portion s of these control measure and emission reduction commitments. Specifically, the District had adopted 12 of the 13 measures that it had committed to adopt and implement as part of its control strategy for attaining the PM 2.5 standards, leaving one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014 (Rule 4905 (“Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces”). 335 CARB had proposed action on six of the seven measu res that it had committed to propose for Board consideration as par t of its PM 2.5 control strategy for the SJV, leaving one additional measure that was scheduled for propo sal in 2013 (“New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats”). 336 Finally, together CARB and the District had achiev ed all of the SO x emission reduction commitments and substantial portions of t he direct PM 2.5 and NO x emission reduction commitments through implementation of State and Dis trict control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of

334 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)( 2 ). 335 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (“San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments”). 336 76 FR 69896 at 69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011) ( “2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status”).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

101 direct PM 2.5 emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of NO x emission reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014. 337 The CARB Staff Report for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan 338 contains the State’s demonstration that both CARB and the District have satisfied the commitment s in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that remained outstanding as of November 9, 2011, as follows. First, on Janua ry 22, 2015, the District adopted Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. 339 Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for Board consider ation, and the Board adopted, new emission standards for recreational boats entitled “Evaporat ive Emissions Control Requirements for Spark-Ignite d Watercraft.” 340 These State and District rulemaking actions satisf ied the last remaining commitments concerning specific control measures in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. With respect to the outstanding emission reduction commitments (also called “aggregate commitments”), Tables 9 and 10 of the CARB Staff Re port, as amended by CARB’s Technical Clarifications, identify nine specific State and Di strict control measures that, according to CARB, achieved emission reductions beyond those already c redited toward the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and that satisfy the State’s remaining 2014 emission reduction oblig ations. These measures are identified in Table 6.
Table 6. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment – State and District-Ide ntified Measures

Measure 2014 Emission Reductions (Annual Average tpd) NO x Direct PM 2.5 Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Grea ter than 5.0 MMBtu/hr) 1.8 0.0

337 Id. at 69923, Table 4 (“Reductions Needed for Attainmen t Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures”). 338 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 17-22 and Appendix B. 339 CARB Staff Report, Table 7, p. 19 and letter dated April 7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Offic er, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (t ransmitting air district regulations to EPA as Cali fornia SIP revisions). 340 CARB Staff Report, Table 8, p. 20; see also http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/simw2015 .htm.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

102 Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) 1.0 0.1 Woodstove Replacements 0.0 0.1 District Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures 1.5 0.1 Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) 0.3 0.0 Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) 0.0 1.3 State Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures 7.8 0.2 CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks Measure 11.5 0.1 CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM 2.5 0.2 Total Emission Reductions 26.4 2.1 Source: CARB Staff Report, pp. 21, 22 and Technical Clarifications, pp. 2 to 4.
We have reviewed the State’s demonstration with res pect to each of these nine measures and, for the reasons provided below, we propose to find that all but one may be credited toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligations. First, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s Rule 4320 (“Advan ced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Grea ter than 5.0 MMBtu/hr”), also called the “AERO Rule,” the EPA approved this rule as adopted Octobe r 2008 into the California SIP on March 25,
2011 341 but did not credit the rule with any emission redu ctions as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 342 In the proposal to approve this rule into the SIP, the EPA stated that because this rule allows regulated entities to pay a fee in lieu of meeting NO x emission limits, the State would

341 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 342 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 93-94, Table F-4 (September 30, 20 11); see also CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B-7 and Table B-8.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

103 need to demonstrate that the fee provisions achieve emission reductions that are quantifiable, surplus , enforceable, and permanent consistent with EPA guid ance before relying on this rule for credit in an attainment plan. 343 In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has documentation showing that operators of 472 of the units subject to Rule 4320 chose to pay fees and that operators of the remaini ng 692 units subject to the rule chose to retrofit the ir equipment to comply with the NO x emission limits in the rule. 344 CARB also explained that, based on these enforceab le emission limits, the District estimated that the operators of the 692 units that did not pa y fees had achieved 1.8 tpd of actual NO x emission reductions by the beginning of 2014, based on an op erating capacity of 50% or 75%. 345 We find this documentation adequate to credit Rule 4320 with 1.8 tpd of NO x emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation. Second, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s Rule 9510 (“Indi rect Source Review”), the EPA approved this rule as adopted December 2005 into the Califor nia SIP on May 9, 2011 346 but did not credit the rule with any emission reductions as part of the attainm ent demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 347 In the final rule to approve Rule 9510 into the SIP, the E PA identified a number of concerns about the enforceability of the rule’s provisions, e.g., provisions that allow project developers to pay a fee instead of implementing on-site pollution mitigation plans, and noted that the State would need to resolve the se enforceability issues before relying on this rule f or credit in an attainment plan. 348

343 75 FR 68294 at 68295 (November 5, 2010). 344 CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B-7. 345 Id. at p. B-8, Table B-8. 346 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 347 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD at pp. 100-101; see also CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at pp. B-6 and B-7. 348 76 FR 26609 at 26612-26613 (May 9, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

104 In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has documentation of the number of projects that have complied with the rule through o n-site mitigation (instead of payment of a fee) and the associated reductions in on-site emissions of NO x and PM 10 . 349 The project information provided in Appendix B-2 of the CARB Staff Report, however, is not adequate for the EPA to determine what types of mitigation plans were implemented, to verify tha t those plans were implemented as proposed, or to estimate the associated emission reductions. Furthe rmore, it is unclear whether the District or any ot her state or local agency is authorized to enforce thes e mitigation plans. We find this documentation insufficient to credit Rule 9510 with any emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation. Third, with respect to wood stove replacements, the CARB Staff Report explains that the District implements a voluntary wood stove replacement progr am that provides funding for residents to replace less efficient wood stoves with more efficient gas- burning devices. 350 CARB also notes that the District has provided a list of wood stoves replaced through this program as of December 31, 2013, together with documentation of the calculation methodologies and related emission factors that it used to calculate the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions achieved by these wood stove r eplacements. 351 All wood stoves are installed by a District contracted retai ler, with pre- and post- installation photographs provided to the District. Old wood or pellet insert s/stoves are removed and surrendered to a licensed recycling/dismantling facility within 60 days of in stallation. 352 We find this documentation adequate to

349 CARB Staff Report at p. B-6, B-7 (referencing list of projects in Appendix B-2). 350 Id. at pp. B-5. 351 Id. at pp. B-5, B-6 and Appendix B-1. 352 See SJVAPCD Burn Cleaner Voucher Guidelines, dated Dec ember 2014, available at: http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/burncleaner/2 014/BC_Guidelines.pdf ; and SJVAPCD Burn Cleaner Voucher Application – Phase 1, dated December 2014, availab le at: http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/burncleaner/2 014/BC_VoucherApp.pdfThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

105 credit the District’s wood stove replacement progra m with 0.1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduct ion obligation. Fourth, with respect to District-funded incentive p rograms, CARB provided a list of stationary and portable agricultural engines and off-road agri cultural equipment that were repowered, retrofitted with controls, or replaced with newer equipment thr ough incentive funds disbursed by the District pursuant to the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Sta ndards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program). Specifically, the CARB Staff Report documents the S tate’s bases for concluding that a total of 824 incentive projects implemented in the SJV between J anuary 2009 and December 2013 in accordance with specified portions of the Carl Moyer Program G uidelines have achieved a total of 1.8 tons per day (tpd) of NO x emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of PM 2.5 emission reductions in the SJV, which may be credited toward the State’s 2014 emission reduction commitment. 353 The EPA previously reviewed the identified portions of the Carl Moyer Program Guide lines and found that they adequately address the EPA’s recommended integrity elements for economic i ncentive programs. 354 We find this documentation sufficient to credit these District-f unded projects with 1.8 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation. Fifth, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s Rule 9410 (“Emplo yer Based Trip Reduction”), CARB submitted this rule as adopted December 2009 to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP on May 17,

353 CARB Staff Report, pp. B-9 to B-12; Technical Clar ifications at 2-4; and Revised Appendix B-3. 354 The specified portions of the guidelines that appl y to the identified projects are contained in The C arl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2005; The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2008; and The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2011. See CARB Staff Report at Table B-10. EPA has reviewed t hese portions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines and found that th ey adequately address EPA’s recommended integrity e lements for economic incentive programs. 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2 014); see also 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

106 2010, and on December 11, 2015, the EPA fully appro ved the rule into the SIP. 355 Accordingly, the emission reductions that the State and District hav e attributed to this rule (0.3 tpd of NO x emission reductions) are creditable toward the State’s outst anding 2014 emission reduction obligation. As part of the EPA’s proposed action on Rule 9410, the EPA eva luated the District’s estimates of emission reductions achieved by the rule and found the Distr ict’s calculations to be technically sound and generally consistent with the planning assumptions in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 356 Sixth, with respect to SJVUAPCD’s Rule 4901 (“Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters”), the EPA approved this rule as adopted Oc tober 2008 into the California SIP on November 10, 2009 357 and credited the rule with 1.08 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions in 2014 as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 358 In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has documentation of additional direct PM 2.5 emission reductions achieved by this rule based on an updated methodology for calculating emission red uctions from its curtailment program. Specifically, the District reviewed ambient air quality data for a more recent period (2009-2013) to determine the number of “No Burn” days that would have been requi red under the mandatory curtailment level (30 μg/m 3 ) in the October 2008 version of Rule 4901. This up dated air quality data resulted in a larger number of “No Burn” days compared to the District’s prior calculation, which was based on 2006 air quality data. 359 We find this documentation adequate to credit Rule 4901 with 1.3 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligation.

355 EPA, Final rule, “Approval and Promulgation of Imp lementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley U nified Air Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Red uction Programs,” pre-publication notice signed Dec ember 11, 2015. 356 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015)

. 357 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). 358 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD at p. 93, Table F-4 (September 30, 2011); see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). 359 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Technical Clarifications, p. 1; and CARB Sta ff Report, Appendix B, p. B-7.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

107 Seventh, with respect to State Funded Incentive-Bas ed Emission Reduction Measures, CARB submitted the “Report on Reductions Achieved from I ncentive-based Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley” (Emission Reduction Report) to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP on November 17, 2014, 360 and on August 24, 2015, the EPA proposed to fully approve this report into the
SIP. 361 As part of this proposal, the EPA evaluated the St ate’s demonstration that specified portions of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program guidelin es adequately address the EPA’s recommended integrity elements for economic incentive programs and that the identified projects funded pursuant to these guidelines achieved 7.8 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014. 362 Upon final approval of this demonstration into the California SIP, these emission reductions would be creditable toward the State’s 2014 emission reduction obligation. Thus, final action by the EPA to fully approve the Emission Reduction Report before or concurrent with our final action on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan would suffice to credit these state-funded projects with 7.8 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obl igation. Eighth, with respect to CARB’s Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks measure (also called the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulati on), the EPA approved these rules as adopted September 2011 into the California SIP on April 4, 2012 363 and credited the rules with 1.1 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 1.7 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions in 2014 as part of the attainm ent demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 364 In the CARB Staff Report, the State explained that it now has

360 CARB Staff Report, Appendix B at p. B-2. 361 80 FR 51147 (August 24, 2015). 362 Id. 363 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012). 364 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD, Table F-8, p. 99 (September 30, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

108 documentation of additional NO x and direct PM 2.5 emission reductions achieved by these rules by the beginning of 2014, based on current compliance repo rts indicating that diesel particulate filters (DPF s) are more efficient than original estimates and that a larger than expected number of truck and bus owners had purchased new vehicles (which are cleane r than retrofits) rather than installing retrofit
DPFs. 365 We find this documentation adequate to credit CARB ’s Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks measure with 11.5 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 0.1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduct ion obligation. Finally, with respect to CARB’s Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine Airborne Toxic Control Measure (Portable Eng ine ATCM), CARB adopted these programs in 1997 and 2004, respectively, to reduce pollution by requiring the removal of uncertified engines from the registered fleet of nonroad engines operating i n California. 366 The EPA did not credit either of these programs with emission reductions as part of the at tainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 367 On December 6, 2012, the EPA granted California’s requ est for authorization under CAA section 209(e)(2) to implement both the PERP and the Portable Engine ATCM. 368 On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted these measures to the EPA for SIP approval and on N ovember 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve both measures as revisions to the California SIP. 369 Upon final approval of these measures into the SIP , their requirements will be federally enforceable an d the associated emission reductions will be credit able for attainment planning purposes in the SJV. Thus, final action by the EPA to fully approve the PERP and the Portable Engine ATCM before or concurrent w ith our final action on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan would

365 CARB Staff Report, Appendix B, pp. B-2 to B-4. 366 Id. at pp. B-4, B-5 and Technical Clarifications, p. 3. 367 2008 PM 2.5 Plan TSD, Table F-8, p. 99 (September 30, 2011). 368 77 FR 72846 and 77 FR 72851 (December 6, 2012). 369 Letter dated August 14, 2015, from Richard W. Core y, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Boar d, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, w ith attachments. 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

109 suffice to credit these measures with 2.5 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduct ion obligation. According to the CARB Staff Report, implementation of these control measures resulted in NO x emission reductions that exceeded the State’s outst anding NO x commitment by 13.9 tpd by the beginning of 2014. 370 Citing air quality modeling conducted as part of t he 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB stated that a reduction of 9 tpd of NO x emissions provides an air quality improvement equi valent to a 1 tpd reduction in directly emitted PM 2.5 . On this basis, CARB concluded that an 8.1 tpd por tion of the 13.9 tpd of surplus NO x reductions achieved through implementation of the identified State and District measures adequately covered the small shortfall (0. 9 tpd) in required reductions of direct PM 2.5 . 371

Table 7 identifies the State and District measures that the EPA is proposing to credit toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduction obligat ions, the amount of SIP-creditable emission reductions for each measure, and the 9:1 NO x for PM 2.5 trading ratio 372 calculation that the EPA is proposing to accept for this purpose. The total amo unt of SIP-creditable NO x emission reductions associated with the identified control measures (25 .4 tpd) exceeds the State’s outstanding NO x emission reduction commitment (12.9 tpd) by 12.5 tpd. 373 We believe the technical bases for a 9:1 NO x for PM 2.5 trading ratio are generally sound and have therefor e used this trading ratio to credit the State with 1 additional tpd of PM 2.5 emission reduction (based on 9 tpd of “excess” NOx emission reductions) toward its outstanding 2014 commitment. In evaluating the interpollutant trading used for the aggregate

370 CARB Staff Report at pp. 21, 22. 371 Id. 372 We use “trading ratio” in this action to refer to the extent to which reductions of one pollutant are substituted for necessary reductions of another pollutant. 373 As explained in this section, we find CARB’s docum entation insufficient to credit Rule 9510 with any emission reductions toward the State’s outstanding 2014 emission reduct ion obligation and, therefore, do not entirely agre e with CARB’s conclusion that it achieved 13.9 tpd of NO x emission reductions in excess of its outstanding c ommitments. The difference between the 25.4 tpd of NO x emission reductions achieved by the control measur es identified in Table 7 and the State’s outstanding 12.9 tpd NO x emission reduction commitment is 12.5 tpd of “exce ss” NO x emission reductions.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

110 commitments (as well as for Reasonable Further Prog ress and for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for conformity), the EPA considered the regulatory basi s for allowing interpollutant trading, 24-hour and annual averaging times, the pollutant trading direc tion, the geographical extent of emissions, the conservativeness and the numerical stability of the ratio, and the geographical variation of the tradi ng ratio. For further discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1 NO x to PM 2.5 trading ratio for purposes of the aggregate commitment, please see section IV.C of the EPA’s “Technical Support Docum ent for EPA’s Evaluation of Interpollutant Trading Ratios For Fin e Particulate Matter Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,” January 201 6 (“Interpollutant Trading Ratios TSD”).
Table 7. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Aggregate Commitment – EPA Proposed Emission Reduction Credits for Measures in CARB Compliance Demonstration

Measure 2014 Emission Reductions (Annual Average tpd) NO x Direct PM 2.5 Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Grea ter than 5.0 MMBtu/hr) 1.8 0.0
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) 0.0 0.0 Woodstove Replacements 0.0 0.1 District Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures 1.5 0.1 Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) 0.3 0.0 Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) 0.0 1.3 State Funded Incentive-Based Emission Reduction Measures 7.8 0.2 CARB Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks Measure 11.5 0.1 CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Portable Engine ATCM 2.5 0.2 Total SIP-Creditable Emission Reductions from State and District Measures 25.4 2.0This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

111 NO x to PM 2.5 Emissions Equivalence (9:1) -9.0 1.0 Total Emission Reductions Achieved 16.4 3.0 In sum, the CARB Staff Report demonstrates that imp lementation of State and District measures achieved a total of 16.4 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions that have not previously been credited as part of t he attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and that may, therefore, be credited toward the Sta te’s outstanding obligation to achieve 12.9 tpd of NO x emission reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by the beginning of 2014. Based on these evaluations, we propose to determine that California has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the SJV area in the implementation plan. 4. Demonstration that the Implementation Plan Inclu des the Most Stringent Measures We interpret this criterion to mean that the State must demonstrate to the EPA’s satisfaction that its serious area plan includes the most stringent m easures that are included in the implementation pla n of any state, or achieved in practice in any state, an d can feasibly be implemented in the area. As discussed above in section V.D, because of the s ubstantial overlap in the source categories and controls evaluated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM, we present our evaluation of the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan’s provisions for including MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan’s provisions for implementing BACM for each identified source catego ry. For the reasons provided in section V.D and further in the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD, we propose to d etermine that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of MSM for sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirement in CAA section 188(e). 5. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expediti ous Alternative Date PracticableThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

112 Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that each Serious area plan include a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan prov ides for attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date or, where the State is s eeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable and that the plan provid es for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable. We discuss below our evaluation o f the modeling approach in the Plan, the State’s basi s for excluding one 24-hour data point from the modeling analysis, and the control strategy in the Plan for attaining the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by the most expeditious alternative dates pra cticable. Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling Approach and Res ults The EPA’s PM 2.5 modeling guidance 374 (“Modeling Guidance” and “Modeling Guidance Update”) recommends that a photochemical model, suc h as CAMx or CMAQ, be used to simulate a base case, with meteorological and emissions inputs reflecting a base case year, to replicate concentrations monitored in that year. The model ap plication to the base case year undergoes a performance evaluation to ensure that it satisfacto rily agrees with concentrations monitored in that y ear. The model may then be used to simulate emissions oc curring in other years required for a plan, namely the base year (which may differ from the base case year) and future year. 375 The modeled response to the emission changes between those years is used to cal culate Relative Response Factors (RRFs), which are applied to the design value in the base year to est imate the projected design value in the future year for

374 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals f or Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007 (“Modeling Guidance”); and “Update to the 24 Hour P M 2.5 NAAQS Modeled Attainment Test,” Memorandum from Tyl er Fox, Air Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA to R egional Air Program Managers, EPA, June 28, 2011 (“Modeling Guidance Update”). 375 In this section, we use the terms “base case,” “ba se year” or “baseline,” and “future year” as descri bed in section 3.5 of the EPA’s Modeling Guidance. The “base case” modeling simula tes measured concentrations for a given time period , using emissions and meteorology for that same year. The m odeling “base year” (which can be the same as the b ase case year) is the emissions starting point for the plan and for proje ctions to the future year, both of which are modele d for the attainment demonstration. See Modeling Guidance at pp. 33-34

. Note that CARB sometimes uses “base year” synonymou sly with “base case” and “reference year” instead of “base year.”This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

113 comparison against the NAAQS. Separate RRFs are est imated for each chemical species component of
PM 2.5 , and for each quarter of the year, to reflect thei r differing responses to seasonal meteorological conditions and emissions. Since each species is han dled separately, before applying an RRF the base year design value must be speciated using available chemical species measurements, that is, each day’s measured PM 2.5 comprising the design value must be split into its species components. The Modeling Guidance provides additional detail on the recommen ded approach. 376

The attainment demonstration in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan is based on modeling performed for the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan, but that modeling is used in a streamlined w ay, by employing scaling. The attainment demonstration approach in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan is covered in its Chapter 4 (“Classification and Attainment”) and Appendix F (“Attainment Demonstrat ion”), with several further details in Appendix A (“Weight of Evidence Analysis”) of the CARB Staff R eport. For the modeling used in this Plan, the base case year was 2000, the base year was 2012, and the future years were 2018 and 2020 for the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 standards, respectively. CARB scaled the results f rom modeling performed for the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan, assuming the same relative response to emiss ion changes applies in the time frame for the current Plan. Starting from the RRFs from the 2 008 PM 2.5 Plan, which reflect the emission changes from the base year to the future year in that plan (2005 to 2014), CARB scaled those RRFs to reflect t he current 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s base year to future year emission changes ( 2012 to 2020 for the annual standard, and 2012 to 2018 for the 24-hour standard ).
The formula in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan 377 for scaling an RRF is based on the definition of a n RRF as (modeled future concentration) / (modeled base year concentration), and on the assumption that the modeled percent change in concentration per percent change in emissions is the same for the 2015 PM 2.5

376 Modeling Guidance Update at 43 ff

. 377 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-8, and Appendix F, p. F-4.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

114 Plan as it was for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. As shown in section IV.A of the EPA’s Genera l TSD for this action, these assumptions lead to the Plan formula. Since the RRF includes the modeled effect of emission changes, accounting for their temporal and spatial distribution and their chemistry, the scal ing approach used in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan differs from a simple “rollback” scaling (whi ch would merely assume that the percent concentration change is ide ntical to the percent emissions change). CARB’s procedure for using emissions from the two p lans in the RRF scaling formula differed to some extent between the two plans due to data av ailability, even though ideally they would be treat ed in the same way. The reason the scaling is being do ne rather than new modeling is that modeling inventories were not available for the base and fut ure years of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. Only the planning inventories are available; they cover all the sourc e categories, but do not reflect the allocation of the emissions to all the grid squares in the modeling d omain and to all the hours of the year, a considera ble undertaking necessary for input to the model. Absen t the future modeling inventories, the most consistent way to perform the scaling would be to u se planning inventories from both the new and old plans. Because the scaling is done for each chemica l species, the inventories used should also be speciated using the same procedure, by applying spe ciation profiles for the various emission source categories. Unfortunately, the old speciation profi les for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan were not available, so the planning inventory from the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan could not be speciated in the same way as the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan planning inventory could. Therefore, CARB used the modeling inventory from the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, which did have a speciation procedure compara ble to that available for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan planning inventory. In sum, in calculating the RRF scaling factors, CARB used the modeling inventoryThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

115 to compute percent emission changes for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and used the planning inventory for emission changes for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. 378, 379 CARB’s modeling domain is somewhat larger than the SJV nonattainment area, so emission totals differ between the modeling inventory and th e planning inventory. But we expect that percent changes are comparable because both the modeling in ventories and planning inventories reflect emissions from the same types of sources and in sim ilar proportions. The inventories also reflect simi lar controls, for example statewide motor vehicle emiss ions controls, where motor vehicles are the main source of NO x . We also expect the ratios of the percent changes, i.e. , the RRF scaling factors themselves, to be comparable given discrepancies be tween the modeling and planning inventories would typically be similar for the two plans used in the ratio, and hence canceled out to an extent.
The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provided several bases to support the use of a scaling approach premised on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan model response. The base case in the previous modeling was based on extensive measurements during the 2000 CRPAQS study, 380 and the underlying meteorological conditions leadi ng to high PM 2.5 concentrations in the 2000-2001 winter were simila r to those in the 2013-2014 winter, including persistent pressure ridges, surface inver sions, cool temperatures, and low winds. 381 Also, the 2004-2006 PM 2.5 species composition data that CARB used for specia ting PM 2.5 concentrations in the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan show a similar composition to 2011-2013 speci ation measurements that CARB used in

378 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-4. 379 Modeling the ambient PM 2.5 components of elemental carbon (EC) and organic ca rbon (OC) and geological material requires emissions for those, derived from speciati on profiles of the various emission source categori es. The RRF scaling also requires separate EC and OC emissions. But planning inventories, such as that available for the 2008 p lan, generally report only direct PM 2.5 emissions, the total of these species. 380 2000 California Regional Particulate Air Quality S tudy (CRPAQS); descriptive documents available on C ARB’s “Central California Air Quality Studies” web site at http:// www.arb.ca.gov/airways. 381 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-4, and WOEA, p. A-5.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

116 the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan to speciate design values prior to applying R RFs, as seen in composition pie charts for Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and Visalia. 382

These observations indicate that the 2013 PM 2.5 design values for the current 2015 PM 2.5 Plan would respond in a way similar to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan modeling. An alternative would have been to u se modeling from the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, which had a 2007 meteorology and emissions b ase case, which is more recent than that in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. However, it modeled only the first and fourt h quarters, the only quarters needed to address the 24-hour NAAQS; the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan modeled the entire year, and so was suitable for assessing both the 24-hour and the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. CARB calculated an RRF from the scaling formula usi ng the concentration of each PM 2.5 chemical species, with emissions from the correspon ding precursor. CARB used percent changes in emissions of NO x , SO x , Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), and o ther (direct PM 2.5 less OC and EC), to scale the RRF for the corresponding amb ient PM 2.5 component: nitrate (NO 3 - ), sulfate (SO 4 -

2 ), OC, EC, and geological material (also called “ot her” or “dust”). For the ammonium component, which is present in ammonium nitrate and ammonium s ulfate, a choice must be made as to which precursor emissions, either NO x or SO 2 , should be used in scaling ammonia; CARB used NO x . This is in line with information in the Plan indica ting that ammonium nitrate formation responds far more to NO x emission changes than to ammonia changes. The Plan also noted that sulfate is a much smaller ambient component than nitrate, so that amm onium scales more with NO x than with SO 2 . 383 Conceivably some combination of precursor emissions could have been used for scaling ammonium, but that would require a plausibility argument about ho w to reflect the actual chemistry involved, a

382 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment A, p. F-8 to F-10. 383 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p. F-5.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

117 complication that would obscure both the relative s implicity of direct scaling and the more comprehensive consideration of chemistry already pr esent in the modeling being scaled. Another point about the choice of NO x is that ammonium concentrations were independent o f ammonia emissions, since the latter was not used, and so inherently ca nnot respond to increases or decreases of ammonia t hat occur during the planning period. As discussed in section V.C of this notice, modelin g for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan showed that there is a small ambient response to ammonia changes. Additi onally, annual average ammonia emissions in the planning inventory increase by 8.6% from 2012 to 20 20, which suggests that the ammonium contribution to projected design values may be high er than stated in the Plan. However, this is of lit tle concern since the pre-scaled RRFs for ammonium, nit rate, and sulfate were based on actual modeling for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan; they take into account the atmospheric chemi stry and the ambient effects due to ammonia changes during 2005-2014, when the annual a verage ammonia emissions increased by 18.1%. Aside from the RRFs themselves, the procedure that CARB followed in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan for projecting design values is consistent with the rec ommendations in the Modeling Guidance. The steps included using daily speciation data and the SANDWI CH approach 384 to split daily measured PM 2.5 concentrations into their chemical components, taki ng quarterly averages (of all days for the annual standard, and of the highest 10% or so of days for the 24-hour standard), applying RRFs to get future component concentrations, summing to total PM 2.5 , and finally averaging over quarters and years to estimate the future design value.

384 Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, Inferred Carbonaceous mass material balance approach: Model ing Guidance, p. 47; Frank, N., 2006: “Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Su lfates, and Carbonaceous Mass in Federal Reference Method Fine Particulate Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities,” J. Air Waste Management Assoc., 56, 500-511.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

118 Two aspects of the Plan’s approach to modeling diff er from the Modeling Guidance recommendations. First, for the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, the RRFs were applied to a single high valu e per quarter to represent the potential 98 th percentile, as opposed to applying RRFs to multipl e high individual days in each quarter, and then choosing the 98 th percentile. The former approach is consistent with the original Modeling Guidance, before it was updated to the latter approach by the June 28, 2011 Modeling Guidance Update. 385 The latter approach is intended to allow for the s hifting of high days between quarters as emission controls are applied: a day that has a concentration in the top 10% in th e autumn may more strongly respond to controls and no longer be in the top 10%, while a summer day may respond less to controls and end up being in th e post-control top 10%. Because winter PM 2.5 concentrations are significantly higher than those in the other seasons, such shifting is very unlikel y to be an issue in the SJV. Second, the Modeling Guidance recommends that RRFs be applied to the average of three threeyear design values 386 ( e.g. using data in 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014) , whereas the Plan used just the single 2013 design value (2011-2013 data). The 2011-2013 period for the 2013 design value is centered on the Plan’s 2012 base year, as the Model ing Guidance recommends. One reason for the longer period in EPA’s recommendation is that the a dditional averaging provides some stability in the estimate. Although the Plan’s procedure is not entirely consi stent with EPA guidance, we find it acceptable in this context given the time constrain ts imposed by EPA’s April 2015 reclassification of the
SJV area 387 and the available modeling analyses. Despite the p resence of scaling at a key step, CARB’s

385 Modeling Guidance, p. 58 and Modeling Guidance Upd ate, p. B-2 (Steps 1, 4, and 5). 386 Modeling Guidance, p.22; and Modeling Guidance Upd ate, p. B-1. 387 80 FR 18528 at 18530 (April 7, 2015) (noting unusu ally short timeframe for State’s development and su bmission of a plan to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date, which i s December 31, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

119 approach remains a modeled attainment demonstration as required by section 189(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It relies on photochemical modeling that EPA reviewed and approved 388 for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, and which remains sufficiently representative of PM 2.5 formation in the SJV. Three other considerations give some reassurance of the acceptability of a scaling approach. First, EPA’s 2014 draft modeling guidance explicitl y recognizes that “there may be plausible alternati ve means of calculating the relative response factors [RRFs] that can differ from the approaches recommended.” 389 While this 2014 draft guidance does not specifical ly address the alternative of scaled RRFs, it indicates, as does the Modeling Guidance, that alternatives to the recommended procedures are acceptable where adequately supported. Second, even the recommended RRF procedure involves model sensitivity derived from one period being applied t o another: RRFs are computed using a single year’s modeled response to emissions changes, but are assu med to be applicable to all five years composing th e average over three design values. This consideratio n makes the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s application of the model response from one period to another analogous to the application more broadly envisioned by the Modeling Guidance. Finally, while scaling itself is relatively crude, the scaling of RRFs is less so. The procedure is not a simple scaling of an emission total, but refl ects the geographic and temporal distribution of th e emissions sources and the emission changes, since i t is based on modeling. The pattern of emission changes during the span of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan does not exactly match the changes modeled fo r the span of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, but many of the emission reductions continue the effect of existing controls

388 “Technical Support Document for the Proposed Actio n on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy, ” EPA Region 9, November 8, 2010, for proposed appr oval in 75 FR 74518 (November 30, 2010); final approval was in 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). 389 “Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze”, DRAFT December 2014, EPA OAQPS, p. 99.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

120 on the same types of sources, so the patterns of th e emissions changes are unlikely to be very differe nt. For example, continued vehicle NO x emission reductions occur over much the same roadw ay network and direct PM 2.5 reductions from controls on wood burning are large ly achieved from the same residential areas. Late in EPA’s review process, EPA and CARB found th at the scaling factor for EC had been applied to the RRF for OC and the product used as t he RRF for EC, and vice versa. 390 Because the original RRFs for OC were larger than those for EC, and remained so after scaling, applying the smalle r EC scaled RRFs to OC made the projected OC concentr ation smaller than it should have been. Conversely, projected EC was larger than it should have been. Because OC has a larger ambient contribution than EC, the OC effect dominates. The net result of the EC-OC reversal is that the projec ted design values for the attainment demonstration were underestimated. CARB estimates that the 2020 annual design value for Madera increased from the 2 015 PM 2.5 Plan’s original 15.0 μg/m 3 to a corrected value of 16.2 μg/m 3 , 391 which is above the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. However, CARB presents compelling reasons for disco unting this high Madera projected 2020 annual design value. The starting point for the sca led modeling projection is the 2013 design value – the average of annual means during 2011-2013. The 2011 monitoring data included within that 2013 design value appears anomalous, as documented in the WOEA at Appendix A2 (“Assessment of the Representativeness of 2011 PM 2.5 Beta Attenuation Monitor Data from Madera”) and At tachment B to CARB’s Technical Clarifications of August 12, 2015 (“Attachment B”). We refer herein to figures and tables in Appendix A2 of the WOEA as “S.R. App. A2, Figure 2.”

390 Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to K. Drake, EPA Reg ion 9, August 12, 2015. See also , Memo to file, “Call with California Air Resources Board regarding letter abo ut reversal of elemental and organic carbon,” S. Bo hning, EPA Region 9, September 18, 2015. 391 Id. , Attachment A (“Revised San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Design Values”).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

121 EPA’s regulations require that monitoring data for comparison to the NAAQS be collected using specific equipment and procedures to ensure accurac y and reliability. 392 For each NAAQS, the default monitoring equipment and the procedures for operati ng it are termed the Federal Reference Method (FRM); an alternative approach, termed a Federal Eq uivalent Method (FEM) may also be used if it is demonstrated to give results comparable to an FRM m onitor. The Met One Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM) 1020 is an example of an FEM that provides co ntinuous hourly PM 2.5 concentrations compared to the FRM’s 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentrations. This is useful for a number of purp oses, including real-time forecasting for deciding when to issue pu blic advisories and wood burning restrictions, as w ell as for evaluating air quality model performance. BA Ms are deployed at multiple sites in the SJV, including Madera (the “Madera-City” site, AQS ID 06 -039-2010). 393 As described in the S.R. App. A2, 2011 was the firs t full year of data collected by the Madera BAM, and the concentrations were unexpectedly high in comparison with other monitoring sites, including both BAMs and FRM monitor sites. During 2 011-2013, annual concentrations at Madera were some 30% higher than at Fresno, and as much as 100% higher during the summer, historically the season with the lowest PM 2.5 . 394 This was unexpected because historically there has been a north-tosouth increasing gradient of concentrations, with n orthern sites like Stockton and Merced at the low e nd, and southern sites like those in Bakersfield at the high end, and with central sites like Fresno somew here in between. 395 This gradient is consistent with the greater poten tial for ventilation at the northern end of the SJV, nearest the opening to the ocean at the Go lden Gate, and the lower ventilation at the souther n

392 40 CFR parts 53 and 58. 393 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-3 (“Projected 2020 Annual and 2018 24-hour Design Values”), p.4-9. 394 S.R. App. A2, Figures 3 and 4, and Tables 1 and 2. 395 S.R. App. A2, Figure 2.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

122 end, surrounded by mountains. Madera and Fresno con centrations are highly correlated, 396 suggesting common meteorological influences at the two sites, as opposed to additional emission sources contributing at Madera. Various checks on the monitor and its operation wer e made over time without affecting the high readings, but in April 2014, adjustments were made as a result of checking the zero point of the instrument using outdoor air, rather than indoor ai r (both are permissible; outdoor air could be more representative of the conditions the instrument nor mally operates under). 397 After that time, Madera concentrations shifted to lower values, 398 conformed better to the known north-south gradient , 399 and tracked closely with the monitored data from the Me rced-Coffee Road site about 30 miles to the North, which is expected given the two monitors’ proximity to one another and similar geographic conditions. 400 They also agreed better with measurements at a new FRM installed in July 2014 at the Madera site. 401 ARB concluded that the 2011 “BAM data at Madera ap pear to be biased high due to sampling artifacts... not representative of air qua lity in the central portion of the Valley”. 402

The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan nevertheless included the 2011 Madera data an d 2013 design value in the attainment demonstration, because up until recently the issue appeared to be moot, as despite the high starting point concentration the modeling predicted a 2020 annual concentration of 15.0 μg/m 3 , which attains the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The discovery of the EC-OC reversal describ ed above brings the
issue to the fore because there is no room for the increase it causes in the 2020 Madera design value.

396 S.R. App. A2, Figure 3. 397 “BAM 1020 Particulate Monitor Operation Manual, BA M-1020-9800 Rev K”, Met One Instruments, Inc. 2008; Memorandum from Tim Hanley, Office of Air Quality P lanning and Standards, EPA to Met One BAM Users, “R E: Zero Tests on the Met One BAM 1020,” October 5, 2012. 398 S.R. App. A2, Figure 8. 399 S.R. App. A2, Figure 9. 400 Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, EPA R egion 9, August 12, 2015, Attachment B, p. 2. 401 S.R. App. A2, Figures 12 and 13. 402 S.R. App. A2, p.A2-9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

123 The fact that 2011-2013 Madera BAM concentrations a re higher than values at the Fresno FRM and other sites does not in itself prove they are i ncorrect; it is conceivable that unknown sources we re contributing there. Also, the later agreement betwe en the lower Madera BAM and FRM concentrations could be explained as sources that are now emitting less, or that are contributing less at the monitor due to different wind patterns. Nevertheless, the misma tch with the historical gradient pattern, the unexpectedly but only temporarily high readings tha t declined after an adjustment in operation, and th e current lower FRM readings do suggest that the 2011 Madera concentrations were anomalous. EPA believes that the 2011-2013 readings at the Madera site are not known to be representative of air qual ity for Madera and not sufficiently certain to drive th e SJV control strategy, or to invalidate the conclu sion of the attainment demonstration that the SJV will a ttain the 1997 annual NAAQS in 2020. CARB explored two alternative scenarios to estimate annual average, ambient PM 2.5 values in 2020 for the Madera site. 403 Under the first scenario, CARB substituted the 201 4 design value of 15.8 μg/m 3 at the Madera site for its 2013 design value and e stimated that the 2020 Madera design value would be 14.1 μg/m 3 . For the second scenario, CARB substituted the ann ual 2011 data from the Merced-Coffee Road site, adjusted upward to reflect the typically slightly higher values at Madera, resulting in an estimated 2020 Madera design value of 14.9 μg/m 3 . Both scenarios are reasonable alternatives to estimating the 2020 Madera design v alue for the SJV attainment planning purposes for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the Bakersfield-Planz site, wh ich would have a corrected 2020 design value of 15.0 μg/m 3 , would become the design value monitor for the SJV , as would be expected under the historic observation of a north- to-south increasing gradient of concentrations. 404

403 Letter from K. Magliano, CARB to A. Steckel, EPA R egion 9, August 12, 2015, Attachment B, pp. 3-4. 404 Note that if the unexpectedly high concentrations seen in 2011-2013 are due to real phenomena affecti ng air quality, then they would be expected to occur again at some point in the intervening years between now and the proje cted attainment yearThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

124 EPA accepts the scaled modeling approach of the att ainment demonstration in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, which was the product of extended discussion between EPA, ARB, and SJVUAPCD. Based on our review of the modeling approach and results, we pro pose to conclude that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan adequately demonstrates that the SJV area will atta in the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2020 and attain the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2018. We recommend that CARB reassess the status of the modeled attainment of th e 1997 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS as part of the new modeling required for SIP revisions address ing the 2006 and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Evaluation of Bakersfield-Planz Data Exclusion for May 5, 2013 As described in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, the State and District based the attainment demonstration on ambient measurements during 2011-2013. 405 The 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration of 167.3 μg/m 3 measured at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site ( AQS ID: 06-029-0016) on May 5, 2013 was not included in the attainment demonstration analyses d ue to its unrepresentativeness for purposes of attainment planning for the SJV as a whole. Therefo re, the modeled projections for the 2020 annual
PM 2.5 design values and 2018 24-hour design values 406 and the discussion of the modeling results in Appendix F, section F.4 of the Plan are based on da ta that exclude the May 5, 2013 24-hour data point from the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site. The Plan provides an assessment of the representati veness of this data for purposes of inclusion in the attainment demonstration analyses 407 and concludes that:

of 2020. If they do occur again, then they would in fluence the monitored attainment status at that tim e, and hence any request for SJV to be designated attainment. 405 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, p F-4. 406 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1. 407 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B: Assessment of the Representativeness of the PM2.5 Value Recorded at t he Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site on May 5, 2013.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

125 “In summary, comparison of the 167.3 μg/m 3 concentration measured on May 5, 2013, to values typical for this season as well as comparison to va lues measured throughout the Valley on the same day , combined with the record high fugitive dust and ele mental species concentrations, indicate that the monitor was impacted by microscale sources that are not representative of the neighborhood spatial scale the monitor is intended to represent. Therefo re, this value is not included in modeling analysis for the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan.” The assessment provided in the Plan 408 based this conclusion on: (1) representativeness o f Bakersfield-Planz PM 2.5 data; 409 (2) potential fugitive dust sources affecting the Bakersfield-Planz site; 410 and (3) meteorology at the Bakersfield-Planz site. 411 Information provided regarding the representativene ss of Bakersfield-Planz data included analyses of San Joaquin Valley seasonal PM 2.5 concentrations 412 and elemental species composition. 413 The assessment provided PM 2.5 data on the highest concentrations throughout the Valley since 2000 and shows that the May 5, 2013 Bakersfield-Planz value was unusually high compared to historical trends since 2000. Further, this data point was also unusu ally high compared to other sites in the San Joaqui n Valley on the same day. 414 The species composition analyses show that the pri mary content of the particulate matter was fugitive dust and that the l evel of the dust was over four times higher than th e next highest value observed in the entire Californi a network based on 14 years of available data. In addition, total elemental species and other chemica l species were found to be unusually high.

408 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B. 409 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, Section B. 410 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, Section C. 411 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Attachment B, Section D. 412 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, pp. F-11 to F-13. 413 Id., pp. F-13 to F-14. 414 Id. , pp. F-12 to F-13.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

126 The State and District’s assessment of potential fu gitive dust sources affecting the BakersfieldPlanz site was based on an evaluation of aerial pho tos to identify sources and field investigation by District enforcement staff. 415 The assessment found no documented dust violations at any nearby sources and identify the likely source of the dust was from the open areas immediately adjacent to the monitor , suggesting a localized microscale impact. The third part of the assessment evaluated meteorol ogy at the Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site. 416 Wind speeds on May 5, 2013 were compared to other days in May 2013 and also to other high wind days at the Bakersfield-Planz site. The wind s peeds were in excess of 25 mph for over eight hours on May 5, 2013. The meteorology indicates that Bake rsfield-Planz experienced a high wind event on May 5, 2013 that was unusual in terms of wind speed and duration. Overall, EPA agrees with the evidence provided that the Bakersfield-Planz monitor was affected by an unusual high wind dust event on May 5, 2013 t hat resulted in anomalous PM 2.5 concentrations on that day. EPA believes that it is appropriate to om it this data point from the attainment demonstratio n based on EPA’s 2013 guidance on exceptional events. 417 Regarding the inclusion of event-affected data for attainment demonstrations, EPA’s 2013 guidance says: “An air agency incorporating the event-related conc entration in a design value used for a prospective attainment demonstration might seem to need more emission reductions to attain the NAAQS by its attainment deadline than is actually t he case. The EPA plans to more formally address this topic on a pollutant/NAAQS basis, the first of which will be ozone guidance in the preamble of a soon-to-be-proposed rulemaking on SIP requirements for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008

415 Id. , pp. F-14 to F-16. 416 Id. , pp. F-17 to F-18. 417 Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Ai r Directors, IX, “Interim Guidance to Implement Requirements for the Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data Influe nced by Exceptional Events,” May 10, 2013 (“2013 Exceptiona l Events Guidance”).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

127 ozone NAAQS. Until the planned guidance for a pollu tant and NAAQS of interest is issued, air agencies should consult with their EPA regional office if th ey face this situation.” 418
EPA reviewed PM 2.5 data in AQS for the SJV since 2010 and identified four days flagged with high wind exceptional event requests for exclusion. These PM 2.5 high wind dust events do not appear to be recurring events and their inclusion in the atta inment demonstration therefore would not accurately reflect the effect of controls during more typical conditions at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site

. 419 Based on these reviews, EPA agrees with the State’s and District’s assertion that the May 5, 2013 concentrations at Bakersfield-Planz were due to an unusual PM 2.5 high wind dust event that would not be appropriate to include in the attainment demonst ration. In addition to EPA’s 2013 guidance on exceptional e vents, EPA also considered the monitoring requirements for PM 2.5 . In particular, 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, sectio n 4.71(b) specifies for PM 2.5 : “The required monitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent area-wide air quality. These sites can include sites collocated at PAMS. These m onitoring stations will typically be at neighborhoo d or urban-scale; however, micro-or middle-scale PM 2.5 monitoring sites that represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area are consid ered to represent area-wide air quality.” Based on the information provided in the Plan, EPA agrees that the Bakersfield-Planz concentrations on May 5, 2013 appear to have been a ffected by a localized event; therefore, it was neither representative of neighborhood scale concen trations, nor occurring at many locations. EPA agrees with the State and District that the May 5, 2013 concentrations at Bakersfield-Planz were not representative of area-wide, typical PM 2.5 concentrations in San Joaquin Valley.

418 Id. 419 EPA also reviewed PM 10 data in AQS for the SJV since 2010 and identified eight days flagged with high wind exceptional event request for exclusion, which indicate that PM 10 high wind dust events recur and should be subject to reasonable controls in accordance with the 2013 Exceptional Ev ents Guidance.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

128 Based on the technical analyses provided in the Pla n and EPA guidance and requirements as cited in this section, EPA agrees with the State an d District that the May 5, 2013 Bakersfield-Planz 2 4- hour PM 2.5 data point resulted from a localized, anomalous ev ent that can be omitted from the attainment demonstration analyses. Evaluation of Control Strategy The attainment control strategy in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan consists of State and District baseline measures that continue to achieve emission reductio ns and four additional control measures that the District either recently revised or, in one case, h as committed to revise in 2016. With respect to bas eline measures for stationary and area sources, the Distr ict identified the source categories under its jurisdiction and their projected emission levels in Appendix B, section B.2.2 (“Emissions Inventory Documentation”) and described each of the District measures that apply to these source categories in section B.2.2.3 of the Plan (“Control Profiles”). 420 All but one of the 55 District control measures li sted in section B.2.2.3 of the Plan have been approved i nto the California SIP. 421 With respect to mobile sources, the State identifie d the source categories and described the EMFAC2014 emission factor model used to project the ir future emission levels in Appendix B, sections B.2.2.4 through B.2.2.7 of the Plan. 422 As explained in section V.D of this proposed rule, in a separate rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve CARB’s subm itted waiver measures into the SIP and intends to finalize that rulemaking before taking final act ion on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan.

420 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-23 to B-31. See also , within this section, Table B-8 (“District Rules I ncluded in the SIP Inventory”). 421 See EPA Region 9’s website for information on District control measures that have been approved into the C alifornia SIP, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadFo rm&count=500&state=California&cat=San+Joaquin+Valle y+Unified+ APCD-Agency-Wide+Provisions. Of the District measur es identified in Appendix B of the Plan, only Rule 4691 (“Vegetable Oil Processing Operations”), which limits VOC emiss ions from vegetable oil processing operations, is n ot currently approved into the California SIP. EPA approved a previous ve rsion of this rule (Rule 461.2) into the SIP on Jan uary 18, 1994 (59 FR 2535). 422 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-31 to B-35.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

129 Table 8 below summarizes the emission reductions ne eded in the SJV to attain the 1997 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2018 and 2020, respectively. Table 8. Summary of Direct PM 2.5 and NOx Emission Reductions Needed for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan Attainment Demonstration 24-hour Standard Attainment by 2018 (tpd annual average) Annual Standard Attainment by 2020 (tpd winter average) PM 2.5 NO x PM 2.5 NO x A 2012 emissions inventory a 61.0 318.5 66.0 332.2
B Emissions inventory after baseline measures 57.7 213.9 62.8 206.9
C Emissions inventory needed to attain 54.4 213.7 60.8 206.5
D Total emission reductions needed by attainment year (A - C) 6.6 104.8 5.2 125.7 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9, exc ept as otherwise noted.
a 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2. The Plan identifies four District measures that wil l achieve additional emission reductions beyond baseline measures and contribute to expediti ous attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 423 First, Rule 4308 (“Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr”), as amended November 14, 2013, limits NO x emissions from boilers, steam generators, and proc ess heaters sized between 0.075 and 2 MMBtu/hr and is projected to ac hieve 0.0007 tpd of NO x emission reductions by 2018 and 0.0011 tpd of NO x emission reductions by 2020. 424 EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on February 12, 2015. 425 Second, the District has committed to amend Rule 46 92 (“Commercial Charbroiling”) in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired charbroilers, with an anticipated compliance date in 2017. 426 Rule

423 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9. 424 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-3 and CARB Staff Report at p . 9. 425 80 FR 7803 (February 12, 2015). 426 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 7-6 and SJVUAPC D Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A (April 16, 201 5) at paragraph 7.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

130 4692, as approved into the SIP on November 3, 2011, regulates emissions from chain-driven charbroilers but does not regulate under-fired char broilers. 427 The District projects that its anticipated revisions to Rule 4692 to regulate under-fired char broilers will achieve an additional 0.4 tpd of dire ct
PM 2.5 emission reductions in 2018 and 2020. 428 EPA recently proposed to approve this commitment i nto the California SIP. 429 Emission reductions of 0.4 tpd of direct PM 2.5 represent 6.1% of the total PM 2.5 emission reductions needed to attain the 1997 24-hour standa rd by 2018 and 7.7% of the total PM 2.5 emission reductions needed to attain the 1997 annual standar d by 2020. 430 These are limited portions of the total
PM 2.5 emission reductions needed for expeditious attainm ent of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. Based on the District’s history of timely meeting s imilar rule commitments ( see section V.E.3 of this preamble), we find that the District is capable of fulfilling this commitment. We also find that the commitment to adopt the amended rule by 2016 is for a reasonable and appropriate timeframe given the need for PM 2.5 emission reductions to attain by 2018 and 2020. Ac cordingly, we propose to approve this rule commitment as part of the control strategy in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. For a more detailed discussion of this commitment and the District’s evaluations to d ate, see the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. Third, the District projects that Rule 4901 (“Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters”), as amended September 18, 2014, will achi eve 2.9 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and 1.6 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2020. Specifically, the Di strict’s 2014 rule amendment to lower the rule’s “no burn threshold” f rom 30 μg/m 3 to 20 μg/m 3 (24-hour average ambient PM 2.5 concentration) for non-EPA certified, non-District registered wood burning devices is

427 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011). 428 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7 at p. 7-6. 429 80 FR 1816 at 1833 and 1844 (January 13, 2015). 430 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2 , p. 9, and Appendix B (“Emissions Inventory”), Tab les B-1 and B2.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

131 projected to achieve a winter 24-hour average of 2. 2 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and an annual average of 1.1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2020. 431 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan relies on Rule 4901 for an additional 0.7 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions (winter 24-hour average) by 2018 and an additional 0.5 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions (annual average) by 2020 resul ting from homeowners replacing high-emitting fireplaces and stoves with low-emitting, EPA-certified devices. 432 The EPA recently proposed to approve Rule 4901 int o the California SIP. 433 Finally, the District projects that Rule 4905 (“Nat ural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces”), as amended January 22, 2015, will achie ve 0.2 tpd of NO x emission reductions by 2018 and 0.4 tpd of NO x emission reductions by 2020. 434 This rule includes a mitigation fee option that al lows manufacturers to sell non-compliant furnaces for 36 -month transition periods ranging from 2015 to 2021, depending on unit type. 435 Based on information in the District’s staff repor t on Rule 4905, the District estimates emission reductions of 0.105 tpd of NO x per year from three of the four types of units, which have compliance dates ranging from April 1, 2 015 through October 1, 2016. 436 The EPA recently proposed to approve Rule 4905 into the California SIP. 437 Because the sale of non-compliant units is allowed to varying degrees i n 2018 by manufacturers paying mitigation fees, we

431 The District calculated these estimates using its estimates of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions for the 120-day wood burning season covered by the rule and ratios of 12 0/365 days and 120/180 days for the annual average and winter (24-hour) average emission reductions, respectively. See SJVUAPCD, “Final Staff Report for Amendments to the District’s Residential Wood Burning Program,” Appendix B, (“Emission Reduc tion Analysis Amendments to Residential Wood Burnin g Program”) at B-12, September 18, 2014. 432 The 0.7 tpd and 0.5 tpd emission reduction estimat es assume that 14% of devices subject to Rule 4901 will be replaced by 2018 and that 20% of such devices will be replaced by 2020, respectively. For a more detailed discussi on of these emission reduction estimates, see the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD. 433 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). 434 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2 , p. 9. 435 SJVUAPCD, “Final Staff Report Amendments to Rule 4 905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces,” January 22, 2015, p. 9. See also EPA’s proposed rule on Rule 4905. 80 FR 68484 (Nove mber 5, 2015). 436 SJVUAPCD Rule 4905 as amended January 22, 2015, Ta ble 1 (“NO x Emission Limits and Compliance Schedule”). See also, SJVUAPCD, “Final Staff Report Amendments to Rule 49 05 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces,” January 22, 2015, Appendix B, pp. B-9. 437 80 FR 68484 (November 5, 2015).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

132 propose to credit Rule 4905 with 0.035 tpd of NO x emission reductions in 2018 rather than the 0.105 tpd of emission reductions identified in the District’s staff report for the rule. The amount we propose t o not credit ( i.e. , 0.16 tpd of NO x ) represents only 0.2% of the total winter average NO x reduction from 2012
to 2018. 438 Using the 24-hour PM 2.5 sensitivity of 0.08 μg/m 3 per ton of NO x emission reduction at the projected 2018 design value site of Bakersfield-Cal ifornia St., as modeled for the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, 439
this would result in an ambient 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration increase of about 0.013 μg/m 3

. 440 This represents a minimal effect on ambient PM 2.5 levels and, therefore, does not undermine the Plan ’s demonstration of attainment of the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2018. In sum, the attainment demonstration in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan relies on numerous State and District baseline regulations and four additional D istrict measures that EPA has either approved or proposed to approve into the California SIP, all of which collectively are projected to achieve emissi on reductions sufficient for the SJV area to attain th e 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by 2018 and the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard by 2020. Table 9 provides a summary of th e emission reductions from the four additional District measures that we propose to cre dit toward the Plan’s attainment control strategy. Table 9. Summary of EPA Proposed Emission Reduction Credits for Additional District Control Measures Needed for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan Attainment Demonstration

District Control Measure Annual Standard Attainment by 2020 (tpd annual average) 24-hour Standard Attainment by 2018 (tpd winter average) PM 2.5 NO x PM 2.5 NO x Rule 4308 0.0 0.0011 0.0 0.0007 Rule 4692 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 Rule 4901 1.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 Rule 4905 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.035

438 Percent of total winter average NOx emission reduc tions = 0.16 tpd/104.8 tpd = 0.2%. 439 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, WOEA, Table B-2 (“Modeled PM 2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley-wide precurs or emission reductions”), p. A-27. 440 Increase in ambient 24-hour PM 2.5 concentration = (0.08 μg/m 3 /ton of NO x emission reduction) * (0.16 tpd) = 0.013 μg/m 3

.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

133 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Tables 1 and 2, p. 9.
Conclusion As discussed above, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s air quality modeling demonstrates that the SJV will attain the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 65 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2018 and the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard of 15.0 μg/m 3 by December 31, 2020. This demonstration is based on expeditious implementation of the State’s and District’s BACM a nd MSM control strategy for stationary, area, and mobile sources in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, together with the District’s commitment to a chieve additional
PM 2.5 emission reductions from under-fired charbroilers through amendments to Rule 4692. Based on these evaluations, we propose to determine that the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan provides for attainment of the 1997 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 standards by the most expeditious alternatives dat es practicable, consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A). F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Mil estones 1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment area p lans to provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). In addition, CAA section 189(c) req uires PM 2.5 nonattainment area SIPs to include quantitative milestones to be achieved every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) , as defined in CAA section 171(1). Section 171(1) defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applica ble date.” Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act requires that a set percentag e of emissions reductions be achieved in any given year for purposes of satisfying the RFP requirement.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

134 RFP has historically been met by showing annual inc remental emission reductions sufficient generally to maintain at least linear progress towa rd attainment by the applicable deadline. 441 As discussed in EPA guidance in the Addendum, requirin g linear progress in reductions of direct PM 2.5 and any individual precursor in a PM 2.5 plan may be appropriate in situations where:

• the pollutant is emitted by a large number and rang e of sources,

• the relationship between any individual source or s ource category and overall air quality is not well known,

• a chemical transformation is involved ( e.g. , secondary particulate significantly contributes t o PM 2.5 levels over the standard), and/or

• the emission reductions necessary to attain the PM 2.5 standard are inventory-wide. 442 The Addendum states that requiring linear progress may be less appropriate in other situations, such as:

• where there are a limited number of sources of dire ct PM 2.5 or a precursor,

• where the relationships between individual sources and air quality are relatively well defined, and/or

• where the emission control systems utilized ( e.g. , at major point sources) will result in swift and dramatic emission reductions. In nonattainment areas characterized by any of thes e latter conditions, RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress as controls are i mplemented and achieve significant reductions soon thereafter. For example, if an area’s nonattainment problem can be attributed to a few major sources, EPA guidance indicates that “RFP should be met by ‘ adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule’

441 Addendum at 42015. 442 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

135 which is likely to periodically yield significant e mission reductions of direct PM 2.5 or a PM 2.5 precursor.” 443
Plans for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas should include detailed schedu les for compliance with emission regulations in the area and provide corres ponding annual emission reductions to be realized from each milestone in the schedule. 444 In reviewing an attainment plan under subpart 4, E PA evaluates whether the annual incremental emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light of the statutory objective of timely attainment. Although early implementation of the most cost-effective control measures is often appropriate, states shoul d consider both cost-effectiveness and pollution reduction effectiveness when developing implementat ion schedules for their control measures and may implement measures that are more effective at reduc ing PM 2.5 earlier to provide greater public health benefits. 445 Section 189(c) requires that attainment plans inclu de quantitative milestones in order to demonstrate RFP. The purpose of the quantitative m ilestones is to allow periodic evaluation of the area’s progress towards attainment of the NAAQS thr ough the RFP requirements. Thus, the EPA determines an area’s compliance with RFP in conjunc tion with determining its compliance with the quantitative milestone requirement. Because RFP is an annual emission reduction requirement and the quantitative milestones are to be achieved every th ree years, when a state demonstrates compliance wit h the quantitative milestone requirement, it will dem onstrate that RFP has been achieved during each of the relevant three years. Quantitative milestones s hould provide an objective means to evaluate progre ss toward attainment meaningfully, e.g., through imposition of emission controls in the atta inment plan and

443 Addendum at 42015. 444 Addendum at 42016. 445 Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

136 the requirement to quantify those required emission reductions. The CAA also requires milestone reports (due 90 days after each milestone), and the se reports should include calculations and any assumptions made concerning how RFP has been met, e.g ., through quantification of emission reductions to date. 446 The CAA does not specify the starting point for cou nting the three-year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In the General Preamble and Addendum, EPA interpreted the CAA to require that the starting point for the firs t three-year period be the due date for the Moderat e area plan submission. 447 In keeping with this historical approach, EPA is p roposing to establish December 31, 2014 as the starting point for the fir st 3-year period under CAA section 189(c) for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. This date was the due date e stablished in the EPA’s June 2, 2014 Deadline and Classification Rule for the State’s su bmission of any additional attainment-related SIP elements necessary to satisfy the subpart 4 Moderat e area requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV area. 448 December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2020 would then be the milestone dates that the Serious Area plan must address, at minimum. The EPA believes that establishing December 31, 2017 as the first quantitative milestone date is an appropr iate means for implementing the requirements of subpart 4 prospectively. 2. RFP Demonstration and Quantitative Milestones in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan

446 Id. at 42016, 42017. 447 General Preamble at 13539, Addendum at 42016. 448 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishin g subpart 4 moderate area classifications and deadl ine for related SIP submissions) (“Classification and Deadline Rule”). Although the Classification and Deadline Rule did n ot affect any action that EPA had previously taken under CAA section 110 (k) on a SIP for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area, EPA noted that states may need to submit additional SIP elements to fully com ply with the applicable requirements of subpart 4, even for areas with previously approved PM 2.5 attainment plans, and that the deadline for any suc h additional plan submissions was December 31, 2014. Id. at 31569.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

137 The RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones a ppear in Chapter 6, section 6.3 (pp. 6-6 to 6-8) of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. Further discussion of the RFP demonstration, particularly with respect to ammonia, and the establishment of dates, content, a nd a reporting commitment for quantitative milestones, appears in CARB’s Staff Report (pp. 25- 26). In addition, by letter dated December 15, 2015 , CARB’s Executive Officer committed to submit a SIP revision to supplement the quantitative milestone portion of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan by December 31, 2016 (“QM Letter”). 449
The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x will decline from the 2012 base year to 2020 and states that emissions of each of t hese pollutants will remain below the levels needed to show “generally linear progress” from 2012 to 2020, the year that the Plan projects to be the earliest practicable attainment date for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard. 450 The Plan’s emissions inventory shows that direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x are emitted by a large number and range of sources in the SJV and the emission reductions needed for these pollutants are inventory wide. 451 The District followed the procedures in the 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule to calculate 2014 and 2017 RFP targets (or “benchmark” emission levels) for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x and then concluded that projected emission levels for each pollutant, based on its ad opted control strategy, would be below those target s in both milestone years. 452 The BACM control strategy that provides the basis f or these emissions projections is described in Chapters 5 and 7 and Appendices C and D of the P lan. For stationary and area sources, the Plan highlights several rules that are projected to cont ribute to attainment of the PM 2.5 standards. 453 For

449 Letter from R. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to J . Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Regi on 9, December 15, 2015. 450 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-8 (“RFP Target Demonstrat ion (2014 and 2017)”), p. 6-8. 451 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B. 452 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to 6-8. 453 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.1, pp. 7-2 to 7-6.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

138 example, Rule 4354 (“Glass Melting Furnaces”) contr ols emissions of NO x , SO x , and PM from industrial glass manufacturing – the largest source of SO x emissions in the San Joaquin Valley – and its emissions projections are presented in Appendix C a s part of the Plan’s BACM and MSM analysis. 454 Similarly, Rule 4901 (“Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters”) controls emissions from residential wood burning and addresses the largest combustion source of direct PM 2.5 . 455 Measures to control dust sources of direct PM 2.5 are also presented in the Plan’s BACM and MSM anal yses and reflected in the Plan’s baseline emission projectio ns. Examples of such measures include Rule 4550 (“Conservation Management Practices”) 456 and Rule 8061 (“Paved and Unpaved Roads”). 457 For mobile sources, the Plan lists numerous CARB regulations a nd discusses the key regulations that limit the emission of direct PM 2.5 and NO x from on-road and non-road mobile sources. 458 For instance, the regulations that apply to the two largest sources o f NO x in the San Joaquin Valley – heavy, heavy-duty diesel trucks and farm equipment – are discussed in Appendix C and their emission projections are presented in the Plan’s emissions inventory. 459 With respect to ammonia, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan projects an increase in annual average ammoni a emissions from 329.5 tpd in 2012 to 358.0 tpd in 20 20. 460 The Plan states that both NO x and ammonia participate in forming ammonium nitrate ( i.e. , secondary PM 2.5 ) but that NO x emission reductions are an order of magnitude more effective at reducing ambie nt PM 2.5 than ammonia reductions. 461 Based on the

454 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp. 7-3 to 7-4 and Appendix C, p. C-102. 455 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-4 and Appendix C, p. C-157. 456 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-108. 457 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-194. 458 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, Section 7.1.3, pp. 7-6 to 7-13. 459 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-8 to D-12 (for heavy heavy duty trucks) and D-15 (for farm equipment) and Appendix B, p. B-7. 460 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-19. 461 Id. See also, 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-27, which concludes the Dist rict’s analysis of the relationship between ammonia emissions and ambient PM 2.5 levels by stating that “ammonia reductions at the Bakersfield-California site are only... 10% as effective as NO x reductions.”This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

139 relative insensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 levels to ammonia reductions compared to NO x reductions, the Plan states that ammonia is not a significant precu rsor to ambient PM 2.5 in the SJV 462 and thus that an RFP demonstration for ammonia is not required. 463 The Plan also states that NO x emission levels are projected to be well below the levels needed to sho w generally linear progress toward attainment. The CARB Staff Report provides additional analysis by c onverting the increase in ammonia emissions into
“NO x equivalent” emission levels (using a “NO x equivalency” calculation method) and demonstrating that the “NOx equivalent” emissions level continues to show linear progress toward attainment from
2012 to 2020. 464
The NO x equivalency method used in the Plan relies on the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 levels to decreases in ammonia emissions compared to decrease s in NO x emissions, as modeled at the Bakersfield-California monitoring site. The Plan st ates that in the San Joaquin Valley ammonia emissio n reductions are only 10% as effective as NO x emission reductions, with a relative sensitivity f actor of
0.1. 465 Stated alternatively, this is a 1:10 NO x for ammonia trading ratio, i.e., it takes 1 tpd of NO x emissions to match the ambient effect of 10 tpd of ammonia in this area. The State calculates the chan ge in ammonia emissions from the base year (2012) to e ach RFP milestone year 466 (2014 and 2017), and multiplies it by the trading ratio to calculate a N O x increase equivalent to the ammonia increase, which the State then adds to the NO x emissions inventory for each RFP milestone year to calculate the total

462 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, section 2.6 (“Insignificant Precu rsors to PM 2.5 Concentrations in the Valley”). 463 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26. 464 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 25-26. 465 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-27. Note that Bakersfield-Ca lifornia is projected to be the design value monito r for the SJV in 2018 with respect to the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1 (“Projected 2018 and 2020 Design Values”), p. F-7. 466 We use “RFP milestone year” to mean each year for which the Plan provides an RFP analysis and related emissions projections.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

140 NO x decrease and ammonia increase expressed as “NO x equivalent” emission levels. 467 The CARB Staff Report states that the total NO x equivalent emissions levels are below the linear r eductions in NO x necessary to demonstrate RFP and, therefore, that t he RFP requirement is met, despite the projected increase in the ammonia inventory. Control measures for ammonia sources are described in Appendix C of the Plan. For example, ammonia controls resulting from Rule 4570 (“Confine d Animal Facilities”), Rule 4565 (“Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations”), and Rule 4566 (“Organic Material Composting”) are discussed at length in section C.41 of Appendix C a nd their emission projections are presented collectively under farming operations in the Plan’s emissions inventory. 468 We discuss these control measures more fully in section V.D of this preamble (“Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures”) and in the EPA’s SJV Rules TSD

. With respect to quantitative milestones, the CARB S taff Report states that the Plan identifies RFP emissions levels for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x for 2014 and 2017 that show generally linear progress towards attaining the annual standard in 2 020, and that “[t]hese emission levels for 2017 alo ng with the 2020 attainment emission levels serve as t he quantitative milestones required under the Act.” 469 CARB addresses the projected increase in ammonia em issions over the planning period by evaluating those emissions in light of the atmospheric respons e to NO x and ammonia emissions in the San Joaquin Valley area and concluding that “the combined emiss ion levels of NO x and ammonia that are projected to occur through the 2020 attainment year provide f or the required generally linear air quality

467 That is, (NO x emissions) 2017 + [(NH 3 emissions) 2017 – (NH 3 emissions) 2012 ] * 0.1 = (total NO x equivalent emissions) 2017 . Using values from the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, the 17.5 tpd increase in ammonia emissions f rom 2012 to 2017 is equivalent to a 1.8 tpd increase in NO x emissions, as follows: 235.7 + [347.0 – 329.5]*0.1 = 237.5 tpd. See CARB Staff Report, p. 26, Table 12. 468 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, Section C.41, pp. C-240 to C-281 and Appendix B, p. B-17. 469 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

141 progress.” 470 The CARB Staff Report also states California’s com mitment to provide letters to EPA “reporting that the emission inventory milestones h ave been met and the status of any emission reduction commitments,” and to provide these letter s by March 31, 2018 for the 2017 milestone and by March 31, 2021 for the 2020 milestone. 471 Additionally, the QM Letter contains the State’s co mmitment to submit, by December 31, 2016, a SIP revision that supplements the quantitative mi lestone portion of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan by identifying specific quantitative milestones to be achieved by the 2017 RFP milestone year and 2020 attainment year that demonstrate reasonable further progress t oward timely attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. The QM Letter states that this SIP revision will includ e the following milestones to track implementation of control measures and emissions levels at each miles tone year: (1) a list of measures in the Plan’s BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy and key implemen tation requirements through 2017 and 2020, including compliance milestones for the State’s Tru ck and Bus Rule and the District’s residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901), (2) compliance with the S tate’s and District’s enforceable commitments in th e Plan by the 2017 milestone date, and (3) updated em issions inventories for both 2017 and 2020. 472 The QM Letter also states that the SIP revision will id entify appropriate air quality quantitative milesto nes for 2017 and 2020 designed to evaluate air quality progress resulting from implementation of the Plan’ s control strategy, including an assessment of monito red ambient PM 2.5 concentrations and other variables affecting ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in each of those years. 473 3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

470 Id.

472 QM Letter, pp. 1-2. 473 Id. , p. 2.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

142 With respect to direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2 , we agree that “generally linear progress” is an appropriate measure of RFP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area given that, as the Plan documents, direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x are emitted by a large number and range of sources in the SJV, the emission reductions needed for these pollutants are inventory wide, 474 and secondary particulates contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the SJV area. 475

The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan documents the State’s conclusion that all BAC M, BACT, and MSM for these pollutants are being implemented as expeditio usly as practicable and identifies projected levels of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x emissions in 2014 and 2017 that reflect full imple mentation of the State’s and District’s BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy f or these pollutants. 476 For example, Rule 4550 (“Conservation Management Practices”) was adopted i n 2004 and its requirements to control PM 10 emissions (including PM 2.5 ) from on-field crop and animal feeding operations are fully implemented. 477 These operations represent the largest dust sources of direct PM 2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. 478 More recently, SJVUAPCD revised Rule 4901 (“Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters”) in September 2014 by strengthening the District’s curt ailment program for residential wood burning, thereby further limiting emissions from San Joaquin Valley’s largest combustion source of direct
PM 2.5 . 479 These rule amendments provide part of the incremen tal emission reductions of direct PM 2.5 from the 2014 to 2017 RFP milestone years and throu gh the 2018 and 2020 attainment years. 480

474 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B. 475 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1 (“Significance Dete rmination Approach”). 476 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3, and Appendix B. See also our discussion of BACM/BACT in section V.D of this proposed rule. 477 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-106 to C-107. 478 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2, pp. 5-7 to 5-8. See also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-2, 479 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-4 and Appendix C, p. C-156. See also 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-2. 480 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

143 The Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regu lation became effective in 2011 and have rolling compliance deadlines based on truck en gine model year. These and other regulations applicable to heavy duty diesel trucks will continu e to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and
NO x through the RFP and attainment planning years. 481 For instance, model year 1994 and 1995 heavy heavy duty diesel truck engines must be upgraded to meet the 2010 model year truck engine emission standards by 2016, and model year 1996-1999 engines must by upgraded by January 1, 2020. 482 The emission reductions from these rules represent the largest portion of the NO x emission reductions upon which the Plan’s attainment and RFP demonstrations rely. 483 With respect to SO x emissions, Rule 4354 (“Glass Melting Furnaces”) was amended in May 2011, establishing SO x emission limits with compliance deadlines through January 1, 2014. 484 This rule will achieve emission reductions through the 2017 RFP milestone year and 2018 and 2020 attainmen t years. As explained in section V.D of this preamble, we are proposing to find that the State a nd District are implementing these BACM, BACT and MSM provisions for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Additionally, the method used to calculate RFP targ et (or “benchmark”) emission levels for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2 is generally consistent with the method provided i n the 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (40 CFR 51.1009(f)). We note th at the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan calculates the 2014 and 2017 RFP benchmark emission levels using 2020 attai nment emissions levels that are not consistent with the attainment targets presented in CARB’s Sta ff Report. 485 We have, however, re-calculated the

481 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-9 to 7-10 and Appendix D, pp . D-8 to D-11. 482 Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025 (‘‘Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Pa rticulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, f rom In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles’’), pa ragraphs (e), (f), and (g), effective December 14, 2011. See also EPA’s final rule approving CARB’s Truck and Bus Ru le. 77 FR 20308 at 20309-20310 (April 4, 2012). 483 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-7. 484 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, pp, 7-3 to 7-4. 485 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-6, p. 6-7 vs. CARB Staff Report, p. 9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

144 RFP benchmark emissions levels for these years usin g the attainment targets found in the CARB Staff Report, 486 as shown in Table 10 below. The EPA’s calculations indicate that the Plan’s projected 2014 and 2017 emission levels for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x are below the RFP benchmark emission levels for these years. 487

Table 10. EPA Calculation of 2015 PM 2.5 Plan RFP Demonstration (tpd, based on annual averages)
2012

Emissions Inventory a 2020

Attainment Target b Annual

Incremental Reduction c 2014 RFP

Benchmark 2014

Projected Emissions d 2017 RFP

Benchmark 2017

Projected Emissions d Direct PM 2.5 66.0 60.8 0.65 64.7 63.3 62.75 62.5

NO x 332.2 206.5 15.71 300.78 284.2 253.63 235.7 SO x 8.1 7.8 0.04 8.03 7.4 7.91 7.6

a 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-6, p. 6-7. b 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, p. 9.
c Annual incremental reduction = (2012 emissions inv entory – 2020 attainment target) / (2020 – 2012). d 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Table 6-8, p. 6-8. With respect to ammonia, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan shows an 8.6% increase in total ammonia emissions during the 2012 to 2020 period. 488 Unlike the wide range of sources emitting direct P M 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2 in the Valley, emissions of ammonia are almost ent irely from three source categories: confined animal facilities (CAFs), fertilizer appli cation, and composting, with more than half of all emissions coming from CAFs. 489 Collectively, these three categories emit 95% of a ll ammonia emissions in the 2012 annual average base year inve ntory. 490

486 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 1, p. 9. 487 For example, the 2017 RFP benchmark for direct PM 2.5 should account for five years’ worth of annual inc remental reductions and is calculated as (2012 emission inve ntory) – (annual increment reduction)*5 = 66.0 tpd – (0.65 tpd/yr)*5 = 62.75 tpd. The projected emissions inventory for di rect PM 2.5 in 2017 is 62.5 tpd, which is less than this RFP b enchmark. 488 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5. 489 In the inventories provided in Appendix B of the P lan, emissions from these sources are found in the categories “Farming Operations”, “Pesticides/Fertilizers”, and “Other ( Waste Disposal)”, respectively. 490 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5 (“Ammonia”), pp. B-16 to B-19. The three categories comprising this 95% o f emissions in the ammonia emission inventory are Oth er (Waste Disposal), Pesticides/Fertilizers, and Fa rming Operations.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

145 Several District measures already in the SIP for th e SJV area control ammonia emissions from two of these source categories. District Rule 4570 (“Confined Animal Facilities”) required implementation of control measures to reduce VOCs i n 2008 and required full compliance by affected sources by mid-2012. 491 Many of the VOC control measures have an ammonia c o-benefit, and the District estimates a 100 tpd reduction in ammonia f rom this rule, which have been accounted for in the emissions inventory of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. 492 The Plan also indicates that implementation of Dis trict Rule 4565 (“Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry L itter Operations”), adopted March 15, 2007, 493 and Rule 4566 (“Organic Material Composting Operati ons”), adopted August 18, 2011, 494 resulted in some ammonia reductions, but these reductions are n ot reflected in the base year or baseline inventori es. As discussed in section V.D of this proposed rule, we are proposing to determine that each of these measures implements BACM and MSM for the control of ammonia as a precursor to PM 2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The statement in the Plan that ammonia is an insig nificant precursor in the SJV area is based on the State’s analysis of the relative sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 levels to changes in ammonia emissions as compared to NO x emissions. The State relies in part on information previously presented in the 2012
PM 2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard to justify a NO x for ammonia trading ratio of 0.1. The
2012 PM 2.5 Plan contains modeling results and states that “re ductions in ammonia are approximately nine times less effective than NO x .” 495 The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan also gives ammonia and NO x sensitivities (ambient PM 2.5 changes in μg/m 3 per tpd of emission reductions), based on modeling of the ambient

491 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240 to C-243. 492 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240 to C-241. See also , Memo to file, “Call with California Air Resources Board regarding VOC and ammonia emissions inventory,” R. Mays, EPA Region 9, September 30, 2015. 493 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-276. 494 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272 to C-273. 495 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix G (“Weight of Evidence Analysis”), p. 64.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

146 effect of a 25% area-wide reduction in each polluta nt. 496 The ratios of these sensitivities give an ammonia-NO x relative sensitivity ratio, or NO x for ammonia trading ratio, of 0.10 for the BakersfieldCalifornia site, and 0.11 (about 1/9) for the Baker sfield-Planz site. 497

The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan similarly reflects the State’s conclusion tha t ammonia emission reductions are about 10% as effective as NO x reductions in decreasing ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. 498 We have reviewed the modeling analysis from which the State and District derived the 0.1 NO x for ammonia trading ratio and propose to find that this ratio i s a reasonable estimate of the sensitivity of ambie nt
PM 2.5 to ammonia reductions relative to NO x reductions, at least for the Bakersfield-California and Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites for which the an alysis was performed. For further discussion of our evaluation of this trading ratio for purposes of th e Plan’s RFP demonstration, see section IV.A of the EPA’s Interpollutant Trading Ratios TSD. The Bakersfield-California site is projected to be the design value site for the 1997 24-hour
PM 2.5 standard in 2018, 499 which addresses the requirement of 40 CFR 51.1009( h) that an equivalent method for demonstrating RFP must do so at the desi gn value monitoring site within the nonattainment area. As discussed in section V.E.5 of this propose d rule, although the State had initially projected the Madera site to be the design value site for the 199 7 annual PM 2.5 standard in 2020, based on weight of evidence, it now appears the Bakersfield-Planz site will most likely be the design value site for the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2020. Either way, the 0.1 ammonia-NO x relative sensitivity factor is adequate

496 2012 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Table 7, p. 65. 497 The difference between these two figures is about 0.1% when carried through in the calculation of the NO x equivalent of ammonia. 498 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-27 (stating that “ammonia r eductions at the Bakersfield-California site are ... only 10% as effective as NO x reductions”); see also CARB Staff Report, p. 26 and Table 12 (expressing N O x and ammonia emissions combined as “NO x equivalent” emission levels). 499 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1 (“Projected 2018 and 2020 Design Values”), p. F-7.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

147 for the RFP demonstration because it is derived fro m modeling analyses that account for emission projections at both of these Bakersfield monitoring sites. Taking the ammonia emissions increases into account , the NO x equivalent emission levels presented in the Plan 500 for the 2014 and 2017 RFP milestone years fall bel ow the benchmark RFP NO x emissions levels for those same years. 501 In essence, the substantial reduction of NO x emissions that is projected to result from the Plan’s control strateg y ( i.e. , 37.8% reduction) from 2012 to 2020 502 appears to more than offset the increase in ammonia emissio ns ( i.e. , 8.6% increase) that is projected to occur during that same period. 503 More specifically, as shown in Table 11, taking in to account the increase in ammonia emissions during the 2012 to 2020 period, t he NO x equivalent emission levels projected in the Plan for the 2014 and 2017 RFP milestone years are 5-6% lower than the levels representing generally linear NO x emission reductions for those same years, thus sho wing NO x emission reductions at a rate faster than the benchmark scenario. Table 11. Comparison of NO x Equivalent Emissions to RFP Linear Emissions Level for NO x for RFP Milestone Years (tpd, except row G) 2012 2014 2017 A NO x Emissions 332.2 284.2 235.7 B Ammonia Emissions 329.5 336.2 347.0 C NO x equivalent of ammonia increase 0.7 1.8 D Total NO x Equivalent Emissions (A+C) 284.9 237.5 E RFP Linear Level for NO x 300.9 253.9

500 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 26. 501 This approach is consistent with the regulatory op tion of 40 CFR 51.1009(g)(2) that the RFP plan demo nstrate emission levels that are “projected to result in a generally equivalent improvement in air quality by the miles tone year as would be achieved under the benchmark RFP plan.” 502 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-2, p. B-8 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. Emissions of NO x are project to decrease from 332.2 tpd in 2012 to 206.5 tpd in 2020 ( i.e. , a decrease of 125.7 tpd or 37.8%). 503 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5, p. B-19. Emissions of ammonia are project to increase 329.5 tpd in 2012 to 358.0 tpd in 2020 ( i.e., an increase of 28.5 tpd or 8.6%).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

148 F Total NO x Equivalent Emission Reductions Beyond RFP Linear Level (E-D) 16.0 16.4
G % Below RFP Linear Level (F/E) 5.3% 6.5% Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, Table 12, p. 26. As discussed in section V.C of this proposed rule, we are proposing to determine that VOCs do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV and, accordingly, that no RFP demonstration for VOCs is necessary for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in this area. In sum, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan demonstrates that emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x and SO x will be reduced at rates representing generally linear prog ress toward attainment, and that the increase in ammonia emissions over the 2012-2020 planning perio d will be more than offset by substantial NO x emission reductions exceeding the amounts necessary to show generally linear progress toward attainment. The Plan also demonstrates that all BAC M, BACT and MSM that provide the bases for the direct PM 2.5 , NO x , SO x , and ammonia emissions projections in the RFP anal ysis in the Plan are being implemented as expeditiously as practicable. Accord ingly, we propose to determine that the Plan requires the annual incremental reductions in emiss ions of direct PM 2.5 and relevant PM 2.5 precursors that are necessary for the purpose of ensuring atta inment of the 1997 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 standards by 2018 and 2020, respectively, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 171(1) and 172(c)(2). Quantitative Milestones Although the RFP emission levels identified in the Plan for the 2017 and 2020 milestone years represent generally linear progress toward attainme nt by 2018 and 2020, the Plan as originally submitt ed in June 2015 does not identify an objective means f or evaluating the area’s compliance with these emission targets or progress toward attainment, oth er than through 2017 and 2020 emissions levels andThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

149 CARB’s commitment to report on the “status of any e mission reduction commitments” in the Plan. We note that the Plan contains only one emission reduc tion commitment: to adopt amendments to District Rule 4692 (“Commercial Charbroiling”) in 2016 and t o achieve 0.4 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions through implementation of this amended r ule or a substitute rule achieving equivalent emission reductions. 504 Such a milestone would not provide an adequate mea ns to evaluate progress toward attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, consistent with RFP requirements

. In the QM Letter, however, CARB committed to adopt and submit, no later than December 31, 2016, a revision to the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan that identifies specific milestones demonstra ting progress toward attainment of the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2018 and the annual PM 2.5 standard by December 31, 2020. The QM Letter describes the spec ific components of this SIP revision that CARB will adopt and submit by December 31, 2016, includi ng milestones to track implementation of specific SIP control measures and commitments, and air quali ty milestones to be achieved by the 2017 RFP milestone year and 2020 attainment year. Two of th e control measures identified in the QM Letter are responsible for a significant portion of the NO x and direct PM 2.5 emission reductions necessary for RFP and attainment: CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule and the D istrict’s residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901). Emissions from heavy heavy duty trucks and r esidential wood burning are the largest combustion sources of NO x and direct PM 2.5 in San Joaquin Valley, and the Truck and Bus Rule and Rule 4901 achieve the largest amounts of NO x and direct PM 2.5 emission reductions, respectively, identified in t he Plan’s attainment demonstration. 505 The District’s commitment in the Plan to amend Rul e 4692

504 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-6, and SJVUAPCD Governing Bo ard Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 7. 505 For stationary and area sources, “Residential Fuel Combustion” is the largest combustion source of di rect PM 2.5 in San Joaquin Valley ( e.g. , 9.4 tpd of the total 2012 winter average emission s of 61.0 tpd) and CARB’s Staff Report identifies R ule 4901 as achieving the largest portion of the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions for attaining 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( e.g. , 2.9 tpd of the Plan’s 6.6 tpd total winter average emission reductions from 2012 to 2018). 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-2 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. For all sources, “Heavy He avy Duty Diesel Trucks (HHDV)” are the largest sour ce of NO x in the San Joaquin Valley ( e.g. , 120.5 tpd of the total 2012 annual average emissi ons of 332.2 tpd) and the Plan estimates that theThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

150 (“Commercial Charbroiling”) in 2016 and to achieve 0.4 tpd of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions through implementation of this amended rule or a substitute rule achieving equivalent emission reductions 506 also accounts for a portion of the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions necessary for RFP and attainme nt in the Plan. 507 These implementation milestones, together with th e updated emission inventories and air quality milestones for 2017 and 2020 that the State has also committed to identify as quantitative milestones in the SIP revision, would provide an ob jective means to evaluate the area’s progress in achieving not only the incremental emissions reduct ions but also the incremental air quality improvements necessary to attain the 24-hour and an nual PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2018 and 2020, respectively. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may condit ionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceab le measures by a date certain but not later than 1 year
after the date of t he plan approval. Based on CARB’s commitments to su bmit the specific SIP revisions identified in the QM Letter by December 31, 2016, a s discussed above, we propose to conditionally approve the quantitative milestone component of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. We note that, consistent with the requirements of C AA section 189(c)(2) as interpreted in longstanding EPA policy, each of the milestone repo rts due March 31, 2018 (for the December 31, 2017 milestone date) and March 31, 2021 (for the Decembe r 31, 2020 milestone date) should include technical

largest emission reductions of NO x during the attainment planning period, for which t he Truck and Bus Rule is a significant driver, will result from this source category ( e.g. , 59.2 tpd of the 125.7 tpd annual average emission reductions from 2012 to 2020). 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B-7 and CARB Staff Report, p. 9. 506 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-6, and SJVUAPCD Governing Bo ard Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 7. 507 The Plan estimates that the amendments to Rule 469 2 will achieve 0.4 tpd of the Plan’s 5.2 tpd total annual average emission reductions of direct PM 2.5 from 2012 to 2020. 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

151 support sufficient to document completion statistic s for appropriate milestones, e.g., calculations and any assumptions made concerning emission reductions to date. 508 G. Contingency Measures 1. Requirements for Contingency Measures Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM 2.5 attainment plans must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (“RFP cont ingency measures”) or fails to attain the PM 2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date (“attai nment contingency measures”). Under subpart 4, however, the EPA interprets section 172(c)(9) in li ght of the specific requirements for particulate ma tter nonattainment areas. Section 189(b)(1)(A) different iates between attainment plans that provide for timely attainment and those that demonstrate that a ttainment is impracticable. The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan is a Serious area plan that demonstrates attainment of t he 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2018 and attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2020, and thus, must include contingency measures for RFP and attainment. The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP requirement or to correct continuing nonattainment. The princip le requirements for contingency measures are: 509

• Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or fai lure of the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

508 Addendum at 42017. 509 General Preamble at 13543-13544 and Addendum at 42 014-42015.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

152 • The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the c ontingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action by the State or by the EPA. In general, we expect all acti ons needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of a failure.

• The contingency measures should consist of other co ntrol measures for the area that are not already relied upon to demonstrate attainment ( e.g. , to meet RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM requirements) or to meet RFP.

• The measures should provide for emissions reduction s equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP calculated as the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the attainment year. Finally, we note that contingency measures can incl ude federal, state, and local measures that are already scheduled for implementation or already imp lemented that provide for additional emissions reductions that are not relied on to demonstrate RF P or attainment. In other words, contingency measures are intended to achieve reductions over an d beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. Nothing in the CAA precludes a stat e from implementing such measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP or a failure to attain by the applicable attainment date. EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation. 510 2. Contingency Measures in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan

510 See , for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision); 6 2 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (di rect final rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 5 86 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving Con necticut ozone SIP revision); see also LEAN v. EPA , 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingen cy measures that were previously required and implemented where they were in excess of the attainment demonstration and RFP SIP).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

153 The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan addresses the contingency measure requirement in Chapter 6, section 6.4 (“Contingency Measures”) of the Plan and in the CAR B Staff Report, pages 26-27. Chapter 6, section 6.4 addresses contingency measure requirements for the 2014 and 2017 RFP milestone years and for the 2020 attainment year by discussing emission reducti ons to be achieved by already adopted measures, voluntary incentive programs, and inter-pollutant t rading between PM 2.5 and NO x for the 2020 attainment year. The CARB Staff Report, p. 26-27, p rovides a brief statement on contingency measures for the 2018 attainment year for the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and identifies several additional control measures to address the 2020 attainment year for th e annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Chapter 6 states that a year’s worth of annual average emission reductions needed to demonstrate RFP (“One year’s worth of RFP”) is calculated by taking the overall level of emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainmen t and dividing it by the number of years between the base year and attainment year. 511 Table 6-9 of the Plan (Contingency Emissions Reductions Target (tpd) ) is reproduced below: Contingency Need = “One year’s worth of RFP” Direct PM 2.5 0.4 NO x 15.7 SO x 0 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-9. Chapter 6 of the Plan identifies emission reduction s to be achieved by the control strategy in the Plan in 2014 and 2017 that the District considers “ surplus” to those reductions necessary to demonstra te RFP. The District states that these emission reduc tions are thus available to meet the contingency measure requirement. 512 Table 6-10 of the Plan (Reductions Surplus to RFP for Contingency (tpd)),

511 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6-9, Table 6-9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

154 reproduced below, identifies the PM 2.5 and NOx emission reductions in 2014 and 2017 that the District considers “surplus” to RFP requirements:
Year 2014 2017 RFP target emissions level Projected

emissions inventory Contingency RFP target emissions level Projected

emissions inventory Contingency

PM 2.5 65.2 63.3 1.9 64.0 62.5 1.5 NO x 300.9 284.2 16.7 253.9 235.7 18.2 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-10. For the 2020 attainment year, the Plan provides est imates of emission reductions projected in 2021 from a combination of adopted state and local measures, including District Rules 4901, 4306, 4308, and 4905 for direct PM 2.5 and NO x and mobile source measures for several source cate gories for
NO x . 513 Table 6-11 of the Plan identifies 1.6 tpd of direc t PM 2.5 and 12.0 tpd of NO x emission reductions as reductions that are available to meet the 2020 a ttainment contingency measure requirement. In order to address a shortfall of needed NO x emission reductions, the District relies on inter- pollutant trading of direct PM 2.5 emission reductions for NO x emission reductions at a ratio of 1:9 and, based o n this analysis, concludes that there are sufficient emiss ion reductions to meet the attainment contingency requirement. 514 The CARB Staff Report also addresses contingency me asures for the 2020 attainment year. It identifies additional direct PM 2.5 and NO x emission reductions to be achieved by the followin g control measures: ARB mobile source measures, the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) and Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), Indirect Sou rce Review (ISR) on-site mitigation ( i.e. , District Rule 9510), and the AERO 515 rule ( i.e. , District Rule 4320). Based on these analyses, CA RB

513 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, p. 6-11, Table 6-11. 514 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6-12, Table 6-12. 515 AERO stands for Advanced Emission Reduction Option s for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heater s Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

155 concludes that the SIP control strategy achieves em ission reductions sufficient to meet the attainment contingency measure requirement for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Finally, for the 2018 attainment year for the 24-ho ur PM 2.5 NAAQS, the CARB Staff Report states that “additional reductions in 2019 provide 0.2 tpd of PM 2.5 and 10 tpd of NO x reductions” but does not identify the control measures that achieve these emission reductions. 516
3. EPA’s Evaluation of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan’s Contingency Measures The contingency measures portion of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan contains several deficiencies. First, the Plan incorrectly calculates one year’s w orth of RFP emission reductions. Although Chapter 6 of the Plan correctly describes the requi red steps for calculating one year’s worth of annua l average emission reductions needed to demonstrate R FP, the actual calculation in the Plan is based on 2020 baseline emission reductions estimates 517 rather than the attainment targets of 60.8 tpd of direct
PM 2.5 and 206.5 tpd NO x . 518 EPA recalculated one year’s worth of RFP emission reductions based on the attainment emission levels presented in the Pla n, as shown in Table 12 below. Table 12. EPA’s Calculation of “One Year’s Worth of RFP” Using Attainment Emissions Levels Calculation of “One Year’s Worth of RFP” Using Atta inment

Emissions Levels (tpd) 2012 Base Year Emissions (tpd) 2020 Attainment

Emissions (tpd) Total Emission

Reduction (tpd) One Year’s Worth of RFP

Emission Reductions (tpd) Direct PM 2.5 66.0 60.8 5.2 0.65 NO x 332.2 206.5 125.7 15.7 SO x 8.1 7.8 0.3 0.0

516 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 27. 517 See 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.3, Table 6-6, Total Red uctions Necessary to Reach Attainment (tpd). The “Attainment Emissions Level” used in Table 6-6 of t he Plan reflect the projected emission inventory le vels found in Appendix B Emission Inventory Tables, and does not reflect the attainment target levels identified by the CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment Emission Levels, T able 1. 518 CARB Staff Report, section II.B. Attainment Emissi on Levels, p. 9.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

156 Source: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Table 6-6 and CARB S taff Report, p. 9. Thus, according to EPA’s calculation, one year’s wo rth of RFP is 0.65 tpd of direct PM 2.5 , 15.7 tpd of NO x and 0.0 tpd of SO x . The NO x and SO x values are essentially identical to the values ide ntified in Chapter 6 of the Plan (and reproduced in Table 6 -9 above), but EPA’s calculation of the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions representing one year’s worth o f RFP is significantly higher than the value identified in Chapter 6 of Plan. Consequently, the Plan significantly underestimates the direct PM 2.5 emission reductions necessary to satisfy contingenc y measure requirements. Second, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan does not provide an adequate basis for the Sta te’s and District’s conclusion that the emission reductions identified for contingency measure purposes are in fact “surplus” to the reductions needed to demonstrate R FP and timely attainment ( e.g. , for RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM). Section 6.4.2 of the Plan state s that regulatory emission reductions to be achieved by 2014 and 2017 exceed the minimum emissi on reductions needed to demonstrate RFP in those years but does not provide a basis for the Di strict’s conclusion that the identified emission reductions are not relied on to satisfy RFP require ments. Similarly, the Plan provides no support for either the District’s conclusion that “additional P M 2.5 and NO x reductions occurring between 2020 and 2021 can serve as attainment contingencies” or the State’s conclusion that “[f]or the interim 24-hour 2018 attainment deadline, additional reductions in 2019 provide for 0.2 tpd of PM 2.5 and 10 tpd of NO x reductions.” 519 Third, two of the control measures identified in th e CARB Staff Report as contingency measures – SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) and SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 (ISR On-Site Mitigation) – are not creditable for SIP purposes at this time. Rule 4320 (AERO Rule) is not SIP-creditable because it

519 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2 and CARB Staff Repo rt, p. 27.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

157 contains provisions that allow owners and operators to pay a fee in lieu of complying with the rule’s emission limits and which render the NO x emission limits in the rule unenforceable. 520 Rule 9510 (ISR On-Site Mitigation) is not SIP-creditable because i t likewise contains provisions that allow project developers to pay fees instead of implementing on-s ite pollution mitigation plans. 521 Fourth, the contingency measure portion of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan indicates that the District is relying on “SIP-creditable incentive-based emission s reductions” to address contingency measure requirements but does not identify the specific inc entive grant programs expected to provide the requisite emission reductions, nor does it provide the documentation and related enforceable commitments necessary to support a SIP submission t hat relies on incentive programs for SIP emission reduction credit. 522 Finally, the contingency measure portion of the 201 5 PM 2.5 Plan does not discuss ammonia emissions or provide any basis for a conclusion tha t contingency measures for purposes of ammonia are not necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements

. In sum, the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan does not contain or identify SIP-creditable m easures that are surplus to RFP and attainment needs and that are sufficient to achieve at least one year’s worth of emission reductions for each of the RFP and attainment years identified in the Plan. Accordingly, we propose to disapprove the contingency measure portion of the 2 015 PM 2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). H. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Und er CAA Section 189(e)

520 75 FR 68294 (November 5, 2010) and 76 FR 16696 (Mar ch 25, 2011). 521 76 FR 26609 at 26612-26613 (May 9, 2011). 522 The CAA requires that emission reductions resultin g from incentive programs be “quantifiable, surplus , enforceable and permanent” in order to qualify for emission reducti on credit in a SIP. See, e.g., “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Ra diation, January 2001; see also 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final action on SJVUAPCD Rule 9610).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

158 Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires tha t the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM 2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such source s do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the standards in the area. 523 The control requirements applicable to major stati onary sources of direct PM 2.5 in a Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area include, at minimum, the require ments of a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit progr am meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(b)(3). 524 As part of our April 7, 2015 final action to recla ssify the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, we established a May 7, 2016 deadline fo r the State to submit NNSR SIP revisions addressing the requiremen ts of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the
Act. 525 California has not yet submitted the NNSR SIP revis ions required to satisfy the subpart 4 requirements for Serious nonattainment areas becaus e they are not yet due. Accordingly, we are not proposing any action with respect to these requirem ents at this time. CARB submitted amendments to the SJVUAPCD’s NNSR rules in 2011 to address the 19 97 PM 2.5 NAAQS to ensure that new and modified major sources of PM 2.5 undergo pre-construction review, and the EPA appro ved these NNSR SIP revisions on September 17, 2014. 526 I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or reduci ng the severity and number of violations of the

523 General Preamble at 13539 and 13541-42. 524 CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious area plans include provisions submitted to meet the req uirements for Moderate areas in section 189(a)(1)). 525 80 FR 18528 at 18533 (April 7, 2015). 526 79 FR 55637 (September 17, 2014).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

159 NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the s tandards. Conformity to the SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainme nt of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (F HWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan p lanning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local a ir quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional tran sportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicabl e SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than o r equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budge ts) contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific polluta nts or precursors and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainmen t and RFP demonstrations. 527
PM 2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct PM 2.5 , NOx and all other PM 2.5 precursors whose on-road emissions are determined to significantly c ontribute to PM 2.5 levels in the area for each RFP milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates attainment. All direct PM 2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake wear , and tire wear. A state must also consider whether re-entrained paved and u npaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are significant contributors and should be included in the direct PM 2.5 budget. 528

527 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v). 528 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-400 36 (July 1, 2004).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

160 Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are al lowed under 40 CFR 93.124 where a SIP establishes appropriate mechanisms for such trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling which established the relative contribution of each PM 2.5 precursor pollutant. In general, only budgets in approved SIPs can be us ed for transportation conformity purposes. However, section 93.118(e) of the transportation co nformity rule allows budgets in a SIP submission to apply for conformity purposes before the SIP submis sion is approved under certain circumstances. First , there must not be any other approved SIP budgets th at have been established for the same time frame, pollutant, and CAA requirement. Second, the EPA mus t find that the submitted SIP budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. To be found adequate, the submission must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e )(4) and (5). The transportation conformity rule does, however, allow for replacement of previously approved budgets by submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets that the EPA has found adequate, if the EPA has limited the duration of its prior approval to the period before it finds replacement budgets adequate. 529 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO X for 2014 and 2017 (RFP milestone years), 2018 (projected attainment year f or the 1997 24-hour NAAQS), and 2020 (projected attainment year for the 1997 annual NAAQS). 530 The budgets were calculated using EMFAC2014, CARB’s latest version of the EMFAC model for estima ting emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California. 531 The SJV has eight separate county-based MPOs; there fore, separate budgets are

529 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 530 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Section 6.5.4 (for 2014, 2017, an d 2020 budgets) and 2018 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 SIP Plan Supplement, ” dated June 19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 23, 2015, p. 4. 531 EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. EPA announced the availability of the EMFAC2014 model for use in state implementation plan development and transportation conformity in California on December 14, 2015. EPA' s approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions model for SIP and conformity pu rposes was effective on the date of publication of the notice in theThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

161 provided for each MPO as well as a total for the no nattainment area as a whole. The budgets for 2014, 2017, and 2020 reflect annual daily average emissio ns, and the budgets for 2018 reflect winter daily average emissions. Winter average day emissions are used for the 2018 budgets because SJV's exceedances of the PM 2.5 24-hour NAAQS occur almost exclusively during the winter months and are linked with the District’s 2018 attainment demonstr ation for the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Annual average day emissions are used for the 2014 and 2017 budget s because the District has determined that annual average day budgets are the more protective of the two budgets options ( i.e. , annual versus 24-hour NAAQS) for the RFP milestone years when both standa rds apply, as is the case for the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. Annual average day emissions are used for the 2020 budgets because those emissions are linked with the District’s attainment demonstration for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The direct PM 2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wea r emissions but exclude paved road, unpaved road, and road construction dust base d on the District's conclusion that these source categories are insignificant contributors to PM 2.5 levels in the SJV. 532 The Plan does not include budgets for SO 2, VOC, and ammonia. Under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the State is not required to include budgets for VOC, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or ammonia (NH3) unless EPA or the State has made a finding that transportation-related emissions of any of these pr ecursors within the nonattainment area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem. The District considered on-road SO 2, VOC, and ammonia emissions and concluded that it is not necessary to control on-road SO 2, VOC, and ammonia emissions to attain the NAAQS. The District states in the Plan that on-road mobile exhaust estimates of SO x are less than 1 ton per day Valley-wide in the bud get years; VOC emissions do not

Federal Register. EMFAC2014 must be used for all ne w regional emissions analyses and CO, PM 10 and PM 2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for EMFA C2014. 532 Plan at Chapter 6, Section 6.5.3.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

162 contribute significantly to the formation of second ary PM 2.5 in the SJV; and on-road mobile exhaust estimates of ammonia are less than 1 ton per day Va lley-wide in the budget years. 533 Table 13. MVEBs for the San Joaquin Valley for 1997 PM 2.5 Standard

County 2014 2017 2018 2020

Annual average, tpd Annual average,

tpd Winter average,

tpd Annual average,

tpd PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 NO X Fresno 1.2 41.2 1.0 31.2 0.9 29.9 0.9 25.3 Kern (SJV) 1.0 36.5 0.8 28.0 0.8 27.7 0.8 23.3 Kings 0.2 7.6 0.2 5.7 0.1 5.5 0.1 4.8 Madera 0.2 7.8 0.2 5.8 0.2 5.5 0.2 4.7 Merced 0.4 13.9 0.3 10.7 0.3 10.3 0.3 8.9 San Joaquin 0.7 19.6 0.6 14.9 0.6 14.4 0.6 11.9 Stanislaus 0.5 15.6 0.4 11.9 0.4 11.4 0.4 9.6 Tulare 0.5 14.9 0.4 11.9 0.4 10.3 0.4 9.6 Totals a 4.8 157.0 3.8 119.0 3.6 115.0 3.5 96.8 Sources: 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6-16; and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement , dated June 19, 2015, and adopted by ARB Board on July 23, 2015.
a Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding.

The 2015 PM 2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading mechanism fo r transportation conformity analyses that would allow future decreases in NO X emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset an y on-road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO X to PM 2.5 ratio of 9:1. 534 The State is proposing to use the same 9:1 ratio that was in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and approved by the EPA. 535

533 Id. 534 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, p. 6-17. 535 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

163 Using the same Community Multiscale Air Quality mod eling application 536 underlying the attainment demonstrations in the prior SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the current 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, CARB previously developed an equivalency ratio between e mission reductions of direct PM 2.5 and of NO X . For each pollutant, CARB modeled the ambient effect of a 10% reduction of emissions over the modeling domain. The concentration change per emission chang e gave a precursor effectiveness value for NO X and an effectiveness value for direct PM 2.5 . The ratio of these two effectiveness values provi ded the
NO X :PM 2.5 trading ratio. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affec t the ability of the SJV to meet the NO X budget, the NO X emission reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the NO X budget has been met. Each MPO responsible for demo nstrating transportation conformity must clearly document the calculations u sed in the trading, along with any additional reductions of NOx or PM 2.5 emissions in the conformity analysis. 3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions We have evaluated the budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) as part of our review of the budgets' approvability ( see section V in the EPA’s General TSD for this proposal) and will complete the adequacy review of these budgets concurrent with our final action on the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. 537 On September 18, 2015, the EPA announced the avail ability of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day public comment period. This announcement was posted on EPA's

536 The EPA approved this air quality modeling as part of its approval of the attainment demonstration in the SJV PM 2.5 Plan. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 76 FR 69896, 69924. 537 Under the Transportation Conformity regulations, t he EPA may review the adequacy of submitted motor v ehicle emission budgets simultaneously with the EPA's approval or d isapproval of the submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

164 Adequacy Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/state resources/transconf/reg9sips.htm#ca. The comment period for this notification ended on October 19, 2 015.
Based on the information about re-entrained road du st in the Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), we propose to concur with the Dis trict's finding that re-entrained road dust emissio ns from paved roads, unpaved roads, and road construct ion are not significant contributors to the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem in the Valley and that these emissions therefore do not need to be addressed in the MVEBs ( see discussion in section V.A.2 of this proposed rule). Additionally, based on the information about VOC, SO 2 , and ammonia emissions in the Plan and in accordan ce with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), we propose to find that it is not necessary to establish motor vehicle emissions budg ets for transportation-related emissions of VOC, SO 2 , and ammonia to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the
SJV.
For the reasons discussed in section V.E.2 of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that it is impracticable to a ttain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by the applicable Serious area attainment date of December 15, 2015 and proposing to extend the attainment dates to December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2020 fo r the 24-hour and annual NAAQS, respectively.
For the reasons discussed in sections V.E.v and V.F of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment demonstrations in th e 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. The budgets, as given in Table 13 of this proposed rule, are consistent with these demonstrations, are clearly identified and precise ly quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons , the EPA proposes to approve the budgets listed in Table 13 above. We provide a more detailed discussi on in section V of the EPA’s General TSD, which can be found in the docket for today's action.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

165 CARB has requested that we limit the duration our a pproval of the budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for an y subsequently submitted budgets. 538 The transportation conformity rule allows us to limit t he approval of budgets. 539 However, we will consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEB on ly if the request includes the following elements: 540

• An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the bu dgets under consideration have become outdated or deficient;

• A commitment to update the budgets as part of a com prehensive SIP update; and

• A request that the EPA limit the duration of its ap proval to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. Because CARB's request does not include all of thes e elements, we cannot at this time propose to limit the duration of our approval of the submitted budgets until new budgets have been found adequate

. In order to limit the approval, we would need the i nformation described above in order to determine whether such limitation is reasonable and appropria te in this case. Once CARB has adequately addressed that information, we intend to review it and take appropriate action. If we propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, we will provide the public an opportunity to comment. The duration of the approval of the bud gets, however, would not be limited until we complete such a rulemaking. We have previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM 2.5 NAAQS. 541 These budgets will continue to apply for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area until we finalize our approval of the budgets in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan or find them adequate.

538 Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, Calif ornia Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Reg ional Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 25, 2015. 539 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 540 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prio r approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs. 541 76 FR 69896, 69923 (November 9, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

166 As noted above, the State included a trading mechan ism to be used in transportation conformity analyses that would use the proposed budgets in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan as allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. This trading mechanism would allow future d ecreases in NO X emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO X for PM 2.5 ratio of 9:1. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability to me et the NO X budget, the Plan provides that the NO X emission reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the
NO X budget has been met. The Plan also provides that e ach MPO responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity shall clearly document th e calculations used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of NO X or PM 2.5 emissions in the conformity analysis. The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as descr ibed on page 6-17 in section 6.5.5 of Chapter 6 the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan and finds it is appropriate for transportatio n conformity purposes in the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We note that the 9:1 NO X for PM 2.5 ratio the State is proposing to use for transportation conformity purp oses in the 2015 Plan is the same as previously approved by EPA in its action on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. 542 We therefore propose to approve the trading mechanism with a NO X for PM 2.5 trading ratio of 9:1 as enforceable components of t he transportation conformity program for the SJV for t he 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. For further discussion of our evaluation of the 9:1 NO x for PM 2.5 trading ratio for purposes of the Plan’s motor veh icle emission budgets, please see section IV.B of the EPA’s Interpollutant Trading R atios TSD. VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Pub lic Comment Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to approve, conditionally approve, and disapprove SIP revisions submitted by California to address the Act’s Serious area

542 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011).This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

167 planning requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area

. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the f ollowing elements of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan: 1. the 2012 base year emissions inventories as meet ing the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
2. the best available control measures/best availab le control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements for RACM/RACT and BACM/BAC T in CAA sections 172(c)(1), 189(a)(1)(C), and 189(b)(1)(B); 3. the attainment demonstration as meeting the requ irements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(b)(1)(A); 4. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); 5. the State’s application for an extension of the Serious area attainment date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 1 88(e); 6. the District’s commitment to amend and implement revisions to Rule 4692 (“Commercial Charbroiling”) for under-fired charbroilers in acco rdance with the schedule provided on page 7-6 of th e 2015 PM 2.5 Plan to achieve the emissions reductions identifie d therein, as adopted in SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A; and 7. the 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020 motor vehicle emi ssions budgets, as shown in Table 13 of this proposed rule, because they are derived from approv able attainment and RFP demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR p art 93, subpart A.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

168 EPA is also proposing to approve the interpollutant trading mechanism provided in the 2015
PM 2.5 Plan for use in transportation conformity analyses , in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, with the condition that trades are limited to substituting e xcess reductions in NO x emissions for direct PM 2.5 emission reductions. Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing t o conditionally approve the quantitative milestones identified in the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan because they do not fully satisfy the require ment for quantitative milestones in section 189(c) of the Ac t. Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve a plan revision based on a co mmitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one y ear after the date of the plan approval. In this in stance, the enforceable measures that the State must submit are enforceable quantitative milestones that enabl e the EPA to determine whether the area is meeting it s reasonable further progress goals as contemplated in the attainment plan and, if the area is not doin g so, that enable the EPA to require the State to s ubmit plan revisions to correct the deficiency. On Decemb er 15, 2015, CARB submitted a letter committing to submit a SIP revision containing specific quantitat ive milestones no later than December 31, 2016. If we finalize this proposed conditional approval, CARB m ust adopt and submit the SIP revisions it has committed to submit by December 31, 2016. If CARB f ails to comply with this commitment, this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval and start an 18-month clock for sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a federa l implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1). Finally, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is pr oposing to disapprove the contingency measure portion of the 2015 PM 2.5 Plan because it does not fully satisfy the require ment for contingency measures in section 172(c)(9) of the Act. If we fi nalize the proposed disapproval, the offset sanctio n in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the effectiveThis document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

169 date of final disapproval and the highway funding s anctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in the area 6 months after the offset sanction is impo sed. Neither sanction would apply if California submits and the EPA approves, prior to the implemen tation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in the EPA’s final acti on. Additionally, the disapproval action would trig ger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal im plementation plan unless California corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. We will accept comments from the public on these pr oposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are pro vided in the “Date” and “Addresses” sections at the beginning of this preamble. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Exe cutive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-execu tive-orders

. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Revi ew and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collecti on burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond thos e imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

170 I certify that this action will not have a signific ant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate a s described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by sta te law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sec tor, will result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the nationa l government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination with Indian Tri bal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as s pecified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservat ion land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has juri sdiction, and will not impose substantial direct co sts on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Exe cutive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applyin g only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that t he EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered reg ulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive O rder.This document is a prepublication version, signed b y Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Reg ion 9 on January 28,

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

171 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly A ffect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 , because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use v oluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inco nsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractic al. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address E nvironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to addres s environmental justice in this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Am monia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Part iculate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic comp ounds.
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ___January 28, 2016.______ ___//signed//__________

__ Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9.