UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901

OFFICE OF THE 

### MAR 

## 23 2012 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Seyed Sadredin Air PollutionControl Officer San Joaquin Valley AirPollutionControl District 1990 EastGettysburg Avenue Fresno, California 93726

DearMr. Sadredin:

Thank you and your Directors for taking the time to meet with me, Deborah Jordan, and Kerry Drake in Fresno onJanuary 26. We had a productive discussionregarding how best to engage with each other and ourpartners during the PM2.S planning process.
Ouroverarching agreement was that the forthcoming PM 2.5 plan should be based on the best science and deliberated in an open, collaborative process. As you are aware, on March 13, we met with several community non-govemmental organizations (NGOs) to encouragetheir early involvement inthe process. Some ofthe same issues that we discussed were raised at the March 13 NGO meeting. I have made reference to these issues in the appropriate sections below.

Ourcommongoal is clean airfor the SanJoaquin Valley (SJV). I am encouraged by the productive meetings wehavehad recently as we all work toward bringingthe area into attainment. Below, Ihave outlined specific topics that have emerged from ourdiscussions and related actions items: 

### Planning 

### 1. The District and EPA agreed that given continued public concern over ammonia emissions, the more stringent PM 2.5 standard, and the different levels ofpollutants in the atmosphere today, we need to use the best available current science to evaluate the role ofammonia in PM 2.5 formation in the SJV. As you know, we've been working with, and have commented on, ARB's draft modeling protocol for the PM2.S Plan. While we believe the protocol has excellentcoverageofkey technical points, and addresses importantprovisions ofEPA's photochemical modeling guidance, it does not providefor adequate explorationofthe potential benefits ofcontrolling emissions ofPM2.S precursors otherthan NOx. Given the severity ofthe PM2.S problem in the Valley, we believe it is importantto explore alternative control strategies.
Please note that onMarch 13, the NGOs voiced concern overthe issue ofprecursors and modeling. At that meeting, we agreed to encourage ARB and the Districtto, at a minimum, host a public workshop on the technical underpinnings ofthe upcoming PM2.S plan, in advance of its adoption. We also noted thatboth the Bay Area and South Coastdistricts have standingtechnical review committees for modeling that are open to the public. Workshop topics could include monitoring, emission inventory development, and modeling, and the workshop could provide general overviews, as well as focused sessions to give more

Printed Of! Recycll!d Papl!rtechnical detail to improve the public's scientific understanding. 

### Itcould also address questions and issues that have come up in pastplan comments regarding precursors, or that the public could be invited to supplybeforehand.

2. The District and EPA agreed to work with NGOs to solicit their involvement and comments in the PM 2.5 planningprocess. We also agreed to attend standing meetings that the NGOs currentlyhave in place, and to explore grants, suchas travel funding, to facilitate their involvement in the process. You also informed us ofDistrict plans to help the California Partnershipfor the SJY fund an independent consultantto evaluatePM 2.5 attainment.

3. TheDistrict and EPA agreed to work together early in the process to identify potential
measures that could collectively contribute to expeditious attainment, to meet the Clean Air Act's (CAA) reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirement.

4. TheDistrict and EPA agreed that realistic rule effectiveness should bedocumented in plans usingcompliance and reportingdata. 

### Rules 5. TheDistrict and EPA agreed that the percent ofprofits test to determine control feasibility in rules should be used only as an enhancement to the typical costperton data, and that you would also use public health data to enhancefeasibility analyses using the white paper created by your Environmental Justice Advisory Group (EJAG) and adopted by the GoverningBoard. We agreed that EPA and District staffwill work together earlier in the process to identify issues with feasibility analyses.

Please not that on March 13, the NGOs raised this issue as well. We plan on continuingthis discussion with the interested organizations. 

### Technology 6. The District and EPA agreed that using incentive funding to deploy technologies that exist, but are currently too expensive, is key to meeting standards in the short-term. We also agreed that short-termtechnology implementation should consider long-term needs, notjust for criteria pollutants, butalso for climatechange and airtoxics, and to work together to develop a timeline oftechnologies we will work on together.


### Communication 7. The District and EPA agreed to worktogether to develop a communication strategy to highlight the top 

### 10 things wehope to accomplish in any given year in order toframe the issues in a way the public can understand. 

### Monitoring 8. The District and EPA agreed that the ARB and the District needs to complete monitoring site repairs orrelocations quickly to minimize downtime and data loss and to avoid the inability to demonstrate attainment ormaintenance. We agreed, in principle, that the SJY should have
a near-roadway N02 monitor. We agreed that EPA and district staffwould work together to discuss monitors we are concerned about, to make an effort to consolidate to fewer stations where it makes senseto "right size" the network, and accordingly, to streamline the procedures for moving monitors and to develop a good communicationstrategyfor any moves.

### Enforcement 9. The District and EPA agreed thatRegion 9 will facilitate a direct relationship betweenthe District and the EPA Office ofEnforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and that when the Districtmakes their annual trip to Washington, D.C., you will meet with OECA with specific requests, such as reducing the burden ofthe enforcement reporting system. EPAwill continue to have an enforcementpresence in the 

### SlY and to identifythose situations where we can work together to develop effective targeting. 

### Permitting 10. TheDistrict and EPA agreed to support development ofprocedures for how the District will providenotice to disadvantaged communities in other languages, as you workthrough your EJAG to develop ideas for places to postnotice, such as community centers, and to use technology and video-conferencing.


### Additional Issues
Risk Based Strategy The NGOs, on the March 13 meeting, raised the District's Risk Based Strategy as a concern. E?A committed to clarify ourposition in future meetings.
In

### general, we applaud the District's efforts to look at how you mightprioritize strategies to achieve the greatestpublic health benefits, particularly those thatcan reduce risks and maximize benefits to overburdened communities. EPA will continue to workwith the District to assure that the PM2.5 plan meets all applicableCleanAir Act requirements for attaining the mass-based PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable.


### Title VI ofthe 1964 Civil Rights Act The NGOs, in the March 13 meeting, raised issues related to TitleVI. ImplementingTitle VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is apriorityfor the EPA. As you are aware, Title VI protects people from discriminationbased on race, color, ornational origin in programs or activities that receive EPA's financial assistance. EPAwould welcome the oppOltunity to discuss this with you further to help ensure that the best opportunities for taking environmentaljusticeconcerns into consideration are identified during this critical stage in the development ofyour PM 2.5 plan.

As part ofthis discussion, we would like to discuss how incentive programs could be used and targeted to mitigate the impact ofongoingnonattainment onoverburdened communities. Such communities can be selected by using the recent UC Davis report: Landof Risk, Landof 

### Opportunity, orother appropriate methodologies.

Please call me, Deborah, or Kerry at any time. Thank you again for the positive and frank discussion.

cc: James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California AirResources Board Kevin Hall, Director, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition