+(,121/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 74518 2010 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Apr 21 22:51:36 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516; FRL-9229-4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley

State Implementation Plan for Fine

Particulate Matter; 2007 State Strategy;

PM 2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

in part and disapprove in part state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by California to provide for

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-

hour fine particulate matter (PM2 .5)

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley

(SJV) nonattainment area. The SIP

revisions are the SJV 2008 PM2 .5 Plan

(revised 2010) and portions of the 2007

State Strategy (revised 2009).

Specifically, EPA is proposing to

approve the emissions inventories as

meeting the requirements of the Clean

Air Act and EPA's fine particle

implementing rule and to approve

commitments to implement specific

measures and meet specific aggregate

emissions reductions by the San Joaquin

Valley Air Pollution Control District and

the California Air Resource Board. In

addition, we are proposing to find that

volatile organic compounds are a PM2 .

5

attainment plan precursor in the SJV for

which controls should be evaluated.

EPA is proposing to disapprove the

attainment demonstration. EPA is also

proposing to disapprove the reasonably

available control measures/reasonably

available control technology

demonstration, the air quality modeling,

the reasonable further progress (RFP)

demonstration, the contingency

measures, and the attainment and RFP

conformity motor vehicle emissions

budgets. EPA is also proposing to not

grant California's request to extend to

April 5, 2015 the deadline for the SJV

nonattainment area to attain the 1997

PM 2 .5 NAAQS.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

January 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2010-0516, by one of the

following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions.

e E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.

* Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher,

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

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

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information for which

disclosure is restricted by statute.

Information that you consider CBI or

otherwise protected should be clearly

identified as such and should not be

submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an "anonymous access" system, and

EPA will not know your identity or

contact information unless you provide

it in the body of your comments. If you

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

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the public

comment. If EPA cannot read your

comments due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comments.

Docket: The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California. While

all documents in the docket are listed in

the index, some may be publicly

available only at the hard copy location

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some

may not be publicly available at either

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

copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section

below.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

* California Air Resources Board,

2020 L Street, Sacramento, California

95812

* San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1990 E.

Gettysburg, California 93726.

The SIP materials are also

electronically available at: http://

www.valleyair.org/Air QualityPlans/

PM Plans.htm and http://

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office

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

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3957,

wicher.frances@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, we, us and

our refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The PM2.

5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin

Valley PM2 .s Nonattainment Area

II. California's State Implementation Plan

Submittals to Address PM2 .

5 Attainment

in the San Joaquin Valley

A. California's SIP Submittals

1. SJV 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative

Requirements for SIP Submittals

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for

PM 2.

5 Attainment SIPs

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.S Plan and

the SJV Portion of the Revised 2007 State

Strategy

A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

B. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM 2.S

SIP

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions

Inventories

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/

Reasonably Available Control

Technology Demonstration and the

Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirement for RACM/RACT

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV

PM2.5 SIP

a. SJVAPCD's RACM/RACT Analysis and

Adopted Control Strategy

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted

Control Strategy

c. Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT

Demonstration and Adopted Control

Strategy

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment

Demonstrations

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan

3. PM 2.

5 Attainment Plan Precursors

4. Extension of the Attainment Date

5. Attainment Demonstration a. Enforceable Commitments

i. Commitment must Represent a Limited

Portion of Required Reductions

ii. The State must be Capable of Fulfilling

its Commitment

iii. The Commitment must be for a

Reasonable and Appropriate Period of

Time

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment

Demonstration

E. Reasonable Further Progress

Demonstration

1. Requirements for RFP

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan

3. Proposed Action on the RFP

Demonstration

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency

Measures

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for

Transportation Conformity

74518

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74518 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/

Inadequacy Finding

4. Proposed Finding and Action on the

Budgets

H. Mid-Course Review

I. Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2 .5 Offsets

V. EPA's Proposed Actions and Potential

Consequences

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and

Disapprovals

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The PM2.

5 NAAQS and the San

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment

Area

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

established new national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.

5,

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5

microns or less, including annual

standards of 15.0 pg/m 3 based on a 3-

year average of annual mean PM 2.

5

concentrations and 24-hour (daily)

standards of 65 pg/m 3 based on a 3-year

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour

concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7. EPA

established the standards based on

substantial evidence from numerous

health studies demonstrating that

serious health effects are associated

with exposures to PM 2.

5 concentrations

above the levels of these standards.

Epidemiological studies have shown

statistically significant correlations

between elevated PM 2.

5 levels and

premature mortality. Other important

health effects associated with PM 2.

5

exposure include aggravation of

respiratory and cardiovascular disease

(as indicated by increased hospital

admissions, emergency room visits,

absences from school or work, and

restricted activity days), changes in lung

function and increased respiratory

symptoms, as well as new evidence for

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular

health. Individuals particularly

sensitive to PM 2.5 exposure include

older adults, people with heart and lung

disease, and children. See, EPA, Air

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,

No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/

P-99/002bF, October 2004.

PM 2.

5 can be emitted directly into the

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle

(primary PM 2.

5 or direct PM 2.5) or can be

formed in the atmosphere as a result of

various chemical reactions from

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,

sulfur dioxide, volatile organic

compounds, and ammonia (secondary

PM 2.5). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April

25, 2007).

Following promulgation of a new or

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by

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

designate areas throughout the nation as

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.

On January 5, 2005, EPA published

initial air quality designations for the

1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS, based on air quality

monitoring data for the three-year

periods of 2001-2003 or 2002-2004. 70

FR 944. These designations became

effective on April 5, 2005.1

EPA designated the San Joaquin

Valley (SJV), in the southern part of

California's Central Valley,

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual

and 24-hour PM 2.

5 standards. 40 CFR

81.305. The SJV PM 2.

5 nonattainment

area is home to 4 million people and is

the nation's leading agricultural area.

Stretching over 250 miles from north to

south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is

partially enclosed by the Coast

Mountain range to the west, the

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and

the Sierra Nevada range to the east. It

encompasses over 23,000 square miles

and includes all or part of eight

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings,

and the valley portion of Kern. For a

precise description of the geographic

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley

PM 2.

5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR

§ 81.305. The local air district with

primary responsibility for developing a

plan to attain the PM 2.

5 NAAQS in this

area is the San Joaquin Valley Air

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or

District).

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM 2.5

levels in the urban Bakersfield area in

the southern SJV are the highest

recorded in the United States at 22.6 pg/

m3 and 70 pg/m 3 , respectively, for the

2007-2009 period.2 In the SJV, the

levels and composition of ambient PM 2.

5

differ by season. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan,

Figures H-4 and H-5. Higher PM 2.

5

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

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

M 3

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

annual PM2 .5 standards at 15.0 pg/m 3. 71 FR 61144.

On November 13, 2006, EPA designated areas,

including the SJV, with respect to the revised 24-

hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now

required to submit an attainment plan for the 35 pg/ m 3 24-hour standards no later than 3 years after the

effective date of the designation, that is, no later

than December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all

references to the PM 2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise

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

of 65 pg/m 3 and annual standards of 15 pg/m 3 as

codified in 40 CFR § 50.7.

2 See EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value

Report, August 9, 2010. These values are the highest

design values in the SJV. A design value is an

ambient concentration calculated using a specific

methodology from monitored air quality data and

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

NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating design

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

found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N Sections

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

concentrations occur during the winter,

between late November and February,

when ambient PM 2.5 is dominated by

ammonium nitrate, formed from NON

and ammonia emissions, and directlyemitted particulates, such as wood

smoke. During the winter, the SJV

experiences extended periods of

stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy

conditions which are conducive to the

formation of secondary ammonium

nitrate particulates and encourage wood

burning. During the summer, PM 2.5

levels generally remain below 15 pg/m 3 ,

the level of the annual standards. 2008

PM 2.5 Plan, Figures H-6 and H-7.

II. California's State Implementation

Plan Submittals to Address PM2.5

Nonattainment in the San Joaquin

Valley

A. California's SIP Submittals

Designation of an area as

nonattainment starts the process for a

state to develop and submit to EPA a

state implementation plan (SIP) under

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

include, among other things, a

demonstration of how the NAAQS will

be attained in the nonattainment area as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than the date required by the CAA.

Under CAA section 172(b), a state has

up to three years after an area's

designation as nonattainment to submit

its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM2 .

5

NAAQS, these SIPs were due no later

than April 5, 2008.

California has made several SIP

submittals to address the CAA's PM2.5

attainment planning requirements in the

San Joaquin Valley. The two principal

ones are the SJVAPCD's 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

(2008 PM 2.

5 Plan or Plan) and the

California Air Resources Board's (CARB)

State Strategy for California's 2007 State

Implementation Plan (2007 State

Strategy).

In addition to these submittals, the

District and State have also submitted

numerous rules that contribute to

improving air quality in the San Joaquin

Valley. EPA has approved many of these

rules. See Appendices A and B of the

technical support document (TSD) for

this proposal.

1. SJV 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan was adopted by

the District's Governing Board on April

30, 2008 and by CARB on May 22, 2008

and submitted to EPA on June 30,

2008. 3 It includes an attainment

3 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District Governing Board Resolution: In the

Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2 .5 Plan,

Continued

74519

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74519 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

demonstration, commitments by the

SJVAPCD to adopt control measures to

achieve emissions reductions from

sources under its jurisdiction (primarily

stationary sources), and motor-vehicle

emissions budgets used for

transportation conformity purposes. The

attainment demonstration includes air

quality modeling, a reasonable further

progress (RFP) plan, an analysis of

reasonably available control measures/

reasonably available control technology

(RACM/RACT), base year and projected

year emissions inventories, and

contingency measures. The 2008 PM 2.5

Plan also includes the District's

demonstration that attainment of the

PM 2.5 standards in the SJV will require

significant reductions in NON and PM2.5

emissions (50 percent and 25 percent

from 2005 levels, respectively) and that

the most expeditious date for attaining

the 1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS in the San

Joaquin Valley is April 5, 2015. On

September 15, 2010, CARB submitted a

minor revision to the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan's

control strategy to extend the adoption

date for one control measure. 4 Future

references to the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan in this

proposal will be to the Plan as revised

in 2010.

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy

To demonstrate attainment, the 2008

PM 2.5 Plan relies in part on measures in

CARB's 2007 State Strategy. The 2007

State Strategy was adopted by CARB on

September 27, 2007 and submitted to

EPA on November 16, 2007. 5 It

discusses CARB's overall approach to

addressing, in conjunction with local

plans, attainment of both the 1997 PM 2.5

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in

the San Joaquin Valley but also in

California's other nonattainment areas

such as the South Coast Air Basin and

the Sacramento area. It also includes

CARB's commitments to propose 15

defined State measures 6 and to obtain

specific amounts of aggregate emissions

April 30, 2008 (SJVAPCD Governing Board

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

2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional

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

enclosures.

4 See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region 9, September 15, 2010,

with enclosures.

5 See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27,

2007 with attachments and letter, James N.

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,

November 16, 2007 with enclosures.

6 The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures

to be implemented by the California Bureau of

Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements)

and the California Department of Pesticide

Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use).

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

Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.

reductions of direct PM2.5 , nitrogen

oxides (NOx), and volatile organic

compounds (VOC) in the SJV from

sources under the State's jurisdiction,

which are primarily on- and off-road

motor vehicles and engines.

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted

the "Status Report on the State Strategy

for California's 2007 State

Implementation Plan (SIP) and

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting

Implementation of the 2007 State

Strategy," dated March 24, 2009,

adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State

Strategy Status Report) 7 which updates

the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its

implementation during 2007 and 2008.8

In today's proposal, we are only

evaluating those portions of the 2007

State Strategy as revised in 2009 that are

relevant for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.

5

standards in the San Joaquin Valley.

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative

Requirements for SIP Submittals

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

110(l) require a state to provide

reasonable public notice and

opportunity for public hearing prior to

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or

SIP revision. To meet this requirement,

every SIP submittal should include

evidence that adequate public notice

was given and a public hearing was held

on it consistent with EPA's

implementing regulations in 40 CFR

51.102.

Both the SJVAPCD and CARB have

satisfied applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements for reasonable

public notice and hearing prior to

adoption and submittal of the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan. The District conducted

public workshops, provided public

comment periods, and held a public

hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan

on April 30, 2008. See 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan,

Appendix J and SJVAPCD Governing

Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided

the required public notice and

opportunity for public comment prior to

its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the

Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 08-28.

The District also provided the required

public notice and hearing on the 2010

revision to the Plan. See SJVAPCD

Governing Board Resolution No. 10-06-

18.

7 See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 21, 2009,

with attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene,

Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12,

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

State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP

revision. The balance is for informational purposes

only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution No.

09-34.

8 We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as

revised in 2009 as the revised 2007 State Strategy.

CARB conducted public workshops,

provided public comment periods, and

held a public hearing prior to the

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on

September 27, 2007. See CARB

Resolution No. 07-28. CARB also

provided the required public notice,

opportunity for public comment, and a

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009

adoption of the 2009 State Strategy

Status Report. See CARB Resolution No.

09-34.

The SIP submittals include proof of

publication for notices of SJVAPCD and

CARB public hearings, as evidence that

all hearings were properly noticed. We

find, therefore, that each of the four

submittals that comprise the SJV PM 2.

5

SIP meets the procedural requirements

of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(1).

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP

submittal is complete within 60 days of

receipt. This section also provides that

any plan that EPA has not affirmatively

determined to be complete or

incomplete will become complete six

months after the date of submittal by

operation of law. EPA's SIP

completeness criteria are found in 40

CFR part 51, Appendix V.

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the

2008 PM 2.5 Plan became complete by

operation of law on December 30, 2008.

We found the 2010 revision to the Plan

complete on September 23, 2010. 9 The

November 16, 2007 submittal of the

2007 State Strategy and the August 12,

2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to

the Strategy became complete by

operation of law on May 16, 2008 and

February 12, 2010, respectively.

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements

for PM2.

5 Attainment SIPs

EPA is implementing the 1997 PM 2.

5

NAAQS under Title 1, Part D, subpart

1 of the CAA, which includes section

172, "Nonattainment plan provisions."

Section 172(a)(2) requires that a PM 2.

5

nonattainment area attain the NAAQS

as "as expeditiously as practicable" but

no later than five years from the date of

the area's designation as nonattainment.

This section also allows EPA to grant up

to a five-year extension of an area's

attainment date based on the severity of

the area's nonattainment and the

availability and feasibility of controls.

EPA designated the SJV as

nonattainment effective April 5, 2005,

and thus the applicable attainment date

is no later than April 5, 2010 or, should

EPA grant a full five-year extension, no

later than April 5, 2015.

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

Goldstene, CARB, September 23, 2010.

74520

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74520 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

Section 172(c) contains the general

statutory planning requirements

applicable to all nonattainment areas,

including the requirements for

emissions inventories, RACM/RACT,

attainment demonstrations, RFP

demonstrations, and contingency

measures.

On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation

Rule for the 1997 PM2.

5 NAAQS. 72 FR

20586, codified at 40 CFR part 51,

subpart Z (PM2.

5 implementation rule).

The PM 2.

5 implementation rule and its

preamble address the statutory planning

requirements for emissions inventories,

RACM/RACT, attainment

demonstrations including air quality

modeling requirements, RFP

demonstrations, and contingency

measures. This rule also addresses other

matters such as which PM 2.5 precursors

must be addressed by the state in its

PM 2.5 attainment SIP, applicable

attainment dates, and the requirement

for mid-course reviews.10 We will

discuss each of these CAA and

regulatory requirements for PM 2.

5

attainment plans in more detail below.

IV. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.

5 Plan

and the SJV Portion of the Revised 2007

State Strategy

A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to approve in part

and disapprove in part the SJV 2008

PM 2.5 Plan and those portions of the

2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009

specific to PM 2.

5 attainment in the SJV.

1

o In June 2007, a petition to the EPA

Administrator was filed on behalf of several public

health and environmental groups requesting

reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2 .5

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, Petition for

Reconsideration, "In the Matter of Final Clean Air

Fine Particle Implementation Rule," June 25, 2007.

These provisions are (1) The presumption that

compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule

satisfies the NOx and S02 RACT requirements for

electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the

requirement to establish emission limits for

condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January

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

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

out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate

RFP. These provisions are found in the PM 2 5

implementation rule and preamble at 20623-20628,

40 CFR 51.1002(c), 20619-20620, and 20636,

respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the

petition with respect to the fourth issue. Letter,

Gina McCarthy, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort,

Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is currently

considering the other issues raised in the petition.

Neither the District nor the State relied on the

first, third, or fourth of these provisions in

preparing the 2008 PM2 .5 Plan or the 2007 State

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

CPM limits in its rules. EPA does not believe this

deferral affects its proposed disapproval actions on

the SIP's RACM/RACT or expeditious attainment

demonstrations. See section II.D.3 of the TSD for

this proposal. We will evaluate any rule adopted or

revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to

assure that it appropriately addresses CPM.

We are proposing to approve the

emissions inventories in these SIP

revisions as meeting the applicable

requirements of the CAA and PM 2.5

implementation rule. We are also

proposing to approve the District's and

CARB's commitments to specific

measures and specific aggregate

emissions reductions in these SIP

revisions as strengthening the SIP.

In addition, we are proposing to find

that volatile organic compounds (VOC)

are a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor

that must be addressed in the RACM/

RACT analysis, RFP and attainment

demonstrations, and for other PM 2.5 SIP

control requirements. The Plan as

submitted does not treat VOC as a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor.

We are proposing to disapprove the

air quality modeling analysis on which

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan's attainment,

RACM/RACT, and RFP demonstrations

and the State's attainment date

extension request are based because the

Plan does not currently include

sufficient documentation and analysis

for EPA to determine the modeling's

adequacy.

Based on our proposed finding that

VOC should be a PM 2.

5 attainment plan

precursor and our proposed disapproval

of the air quality modeling, we are

proposing to disapprove the 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan's RACM/RACT analysis and the

RFP and attainment demonstrations and

related contingency measures as not

meeting the applicable requirements of

the CAA and PM 2.

5 implementation

rule. We are also proposing to

disapprove the transportation

conformity motor vehicle emissions

budgets for the RFP milestone years of

2009 and 2012 and the attainment year

of 2014.1" We are proposing to

disapprove the attainment

demonstration for the additional reason

that it relies too extensively on

commitments to emissions reductions in

lieu of fully adopted and submitted

rules. Rules that have either not been

adopted in final form or have not been

submitted to and approved by EPA

cannot be credited toward the

attainment demonstration. Finally, we

are proposing to not grant the State's

request to extend the attainment date for

the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV to April 5,

2015.

EPA's analysis and findings are

summarized below and are described in

more detail in the TSD for this proposal

which is available online at http://

11 While the attainment date for PM 2.5 areas with

a full five-year extension would be April 5 2015,

reductions must be implemented by 2014 to achieve

attainment by that date. See 40 CFR 51.1007(b). We

refer, therefore, to 2014 as the attainment year and

April 5, 2015 as the attainment date.

www.regulations.gov in the docket,

EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, or from the

EPA contact listed at the beginning of

this notice.

B. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions

Inventories

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states

to submit a "comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of the relevant

pollutant." The PM 2.5 implementation

rule requires a state to include direct

PM 2.5 emissions and emissions of all

PM 2.5 precursors in this inventory, even

if it has determined that control of any

of these precursors is not necessary for

expeditious attainment. 40 CFR

51.1008(a)(1) and 72 FR 20586 at 20648.

Direct PM 2.5 includes condensable

particulate matter. 40 CFR 51.1000.

PM 2.5 precursors are NON, SO 2, VOC,

and ammonia. Id. The inventories

should meet the data requirements of

EPA's Consolidated Emissions

Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part

51 subpart A) and include any

additional inventory information

needed to support the SIP's attainment

demonstration and (where applicable)

RFP demonstration. 40 CFR

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

A baseline emissions inventory is

required for the attainment

demonstration and for meeting RFP

requirements. As determined on the

date of designation, the base year for

this inventory should be the most recent

calendar year for which a complete

inventory was required to be submitted

to EPA. The baseline emissions

inventory for calendar year 2002 or

other suitable year should be used for

attainment planning and RFP plans for

areas initially designated nonattainment

for the PM 2.

5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR

51.1008(b).

EPA has provided additional

guidance for PM 2.

5 emissions

inventories in "Emissions Inventory

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone

and Particulate Matter NAAQS and

Regional Haze Regulations," November

2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001).

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV

PM 2.5 SIP

The baseline planning inventories for

direct PM 2.

5 and all PM 2.5 precursors for

the SJV PM 2.

5 nonattainment area

together with additional documentation

for the inventories are found in

Appendix B of the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan.

Both average winter day and average

annual day baseline inventories are

provided for the year 2005 (the

reference year for the air quality

74521

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74521 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

modeling) and each year from 2009 to

2014. These baseline inventories

incorporate reductions from federal,

State, and District measures adopted

prior to 2007. 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, p. B-1

and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p.

1. A winter inventory is provided

because the majority of high PM 2.

5 days

in the SJV occur during the winter

months between November and

February. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Figures H-4

and H-5.

Table 1 is a summary of the average

annual day inventories of direct PM2.5

and PM 2.

5 precursors for the baseline

year of 2005 and the projected

attainment year of 2014. These

inventories provide the basis for the

control measure analysis and the RFP

and attainment demonstrations in the

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan.

As a starting point for the 2008 PM 2.5

Plan's inventories, the District used

CARB's 2002 base year inventory. An

example of this inventory and CARB's

documentation for its inventories can be

found in Appendices A and F,

respectively, of the 2007 State Strategy.

The 2002 inventory for the SJV was

projected to 2005 and future years using

CARB's California emissions forecasting

system (CEFSv 1.06). 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan,

p. B-1. Both base year and baseline

inventories use the most current version

of California's mobile source emissions

model approved by EPA for use in SIPs,

EMFAC2007, for estimating on-road

motor vehicle emissions. 73 FR 3464

(January 18, 2008). Off-road inventories

were developed using the CARB offroad model.

TABLE 1-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PM 2.5 AND PM 2.5 PRECURSORS FOR THE 2005

BASE YEAR AND 2014 ATTAINMENT YEAR

[Annual average day emissions in tons per day]

PM 2.

5 NOx SO2 VOC Ammonia

Emissions inventory category

2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014

Stationary Sources ....................................... 13.3 14.4 80.1 56.5 20.4 22.0 121.5 129.5 19.8 23.0

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

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................. 12.1 8.9 327.9 206.7 2.6 0.7 94.8 57.2 6.2 4.8

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................. 9.0 6.6 153.9 102.2 2.4 0.8 62.7 48.5 0 0

Total ...................................................... 86.0 75.0 575.4 376.2 26.4 24.5 419.8 363.2 382.0 451.0

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions

Inventories

We have reviewed the emissions

inventories in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and

the inventory methodologies used by

SJVAPCD and CARB for consistency

with CAA requirements, the PM 2.

5

implementation rule, and EPA's

guidance. We find that the base year and

projected baseline year inventories are

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventories of actual or projected

emissions of PM 2.

5 and PM 2.5 precursors

in the SJV nonattainment area as of the

date of their submittal. We propose,

therefore, to approve these inventories

as meeting the requirements of CAA

section 172(c)(3), the PM 2.

5

implementation rule and applicable

EPA guidance. We provide more detail

on our review of the inventories in

section II.A. of the TSD.

C. Reasonably Available Control

Measures/Reasonably Available Control

Technology Demonstration and

Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that

each attainment plan "provide for the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures [RACM] as

expeditiously as practicable (including

such reductions in emissions from

existing sources in the area as may be

obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology [RACT]), and shall

provide for attainment of the national

primary ambient air quality standards."

EPA defines RACM as measures that a

state finds are both reasonably available

and contribute to attainment as

expeditiously as practicable in its

nonattainment area. Thus, what

constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM 2.

5

attainment plan is closely tied to that

plan's expeditious attainment

demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR

20586 at 20612. States are required to

evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM 2.

5

and all of its attainment plan precursors.

40 CFR 51.1002(c).

For PM 2.5 attainment plans, EPA is

requiring a combined approach to

RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of

Part D of the CAA. Subpart 1, unlike

subparts 2 and 4, does not identify

specific source categories for which EPA

must issue control technology

documents or guidelines, or identify

specific source categories for state and

EPA evaluation during attainment plan

development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610.

Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers

RACT to be part of an area's overall

RACM obligation. Because of the

variable nature of the PM 2.

5 problem in

different nonattainment areas which

may require states to develop attainment

plans that address widely disparate

circumstances, EPA determined not

only that states should have flexibility

with respect to RACT and RACM

controls but also that in areas needing

significant emission reductions to attain

the standards, RACT/RACM controls on

smaller sources may be necessary to

reach attainment as expeditiously as

practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612,

20615. Thus, under the PM 2.5

implementation rule, RACT and RACM

are those reasonably available measures

that contribute to attainment as

expeditiously as practicable in the

specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR

51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612.

Specifically, the PM 2.5

implementation rule requires that

attainment plans include the list of

measures a state considered and

information sufficient to show that the

state met all requirements for the

determination of what constitutes

RACM/RACT in a specific

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010(a).

In addition, the rule requires that the

state, in determining whether a

particular emissions reduction measure

or set of measures must be adopted as

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative

impact of implementing the available

measures and to adopt as RACM/RACT

any potential measures that are

reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility

if, considered collectively, they would

advance the attainment date by one year

or more. Any measures that are

necessary to meet these requirements

which are not already either federally

promulgated, part of the state's SIP, or

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be

submitted in enforceable form as part of

74522

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74522 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

a state's attainment plan for the area. 72

FR 20586 at 20614.

A more comprehensive discussion of

the RACM/RACT requirement for PM2 .

5

attainment plans and EPA's guidance

for it can be found in the PM2 .

5

implementation rule preamble (72 FR

20586 at 20609-20633) and in section

lI.D. of the TSD.

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the

SJV PM2 .

5 SIP

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and the 2007

State Strategy are the latest in a series

of air quality plans that the District and

CARB have developed to provide for

attainment of the federal air quality

standards in the SJV. These planning

efforts have resulted in a comprehensive

set of rules and programs that address

the vast majority of emissions sources in

the Valley. Many of these District and

State rules are among the most stringent

in the nation.

For the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and the 2007

State Strategy, the District, CARB, and

the local agencies (through the SJV's

eight metropolitan planning

organizations (MPO)) each undertook a

process to identify and evaluate

potential reasonably available control

measures that could contribute to

expeditious attainment of the PM 2.

5

standards in the SJV. We describe each

agency's efforts below.

a. SJVAPCD's RACM/RACT Analysis

and Adopted Control Strategy

The District's RACM/RACT analysis,

which focuses on stationary and area

source controls, is described in Chapter

6 and Appendix I of the 2008 PM 2.5

Plan. To identify potential RACM/

RACT, the District reviewed potential

measures from a number of sources

including EPA's list of potential control

measures in the PM 2.5 implementation

rule preamble (72 FR 20586 at 20621),

measures in other nonattainment areas'

plans, and measures suggested by the

public during development of the 2008

PM 2.5 Plan. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to

6-8. The identified potential measures,

as well as existing District measures, are

described by emissions inventory

category in Appendix I. These measures

address emissions of direct PM2 .5, NOx

and SO 2 . See 2008 PM2 .5 Plan, p. 6-8

and Appendix I. Potential RACM/RACT

controls for VOC or ammonia were not

specifically identified or evaluated.

From the set of identified potential

controls for PM2 .

5, NOx, and SO2 , the

District selected measures for adoption

and implementation based on the

technological feasibility and practicality

of emissions controls, the potential

magnitude and timing of emissions

reductions, cost effectiveness, and other

acceptable criteria. 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan, p.

6-7.

After completing its RACM/RACT

analysis for stationary and area sources

under its jurisdiction, the District

developed its "Stationary Source

Regulatory Implementation Schedule"

(2008 PM2 .5 Plan, Table 6-2) which

gives the schedule for regulatory

adoption and implementation of the

selected RACM/RACT measures. The

District also identified a number of

source categories for which feasibility

studies would be undertaken to refine

the inventory and evaluate potential

controls. These categories and the

schedule for studying them are listed in

Table 6-4 of the 2008 PM2 .5 Plan.

In the five years prior to the adoption

of the 2008 PM2 .5 Plan, the SJVAPCD

developed and implemented

comprehensive plans to address

attainment of the PM10 standards (2003

PM1 o Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May

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

(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan,

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

and the 8-hour ozone standards (2007

Ozone Plan, submitted November 16,

2007). These plans for other NAAQS

have resulted in the adoption by the

District of many new rules and revisions

to existing rules for stationary and area

sources in the SJV. In general, the

SJVAPCD's current rules are equivalent

to or more stringent than those

developed by other air districts. In

addition to these stationary and area

source measures, the District has also

adopted an indirect source review rule,

Rule 9510, to address increased indirect

emissions from new industrial,

commercial and residential

developments. See SJVAPCD Rule 9510

"Indirect Source Review," adopted

December 15, 2005. EPA proposed to

approve this rule as a revision to the

California SIP on May 21, 2010. 75 FR

28509. The District also operates

incentive grant programs including the

Carl Moyer program, 12 to accelerate

turnover of existing stationary and

mobile engines to cleaner units. 2008

PM 2.5 Plan, Section 6.5.

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the District

identified and committed to adopting

and implementing 13 new control

measures for direct PM 2.5, NOx, and/or

SO 2. In Table 2 below, we list these

measures, which mostly involve

strengthening existing District rules,

along with their anticipated and actual

adoption, initial implementation, and

final compliance dates. As can be seen

from Table 2, the District has met its

intended rulemaking schedule and has

only two rule actions remaining (SCOM-6 and S-COM-10). On Table 3,

we list the expected emissions

reductions from each measure. We note,

however, that the District's commitment

is only to the aggregate emissions

reductions of direct PM 2.5, NOx, and

SO 2 shown. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6-

9 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board

Resolution, p. 5. The reductions listed

on Table 3 are those anticipated to be

achievable from each measure at the

time the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan was adopted.

Actual reductions from each measure

once adopted may be greater or less than

those anticipated. Finally, on Table 4

we give the current SIP submittal and

approval status of the measures in the

Plan.

TABLE 2-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM 2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

Measure number& District rule number Rule making com- Actual adoption Compliance T Actual compli- Year reduc Actual year re- description District rule number pletion date date date ance date tions start [ductions start

S-AGR-1 ..............

S-COM-1 .............

S-COM-2 .............

4103- Open Burning ....................

4320-Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam

Generators and Process Heaters (< 5 MMBtu/hr).

4307-Boilers, Steam Generators

and Process Heaters (2 to 5

MMBtu/hr).

2nd Q-2010 ........ April 2010 ..........

3rd Q-2008 ......... October 2008 ....

3rd Q-2008 ......... October 2008 ....

12 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality

Standards Attainment Program provides incentive

grants for engines, equipment and other sources of

pollution that are cleaner than required by

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

emission reductions. Eligible projects include

cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and

stationary agricultural pump engines. The program

achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NO,

PM, and VOC.

June 2010 .........

July 2012 to

January 2014.

July 2010 to

January 2016.

2009 2010

2012 July 2011

2012 July 2010

74523

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74523 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 2-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM 2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTSContinued

Measure number & District rule number Rule making com- Actual adoption Compliance T Actual compli- Year reduc Actual year re- description pletion date date date ance date tions start ductions start

S-COM-3 .............

S-COM-5 .............

S-COM-6 .............

S-COM-7 .............

S-COM-9 .............

S-COM-10 ...........

S-COM-14 ...........

S-IND-9 ...............

S-IND-21 .............

M-TRAN-1 ...........

4308-Boilers, Steam Generators

and Process Heaters (0.075 to

< 2 MM Btu/hr).

4703-Stationary Gas Turbines ...

Rule 4702-Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.

4354-Glass Melting Furnaces ....

4902-Residential Water Heaters

4905-Natural Gas-Fired, Fan

Type Residential Central Furnaces.

4901-Wood Burning Fireplaces

and Wood Burning Heaters.

4692-Commercial Charbroiling

4311 - Flares ................................

9410-Employer Based Trip Reduction Program.

4th Q-2009 .........

3rd Q-2007 .........

4th Q-2010 .........

3rd Q-2008 .........

1st Q-2009 .........

4nd Q-2014 ........

3rd Q-2009 .........

2nd Q-2009 ........

2nd Q-2009 ........

4th Q-2009 .........

December 2009

September 2007

Scheduled for

December

2010.

October 2008 ....

Under revision ...

March 2009 .......

T B D ...................

October 2008 ....

September 2009

June 2009 .........

December 2009

Attrition

Attrition

2010

2011

2010

2012

January 2011 ....

January 2012 ....

T B D ...................

PM1o & SO,

January 2011.

NOx limits-January 2014-

2018.

A ttrition ..............

T B D ...................

2008 ..................

January 2011 ....

July 2011 ..........

January 2012 ....

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6-2. "Actual" information is taken from the individual rules as adopted or revised.

January 2011

July 2009

TBD

PM1o & SOJune 2009

NOx limits-January 2011

January 2010

TBD

2008

January 2011

July 2011

January 2012

74524

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74524 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

to to q -0 (0 N,

C\i.- 0 C\ - 0 0 00

(C0 0) r, C\- C'i

C\i. 0 Cq j-0 0 0O

0

c'j

(0q C C C 0 LO

C\i. 0 C\i 0 0 OD

0

C'j

OD( 0rC 0 D (C

CO0 0 00 'IT

0

C'j

LOO 0 0 O LO 0 'IT 'IT

0) C' 0 C'

0 M~

0

0

C'j

0 0 OC\iOO C)

C'j

0

0

O OCY

0

00)

0 0

C:

0~ 

C)

0

E: r - I- i i i

--- ~ -- 7 9::i

S0) 0 .23 (q

.- E LL -

0 U) V

M9 O -0 cq C M9 

C:

co Lo~ o ,

0 0) 0~~ 

0~ E~mu 00) m 

0CJ- 0 0 to 0 0

* ~0

I I I I I I I

0 0 0 0000 0 ~0 CJ0000

0) 'I 0) OD0 O C- (0 CO0N

CI)0 0 C\ (.

0O'I LOO0

Loq J N r-- .

C)0 0 Ci(.

Coj N ai(

Lq O (q

C) 0 0 C'i (.C

C) 0 (C N'

to N, :-( CI) 0 C 1i

NO 0) 0(0

Aq "?

to C) 0

C'j 0 C\i

00 0 00

(0 0 (

C:

crEr2

0 c

C:

C: a) - -- 

>m 0

0~ E 3)

I I I0 1

00 0

c~ 0

EE

0~- 0 z

w w 0)

*(0 C'j QC'j

00 0 H

*(0 C'j QC'j

00 0 0

*(0 C'j QC'j

00 o HO

o C Q(0

0 o 0

00

(00 0 Q(0

00

6L A A "

E

0)

0 C Y0

0 2~

0) C

C 0

._

0 c

9) 0

LW o * O

C:c 0

C0 I) )

m0 0 0

c 0 0 -c:

0 0 Ff~o'

,-') 0900)00 ) 2

74525

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74525 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 4-SIP SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF SJVAPCD RULES IN THE 2008 PM 2 5 PLAN

Rule 4103- Open Burning (Phase IV) .............................

4320-Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/

h r).

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process

Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr).

Rule 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process

Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr).

Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines .................................

Rule 4702 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

(2010 revisions).

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces (2008 revisions) .......

Rule 4902 Residential W ater Heaters ..............................

4905-Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central

Furnaces.

Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning

Heaters.

Rule 4692 Com mercial Charbroiling .................................

R u le 4 3 1 1 F la re s ..............................................................

Not subm itted .....................

Subm itted ...........................

Most current revision of rule approved: May 17, 2007 at

74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009)

Submittal date: March 17, 2009 Submittal found complete: April 20, 2009 New rule

Approved ............................ 1 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010)

S ubm itted ...........................

A pproved ............................

Under development, expected adoption December 2010.

Not Submitted ....................

A pproved ............................

Adoption scheduled for

2014.

A pproved ............................

S ubm itted ...........................

S ubm itted ...........................

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction Program ...... Submitted ...........................

Submittal date: May 17, 2010 Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 Most current revision of rule approved: October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29887 (May 30,

2007)

74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009)

Most current revision of rule approved: January 18,

2007 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008)

Most current revision of rule approved: August 17, 2006

at 72 FR 41894 (August 1, 2007)

75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010)

Most current version of the rule approved: October 20,

2005 at 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007)

74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009)

Submittal date: May 17, 2010

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010

Most current revision of rule approved: March 21, 2002

at 68 FR 33005 (June 3, 2003)

Submittal date: January 10, 2010

Submittal found complete: February 4, 2010

Most current revision of rule approved: June 20, 2002

at 68 FR 8835 (February 26, 2003)

Submittal date: May 17, 2010

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 New rule.

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted

Control Strategy

Source categories for which CARB has

primary responsibility for reducing

emissions in California include most

new and existing on- and off-road

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle

fuels, and consumer products. In

addition, California has unique

authority under CAA section 209

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt

and implement new emission standards

for many categories of on-road vehicles

and engines and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines.

Given the need for significant

emissions reductions from mobile and

area sources to meet the NAAQS in

California nonattainment areas, the

State of California has been a leader in

the development of some of the most

stringent control measures nationwide

for on-road and off-road mobile sources

and the fuels that power them. These

standards have reduced new car

emissions by 99 percent and new truck

emissions by 90 percent from

uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy,

p. 37. The State is also working with

EPA on goods movement activities and

13 More information on this public process

including presentations from the workshops and

is implementing programs to reduce

emissions from ship auxiliary engines,

locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo

handling equipment. In addition, the

State has standards for lawn and garden

equipment, recreational vehicles and

boats, and other off-road sources that

require newly manufactured equipment

to be 80-98 percent cleaner than their

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally,

the State has adopted many measures

that focus on achieving reductions from

in-use mobile sources that include more

stringent inspection and maintenance

requirements in California's Smog

Check program, truck and bus idling

restrictions, and various incentive

programs. Since 1994 alone, the State

has taken more than 45 rulemaking

actions and achieved most of the

emissions reductions needed for

attainment in the State's nonattainment

areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 36-

40. As is noted in the 2007 State

Strategy, EPA has approved California's

mobile source program as representing

best available control measures. See

2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 69 FR

5412 (February 4, 2004) and 69 FR

30006 (May 26, 2004) (proposed and

final approval of SJV 2003 PM1 0 Plan).

symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007

CARB developed its proposed 2007

State Strategy after an extensive public

consultation process to identify

potential SIP measures. This process is

described in the 2008 PM2 .5 Plan at 7-

11.13 From this process, CARB

identified and committed to propose 15

new defined measures. These measures

focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet as

well as increasing the stringency of

emissions standards for a number of

engine categories, fuels, and consumer

products. Many, if not most, of these

measures are being proposed for

adoption for the first time anywhere in

the nation. They build on CARB's

already comprehensive program

described above that addresses

emissions from all types of mobile

sources and consumer products,

through both regulations and incentive

programs. See Appendix A of the TSD.

Table 5 below lists the new defined

measures in the 2007 State Strategy,

which also include one measure each

from the California Bureau of

Automotive Repair and the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation. As

shown in this table, the State has

adopted many of the measures.

State Strategy can be found at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/planninglsip/2o07sip/2OO7sip.htm.

74526

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74526 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 5-2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

Primary

area

Defined state measure (SC Adoption year Current status

and/or

SJV)

Smog Check Improvements .......... Both ................... 2007-2008 ........ Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ....... Both ................... 2008-2014 ........ Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of Automotive Repair September

2010.

Revisions to Reformulated Gaso- Both ................... 2007 .................. Approved, see 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 2010).

line Program.

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

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and SC ..................... 2007-2008 ........ Adopted December 2007.

Other Clean Technologies.

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and SC ..................... Fuel: 2007 ......... Adopted July 2007.

Fuels. Engines: 2009 ...

Port Truck Modernization .......... SC ..................... 2007-2008 ........ Adopted December 2007 and December 2008.

Accelerated Introduction of Clean- Both ................... 2007-2008 ........ In progress.

er Locomotives.

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

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines Both ................... 2007 .................. Adopted 2007, pending revisions.

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equip- SJV .................... 2009 .................. On-going through incentive grant programs.

ment.

New Emissions Standards for Rec- Both ................... 2009-2010 ........ Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public review.

reational Boats.

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Both ................... By 2010 ............. Adopted November 2008.

Vehicle Emissions Standards.

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Both ................... 2007 .................. Adopted June 2007.

Above Ground Storage Tanks.

Additional Evaporative Emissions Both ................... By 2010 ............. Partial adoption, 2008.

Standards.

Consumer Products Program (I & Both ................... 2008 & 2010- Phase I-Approved 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009).

II). 2012.

Department of Pesticide Regula- SJV .................... 2008 .................. Adopted 2008, amended 2009.

tion.

SC= South Coast Air Basin. Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included)

Appendix A of the TSD includes a list

of all measures adopted by CARB

between 1990 and the beginning of

2007. These measures, reductions from

which are reflected in the Plan's

baseline inventories, fall into two

categories: Measures that are subject to

a waiver of Federal pre-emption under

CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver

measures or waiver measures) and those

for which the State is not required to

obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures).

Emissions reductions from waiver

measures are fully creditable in

attainment and RFP demonstrations and

may be used to meet other CAA

requirements, such as contingency

measures. See EPA's proposed approval

of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR

33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final

approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8,

2010). The State's baseline non-waiver

measures have generally all been

approved by EPA into the SIP and as

such are fully creditable for meeting

CAA requirements.

In addition to the State's

commitments to propose defined

measures, the 2007 State Strategy

includes enforceable commitments for

direct PM 2.5 , NOx, and VOC emissions

reductions from mobile source

categories that are crucial for attainment

of the PM 2 .

5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin

Valley. For the SJV, the 2007 State

Strategy includes State commitments to

achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2 .

5 , 76 tpd of

NOx, and 23 tpd of VOC reductions. See

2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB

Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6.

The 2007 State Strategy indicates that

the State expects to achieve these

emissions reductions in the San Joaquin

Valley by the projected attainment year

of 2014 from the measures listed in

Table 5 or other similar measures. In the

2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an

estimated emissions reduction for each

measure to show that, when considered

together, these measures can meet the

total commitment. CARB states,

however, that its enforceable

commitment is to achieve the aggregate

emissions reductions for each pollutant

by the given dates and not for a specific

level of reductions from any specific

measure. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58.

A summary of the estimates from the

proposed measures is provided in Table

6 below.

As mentioned above, CARB's

commitment is also to propose specific

new measures that are identified and

defined in the 2007 Strategy State. See

2007 State Strategy, pp. 64-65 and 2009

State Strategy revisions, pp. 22-23.

TABLE 6-EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY 2014 TONS PER DAY

Measure

Sm og Check Im provem ents (BAR) .............................................................................................

Expanded Vehicle Retirem ent .....................................................................................................

M odifications to Reform ulated Gasoline Program .......................................................................

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

74527

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74527 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 6-EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY 2014 TONS PER DAY-Continued

Measure PM 2.5 NOx VOC

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives ................................................................ 0.2 7.2 0.5

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) ............................................................................. 0.8 3.7 0.9

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment ....................................................................................... NYQ NYQ NYQ

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats ....................................................................... - 0.1 1.3

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards ............................................... - - 2.2

C onsum e r P rod ucts P rog ram ...................................................................................................... - 3 .2

P e s tic id e s ..................................................................................................................................... - - 2 .5

T o ta ls : .......................................................................................................................................... 5 7 6 2 3

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined measures with reductions in the SJV are shown here.

NYQ = Not yet quantified.

c. The Local Jurisdictions' RACM

Analysis

The local jurisdictions' RACM

analysis was conducted by the SJV's

eight MPOs. 1 4 This analysis focused on

potential NOx emissions reductions

from transportation control measures

(TCM). TCMs are, in general, measures

designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions

in vehicle miles traveled or traffic

congestion. The analysis' results are

described in Chapter 7 (pp. 7-8 to 7-11)

of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. It addressed

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

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the SJV

MPOs reviewed and updated the RACM

analysis they performed for the SJV

2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan, based on

EPA's guidance in the preamble to the

PM 2.5 implementation rule. For the 2007

Ozone Plan, they developed a local

RACM strategy after an extensive

evaluation of potential RACM for

advancing the 8-hour ozone standard

attainment date. After reviewing the

2007 Ozone Plan's local RACM analysis,

EPA's suggested RACM, recentlydeveloped plans from other areas, and

the potential emission reductions

available from the implementation of

TCMs in the SJV, the MPOs determined

that there were no additional local

RACM for NOx, beyond those measures

already adopted, that could advance

attainment of the PM 2.

5 NAAQS in the

SJV. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7-11.

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT

Demonstration and Adopted Control

Strategy

Under the PM 2.

5 implementation rule,

RACM/RACT are the set of measures

14 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties

in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The

San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus

Council of Governments, the Merced County

Association of Governments, the Madera County

Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno

County Governments, Kings County Association of

Governments, the Tulare County Association of

Governments and the Kern Council of

Governments.

necessary for expeditious attainment.

The measures must address emissions of

PM 2.

5 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursors that are necessary for such

expeditious attainment. Thus, in order

for a PM 2.

5 plan to demonstrate that it

provides for RACM/RACT, it must also

demonstrate that it provides for

expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586 at

20612-20623. As discussed in section

IV.D.2. below, we are proposing to

disapprove the air quality modeling in

the 2008 PM 2.

5 plan because there is

insufficient documentation for us to

determine its adequacy. Air quality

modeling establishes the level of

emissions reductions needed for

attainment in an area. Thus,

uncertainties about the adequacy of the

air quality modeling result in

uncertainties regarding the emissions

reductions needed for attainment.

Without a reliable estimate of the

emission reductions needed for

attainment, we are unable to determine

if the measures in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

include all RACM/RACT that will

provide for attainment of the PM 2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as

expeditiously as practicable.

In addition, as described in section

IV.D.3. below, EPA is proposing to

determine that VOC is a PM2.

5

attainment plan precursor in the SJV

nonattainment area. Under the PM 2.

5

implementation rule, States must

address all PM 2.

5 attainment plan

precursors in their RACM/RACT

analyses. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3).

Neither the District nor the local

jurisdictions (through the MPOs)

evaluated potential RACM/RACT for

VOC emission sources.

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to

find that the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, together

with the revised 2007 State Strategy,

does not provide for the implementation

of RACM/RACT as required by CAA

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

and to disapprove the SJV PM 2.

5 SIP's

RACM/RACT demonstration. It appears,

however, that the State, District, and

local jurisdictions have identified and

otherwise provided for the

implementation of a comprehensive set

of measures that are among the most

stringent in the nation and, should the

District and State correct the

deficiencies in the attainment

demonstration and appropriately

address VOC as an attainment plan

precursor in its RACM/RACT

demonstration, we may be able to

approve the SIP's RACM/RACT

demonstration.

Because they will strengthen the

California SIP, we are proposing to

approve the SJVAPCD's commitments to

adopt and implement specific control

measures on the schedule identified in

Table 6-2 (as amended June 15, 2010)

in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, to the extent that

these commitments have not yet been

fulfilled, and to achieve specific

aggregate emissions reductions of direct

PM 2.5, NOx and SOx by specific years as

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

Plan.

We are also proposing to approve, as

a SIP strengthening measure, CARB's

commitments to propose certain defined

measures, as given on page 23 of the

2009 State Strategy Status Report, and to

achieve aggregate emissions reductions

of 5 tpd direct PM 2.

5, 76 tpd NO, and

23 tpd VOC in the San Joaquin Valley

by 2014 as given on page 21 of the 2009

State Strategy Status Report.

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment

Demonstrations

CAA section 172 requires a State to

submit a plan for each of its

nonattainment areas that demonstrates

attainment of the applicable ambient air

quality standard as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than the

specified attainment date. Under the

PM 2.5 implementation rule, this

demonstration should consist of four

parts:

(1) Technical analyses that locate,

identify, and quantify sources of

74528

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74528 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

emissions that are contributing to

violations of the PM 2.5 NAAQS;

(2) Analyses of future year emissions

reductions and air quality improvement

resulting from already-adopted national,

state, and local programs and from

potential new state and local measures

to meet the RACM/RACT and RFP

requirements in the area;

(3) Adopted emissions reduction

measures with schedules for

implementation; and

(4) Contingency measures required

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

See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586 at

20605.

The requirements for the first two

parts are described in the sections on

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT

above (sections IV.B. and IV.C.) and in

the sections on air quality modeling,

PM 2.

5 precursors, extension of the

attainment date, and attainment

demonstration that follow immediately

below. Requirements for the third and

fourth parts are described in the

sections on the control strategy and

contingency measures (sections IV.C.

and IV.F.), respectively.

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan

The PM 2.

5 implementation rule

requires states to submit an attainment

demonstration based on modeling

results. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.1007(a)

states:

For any area designated as nonattainment

for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit

an attainment demonstration showing that

the area will attain the annual and 24-hour

standards as expeditiously as practicable.

The demonstration must meet the

requirements of § 51.112 and Appendix W of

this part and must include inventory data,

modeling results, and emission reduction

analyses on which the State has based its

projected attainment date. The attainment

date justified by the demonstration must be

consistent with the requirements of

§ 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be

consistent with requirements in § 51.1009 for

RFP and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM.

The attainment demonstration and

supporting air quality modeling should be

consistent with EPA's PM2 .s modeling

guidance.15

See also, 72 FR 20586 at 20665.

Air quality modeling is used to

establish emissions attainment targets,

the combination of emissions of PM2.5

and PM 2.

5 precursors that the area can

accommodate without exceeding the

NAAQS, and to assess whether the

15 EPA's modeling guidance can be found in

"Guideline on Air Quality Models" in 40 CFR part

51, Appendix W and "Guidance on the Use of

Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour

Ozone and PM 2.

5 NAAQS and Regional Haze",

EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007.

proposed control strategy will result in

attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality

modeling is performed for a base year

and compared to air quality monitoring

data in order to determine model

performance. Once the performance is

determined to be acceptable, future year

changes to the emissions inventory are

simulated to determine the relationship

between emissions reductions and

changes in ambient air quality

throughout the air basin.

The procedures for modeling PM 2.

5 as

part of an attainment SIP are contained

in EPA's "Guidance on the Use of

Models and Other Analyses for

Demonstrating Attainment of Air

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and

PM 2.

5 NAAQS and Regional Haze." A

brief description of the modeling in

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and our concerns

regarding it follows. More detailed

information about the modeling is

available in section II.D. of the TSD.

CARB and the District jointly

performed the air quality modeling for

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan. Significant time,

money, and effort by CARB, the District,

and many others have gone into

preparing the air quality modeling to

support the attainment demonstration in

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan for the San Joaquin

Valley, including support for the multimillion dollar California Regional

Particulate Air Quality Study

(CRPAQS). CRPAQS is a cooperative

effort involving California cities; State

and local and air pollution control

agencies, federal agencies, industry

groups, academics, and contractors.

Field data for CRPAQS were collected

during the 14 months from December

1999 through February 2001 and

included short-term, intensive

monitoring during the fall and winter.

The study's design placed emphasis on

collecting sufficient continuous air

quality and meteorological data, both at

the surface and aloft, to support receptor

and photochemical modeling. Data and

modeling results based on the CRPAQS

study provided solid underpinnings for

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan uses multiple

modeling analyses to demonstrate

attainment of the PM 2.

5 NAAQS in the

SJV. It mainly relies on several variants

of an approach based on receptor

modeling for the annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS.

This approach begins with Chemical

Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which

distinguishes the ambient PM 2.

5

contributions of several broad emissions

source categories based on how they

match the chemical species components

of PM 2.

5 measurements. The CMB

results are then refined with emissions

inventory data to distinguish additional

source categories; an area of influence

analysis to better reflect particular

sources affecting a monitor; and

information from past photochemical

modeling to assess how secondarilyformed PM 2.

5 will respond to changes in

precursor emissions. Several variants of

this approach were used with CMB

results from different locations and

different base case years. This modeling

only addresses the annual PM 2.

5

standard.

The receptor modeling approaches are

supplemented with an attainment

demonstration using photochemical

modeling with the Community

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model.

This modeling incorporates data

collected during CRPAQS. The CMAQ

modeling addresses both the annual and

24-hour PM 2.

5 standards.

EPA recommends that States prepare

modeling/analysis protocols as part of

their modeled attainment

demonstrations. Guidance, p. 133. The

Guidance at pp. 133-134 describes the

topics to be addressed in this modeling

protocol. A modeling protocol should

detail and formalize the procedures for

conducting all phases of the modeling

analysis, such as describing the

background and objectives, creating a

schedule and organizational structure,

developing the input data, conducting

model performance evaluations,

interpreting modeling results,

describing procedures for using the

model to demonstrate whether proposed

strategies are sufficient to attain the

NAAQS, and producing documentation

to be submitted for EPA Regional Office

review and approval prior to actual

modeling.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan's modeling

protocol is contained in Appendix F

and includes descriptions of both the

receptor modeling approaches and the

photochemical modeling. Additional

description of the photochemical

modeling is also covered in Appendix

G, and also in the additional appendix

entitled "Regional Model Performance

Analysis" (RMPA). The protocol covers

all of the topics recommended in the

Guidance, except that it does not

identify how modeling and other

analyses will be archived or made

available to the public. See Guidance, p.

117.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan's air quality

model performance is discussed in the

RMPA, starting at p. 6. Overall,

modeling performance is not

sufficiently documented for EPA to fully

evaluate it. While substantial effort went

into preparing the materials for model

evaluation, the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan has

relatively little discussion of the

evaluation results and no discussion of

sensitivity or diagnostic testing, both of

74529

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74529 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

which are necessary for confidence in

the model and the performance statistics

presented. Without such testing, it

cannot be determined if the model is

adequately simulating the physical and

chemical processes leading to PM 2.5 in

the atmosphere and if the model will

respond in a scientifically reasonable

way to emissions changes. Also

insufficiently documented are the Plan's

deviations from EPA's guidance on

performing the Speciated Modeled

Attainment Test (SMAT). Although, the

Plan cites several factors as justifying

such deviations (e.g., the prevalence of

ammonia, the dominance of ammonium

nitrate, the effect of substantial controls

on fugitive dust and direct carbon

emissions (p. G-10 and p. 3-20)), it does

not provide sufficiently detailed

explanations for EPA to understand

exactly what these deviations are or to

judge whether these deviations are

acceptable. Another example of

insufficient documentation is that the

Relative Reduction Factors, which are

the key results from the model for use

in the attainment test, and details of

their calculation, are not presented in

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan. Given this lack of

documentation, EPA cannot determine

at this time whether the attainment tests

are adequate and meet EPA guidance.

In addition to a modeled attainment

demonstration, which focuses on

locations with an air quality monitor,

EPA's Guidance requires an

unmonitored area analysis. This

analysis is intended to ensure that a

control strategy leads to reductions in

PM 2.5 at other locations that have no

monitor but that might have baseline

(and future) ambient PM 2.5 levels

exceeding the NAAQS. The

unmonitored area analysis uses a

combination of model output and

ambient data to identify areas that might

exceed the NAAQS if monitors were

located there. The analysis should

include, at a minimum, all counties

designated nonattainment and the

counties surrounding the nonattainment

area. In order to examine unmonitored

areas in all portions of the modeling

domain, EPA recommends use of

interpolated spatial fields of ambient

data combined with gridded modeled

outputs. Guidance, p. 29.

In lieu of an unmonitored area

analysis, the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan section

entitled "Unmonitored peaks" presents a

simple screening analysis. This consists

of a filled concentration contour plot

(Figure 3 on p. G-20), and the

observation that "there are no areas with

steep gradients that would result in

higher design values than those

measured at monitors." 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan,

p. G-15. This analysis departs

significantly from the procedures

recommended in the Guidance and does

not adequately substitute for an

unmonitored area analysis consistent

with the procedures recommended in

the Guidance. Without an unmonitored

area analysis, EPA cannot determine

whether emission reductions in the Plan

are sufficient for attainment of the

NAAQS at locations without an air

quality monitor.

In summary, the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

lacks or fails to adequately document

several significant elements of a

modeling demonstration including: a

provision for access to the underlying

modeling data, the sensitivity and

diagnostic testing of the air quality

model, a discussion of the relative

reduction factors, and an unmonitored

area analysis. While the modeling

appears to be essentially sound, the

documentation provided in the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan is not sufficient for EPA to

fully evaluate its adequacy. An

attainment demonstration must

demonstrate, i.e. document with

evidence and analyses, that the controls

will result in attainment. Without

sufficient documentation, the Plan

states but does not adequately

demonstrate that it provides for

attainment of the PM 2.

5 standards in the

SJV. Although it is not necessary to

provide comprehensive documentation

on every single facet of a modeling

analysis, the level of documentation in

the Plan falls significantly short of what

is necessary for a reliable attainment

demonstration, as described in the

EPA's modeling guidance. Given the

lack of documentation and the absence

of an unmonitored area analysis, EPA

cannot at this time propose to approve

the Plan's air quality modeling. We also

cannot determine at this time that the

modeling provides an adequate basis for

the RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment

demonstrations in the Plan.

3. PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors

EPA recognizes NOx, S02, VOCs, and

ammonia as the main precursor gases

associated with the formation of

secondary PM 2.5 in the ambient air.

These gas-phase PM 2.5 precursors

undergo chemical reactions in the

atmosphere to form secondary

particulate matter. Formation of

secondary PM 2.5 depends on numerous

factors including the concentrations of

precursors; the concentrations of other

gaseous reactive species; atmospheric

conditions including solar radiation,

temperature, and relative humidity; and

the interactions of precursors with

preexisting particles and with cloud or

fog droplets. 72 FR 20586 at 20589.

As discussed previously, a state must

submit emissions inventories for each of

the four PM 2.

5 precursor pollutants. 72

FR 20586 at 20589 and 40 CFR

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

contribution of different precursors to

PM 2.5 formation and the effectiveness of

alternative potential control measures

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors

that a state should regulate to attain the

PM 2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some

extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at

20589.

In the PM 2.5 implementation rule,

EPA did not make a finding that all

potential PM 2.5 precursors must be

controlled in each specific

nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 at

20589. Instead, for reasons explained in

the rule's preamble, a state must

evaluate control measures for sources of

S02 in addition to sources of direct

PM 2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR

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

evaluate control measures for sources of

NOx unless the state and/or EPA

determine that control of NOx emissions

would not significantly reduce PM 2.

5

concentrations in the specific

nonattainment area. 40 CFR

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

determined in the PM 2.5 implementation

rule that a state does not need to address

controls for sources of VOC and

ammonia unless the state and/or EPA

make a technical demonstration that

such controls would significantly

contribute to reducing PM 2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment

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

a demonstration is required "if the

administrative record related to

development of its SIP shows that the

presumption is not technically justified

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

"Significantly contributes" in this

context means that a significant

reduction in emissions of the precursor

from sources in the area would be

projected to provide a significant

reduction in PM 2.5 concentrations in the

area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590. Although

EPA did not establish a quantitative test

for determining what constitutes a

significant change, EPA noted that even

relatively small reductions in PM 2.

5

levels are estimated to result in

worthwhile public health benefits. Id.

EPA further explained that a technical

demonstration to reverse the

presumption for NOx, VOC, or ammonia

in any area could consider the

emissions inventory, speciation data,

modeling information, or other special

studies such as monitoring of additional

compounds, receptor modeling, or

special monitoring studies. 72 FR 20586

at 20596-20597. These factors could

indicate that the emissions or ambient

74530

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74530 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

concentration contributions of a

precursor, or the sensitivity of ambient

concentrations to changes in precursor

emissions, differs for a specific

nonattainment area from the

presumption for that precursor in the

PM 2.5 implementation rule.

The SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not

explicitly identify the pollutants that

have been selected as PM 2.

5 attainment

plan precursors as defined in 40 CFR

51.1000. The Plan addresses only NON

and S02 in the RFP and attainment

demonstrations and in the District's

RACM/RACT analysis, and thereby

implicitly identifies NON and S02, but

not VOC or ammonia, as attainment

plan precursors. It does include

supporting documentation for the

inclusion of NON as an attainment plan

precursor and for the exclusion of

ammonia. However, as discussed below,

it does not fully evaluate the impact of

controlling VOC as a precursor for PM 2.

5

attainment, even though other

information in the Plan indicates that

controlling VOC, in addition to S02 and

NOx, may contribute significantly to

reductions in ambient PM 2.5 levels in

the SJV.

As mentioned above, ambient

contribution and ambient sensitivity to

emissions changes may both be

considered in determining whether the

presumption for an attainment plan

precursor should be reversed. The 2008

PM 2.5 Plan contains numerous

qualitative statements that San Joaquin

Valley's ambient PM 2.5 levels are

dominated by ammonium nitrate, and

that NON reductions are more effective

at reducing ambient PM2.5 than

reductions in the other precursors. Most

of those statements are in Chapter 3 and

Appendix F, and are based on excerpts

of findings from CRPAQS. Several of the

cited CRPAQS documents are available

at CARB's "Central California Air

Quality Studies" Web site (at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/airways).

For the 1997 annual and 24-hour

PM 2 .5 NAAQS, the 2008 PM 2 .

5 Plan

contains some qualitative descriptions

of precursor ambient contributions. For

example, the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan states on

p. 2-8 that annual concentrations are

driven by wintertime concentrations

and further, that the highest short term

concentrations are driven by ammonium

nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS study:

For most of the sites within the SJV,

50-75% of the annual average PM 2.

5

concentration could be attributed to a

high PM 2.

5 period occurring from

November to January. At non-urban

sites, the elevated PM2 .

5 was driven by

secondary [ammonium nitrate].16

There are also quantitative data in the

Plan's Appendix G (p. G-21, Table 2)

and, projected to 2014, in the Receptor

Modeling Documentation (RMD).

Ammonium nitrate for 2000 monitored

data ranges from 24-36 percent of total

PM 2.

5 , and if projected to 2014, ranges

from 36-51 percent, confirming the

importance of NOx, one source of the

nitrate in ammonium nitrate, as a

precursor that significantly contributes

to annual PM 2.5 levels in the SJV.

In addition to composition data,

ambient sensitivity to emissions

changes can also be a consideration in

determining which pollutants should be

regulated in the attainment plan for a

specific area. For ammonium nitrate

PM 2 .

5 , which is formed from both

ammonia and NON, a key issue is

whether the control of either or both

precursors would be effective at

reducing ambient PM 2.

5 concentrations.

Among the findings cited in the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan that address this issue are

that:

Particulate [ammonium nitrate]

concentrations are limited by the rate of

[nitric acid] formation, rather than by the

availability of [ammonia].

and

Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid

concentrations show that ammonia is far

more abundant than nitric acid, which

indicates that ammonium nitrate formation is

limited by the availability of nitric acid,

rather than ammonia * * *. This study's

analyses suggest that reductions in NOx

emissions will be more effective in reducing

secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol

concentrations than reductions in ammonia

emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will

reduce secondary organic aerosol

concentrations and may reduce ammonium

nitrate. * * * The results indicate

ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately

controlled by NOx emission rates and the

other species, including VOCs and

background ozone, which control the rate of

NOx oxidation in winter, rather than by

ammonia emissions. 17

These findings are based on the

relative abundance of ammonia relative

to nitrate: There is so much ammonia

present that significantly reducing its

emissions would still leave ample

16 Quote from "Initial Data Analysis of Field

Program Measurements," DRI Document No. 2497,

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

Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy,

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

G. Watson, Desert Research Institute.

17 Quote from Lurmann, F. et. al., 2006,

"Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol

Formation in the San Joaquin Valley During

Winter," Journal of the Air & Waste Management

Association, (56): 1679-1693, cited at 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan p. 3-10.

ammonia to form ammonium nitrate. On

the other hand, NON is scarce (relative

to ammonia), so reducing it could

reduce ammonium nitrate significantly.

Finally, sensitivity results from

photochemical modeling were used in

conjunction with the CMB results

mentioned above. The 2014 RMD

section on "Review of control strategy

effectiveness supported by CMAQ

nitrate particulate evaluation" shows the

projected effect of a 50 percent

reduction of NON emissions on PM 2.5

concentrations annually and in shorter

seasonal episodes. For the annual

concentration, the NON reduction

resulted in a predicted 5 pg/m3 PM 2.

5

reduction, while for the winter episode

the NON reduction resulted in a

predicted 28 pg/m 3 PM 2.

5 reduction.

2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent

reduction in ammonia emissions, on the

other hand, predicted PM 2.

5 reductions

of only 0.1 pg/m 3 on an annual basis

and 0.3 pg/m 3 during the winter

episode. RMD, p. 81. When compared to

the annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15

and 65 pg/m 3, respectively, the effect of

NON reductions appears to be

significant while the effect of ammonia

reductions does not. Thus, the data and

modeling results presented in the 2008

PM 2.5 Plan, as well as the results of the

cited studies, support the identification

of NON and the exclusion of ammonia

as PM 2.

5 attainment plan precursors,

consistent with the EPA presumption in

the PM 2.5 implementation rule.

EPA's presumption in the PM 2.

5

implementation rule is that VOC need

not be an attainment plan precursor. 40

CFR 51.1002(c)(3). As explained in the

preamble to the rule, this presumption

may not be technically justified for a

particular nonattainment area, i.e., this

presumption may be incorrect where

emissions of VOC significantly

contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the

nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586 at

20590-93, 20596-97. States or EPA may

conduct a technical demonstration to

reverse the presumptive exclusion of

VOC as a PM 2.

5 attainment plan

precursor based on the weight of

evidence of available technical and

scientific information. Id.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan contains

substantial information indicating that,

for the SJV nonattainment area, VOC

should be considered as a potential

PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor. On an

annual basis, Table 2 in Appendix G (p.

G-21,) gives an organic carbon range of

38-49 percent of the total PM 2.

5. This

organic PM 2.

5 can be further divided

into vegetative burning (9-19 percent of

total annual PM 2.

5), direct VOC PM 2.5

emissions (also 9-19 percent of total

annual PM2.5), and secondary organic

74531

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74531 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

aerosols (SOA) (2-5 percent of total

annual PM2 .5). RMD at 19. This SOA

contribution to overall PM 2.5 levels

appears to be non-negligible.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan states:

"Secondary organic aerosols (SOA)

contribute to a significant fraction of

PM 2.5. SOA is organic carbon particulate

formed in the photochemical oxidation

of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC

precursor gases. Aromatic compounds

are believed to be efficient SOA

producers contributing to this secondary

particulate." 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, p. 3-8. On

a 24-hour episodic basis, the

contribution of SOA could be higher

than the annual 2-5 percent, though it

is likely lower for the winter episodes

of most concern in the SJV, due to

decreased photochemical activity when

fog and clouds (typical for the SJV in the

winter) partially block sunlight. The

chemistry of SOA is less well

understood than the chemistry of other

chemical species, so overall these

considerations are not enough to

overcome the negative presumption for

VOC.

But as noted in the preamble to the

PM2 .5 implementation rule at pp.

20592-20593, the lightest organic

molecules can participate in

atmospheric chemistry processes that

result in the formation of ozone and

certain free radical compounds (such as

the hydroxyl radical [OH]) and these in

turn participate in oxidation reactions to

form secondary organic aerosols,

sulfates, and nitrates. That is, VOC may

be a PM 2.5 precursor not just via

formation of SOA, but also via its

participation in the oxidant chemistry

that leads to nitrate formation, a

necessary step in the formation of

ammonium nitrate PM 2.5. NON

emissions must be oxidized to nitric

acid before they form particulate

ammonium nitrate. Two pathways for

this to occur are 1) daytime oxidation by

OH, which VOC radicals help create,

and 2) nighttime oxidation by ozone. 18

The discussion in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3-10,

quoted above) also refers to VOC, which

is identified as one of the controlling

factors in NON oxidation (which as

noted above is a key process in the

formation of nitrate and ammonium

nitrate PM 2.5): "Reductions in VOC

emissions will reduce secondary organic

aerosol concentrations and may reduce

ammonium nitrate." The Plan also

states: "Relatively low non-methane

organic compounds/nitrogen oxide

ratios indicate the daytime

photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and

background-ozone limited in winter."

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

Id. If nitrate formation is VOC-limited

under some circumstances, then VOC

emission reductions could lead to

ambient PM 2.

5 reductions.

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains

sensitivity analyses for VOC, similar to

the ones described above for NON and

ammonia. According to the sensitivity

analysis, a 50 percent reduction in VOC

emissions was predicted to reduce PM 2.

5

levels by 1.3 pg/m 3 annually and 8.7 pg/

m3 for the winter episode. When

compared to the 1997 annual PM 2.

5

NAAQS of 15 pg/m 3 and 24-hour

NAAQS of 65 pg/m 3 , these projected

reductions appear significant. The 2014

RMD concludes: "Finding: VOC

reduction is effective for the annual

standard and the winter episode for

reduction of total carbon secondary

particulates."

In response to comments submitted

during the District's public comment

period on the VOC issue, the Plan states

that the "modeling has shown that VOC

reductions are not as effective in

reducing secondary PM 2.5 as NON or

S02 reductions" and that "[a]ll of the

technical evaluations for CRPAQS and

prior assessments of regional particulate

models have indicated that NON is the

dominant factor and VOC and ammonia

are not." 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan, pp.J-9 and

p.J-19. These statements about VOC

may be true, but they state only the

relative effectiveness of controlling VOC

compared to other precursors, do not

cite any supporting modeling or

technical evaluations, and do not

address the substantial information in

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan indicating that VOC

may contribute significantly to ambient

PM 2.

5 levels in the SJV.

As explained above, although EPA's

presumption in the PM 2 .

5

implementation rule is that VOC need

not be a PM 2.

5 attainment plan

precursor, this presumption may not be

technically justified for certain

nonattainment areas. Indeed, technical

information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

strongly suggests that VOC reductions

can significantly reduce ambient PM2.5

concentrations and contribute to

expeditious attainment of the PM 2.

5

NAAQS in the SJV.

Other statements in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan clearly indicate the State did not

intend to reverse the presumption for

VOC. Nevertheless, the technical

information we have identified is part of

the administrative record related to

development of the SIP provides

evidence that the VOC presumption

may not be technically justified in the

SJV. It also indicates that the State

should submit a demonstration to either

support or reverse the presumption

under the PM2.5 implementation rule

that VOC is not an attainment plan

precursor. 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(5).

In the absence of a technical

demonstration by the State, EPA

reviewed the results of several modeling

and monitoring studies of PM 2.

5 in the

San Joaquin Valley. Some of these

documents are available on the "Central

California Air Quality Studies" Web site

(at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways) and/

or are cited in the Plan and are reports

from contractors involved in CRPAQS.

Others are papers from peer-reviewed

journals and are analyses using

CRPAQS data or data from the earlier

1995 Integrated Monitoring Study

(IMS95 study). We found that four

monitoring studies and six modeling

studies were relevant to the VOC

precursor issue.' 9 Further information

on these studies as well as excerpts from

these studies are provided in the TSD.

19 These studies are:

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

"Control strategies for the reduction of airborne

particulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin

Valley", Atmospheric Environment, 39: 5325-5341

September 2005.

Livingstone, P.L., et. ci., 2009, "Simulating PM

Concentrations During a Winter Episode in a

Subtropical Valley and Sensitivity Simulations and

Evaluation methods", Atmospheric Environment,

43: 5971-5977.

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

and Roberts P.T., 2006, "Processes Influencing

Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin

Valley During Winter", Journal of the Air & Waste

Management Association, 56: 1679-1693.

McCarthy, M., 2005, "The Role of Nighttime

Chemistry in Winter Ammonium Nitrate Formation

in the San Joaquin Valley", presented at the

American Association for Aerosol Research

(AAAR), Supersites Conference, February 2005,

Atlanta, GA.

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 1998, "Conceptual

Model of Particulate Matter Pollution in the

California San Joaquin Valley", prepared by

Atmospheric and Environmental Research for

Pacific Gas & Electric, Document Number CP045-

1-98, 8 September 1998.

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

Particulate Matter Nitrate Formation to Precursor

Emissions in the California San Joaquin Valley",

Environmental Science and Technology, 35: 2979-

2987.

Pun, B., 2004, "CRPAQS Task 2.7 When and

Where Does High 03 Correspond to High PM 2.5?

How Much PM 2.5 Corresponds to Photochemical

End Products?", prepared by Atmospheric and

Environmental Research, Inc. for the San Joaquin

Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency.

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

"Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation

in Central California", Atmospheric Environment,

43: 402-409.

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

Steiner, W., and Sylte, W.W., 2000, "The

Ammonium Nitrate Particle Equivalent of NOx

Emissions for Continental Wintertime Conditions",

Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4711-4717.

Ying, Q., Lu, J., and Kleeman, M., 2009,

"Modeling air quality during the California Regional

PM 10/PM 2.

5 Air Quality Study (CPRAQS) using the

UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model-Part

II. Regional source apportionment of secondary

and total airborne particulate matter", Atmospheric

Environment, 43: 419-430, January 2009.

74532

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74532 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

The monitoring studies all contain

evidence that the VOC pathway for

nitrate creation is important at least

some of the time but differ as to how

important it is relative to other

pathways such as the nighttime ozone

pathway, and are not conclusive on the

efficacy of VOC controls. Unlike the

monitoring studies, most of the

modeling studies explicitly assessed the

relative effectiveness of precursor

controls, simulating the effect of 50

percent reductions in NOx, ammonia,

and VOC. (One study does not explicitly

address the issue, but states that

background ozone is the most important

oxidant, implying that VOC control

would have little effect.) The two

earliest modeling studies are based on

photochemical box modeling and differ

on whether VOC controls would

significantly affect PM 2.

5. Three later

studies use more sophisticated

photochemical grid models and find

VOC control to be effective, though

generally less so than NOx control. One

study predicts VOC control to be about

two-thirds as effective as NOx control.

The second study predicted VOC

control to be effective, though only by

a relatively small amount, at most 10

percent for a 50 percent reduction in

VOC emissions, or only on certain days.

The third grid modeling study predicts

VOC control to give slightly more

benefit than NOx control. While the

models, input data, and results differ

between these studies, they provide

ample evidence that control of VOC can

significantly reduce PM 2.5

concentrations in the SJV. EPA is,

therefore, proposing to find that these

studies constitute a technical

demonstration that VOC is a PM 2.

5

attainment plan precursor, necessitating

the evaluation of controls for VOC for

PM 2.

5 attainment in the SJV.

EPA proposes to concur with the

evaluation in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan that,

at this time, ammonia does not need to

be considered an attainment plan

precursor for purposes of attaining the

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.20

However, because the Plan and

independent scientific studies contain

substantial information indicating that

2 0 EPA's proposed concurrence on excluding

ammonia as an attainment plan precursor is limited

to the attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA

revised the 24-hour PM 2 .5 standards in 2006 to

lower them to 35 pg/m 3 and is currently reviewing

both the annual and 24-hour standards to determine

if they should be further revised to protect public

health. See EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review

of the Particulate Matter NAAQS, Second External

Review Draft, June 2010. Evaluation of ammonia

controls for the attainment of the 2006 standards

and any future revised standards may show that

such controls would significantly contribute to

lower PM2.5 levels in the Valley.

VOC significantly contributes to PM 2.5

concentrations in the SJV, EPA is

proposing to find that VOC is a PM 2.

5

attainment plan precursor for the SJV

PM 2.

5 nonattainment area under 40 CFR

51.1002(c)(3) and thus must be

evaluated for emissions reductions

measures. 21

4. Extension of the Attainment Date

CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that

an area's attainment date "shall be the

date by which attainment can be

achieved as expeditiously as

practicable, but no later than 5 years

from the date such area was designated

nonattainment * * *, except that the

Administrator may extend the

attainment date to the extent the

Administrator determines appropriate,

for a period no greater than 10 years

from the date of designation as

nonattainment considering the severity

of nonattainment and the availability

and feasibility of pollution control

measures."

Because the effective date of

designations for the 1997 PM2.5

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

the initial attainment date for PM 2.

5

nonattainment areas is as expeditiously

as practicable but not later than April 5,

2010. For any areas that are granted a

full five-year attainment date extension

under section 172, the attainment date

would be not later than April 5, 2015.

Section 51.1004 of the PM 2.5

implementation rule addresses the

attainment date requirement. Section

2 1

In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM10 plan, EPA

determined that for the purposes of section

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

from CRPAQS, VOC does not contribute

significantly to PMlo levels which exceed the

standards in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May

26, 2004). In that determination, EPA relied on the

criteria that VOC control was not shown to be

absolutely necessary for PM10 attainment and that

it had a lower effectiveness than NOx control in

reduction PM10 . In addition, EPA noted in its 2004

final rule the District's intention to re-examine the

VOC issue when CRPAQS results were available. 69

FR 30010.

Since its 2004 finding, EPA promulgated the

PM 2.5 implementation rule, which has an explicit

criterion for determining which PM 2.5 precursors

must be evaluated for controls, namely, that a significant change in emissions of the precursor

would be projected to provide a significant change

in PM 2 .5 concentrations in the nonattainment area.

See 72 FR 20586 at 20590 and 40 CFR 51.1000. This

is a different criterion than the one relied on in the

2004 determination. Data and analyses from

CRPAQS have also become available. These

developments since 2004 support a finding

different from our 2004 one.

We also note that the 2004 finding was made for

the PM10 standards rather than the PM 2.5 standards.

The levels of the 24-hour and annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS

(65 pg/m 3 and 15 pg/m 3) are much lower than those

for the 24-hour and (revoked) annual PM10

standards (150 pg/m 3 and 50 pg/m3). A given

concentration change is therefore likely to be more

significant for the PM 2.5 standards than for the PM10

standards.

51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an

attainment demonstration justifying its

proposed attainment date and provides

that EPA will approve an attainment

date when we approve that

demonstration. Thus, our approval of an

extended attainment date is dependent

upon a demonstration showing

expeditious attainment and likewise,

dependent upon proper evaluation of

what constitutes RACM/RACT level

controls in the area.

States that request an extension of the

attainment date under CAA section

172(a)(2) must provide sufficient

information to show that attainment by

April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the

severity of the nonattainment problem

in the area and the lack of available and

feasible control measures to provide for

faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b).

States must also demonstrate that all

RACM and RACT for the area are being

implemented to bring about attainment

of the standard by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable for the area.

72 FR 20586 at 20601. Thus, the proper

evaluation of RACM/RACT controls is

an integral part of justifying an

extension of the attainment date.

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan includes a

demonstration that the attainment date

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

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

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

demonstration is found in Chapter 9 of

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and is derived from

the air quality modeling in the Plan.

SJV's degree of PM 2.

5 nonattainment

can fairly be characterized as severe.

The area typically records the highest

ambient PM 2.5 levels in the nation, with

2007-2009 design values for the annual

and 24-hour PM 2.

5 levels in urban

Bakersfield area of 22.6 pg/m 3 and 70

pg/m 3 , respectively. See EPA, Air

Quality System, Design Value Report,

August 9, 2010. The PM2.

5 problem in

the San Joaquin Valley is complex,

caused by both direct and secondary

PM 2.5 and compounded by the area's

topographical and meteorological

conditions that are particularly

conducive to the formation and

concentration of PM 2.

5 particles. See

2008 PM 2.5 plan, Chapter 3.

As discussed in section IV.C.2.a.

above, the District's strategy for

attaining the PM 2.5 standard relies on

reductions of direct PM 2.5 as well as the

PM 2.5 precursor pollutants NOx and

SO 2. The SJV needs significant

reductions in PM 2.

5 and NOx to

demonstrate attainment. EPA believes

that further reduction of these

pollutants is challenging because the

State and local air pollution regulations

already in place include most of the

74533

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74533 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

readily available PM2 .

5 and NOx, control

measures. Moreover, attainment in the

SJV depends upon emissions reductions

that offset the emissions increases

associated with the projected increases

in population and emissions levels for

this high-growth area.

Reductions of direct PM2 .

5 are

achieved primarily from open burning,

commercial charbroiling, and

residential wood combustion control

measures. These types of control

measures present special

implementation challenges (e.g., the

large number of individuals subject to

regulation and the difficulty of applying

conventional technological control

solutions). NOx reductions come largely

from District rules for fuel combustion

sources and from the State's mobile

source rules.

Because of the necessity of obtaining

additional emissions reductions from

these source categories in the SJV and

the need to conduct significant public

outreach if applicable control

approaches are to be effective, EPA

agrees with the District and CARB that

the 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan reflects expeditious

implementation of the available control

programs during the 2008-2014 time

frame. EPA also agrees that the

implementation schedule for enhanced

stationary source controls is

expeditious, taking into account the

time necessary for purchase and

installation of the required control

technologies. Finally, we believe that it

is not feasible at this time to accelerate

the emission reduction schedule for the

State and Federal mobile source

requirements which must rely on fleet

turnover over the years to ultimately

deliver the anticipated emission

reductions. The District's control

strategies are discussed in greater detail

in Chapter 6 of the 2008 PM 2 .

5 Plan, and

in section IV.C.2.a. above.

In addition, the State has adopted

standards for many categories of on-road

and off-road vehicles and engines, and

gasoline and diesel fuels, and included

commitments to develop rules for Smog

Check Improvements, Cleaner In-Use

Heavy-Duty Trucks, and Cleaner In-Use

Off-Road Equipment.

EPA believes that the District and

State are implementing these rules and

programs as expeditiously as

practicable. We anticipate, however,

that the District and CARB will

reevaluate this conclusion after

completion of the mid-course review of

the PM2.5 attainment SIP for this area,

due in April 2011. EPA also expects that

the District and CARB will continue to

investigate opportunities to accelerate

progress toward attainment as new

control opportunities arise, and that the

agencies will promptly adopt and

expeditiously implement any new

measures found to be feasible in the

future.

As discussed in section IV.D.2. above,

we are proposing to disapprove the air

quality modeling in the 2008 PM 2 .

5 plan

because it is insufficiently documented

for us to evaluate its adequacy. Without

adequate air quality modeling, it is not

possible to determine the reductions

needed to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in

the SJV and, in turn, to evaluate, as

required by CAA section 172(a)(2), the

availability and feasibility of controls

needed to attain.

As discussed in section IV.C.3. above,

we are also proposing to disapprove the

RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV

2008 PM 2 .

5 Plan in part because it does

not consider RACM/RACT for VOC

sources. As stated in the PM 2.

5

implementation rule (72 FR 20586 at

20601), EPA cannot grant an extension

of the attainment date beyond the initial

five years provided by section

172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not

adequately considered and evaluated

the implementation of RACM and RACT

in the area. By definition, RACM/RACT

are those controls that are necessary to

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously

as practicable and to meet any RFP

requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010(a).

Without an adequate evaluation of

potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC

sources, EPA is unable to determine

whether the State's requested

attainment date is as expeditious as

practicable in accordance with CAA

172 (a) (2).

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to

not grant California's request for an

attainment date extension to April 5,

2015 for the San Joaquin Valley. Given

the severity of the PM2 .5 nonattainment

problem in the SJV, an extension of the

attainment date would most likely be

appropriate and approvable if it were

supported by the necessary analysis and

part of an attainment plan that meets the

applicable statutory and regulatory

requirements including RACM/RACT

and an expeditious attainment

demonstration.

5. Attainment Demonstration

Table 7 below summarizes the

reductions that are relied upon in the

2008 PM2 .5 Plan to demonstrate

attainment by April 5, 2015. The

attainment target numbers in this table

should be considered preliminary

because they are derived from the Plan's

air quality modeling analysis, which we

are proposing to disapprove.

TABLE 7-SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR SJV's PM 2.5 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

(tons per average annual day)

PM 2.5 NOx SO 2

A . 2 00 5 e m issio ns leve l ............................................................................................................... 86 .0 5 75 .4 26 .4

B . 20 14 attainm ent ta rget ............................................................................................................ 63 .3 29 1.2 24 .6

C. Total reductions needed by 2014 (A-B) ................................................................................. 22.7 284.2 1.8

D. Reductions from baseline (pre-2007) measures .................................................................... 11.0 199.2 0.9

Percent of total reductions from baseline measures ........................................................... 49.5% 70.8% 50%

E. Reductions needed from new measures (C-D) ..................................................................... 11.7 85.0 0.9

Percent of total reductions needed from new measures ..................................................... 50.5% 29.2% 50%

N e w D istrict re d uctio n s ................................................................................................................ 6 .7 9 .0 0 .9

Percent of total reductions needed from new District measures ......................................... 28.5% 3.2% 50%

N e w S ta te re d uctio n s .................................................................................................................. 5 .0 7 6 .0 0 .0

Percent of total reductions needed from new State measures ........................................... 22.0% 1 26.7% 1 0%

Source: 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, pp. 8-2 and 9-3.

As shown in this table, the majority

of reductions that the State projects are

needed for PM2 .5 attainment in the SJV

by 2015 come from baseline reductions,

i.e., from adopted measures that have

generally been approved by EPA either

through the SIP or the CAA section 209

waiver process. See Appendices A and

B of the TSD. The remaining reductions

needed for attainment are to be achieved

through the District's and CARB's

commitments to reduce emissions in the

74534

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74534 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

SJV. Since the submittal of the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy,

SJVAPCD has already adopted measures

(summarized in Table 8 below) that can aggregate emissions reduction in its

be credited toward reducing its enforceable commitments.

TABLE 8-SUMMARY OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENTS IN THE 2008 PM 2.5 PLAN AND SJV PORTION OF THE 2007 STATE

STRATEGY

(Tons per average annual day)

PM 2.5 NOx Sox

Total reductions needed for attainm ent ................................................................................................... 22.7 284.2 1.8

T otal State and D istrict com m itm ent ....................................................................................................... 11.7 85 .0 0 .9

Less reductions from currently creditable m easures .............................................................................. 2.3 5.2 0.1

T otal re m a ining co m m itm ents ................................................................................................................. 9 .4 79 .8 0 .8

Total remaining commitments as a percent of reductions needed for attainment ................................. 41% 28% 1 44%

a. Enforceable Commitments

As shown above, measures already

adopted by the District and CARB (both

prior to and as part of the 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan) provide the majority of emissions

reductions the State projects are needed

to demonstrate attainment. The balance

of the needed reductions is in the form

of enforceable commitments by the

District and CARB. This approach is

consistent with past practice because

the CAA allows approval of enforceable

commitments that are limited in scope

where circumstances exist that warrant

the use of such commitments in place

of adopted measures. 22 Once EPA

determines that circumstances warrant

consideration of an enforceable

22 Commitments approved by EPA under CAA

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

citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304,

respectively. In the past, EPA has approved

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced

these actions against states that failed to comply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement

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

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

imposed.

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

"shall include enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures, means or techniques * * *

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the

applicable requirement of the Act." Section

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

nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section

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

CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any

"means or techniques" that EPA determines are

"necessary or appropriate" to meet CAA

requirements, such that the area will attain as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the

designated date. Furthermore, the express

allowance for "schedules and timetables"

demonstrates that Congress understood that all

required controls might not have to be in place

before a SIP could be fully approved.

commitment, EPA considers three

factors in determining whether to

approve the CAA requirement that relies

on the enforceable commitment: (a)

Does the commitment address a limited

portion of the CAA-requirement; (b) is

the state capable of fulfilling its

commitment; and (c) is the commitment

for a reasonable and appropriate period

of time. 23

We believe that, with respect to the

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and revised 2007 State

Strategy, circumstances warrant the

consideration of enforceable

commitments as part of the attainment

demonstration for this area. As shown

in Table 9 above, the majority of

emissions reductions that the State

currently estimates are needed to

demonstrate attainment and RFP in the

SJV come from rules and regulations

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

they come from the baseline measures.

As a result of these already adopted

District and State measures, most

sources in the San Joaquin Valley

nonattainment area were already subject

to stringent rules prior to the

development of the 2007 State Strategy

and the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, leaving fewer

and more technologically challenging

opportunities to reduce emissions. In

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and the 2007 State

Strategy, the District and CARB

identified potential control measures

that could achieve the additional

emissions reductions needed for

attainment. However, the timeline

needed to develop, adopt, and

implement these measures went well

beyond the April 5, 2008 24 deadline to

2 3 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections

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

application of the three factor test in approving

enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP

for Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al.

v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). 24 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to

address both the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 1997

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

due in November 2007, and the development and

adoption of the State Strategy was timed to

submit the PM 2.

5 attainment plan. As

discussed above and below, since 2007,

the District and State have made

progress in adopting measures to meet

their commitments, but have not

completely fulfilled them. Given these

circumstances, the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan's

and 2007 State Strategy's reliance on

enforceable commitments is warranted.

We now consider the three factors EPA

uses to determine whether the use of

enforceable commitments in lieu of

adopted measures to meet a CAA

planning requirement is approvable.

i. The Commitment Must Represent a

Limited Portion of Required Reductions

For the first factor, we look to see if

the commitment addresses a limited

portion of a statutory requirement, such

as the amount of emissions reductions

needed for attainment in a

nonattainment area. As shown in Table

8 above, the remaining portion of the

enforceable commitments in the 2008

PM 2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy

are 9.4 tpd direct PM2.5, 79.8 tpd NON

and 0.8 tpd SO2 . When compared to the

State's current estimate of the

reductions needed by 2014 for PM 2.

5

attainment in the SJV, the remaining

portion of the enforceable commitments

represents approximately 41 percent of

the needed PM 2.

5 reductions, 28 percent

of the needed NON reductions, and 44

percent of the needed SO 2 reductions.

Historically, EPA has approved SIPs

with enforceable commitments in the

range of 10 percent or less of the total

needed reductions for attainment. See,

for examples, our approval of the SJV

PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26,

2004), approval of the SJV 1-hour ozone

plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010),

and approval of the Houston-Galveston

plan at 66 FR 57160, 57161 (November

14, 2001).

We note that there are significant

emissions reductions tied to the Cleaner

coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State

Strategy, p. 1.

74535

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74535 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure and

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines listed

in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report,

page 6. EPA understands that the State

is currently revising these rules for readoption in late 2010 and subsequent

submittal for EPA approval. It is

possible that the reductions from these

measures and several outstanding

District rules will reduce the percentage

of the remaining portion of the

enforceable commitments to below 10

percent of the total emissions reductions

needed for attainment. However, until

these (or other) measures are adopted,

submitted, and EPA approved, we

believe that the percentages of

enforceable commitments for direct

PM2.5, NOx, and S02 relied upon in the

2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy

are too high and do not represent a

limited portion of the State's current

estimate of total emissions reductions

needed to meet the statutory

requirement for attainment in the SJV.

ii. The State Must Be Capable of

Fulfilling its Commitment

For the second factor, we consider

whether the District and State are

capable of fulfilling their commitments.

As discussed above, following the

adoption and submittal of the 2007 State

Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted

the 2009 State Strategy Status Report

which shows the State's progress in

achieving its enforceable commitments

for the SJV. The 2009 State Strategy

Status Report shows that during 2007

and 2008, the State has adopted rules

for ten measures identified in the 2007

State Strategy and three rules that were

not identified in the Strategy that will

contribute to the needed PM2 .5 and NOx

reductions. The 2009 State Strategy

Status Report includes a table with

estimates of the reductions that may

fulfill the CARB's full commitment. See

2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 18.

EPA believes that the District has also

made good progress in meeting its

enforceable commitments as shown in

Table 2 above. We also believe that the

District's continued efforts in

committing to and adopting measures

for sources under its jurisdiction will

help it meet its commitments. In

addition, beyond the rules discussed

above, both CARB and the District have

well-funded incentive grants programs

to reduce emissions from the on- and

off-road engine fleets.

While progress has been made by the

District and State to achieve their

enforceable commitments, there are still

significant reductions that must be

addressed in order to satisfy the

commitments. As discussed above, the

remaining portion of the enforceable

commitments is 28 to 44 percent for the

relevant pollutants. Given the evidence

of the State's and District's efforts to

date and their continuing efforts to

reduce emissions, we believe that the

State and District are capable of meeting

their enforceable commitments to

achieve total reductions of 11.7 tpd

direct PM 2.5 , 85 tpd NOx, and 0.9 tpd

S02 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014.

iii. The Commitment Must Be for a

Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

Finally, for the third factor, we

consider whether the commitments are

for a reasonable and appropriate period

of time. In order to meet the

commitments by 2014, the 2008 PM2 .5

Plan and 2007 State Strategy include an

ambitious rule development, adoption,

and implementation schedules. EPA

considers these schedules to provide

sufficient time to achieve the committed

reductions by 2014. As we have noted

previously, many of the scheduled

measures have been adopted. See Tables

2 and 5 above and the 2009 State

Strategy Status Report, pp. 4, 17 and 23.

The State and District are continuing to

evaluate their adopted measures and the

need for additional emissions

reductions from new measures in this

area. While we believe the State and

District have provided reasonable and

appropriate schedules for achieving

their commitments by 2014, as

discussed above, EPA is not proposing

to grant the attainment date extension

for the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, we

cannot currently conclude that the third

factor is satisfied.

6. Proposed Action on the Attainment

Demonstration

In order to approve a SIP's attainment

demonstration, EPA must make several

findings and approve the plan's

proposed attainment date.

First, we must find that the

demonstration's technical bases,

including the emissions inventories and

air quality modeling, are adequate. As

discussed above in sections IV.B. and

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

emissions inventories but to disapprove

the air quality modeling on which the

SJV 2008 PM 2 .5 Plan's attainment

demonstration and other provisions are

based.

Second, we must find that the SIP

submittal provides for expeditious

attainment through the implementation

of all RACM and RACT. As discussed

above in section IV.C., we are proposing

to disapprove the RACM/RACT

demonstration in the SJV PM2 .5 SIP.

Third, EPA must find that the

emissions reductions that are relied on

for attainment are creditable. While EPA

has previously accepted enforceable

commitments in lieu of adopted control

measures in attainment demonstrations,

EPA has done so only when the

circumstances warranted it and the

commitments met three criteria. We

believe that circumstances here warrant

the consideration of enforceable

commitments. We also believe that both

the State and the District have

demonstrated the capability to meet

their commitments. However, the

commitments do not constitute a

limited portion of the required

emissions reductions needed for

attainment and are not for an

appropriate timeframe. The State's and

District's unfulfilled commitments

currently represent 41 percent of the

PM2 .5 reductions, 28 percent of the NOx

reductions, and 44 percent of the S02

emissions reductions (30 percent of the

combined emissions reductions of all

pollutants) currently estimated to be

required for attainment of the 1997

PM2 .5 NAAQS in the SJV. These

percentages are well above the 10

percent figure generally accepted by

EPA to approve an attainment

demonstration that relies in part on

enforceable commitments.

Finally, for a PM2 .5 nonattainment

area that cannot attain within five years

of its designation as nonattainment, EPA

must grant an extension of the

attainment date in order to approve the

attainment demonstration for the area.

As discussed above in section IV.D.4.,

while we believe that an extension of

the attainment date would be

appropriate if supported by the

necessary analysis, we are not at this

time proposing to grant the State's

request to extend the attainment date in

the SJV to April 5, 2015.

For the foregoing reasons, we are

proposing to disapprove the attainment

demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2 .

5

Plan.

E. Reasonable Further Progress

Demonstration

1. Requirements for RFP

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that

plans for nonattainment areas shall

provide for reasonable further progress

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

as "such annual incremental reductions

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant

as are required by this part or may

reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

[NAAQS] by the applicable date."

The PM 2.5 implementation rule

requires submittal of an RFP plan at the

same time as the attainment

demonstration for any area for which a

74536

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74536 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

state requests an extension of the

attainment date beyond 2010. For areas

for which the state requests an

attainment date extension to 2015, such

as SJV, the RFP plan must demonstrate

that in the applicable milestone years of

2009 and 2012, emissions in the area

will be at a level consistent with

generally linear progress in reducing

emissions between the base year and the

attainment year. 40 CFR 51.1009(d).

States may demonstrate this by showing

that emissions for each milestone year

are roughly equivalent to benchmark

emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and

each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor

addressed in the plan. The steps for

determining the benchmark emissions

levels to demonstrate generally linear

progress are provided in 40 CFR

51.1009(f).

The RFP plan must describe the

control measures that provide for

meeting the reasonable further progress

milestones for the area, the timing of

implementation of those measures, and

the expected reductions in emissions of

directly-emitted PM2 .

5 and PM2 .5

attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR

51.1009(c).

2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV

2008 PM2 .

5 Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter

8 of the 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan. The

demonstration addresses direct PM2 5,

NOx, and S02, uses the 2005 annual

average day inventory as the base year

inventory, and assumes 2014 as the

attainment year. The measures that the

2008 PM2 .

5 Plan depends on for RFP and

the emissions reductions from each

measure in each year are given in Table

6-3 of the 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan.

The 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan presents the RFP

demonstration in terms of cumulative

emissions reductions and percent of

emissions reductions per year. See

Table 8-4 in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan. This

demonstration reserves 1 percent of the

direct PM2 .

5 baseline (0.8 tpd) and 3

percent of the NOx baseline (12-15 tpd

NOx) as contingency measures by

decreasing the cumulative emissions

reductions in each milestone year by

these amounts. 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan, p. 8-3.

The Plan does not include a

contingency reserve for S02. We discuss

this contingency reserve below in the

section on contingency measures.

However, for the purposes of our

evaluation of the RFP demonstration as

presented in Table 9 below, we have not

included it. This allows us to evaluate

if the 2008 PM2 .5 Plan would

demonstrate the required RFP without

the contingency reserve. We note that

the RFP demonstration presented in

Table 9 is based on the State's current

estimate of the emissions levels needed

for attainment in the SJV.

TABLE 9-BENCHMARK RFP DEMONSTRATION USING PLAN DATA No CONTINGENCY MEASURE RESERVE

(Tons per annual average day)

PM 2.

5 NOx SO 2

2009

B e nchm a rk e m issions leve l ......................................................................................................... 75 .9 449 .1 25 .2

P rojected em issio ns leve l ............................................................................................................ 78 .2 498 .5 22 .9

Emissions above benchmark emissions level ............................................................................. 2.3 49.4 -2.2

Percent above benchmark emissions level ................................................................................. 3.0 11.0 -8.9

2012

Benchm a rk em issions level ......................................................................................................... 68 .3 354 .4 24 .2

P rojected em issio ns leve l ............................................................................................................ 70 .3 4 15 .8 22 .9

Emissions above benchmark emissions level ............................................................................. 2.0 61.5 -1.3

Percent above benchmark emissions level ................................................................................. 2.9 17.3 -5.4

3. Proposed Action on the RFP

Demonstration

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to disapprove the air quality modeling

in the 2008 PM2 .

5 Plan because there is

insufficient documentation for us to

determine its adequacy. Because of this,

we are also proposing to disapprove the

RFP demonstration in the 2008 PM2 .

5

Plan. Air quality modeling establishes

the emissions levels needed for

attainment in an area. Thus,

uncertainties about the adequacy of the

air quality modeling result in

uncertainties about the emissions levels

needed for attainment. These

uncertainties also affect the RFP

demonstrations because in order to

determine what constitutes "generally

linear progress" towards attainment in

an area, we must first know the target

level of emissions that the area needs to

attain.

Assuming that the State's current

estimates of the emissions levels needed

for attainment are correct and that EPA

will ultimately be able to grant an

extension of the SJV's attainment date to

April 5, 2015, Table 9 shows that the

SJV area is projected to be only slightly

above its benchmark emissions levels

for direct PM 2.5 in both 2009 and 2012

and well below the benchmark

emissions levels for SO 2 in both years.

However, for NOx, the gap between the

projected emissions and benchmark

levels is over 10 percent in 2009 and

grows to more than 17 percent in 2012.

The shortfall in RFP for NOx is

especially problematic given the nature

of the PM 2.

5 nonattainment problem in

the SJV. Ammonium nitrate contributes

40 percent of the Valley's annual PM 2.

5

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

Available information indicates that

NOx is one of the limiting compounds

in the reaction that forms ammonium

nitrate, making NOx control an effective

approach to reducing ambient PM2.5

levels in the SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-

1. Hence, the shortfalls in NOx

emissions reductions in the RFP

demonstration are likely to adversely

affect progress in reducing ambient

PM 2.5 levels in the SJV, an effect that

will likely not be compensated for by

excess reductions of SO 2.

As discussed above, we are proposing

to find that VOC is a PM 2.

5 attainment

plan precursor for which the state must

evaluate RFP, among other things. The

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan does not currently

include an RFP demonstration for VOC.

Based on our proposed disapproval of

the air quality modeling analysis and

attainment demonstration, we are

proposing to disapprove the RFP

demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

for failure to meet the requirements of

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

51.1009. We also note the lack of

generally linear progress in NOx

emissions reductions, especially in

74537

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74537 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

2012, and the lack of an RFP

demonstration for VOC. The District and

State should address both these issues

in any revision to the SJV PM 2.

5 Plan's

RFP demonstration.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency

Measures

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

PM 2.5 attainment plans must include

contingency measures to be

implemented if an area fails to meet RFP

(RFP contingency measures) and

contingency measures to be

implemented if an area fails to attain the

PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date (attainment contingency

measures). These contingency measures

must be fully adopted rules or control

measures that are ready to be

implemented quickly without

significant additional action by the

state. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also

be measures not relied on in the plan to

demonstrate RFP or attainment and

should provide SIP-creditable emissions

reductions equivalent to approximately

one year of the emissions reductions

needed for RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 20642-

43. Finally, the SIP should contain

trigger mechanisms for the contingency

measures and specify a schedule for

their implementation. Id.

Contingency measures can include

Federal, State and local measures

already scheduled for implementation

that provide emissions reductions in

excess of those reductions needed to

provide for RFP or expeditious

attainment. EPA has approved

numerous SIPs under this

interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR

15844 (April 3, 1997) direct final rule

approving Indiana ozone SIP revision;

62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), final

rule approving Illinois ozone SIP

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

direct final rule approving Rhode Island

ozone SIP revision; 66 FR 586 (January

3, 2001), final rule approving District of

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia

ozone SIP revisions; and 66 FR 634

(January 3, 2001), final rule approving

Connecticut ozone SIP revision.

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

Contingency measures are described

in Section 9.2. of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

(pp. 9-5 to 9-9) and are composed of a

new commitment by the SJVAPCD to

request that CARB accelerate adoption

and implementation of its measures and

surplus reductions from State and

District measures. In late 2008, the

SJVAPCD adopted a further contingency

measure as part of its wood burning

rule, Rule 4901. CARB identified two

additional contingency measures for the

SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan during its public

hearing on the Plan. We discuss each of

these contingency measures below.

The Plan does not calculate the

emissions reductions that are equivalent

to one year's worth of RFP. We have,

however, calculated one year's worth of

RFP to be 2.5 tpd PM 2.

5, 31.6 tpd NOx,

and 0.3 tpd SO 2 using information in

the Plan. See section 11.1. of the TSD.

This calculation is based on the State's

current estimate of the emissions

reductions needed for attainment by

2015.

Request CARB To Accelerate State

Measure Implementation-This

proposed contingency measure (which

could function as both a RFP and

attainment contingency measure),

requires the District's Governing Board

to adopt a resolution requesting CARB

to accelerate the adoption and/or

implementation of any remaining CARB

control measures that have not yet been

adopted or fully implemented. 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan, p. 9-7. Under CAA section

172(c)(9) and EPA's long-standing

policies 25 interpreting this section,

contingency measures must require

minimal additional rulemaking by the

State and take effect within a few

months of a failure to make RFP or to

attain. This proposed contingency

measure would require additional

rulemaking at the District level and

potentially substantial and lengthy

additional rulemaking at the State level

to be implemented. For these reasons,

this proposed measure does not meet

CAA requirements for contingency

measures.

Surplus Emissions Reductions from

the Ozone Nonattainment Area FeeThis proposed contingency measure

(which could function as an RFP

contingency measure for the 2012

milestone and as an attainment

contingency measure) would use fees

generated from the District Rule 3170,

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee, to

achieve emissions reductions. The

implementation of Rule 3170 is

triggered solely by a failure of the SJV

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by

its applicable attainment date (which

can occur no earlier than November 15,

2010, see CAA section 181(a)(1)) and

not by any failures to meet PM2.5 RFP

targets or to attain the 1997 PM 2.

5

NAAQS, a minimum requirement for

contingency measures for PM 2.

5 SIPs.

For this reason, this proposed measure

25 See "State Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498

at 13510 (April 16, 1992).

does not meet CAA requirements for

contingency measures. 26

Surplus Emissions Reductions from

Incentive Funds-As noted previously,

the District has several incentive grant

programs that have the potential to

generate considerable emissions

reductions. The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

suggests the use of these reductions as

contingency measures for failure either

to meet RFP or to attain. While neither

the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of

emissions reductions from incentive

programs to meet all or part of an area's

contingency measure obligation, the

incentive programs must assure that the

reductions are surplus, quantifiable,

enforceable, and permanent as required

by EPA guidance. See "Improving Air

Quality with Economic Incentive

Programs," EPA-452/R-01-001 (January

2001).

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan does not identify

the incentive grant programs expected

to generate the emissions reductions

programs, nor the quantity of the

emissions reductions, that the District

intends to use to meet the contingency

measure requirement. Therefore, we are

unable to determine if they are SIP

creditable, surplus to attainment and/or

RFP needs, or sufficient to provide the

one-year's worth of RFP needed. For

these reasons, this proposed measure

does not currently meet the CAA

requirements for contingency measures.

Excess Reductions in the RFP

Demonstration-The RFP

demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan

reserves for RFP contingency measure

purposes about 1 tpd of direct PM 2.5 and

17 tpd of NOx reductions from the total

reductions expected from the District

and State measures. No reserve is

needed for SO 2 because SO 2 emissions

levels were projected to be below the

applicable benchmarks. See 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan, p. 8-3.

As discussed above in section IV.E.,

we have proposed to disapprove the

RFP demonstration in part because we

are unable to determine if the 2008

PM 2.5 Plan provides for RFP. We have

also identified concerns with the lack of

an RFP demonstration for VOC and the

shortfall in NOx emissions reductions

needed to show generally linear

progress toward attainment. Because of

these issues, we cannot determine, at

this time, if there are any excess

26 Should the rule's requirements be triggered and

the collected fees used in an incentive program to

reduce emissions of direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and/

or SO 2, then the District may rely on those

reductions to fulfill the contingency measure

requirement for the PM 2.5 plan to the extent that the

reductions meet SIP creditability requirements and

are not otherwise needed for expeditious attainment

or RFP for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

74538

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74538 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

reductions of direct PM 2.5 and NOx in

the RFP demonstration that can be used

for RFP contingency measures.

Post-Attainment Year Emissions

Reductions-Additional emissions

reductions resulting from turnover in

the on- and off-road mobile source fleet

in 2015, the year after the attainment

year of 2014, may be used to meet the

attainment contingency measure

requirement. No estimates of the

additional emissions reductions are

given in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan. CARB

estimates the NOx reductions in 2015

from its existing (baseline) mobile

source program are 21 tpd (CARB Staff

Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin

Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 29), and we

have estimated an 0.7 tpd PM 2.

5

reduction using information in the 2007

State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 100,

although this figure is in a tons per

summer planning day metric and not

the average annual day metric that is

used in the Plan's RFP demonstration.

These emissions reductions are from

already implemented, fully creditable

measures and no further actions are

required by the State to implement

them. They are not relied on to

demonstrate either attainment or RFP.

For these reasons, these post-2014

emissions reductions may be used to

fulfill the attainment contingency

measure requirement, although based on

existing estimates of the reductions

needed to show one year's worth of

RFP, they are insufficient by themselves

to fully meet the requirement.

Contingency Provision in Rule 4901

"Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood

Burning Heaters"-In October, 2008, the

SJVAPCD revised Rule 4901 to

incorporate a contingency provision in

section 5.6.5. This provision requires

that 60 days after EPA finds the SJV

nonattainment area has failed to attain

the 1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS, the District will

lower the level at which mandatory

curtailment of residential wood burning

is required from a predicted level of 30

pg/m 3 to 20 pg/m 3 . EPA approved this

rule, including the contingency

provision, on November 10, 2009. 74 FR

57907.

This attainment contingency

provision in Rule 4901 meets the

statutory and regulatory requirements

for attainment contingency measures: It

is triggered by a failure to attain,

requires no additional rulemaking by

the District, will be fully implemented

within 60 days of being triggered, and

is SIP approved. The District has

preliminarily quantified the emissions

reductions expected from this

contingency provision at 1.6 tons of

PM 2.

5 per winter average day.2 7

Control Strategy Reductions Not

Included in the RFP and/or Attainment

Demonstrations

In its resolution approving the SJV

PM 2.

5 Plan, CARB requested that the

District adopt two additional

contingency measures. See CARB

Resolution No. 08-28, Attachment A.

These measures are revisions to

SJVAPCD's Rule 4307 (Boilers, 2 to 5

MMBtu) and Rule 4702 (Internal

Combustion Engines). While the District

had already included these rule

revisions as Measures S-COM-2 and SCOM-6 in the Plan's control strategy, it

had not estimated or included the NOx

emissions reductions from the measures

in either the Plan's RFP or attainment

demonstration. The District adopted

revisions to Rule 4307 in October 2008

and is scheduled to adopt revisions to

Rule 4702 in December 2010.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to disapprove both the RFP and

attainment demonstrations in the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan in part because we are

unable at this time to determine if the

Plan provides sufficient emissions

reductions to meet these requirements.

Until it can be shown that the

reductions from these two measures are

not needed to demonstrate either RFP or

attainment, EPA cannot approve them

as contingency measures.

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency

Measures

The 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan includes

suggestions for several potentially

approvable contingency measures as

well as several measures that do not

currently meet the CAA's minimum

requirements (e.g., no additional

rulemaking, surplus to attainment and

RFP needs). The Plan does not,

however, provide sufficient information

for us to determine if the emissions

reductions from some of the potentially

approvable measures are SIP creditable

(e.g., those from incentive grant

programs) or does not quantify the

expected emissions reductions so we

can gauge if they provide reductions

equivalent to the current estimate of one

year's worth of RFP. Therefore, we are

proposing to disapprove the RFP and

attainment contingency measure

provisions in the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan.

27 Personal communications, Jessica Ferrio,

SJVAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA, August 27, 2010.

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for

Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal

actions in nonattainment and

maintenance areas to conform to the

goals of SIPs. This means that such

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen

the severity of an existing violation, or

(3) delay timely attainment of any

NAAQS or any interim milestone.

Actions involving Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) or Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) funding

or approval are subject to the EPA's

transportation conformity rule, codified

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this

rule, MPOs in nonattainment and

maintenance areas coordinate with State

and local air quality and transportation

agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to

demonstrate that an area's regional

transportation plans (RTP) and

transportation improvement programs

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIPs.

This is typically determined by showing

that estimated emissions from existing

and planned highway and transit

systems are less than or equal to the

motor vehicle emissions budgets

(budgets) contained in the SIP. An

attainment or RFP SIP should include

budgets for the attainment year and each

required RFP year, as applicable.

Before an MPO may use budgets in a

submitted SIP, EPA must first determine

that the budgets are adequate. In order

for us to find a budget adequate and,

eventually approvable, the submittal

must meet the conformity adequacy

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)

and (5) and be approvable under all

pertinent SIP requirements. The budget

must reflect all of the motor vehicle

control measures contained in the

attainment and RFP demonstrations. See

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).

PM 2.

5 attainment and RFP plans

should identify budgets for direct PM 2.

5

and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors.

All direct PM 2.

5 SIP budgets should

include direct PM 2.5 motor vehicle

emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and

tire wear. States must also consider

whether re-entrained paved and

unpaved road dust or highway and

transit construction dust are significant

contributors and should be included in

the direct PM 2.

5 budget. See 40 CFR

93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the

conformity rule preamble at 69 FR

40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 2004). In

determining whether the on-road mobile

source emissions of a PM 2.5 attainment

plan precursor are significant, state and

local agencies should use the criteria for

74539

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74539 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

insignificance findings provided in 40

CFR 93.109(k). See also 70 FR 24280,

24282-24287 (May 6, 2005).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in

the SJV 2008 PM2 .5 Plan

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets

for direct PM 2.5 and NON for the

attainment year of 2014 and the RFP

years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5

Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C.

The direct PM 2.

5 budgets includes

tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear

emissions but do not include paved

road, unpaved road, and road and

transit construction dust because these

are considered to be insignificant

contributors to PM 2.5 levels in the

Valley. No budgets for SO2 are included

because on-road emissions of SO 2 are

also considered insignificant. Id.

There are no budgets for ammonia or

VOC in the Plan.

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/

Inadequacy Finding

On April 23, 2010, we notified CARB

that we had found the budgets in the

2008 PM 2.5 Plan for the RFP milestone

years 2009 and 2012 adequate and for

the attainment year of 2014 inadequate

for transportation conformity purposes.

EPA determined that the attainment

year budgets are inadequate because

they lack specificity and are not fully

enforceable and, therefore, do not meet

the criteria for adequacy in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4).28 We published a notice of

our findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12,

2010).

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets

Our finding that the 2009 and 2012

year RFP budgets are adequate for

transportation conformity purposes was

based on our preliminary review of the

RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan. After a more in-depth review of

these demonstrations and the Plan as a

whole, we are proposing to disapprove

the Plan's RFP demonstration for the

reasons discussed above in section IV.E.

Based on this proposed disapproval, we

are now proposing to disapprove the

2009 and 2012 year RFP budgets

because they are not consistent with

requirements for RFP as required by 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). We are also

proposing to disapprove the budgets for

the attainment year of 2014, which we

have already found to be inadequate,

based on our proposed disapproval of

28 See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division

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

Executive Officer, CARB, "RE: Adequacy Status of

San Joaquin Valley PM2 5 Reasonable Further

Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets," dated April 23, 2010.

the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan's attainment

demonstration. See section IV.D. above.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to find that VOC is a PM 2.

5 attainment

plan precursor in the San Joaquin

Valley. Should we finalize this

determination, the State should include

budgets for VOC as well as for direct

PM 2.

5 and other attainment plan

precursors as applicable in future

revisions to the Plan.

H. Mid-Course Review

Any State that submits to EPA an

attainment plan for a PM 2.

5

nonattainment area with an attainment

date of 2014 or 2015 must also submit

to EPA a mid-course review (MCR) by

April 2011. 40 CFR 51.1011. The MCR

for an area should include: (1) A review

of emissions reductions and progress

made in implementing control measures

to reduce emissions of direct PM 2.5 and

PM 2.

5 attainment plan precursors

contributing to PM 2.5 concentrations in

the area; (2) an analysis of changes in

ambient air quality data for the area; (3)

a revised air quality modeling analysis

to demonstrate attainment; and (4) any

new or revised control measures

adopted by the State, as necessary to

ensure attainment by the attainment

date in the EPA-approved SIP for the

nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1011(b).

In its resolution adopting the 2008

PM 2.

5 Plan, the SJVAPCD's Governing

Board acknowledges the requirement to

prepare a mid-course review consistent

with 40 CFR 51.1011 by April 2011. See

SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution,

page 4. In its resolution adopting the

2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, CARB commits to

submitting a MCR in 2011. See CARB

Resolution 08-28, May 22, 2008, p. 4.

SJVAPCD is already taking the initial

steps necessary to prepare its PM 2.

5

MCR. EPA will work closely with the

District, CARB, and other interested

parties to assure that the MCR addresses

the elements required by the PM 2.5

implementation rule. We encourage

both agencies to use the opportunity

afforded by the MCR to address the

proposed disapprovals of the 2008 PM 2.

5

Plan and SJV portions of the revised

2007 State Strategy.

L Inter-Pollutant Trading for PM2.

5

Offsets

EPA has issued an implementation

rule establishing the requirements for

New Source Review (NSR) programs in

PM 2.

5 nonattainment areas. See 73 FR

28321 (May 16, 2008) (PM 2.

5 NSR rule).

Under the PM 2.

5 NSR rule, during the

interim period after designation of an

area as nonattainment but before a state

has amended its NSR SIP to address

PM2.5, the NSR permitting requirements

of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply for

PM 2.5 purposes. 29 40 CFR 52.24(k); 73

FR 28321 at 28342. These Appendix S

requirements currently apply in the SJV

area.

The NSR program requires, among

other things, that new or modifying

major stationary sources offset

significant net emission increases with

creditable emissions reductions. 40 CFR

part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A.3.

Under Appendix S, section IV.G.5, these

offset requirements may currently be

satisfied by offsetting reductions of

direct PM 2.

5 emissions. They may also

currently be satisfied by offsetting

reductions of emissions of a PM 2.

5

precursor (i.e., by an interpollutant

trade) but only if such offsets comply

with an interprecursor trading hierarchy

and ratio approved by the

Administrator. That is, a new PM 2.

5

emission source is allowed to offset its

direct PM 2.

5 and/or PM 2.5 precursor

emission increases with reductions in

other PM 2.5 precursor emissions only in

accordance with a trading ratio

approved by EPA. 30

The PM 2.5 NSR rule preamble states

that precursors that are significant

contributors to PM 2.5 concentrations

should be considered regulated NSR

pollutants. 73 FR 28321 at 28326. It then

describes "significant contribution" in

the same terms as are used in the PM 2.

5

implementation rule, namely that

emissions reductions of the precursor

would be projected to provide a

significant change in PM 2.5

concentrations in the area. See 72 FR

20586 at 20590 and 73 FR 28321 at

28326. The two rules also have the same

presumption, for essentially the same

reasons, that S02 and NON should be

considered precursors, whereas

ammonia and VOC should not. See 72

FR 20586 at 20590-20596 and 73 FR

28321 at 28326-28331.

In order for precursors to be eligible

for NSR interpollutant offset trading in

a PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the area's

PM 2.5 SIP must state which

combinations of pollutants are eligible

for interpollutant trading and define and

provide the basis for the trading ratios

between them that will be used for

interpollutant offsets. In the 73 FR

28321 at 28339, EPA stated that:

29 A state with a PM2 .5 nonattainment area is

required to submit NSR SIP revisions in accordance

with the requirements of the PM 2.S NSR rule by May

16, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28342.

30 Note that several provisions of the PM 2.5 NSR

rule are currently under reconsideration, including

EPA's preferred interpollutant trading ratios. See

Letter, from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, EPA, to

Paul R. Cort, Earthjustice, April 24, 2009; 74 FR

26098 (June 1, 2009); 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009);

74 FR 48153 (September 22, 2009); and 75 FR 6827

(February 11, 2010).

74540

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74540 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

[T]he final rules allow interpollutant

trading [for offset purposes] only based on a

trading ratio established in the SIP as part of

the attainment demonstration approved for a

specific nonattainment area * * *. [T]he

final rules do not allow interpollutant trading

on a case-by-case basis as part of an

individual [nonattainment area] NSR

permitting process. * * * If States choose to

develop their own hierarchies/trading ratios,

they will have to substantiate by modeling

and/or other technical demonstrations of the

net air quality benefit for PM2 .

5 ambient

concentrations, and such a trading program

will have to be approved by EPA.

"Hierarchy" refers to an identification of

which combinations of pollutants are

eligible for trading, e.g., S02 for primary

PM 2.5, S02 for NOx, etc.

EPA completed a technical

assessment to develop preferred

interpollutant trading ratios that may be

used for the purposes of PM 2.

5 offsets,

where appropriate. 31 Based on this

assessment, EPA disallowed trading

directly between NOx and S02 and set

preferred trading ratios at 100:1 for NOx

to primary PM 2.

5 trades and 40:1 for S02

to primary PM 2.

5 trades. See 73 FR

28321 at 28339. The PM 2.

5 NSR rule

preamble also states at 28340 that:

th[e] rule allows interpollutant and

interprecursor trading of offsets according to

a SIP-approved trading program. To be

approved, the trading program must either

adopt EPA's recommended trading ratios or

be supported by regional-scale modeling that

demonstrates a net air quality benefit using

appropriate overall offset ratios for such

trades for a specified nonattainment area,

State, or multi-State region.

The PM 2.5 NSR rule preamble at

28339 describes factors that should be

considered by a State in developing

area-specific ratios. Additional

considerations for developing such

ratios for the SJV are discussed in

section II.K. of the TSD.

In summary, interpollutant trades for

purposes of meeting the NSR offset

requirement for PM 2.5 emissions are

permissible only in accordance with

trading ratios established in the SIP as

part of the attainment demonstration

approved for the nonattainment area.

The SIP must explicitly identify which

precursors are "regulated NSR

pollutants", which combinations are

eligible for interpollutant trading, and

the trading ratios between the

pollutants. A state may either adopt

EPA's recommended trading ratios (73

FR 28321 at 28339) or seek to establish

alternative ratios, using modeling and/

31 These factors are in addition to the overall goal

of the NSR permitting to show net air quality

benefit and the underlying rationale for offsets to

provide progress toward NAAQS attainment while

allowing new sources to be constructed and existing

sources to expand.

or other technical demonstrations

showing that the trading ratios provide

a net air quality benefit, which must be

approved by EPA. A state must establish

these ratios as part of an approved

attainment demonstration for its area;

EPA will not allow case-by-case

demonstrations on an individual source

permit basis.

The SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not

explicitly identify PM 2.

5 precursors that

are subject to NSR permitting. The Plan

states, however, that:

[SJVAPCD] Rule 2201 [New and Modified

Stationary Source Review] allows the use of

interpollutant trading amongst criteria

pollutants and their precursors upon the

appropriate scientific demonstration of an

adequate trading ratio. These caps [on the use

of pre-baseline credits] also apply to the use

of VOC, NOx, and SO, [emission reduction

credits] in their application as offsets for

direct emissions and in their use as PM2 .5

precursor interpollutant offsets.

See 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D4.

It appears from this discussion that

the District considers VOC, NOx, and

SO 2 to be "regulated NSR pollutants" for

PM 2.

5 NSR purposes and that the

District intends to allow for

interpollutant trading to satisfy PM2.5

permit requirements. 32 The SJV PM 2.5

Plan does not, however, provide a

technical demonstration to support any

conclusion as to the precursor

combinations that should be eligible for

interpollutant trading or the appropriate

trading ratio for use in NSR permitting

for PM 2.

5. It also appears from the Plan

(at Appendix D, p. D-4) that the District

intends to allow for interpollutant

trades to satisfy PM 2.

5 offset

requirements on a case-by-case basis,

which is not permissible under the

PM 2.

5 NSR rule. If the District intends to

seek EPA approval of alternative

interpollutant offset ratios for purposes

of meeting PM 2.

5 NSR offset

requirements, it must submit an

adequate technical demonstration to

support its proposed ratios, together

with an approvable attainment

demonstration, consistent with EPA

regulatory requirements.

V. EPA's Proposed Actions and

Potential Consequences

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and

Disapprovals

For the reasons discussed above, EPA

is proposing to approve in part and

3 2 This identification of VOC as a regulated NSR

pollutant for PM 2.5 is contrary to the District's

assertions in the Plan that controls on VOC sources

are not important for PM2 5 attainment but supports

EPA's proposal to determine that VOC should be

considered a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in

addition to NOx and SO2 See section LV.C. above.

disapprove in part California's

attainment SIP for the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area for the 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of

the SJVAPCD's 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan and the

portions of CARB's revised 2007 State

Strategy that address CAA and EPA

regulations for attainment of the 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment

area.

EPA is proposing to approve under

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following

elements of the SJV PM 2.

5 attainment

SIP:

1. The SIP's base year and baseline

emissions inventories as meeting the

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3)

and 40 CFR 51.1008.

2. SJVAPCD's commitments to the

adoption and implementation schedule

for specific control measures listed in

Table 6-2 (amended June 15, 2010) of

the 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan to the extent that

these commitments have not yet been

fulfilled and to achieve specific

aggregate emissions reductions of direct

PM 2.5, NOx and SO 2 by year, as listed

in Table 6-3 of the PM 2.

5 Plan, as a SIP

strengthening; and

3. CARB's commitments to propose

certain defined measures, as listed on

page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status

Report and to achieve aggregate

emissions reductions of 5 tpd direct

PM 2.5, 76 tpd NOx, and 23 tpd VOC in

the San Joaquin Valley by 2014, as listed

in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report,

p. 21, as a SIP strengthening; and to

submit a mid-course review on the SJV

PM 2.5 Plan as stated in the CARB

Resolution 08-28, p. 4.

EPA is also proposing to find

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1002(c), that

VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan

precursor for the SJV and, therefore,

controls on sources of VOC must be

evaluated as part of the control strategy

in the SJV PM 2.

5 attainment SIP.

EPA is proposing to disapprove under

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following

elements of the SJV PM 2.

5 attainment

SIP:

1. The reasonably available control

measures/reasonably available control

technology demonstration as failing to

meet the requirements of CAA section

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

2. The reasonable further progress

demonstrations for failing to meet the

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2)

and 40 CFR 51.1009;

3. The attainment demonstration for

failing to meet the requirements of CAA

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

51.1007;

4. The contingency measures for

failing to meet the requirements of CAA

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

and

74541

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74541 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

5. The RFP and attainment years

motor vehicle emissions budgets

because they are derived from

unapprovable RFP and attainment

demonstrations.

Finally, we are proposing to not grant,

pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A)

and 40 CFR 51.1004(a), California's

request to extend the attainment date for

the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5

nonattainment area to April 5, 2015.

B. CAA Consequences of a Final

Disapproval

EPA is committed to working with the

SJVAPCD, CARB and the SJV MPOs to

resolve the problems that make the

current PM 2.

5 attainment SIP for the SJV

not fully approvable under the CAA and

the PM 2.5 implementation rule. We

firmly believe that such solutions are

available and that expeditious

attainment of the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards

in the San Joaquin Valley is achievable.

However, should we finalize the

disapprovals as proposed here, a

conformity freeze will take effect once

the action becomes effective (usually 30

days after publication of the final action

in the Federal Register). A conformity

freeze means that only projects in the

first four years of the most recent

conforming RTP and TIP can proceed.

During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or

RTP/TIP amendments can be found to

conform. See 40 CFR 93.120.

Should we finalize the disapprovals

proposed here, in addition to the effect

on conformity, the offset sanction in

CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in

the SJV PM 2.

5 nonattainment area 18

months after the effective date of a final

disapproval. The highway funding

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1)

would apply in the area six months after

the offset sanction is imposed. Neither

sanction will be imposed under the

CAA if California submits and we

approve prior to the implementation of

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct

any and all disapproval issues with the

2008 PM 2.5 Plan and applicable portions

of the revised 2007 State Strategy that

we identify in our final action.

In addition to the sanctions, CAA

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA

must promulgate a federal

implementation plan addressing the

deficient elements in the PM 2.

5 SIP for

the SJV nonattainment area, two years

after the effective date of any

disapproval should we not approve a

SIP revision correcting the deficiencies

within the two years.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is

required to approve a SIP submittal that

complies with the provisions of the Act

and applicable Federal regulations. 42

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

in reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role

is to approve State choices, provided

that they meet the criteria of the CAA.

Accordingly, this action merely

proposes to partially approve and

partially disapprove State law as

meeting Federal requirements and does

not impose additional requirements

beyond those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This action is not a "significant

regulatory action" under the terms of

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore

not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

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

proposed SIP partial approval and

partial disapproval under CAA section

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

collection burdens but simply

disapproves certain State requirements

for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. For

purposes of assessing the impacts of

today's rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

as defined by the Small Business

Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental

jurisdiction that is a government of a

city, county, town, school district or

special district with a population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today's proposed rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not impose any

requirements or create impacts on small

entities. This proposed partial approval

and partial disapproval of the SIP under

CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part

D will not in-and-of itself create any

new requirements but simply

disapproves certain State requirements

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly,

it affords no opportunity for EPA to

fashion for small entities less

burdensome compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables or

exemptions from all or part of the rule.

The fact that the CAA prescribes that

various consequences (e.g., higher offset

requirements) may or will flow from a

final disapproval does not mean that

EPA either can or must conduct a

regulatory flexibility analysis for this

action. Therefore, this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

We continue to be interested in the

potential impacts of this proposed rule

on small entities and welcome

comments on issues related to such

impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal

mandates under the provisions of Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-

1538 for State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector." EPA

has determined that the proposed

partial approval and partial disapproval

action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

action proposes to partially approve and

partially disapprove pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government."

This action does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

74542

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74542 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 229/Tuesday, November 30, 2010/Proposed Rules

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely partially approves and partially

disapproves certain State requirements

for inclusion into the SIP and does not

alter the relationship or the distribution

of power and responsibilities

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this

action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination

With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing

to partially approve and partially

disapprove would not apply in Indian

country located in the State, and EPA

notes that it will not impose substantial

direct costs on tribal governments or

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive

Order 13175 does not apply to this

action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only

to those regulatory actions that concern

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5-501 of

the EO has the potential to influence the

regulation. This action is not subject to

EO 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action based on health or safety risks

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed

partial approval and partial disapproval

of the SIP under CAA section 110 and

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

itself create any new regulations but

simply disapproves certain State

requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,

May 22, 2001) because it is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-

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

EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

The EPA believes that this action is

not subject to requirements of Section

12(d) of NTTAA because application of

those requirements would be

inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal

executive policy on environmental

justice. Its main provision directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority

to address environmental justice in this

proposed action. In reviewing SIP

submittals, EPA's role is to approve or

disapprove State choices, based on the

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this

action merely proposes to partially

approve and partially disapprove

certain State requirements for inclusion

into the SIP under CAA section 110 and

subchapter I, part D and will not in-andof itself create any new requirements.

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA

with the discretionary authority to

address, as appropriate,

disproportionate human health or

environmental effects, using practicable

and legally permissible methods, under

Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: November 8, 2010.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

[FR Doe. 2010-29248 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

74543

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 74543 2010